PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the ITAT's finding that no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment year was supported by previous judgments, including one affirmed by the Supreme Court.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning AY 2009-10. The Revenue argued that the issue was covered by a previous judgment. The ITAT had found that no incriminating material was seized pertaining to the assessment years in question.
What were the issues?
Whether additions made by the Assessing Officer are sustainable when no incriminating material relevant to the assessment year was found during the search.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Kabul Chawla3,235 citing380 ITR 573 · 2016 · HC · Read judgment
- Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.2,379 citing2023 SCC OnLine SC 481 · 2023
- Pr. CIT v. Index Securities (P.) Ltd.184 citing86 Taxmann.com 84 · 2017 · HC · Read judgment
- ACIT v. Anush Finlease & Construction (P.) Ltd.8 citing104 Taxmann.com 295 · 2019
ITA 419/2023
Page 1 of 4 $~348 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %
Date of Decision:02.08.2023 + ITA 419/2023
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms Easha Kadian and Ms Hemlata Rawat, Advocates.
Versus
NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD.
..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): CM No.39036/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM No. 39035/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 14 days in filing the appeal] 2. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 14 days in filing the appeal. 3. Having regard to the period of delay, we are inclined to allow the Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:13.08.2023 09:20:34 Signature Not Verified
ITA 419/2023
Page 2 of 4 prayer made in the application. 3.1 It is ordered accordingly. 4. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 419/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 6. Via this appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal). 7. Mr Sanjay Kumar, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of appellant/revenue, says that issue raised in this appeal stands covered by the judgment dated 01.06.2023, passed in appeals preferred by the appellant/revenue, arising from the aforementioned impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 8. These appeals are ITA No. 322/2023, ITA No. 323/2023 & ITA No. 327/2023. 9. We notice that it is not in dispute that the assessment in the above- captioned AY also stood completed. 10. The Tribunal has returned the finding of fact that no incriminating material was found, insofar as the AY in issue, i.e., AY 2009-10, was concerned, apart from AY 007-08 and 2008-09. 11. This is evident from the following extract embedded in the impugned order: “20. As per the seized paper 34 of Annexure A-2 and page 37 of Annexure A-3 which are containing vouchers showing payment in cash for purchase of milk for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12 pertaining to the assessee. Admittedly the alleged documents were seized during the search are not pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08 to 2009-10 Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:13.08.2023 09:20:34 Signature Not Verified
ITA 419/2023
Page 3 of 4 and the same is belongs to Assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12. But the Ld. A.O. has made additions even the years under consideration i.e. 2007-08 to 2009-10. The initiation of the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act by the Assessing Officer should be related to assessment year sought to be reopened. As discussed above the additions made for the Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2009-10 is not related to the document found during the search. xxxx
xxxx
xxxx 23. In the present case, the alleged documents were seized during the search are not pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08 to 2009-10 and the same is belongs to Assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12, therefore, the addition made by the A.O. for the years under consideration i.e. 2007-08 to 2009-10 cannot be sustained by applying the ratio laid down in the case of ACIT' Vs. Anush Finlease & Construction (P.) Ltd. [2019] 104 taxmann.com 295(Delhi-Trib.), PCIT Vs. Index Securities (P.) Ltd. [2017] 86 taxmann.com 84, CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573). Thus, it is clear that the satisfaction though recorded was not based on the material relevant to the year in question and also the additions made were not based on the incriminating material found and seized during the course of search u/s 132.” [Emphasis is ours]
As correctly observed by the Tribunal, the issue is covered by the judgment of the coordinate bench of this court in CIT v. Kabul Chawla, (380 ITR 573). 13. The decision in Kabul Chawla’s case has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell, 2023 SCC Online SC 481. 14. Given the position that no incriminating material was found qua the AYs in issue, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 15. Therefore, according to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 16. The appeal is accordingly closed. Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:13.08.2023 09:20:34 Signature Not Verified
ITA 419/2023
Page 4 of 4 17. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
RAJIV SHAKDHER JUDGE
GIRISH KATHPALIA JUDGE AUGUST 2, 2023/RY
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:13.08.2023 09:20:34 Signature Not Verified
More judgments on Section 132
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- M/ S. Devi Steel Traders vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 29 Oct 2026
- Deepali Sharma Legal Heir Of Late Sh. Rakesh Mohan Sharma vs. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division Connaught Place , Delhi And Anr.Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- Airports Authority Of INDIA vs. The Assistant Commissioner CGST South Extension Division Division-I Delhi East Commissionerate & AnDelhi · 29 Oct 2026