PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. RAVI BHARADWAJ

PDF · subscribers
ITA/567/2026HC DelhiDLHC01031673202622 July 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no substance in the Revenue's contention. It noted the Tribunal's observation that the Revenue was unable to point out any incriminating material. The Court held that the existence or absence of incriminating material is a finding of fact, which does not warrant interference. However, the Revenue requested liberty to move a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal if an occasion arose after the completion of proceedings under the Black Money Act, 2015. The Court granted this liberty as prayed, while rejecting the appeal. The operative direction was to grant liberty to the Revenue to move a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal, but the appeal itself was rejected.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Delhi (Revenue) appealed against an order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), Delhi Bench-‘A’. The Tribunal had dismissed the Revenue's appeal concerning assessment year 2012-13. The Revenue's contention was that the Assessing Officer's approach in framing a protective assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961 was premature because proceedings under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 were still ongoing. The Revenue argued that these Black Money Act proceedings pertained to different assessment years, and thus, their appeals for assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 under the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not have been dismissed as the assessments were protective in nature.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the Revenue's appeal by observing that the Assessing Officer'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 underway for different assessment years. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any contentions from the assessee, Ravi Bharadwaj. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing their appeal. They argued that the protective assessments under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 were valid, even though proceedings under the Black Money Act, 2015 were ongoing for different assessment years. They relied on the principle that protective assessments are permissible in such circumstances.

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

$~136 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 567/2026 & CM APPL. 46328/2026

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr. Ashvini Kr., JSC & Mr. Rishabh Nangia, JSC.

versus

RAVI BHARADWAJ

.....Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

O R D E R %

22.07.2026 1. Mr Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel, contended that the Tribunal order dated 21.01.2026 for assessment year 2012-13 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. 2. 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 Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 under the Income Tax Act, 1961 could 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 24/07/2026 at 12:18:43

not have been dismissed, as the assessments were protective in nature. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. In view of the expression used by the Tribunal as noted above, we grant the liberty as prayed, while rejecting the appeal. 6. The pending application is disposed of.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. JULY 22, 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 24/07/2026 at 12:18:43

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →