THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. VENUS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.

$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 166/2023

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7..... Appellant Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Sr Standing Counsel.

versus

VENUS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr Sandeep Goel, Advocate. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

O R D E R %

21.03.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM Appl.13529/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 245 days in re-filing the appeal] 1. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 1.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 245 days. 2. Having regard to the fact that the delay is in re-filing the appeal and the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned. 3. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 166/2023 4. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 5. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.08.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, the “Tribunal”] quashing the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) passed under Section 153C of the ITA 166/2023

1/2 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:24:18

Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, the “Act”]. 6. Mr Ruchir Bhatia, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, says that the issue concerning the respondent/assessee is covered by the judgement of a coordinate bench of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del) and the judgement dated 25.05.2017 rendered inter alia, in ITA 306/2017, titled Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 New Delhi v. Meeta Gutgutia Prop. M/s Ferns N Petals. 7. According to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 8. The appeal is, accordingly, closed. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

MARCH 21, 2023/pmc

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

ITA 166/2023

2/2

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:24:18