THE PRINCIPAL COM0MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/168/2021HC DelhiDLHC01036389202125 April 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court accepted the affidavit filed by the respondent (assessee), which stated that the outcome of the present appeals would not affect the merits of additions/disallowances from the original assessment, which are subject to other pending appeals. Based on this affidavit, the Court held that the second grievance raised by the Revenue stood addressed. Regarding the first submission concerning the seized materials and Section 153A, 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. Finding no perversity in the factual findings of the ITAT, the High Court dismissed the present appeals. The ratio decidendi is that the High Court, as a court of second appeal, should not interfere with the factual findings of the ITAT unless there is perversity, especially when the seized material does not relate to the assessment years in question.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – 3, challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated November 27, 2021. These ITAT orders pertained to assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The respondent is Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. The ITAT had deleted certain additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in not considering 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 Revenue also argued that even if the first submission was rejected, the ITAT could not have deleted reiterated additions from the original assessment under Section 143(3). The Respondent filed an affidavit stating that the outcome of these appeals would not affect other pending appeals concerning additions/disallowances from the original assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in not considering that seized materials were sufficient for the jurisdictional trigger under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, thereby distinguishing the case from CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573) where no material was seized? (Question of law) 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? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: - The respondent (assessee) filed an affidavit stating that the outcome of the present appeals would have no bearing on the merits of additions/disallowances made during the original assessment, which are subject matters of other pending appeals before the Court. Revenue's Contentions: - The ITAT erred in not considering that seized materials were sufficient for the jurisdictional trigger under Section 153A of the Act, distinguishing the case from CIT vs. Kabul Chawla. - The ITAT failed to appreciate that there are two parallel streams of additions: ‘post search additions’ and ‘reiterated additions from original assessment’. Even if the first submission is not accepted, the ITAT could not have deleted the reiterated additions made in the original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~3 to 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 168/2021 & C.M.No.42122/2021

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) – 3

..... Appellant Through: Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, senior standing counsel for the Revenue with Mr.Shailendra Singh, Advocate.

versus

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent Through: Mr.Deepak Chopra with Mr.Anmol Anand and Ms.Priya Tandon, Advocates.

4 + ITA 1078/2018

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -3 ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, senior standing counsel for the Revenue with Mr.Shailendra Singh, Advocate.

versus

M/S PERNOD RICHARD INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Deepak Chopra with Mr.Anmol Anand and Ms.Priya Tandon, Advocates.

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 02:18:59

5 + ITA 1100/2018

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -3 ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, senior standing counsel for the Revenue with Mr.Shailendra Singh, Advocate.

versus

M/S PERNOD RICHARD INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Deepak Chopra with Mr.Anmol Anand and Ms.Priya Tandon, Advocates.

6 + ITA 169/2021 & C.M.No.42132/2021

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, senior standing counsel for the Revenue with Mr.Shailendra Singh, Advocate.

versus

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent Through: Mr.Deepak Chopra with Mr.Anmol Anand and Ms.Priya Tandon, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

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 02:18:59

25.04.2022 O R D E R

Present appeals have been filed challenging the orders dated 27th

Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant states that the ITAT has erred in not considering that in the present 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.

November, 2021 passed in ITA Nos.3847/Del/2017, 3848/Del/2017, 3814/Del/2017 and 3815/Del/2017 for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. 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. 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 02:18:59

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.

MANMOHAN, J

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J APRIL 25, 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 02:18:59

More judgments on Section 153A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →