PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. RAVI BHARADWAJ
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court found little substance in the Revenue's contentions. The Court noted the ITAT's observation that the Revenue was unable to point out any incriminating material, which is a finding of fact not calling for interference. The Revenue then sought liberty to move a miscellaneous application before the ITAT if an occasion arose after the completion of proceedings under the Black Money Act, 2015. The Court granted this liberty while rejecting the appeal. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the Revenue to move a miscellaneous application before the ITAT, subject to the condition that such an occasion arises after the completion of Black Money Act proceedings. The appeal itself was rejected.
What were the facts?
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi (Revenue) appealed against an order dated January 21, 2026, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench-‘A’. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that the Assessing Officer's (AO) decision to frame a protective assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961, was premature because proceedings under the Black Money Act, 2015, were ongoing. The Revenue argued that the Black Money Act proceedings pertained to different assessment years, and thus, the protective assessments for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 under the Income Tax Act should not have been dismissed. The assessee, Ravi Bharadwaj, was represented by no one.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the ITAT erred in dismissing the Revenue's appeal by holding that the AO's approach in framing a protective assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961, was premature, given that proceedings under the Black Money Act, 2015, were still underway? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in dismissing its appeal. It contended that the proceedings under the Black Money Act, 2015, related to different assessment years. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal concerning the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 under the Income Tax Act, 1961, should not have been dismissed, especially since the assessments were protective in nature. The Revenue relied on the ITAT's observation that it was unable to point out any incriminating material.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Income Tax Act, 1961, Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
Mr Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel, contended that the Tribunal order dated 21.01.2026 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-‘A’, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟) has erred in dismissing the Revenue’s appeal by observing that the Assessing Officer’s approach in framing a protective assessment under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 was premature, as the proceedings under the Black Money Act were still underway.
Learned counsel argued that the proceedings under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as „Black Money Act, 2015‟) pertained to different assessment years and therefore, the appeal of Revenue qua the Assessment 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 23/07/2026 at 12:01:02
Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 under the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not have been dismissed, as the assessments were protective in nature.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we hardly find any substance in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant. More particularly, in light of the observation made by the Tribunal that the Revenue was unable to point out any incriminating material. Existence of or absence of incriminating material is a finding of fact, which does not call for interference.
At this juncture, Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel, invited Court’s attention towards the observation made by the Tribunal in para no. 16 of the impugned order, wherein it has recorded- “at this stage, we are not inclined to disturb the finding of the learned CIT(A)” and prayed that atleast this liberty be granted to the Revenue to move a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal that in case any occasion so arises after the completion of the proceedings under the Black Money Act, 2015, they may do so.
In view of the expression used by the Tribunal as noted above, we grant such liberty while rejecting the appeal.
The pending application is disposed of.
DINESH MEHTA, J.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. JULY 20, 2026/nk
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 23/07/2026 at 12:01:02
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
