PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -3 vs. M/S PERNOD RICHARD INDIA PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1078/2018HC DelhiDLHC01196316201825 April 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeals. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that the alleged seized materials did not pertain to the assessment years in question. The Court emphasized that the ITAT is the highest fact-finding authority and its findings should not be lightly interfered with. Since the Court found no perversity in the ITAT's factual findings, the appeals were dismissed. The second grievance raised by the appellant regarding reiterated additions was addressed by accepting the respondent's affidavit, which stated that the outcome of these appeals would have no bearing on the merits of the additions/disallowances made during the original assessment, which were subject matters of other pending appeals. Therefore, the Court did not need to decide on the merits of the reiterated additions.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -3 challenging orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessment years involved were 2005-06 and 2006-07. The ITAT had passed orders dated 31st January, 2018 and 27th November, 2020. The appellant argued that seized materials were sufficient for the jurisdictional trigger under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, distinguishing the case from CIT vs. Kabul Chawla. The appellant also contended that the ITAT erred in deleting reiterated additions from the original assessment under Section 143(3). The respondent filed an affidavit stating the outcome of these appeals would not affect other pending appeals concerning original assessment additions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the seized materials were sufficient for the jurisdictional trigger under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, distinguishing the case from CIT vs. Kabul Chawla where no material was seized. The appellant argued that seized materials were sufficient, while the respondent's affidavit implicitly supported the ITAT's decision by stating the outcome would not impact other appeals. 2. Whether the ITAT erred in deleting reiterated additions made in the original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, even if the first submission regarding Section 153A was not accepted. The appellant contended that these reiterated additions should not have been deleted, whereas the respondent's affidavit suggested the present appeals were distinct from the original assessment additions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1078/2018 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -3 ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, senior standing counsel. versus M/S PERNOD RICHARD INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Anmol Anand with Ms.Priya Tandon, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 18.07.2022 Present matter has been listed on an office note by the Registry for correction of typographical error in the order dated 25th April, 2022, wherein impugned order dated 31st January, 2018 has been inadvertently typed as 27th November, 2021. Accordingly, the order dated 25th April, 2022 shall now read as under:- “O R D E R % 25.04.2022 Present appeals have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 31st January, 2018 passed in ITA Nos.3847/Del/2017, 3848/Del/2017 and 27th November, 2020 passed in ITA Nos.3814/Del/2017 and 3815/Del/2017 for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively. Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant states that the ITAT has erred in not considering that in the present 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 15/06/2026 at 01:48:28

case the search had yielded seized materials which were sufficient for the jurisdictional trigger under Section 153A of the Act and this fact clearly distinguishes the present case from that of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573, wherein no material was seized at all. She further states that the ITAT failed to appreciate that there are two parallel streams of additions i.e. ‘post search additions’ and ‘reiterated additions from original assessment’. According to her, even if the first submission is not to be accepted, then also the ITAT could not have deleted the reiterated additions made in the original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed an affidavit stating that the outcome of the present appeals would have no bearing on the merits of the additions/disallowances made during original assessment, which are subject matters of the appeals, being ITA Nos.754/2017, 1177/2017 and 273/2018, pending before this Court. The affidavit filed by the respondent is accepted by this Court and the respondent is held bound by the same. In view thereof, the second grievance raised by learned counsel for the appellant stands addressed. As far as the other submission of learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, this Court finds that the alleged seized materials do not even pertain to the assessment years in question. Since the ITAT is the highest fact-finding authority, this Court is of the view that its findings should not be lightly interfered with. Further, as this Court finds no perversity in the factual findings of the ITAT, the present appeals are dismissed.” With the aforesaid correction, the office note stands disposed of. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JULY 18, 2022/KA 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 15/06/2026 at 01:48:28

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →