PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI vs. MEERA GUPTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/405/2023HC DelhiDLHC01028485202327 July 2023Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay, subject to just exceptions, thereby condoning the 89-day delay in filing the appeals. On the substantive appeals, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. This conclusion was based on the concession made by the Revenue's counsel that the issue was covered by the judgment in CIT(A) Vs. Kabul Chawla, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 vs Abhisar Buildwell. The Court noted that the Tribunal had found no incriminating material for the completed assessments in the relevant Assessment Years. Consequently, the appeals were closed. The ratio decidendi is that appeals concerning completed assessments where no incriminating material was found, and which are covered by established High Court and Supreme Court precedents, do not raise a substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Delhi (Revenue) against the respondent, Meera Gupta (Assessee). The appeals concern Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 (ITA No. 403/2023), AY 2011-12 (ITA 405/2023), and AY 2009-10 (ITA 406/2023). The Revenue sought condonation of a 89-day delay in filing these appeals. The Revenue's counsel stated that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) had, via a common judgment dated 12.10.2022, found no incriminating material for these AYs. It was also not disputed that these AYs involved completed assessments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue are barred by limitation, and if so, whether the delay should be condoned? (Question of procedure, turning on general principles of condonation of delay). 2. Whether the appeals raise a substantial question of law, given that the Tribunal found no incriminating material for completed assessments in the relevant Assessment Years? Assessee's arguments: Not recorded. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue argued that the appeals were delayed by 89 days and sought condonation. Regarding the merits, the Revenue's counsel conceded that the issue was covered by the judgment of a coordinate bench of the High Court in CIT(A) Vs. Kabul Chawla, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 vs Abhisar Buildwell. This implies the Revenue accepted that no substantial question of law arose.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 403/2023, ITA 405/2023 & ITA 406/2023 Page 1 of 3

$~90, 92 & 93 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Decision delivered on: 27.07.2023 + ITA 403/2023

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI ..... Appellant

Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr Standing Counsel

with Mr Ashvini Kumar and Ms

Madhavi Shukla, Advs.

versus

MEERA GUPTA

..... Respondent

Through: None.

+ ITA 405/2023

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI ..... Appellant

Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr Standing Counsel

with Mr Ashvini Kumar and Ms

Madhavi Shukla, Advs

versus

MEERA GUPTA

..... Respondent

Through: None.

+ ITA 406/2023

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI ..... Appellant

Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr Standing Counsel

with Mr Ashvini Kumar and Ms

Madhavi Shukla, Advs

versus

MEERA GUPTA

..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:02.08.2023 10:40:17 Signature Not Verified

ITA 403/2023, ITA 405/2023 & ITA 406/2023 Page 2 of 3

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): CM No.37822/2023 in ITA No. 403/2023 CM No.37840/2023 in ITA No. 405/2023 CM No.37880/2023 in ITA No. 406/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM No. 37823/2023 in ITA No. 403/2023 CM No.37841/2023 in ITA No. 405/2023 CM No.37849/2023 in ITA No. 406/2023 2. These are applications moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals. 2.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 89 days in filing the above-captioned appeals. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay is condoned. 4. The applications are disposed of.

ITA No. 403/2023, ITA No. 405/2023 and ITA No. 406/2023 5. These appeals concern Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 (ITA No. 403/2023), AY 2011-12 (ITA 405/2023) & AY 2009-10 (ITA 406/2023). 6. Mr Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of appellant/revenue, says that as per the findings confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”] via a common judgment dated 12.10.2022, no incriminating material was found vis-à-vis in these AYs. 7. It is also not disputed that these AYs concern completed assessments. 8. Thus, even according to Mr Rai, the issue which arises in the present appeals stands covered by the judgment of the coordinate bench of this Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:02.08.2023 10:40:17 Signature Not Verified

ITA 403/2023, ITA 405/2023 & ITA 406/2023 Page 3 of 3

Court, rendered in Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, CIT(A)] Vs. Kabul Chawla, (2016, 380 ITR, 573). 9. The aforementioned judgment has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 vs Abhisar Buildwell, 2023, SCCOnline SC 481. 10. Consequently, the above-captioned appeals are closed, as no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 11. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

(RAJIV SHAKDHER) JUDGE

(GIRISH KATHPALIA)

JUDGE

JULY 27, 2023/RY

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:02.08.2023 10:40:17 Signature Not Verified

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →