SURAJ BATRA PROPRIETOR MS SURAJ PROPERTIES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 9

PDF · subscribers

ITA/10/2021HC DelhiDLHC01008053202111 February 2021Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law. The court found that the appellant was seeking a re-appreciation of evidence, which is not the scope of an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when there are concurrent findings of fact by the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the ITAT. The court further opined that the appellant's contention regarding ignored material evidence, specifically the scrapping of the project, was also a facet of evidence appreciation and did not constitute a substantial question of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Suraj Batra, proprietor of Suraj Properties, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated March 16, 2018, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1350 days, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The High Court noted that no sufficient reason was provided for the delay. The appellant was aggrieved by concurrent findings of fact by the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, and the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal raises a substantial question of law, given the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities, requiring re-appreciation of evidence? (Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961) Assessee's Contention: A substantial question of law arises because the Income Tax Authorities and the ITAT allegedly ignored material evidence. Specifically, it was contended that public domain information indicated the project for which the appellant earned commission had been scrapped, thus negating the possibility of commission payment. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the issues raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

ITA 10/2021 Page 1 of 2 $~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 10/2021 SURAJ BATRA PROPRIETOR, SURAJ PROPERTIES ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Arunava Mukherjee, Adv. Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9 ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Mr. Shlok Chandra, Ms. Mansie Jain and Ms. Madhura M.N., Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R %

11.02.

2021 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

CM No.3845/2021 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.

The application is disposed of. ITA No.10/2021 & CMs No.3844/2021 (for condonation of 1350 days delay in filing the appeal) & 3846/2021 (for stay)

Not only is this appeal, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 16th March, 2018 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi (ITAT), barred by time and is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay of 1350 days in filing thereof and for which we do not find any sufficient reason to have been set out but even otherwise, having gone through the paper book, we are of the opinion that 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 24/06/2026 at 13:40:10

ITA 10/2021

the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. On the aspects, from which the appellant is aggrieved, there are concurrent findings of fact of the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I and ITAT, and what the appellant is calling upon us to do, is to re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which consistent findings, on the aspects from which the appellant is aggrieved, have been rendered.

The counsel for the appellant however has contended that a substantial question of law arises because the Income Tax Authorities and the ITAT have ignored material evidence. It is contended that owing to plethora of material in public domain, of the project, of which the appellant has been found to have earned commission, having been scrapped, the possibility of the appellant being paid commission did not exist.

In our opinion, the aforesaid aspect also is a facet of appreciation of evidence on the basis of which conclusions have been drawn and the same also does not raise any substantial question of law.

Dismissed.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

SANJEEV NARULA, J. FEBRUARY 11, 2021 'bs' 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 24/06/2026 at 13:40:10

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →