PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC INDIA LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/595/2023HC DelhiDLHC01043031202330 October 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 held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The Tribunal had dismissed the revenue's appeal because the substantive addition made in the hands of the JP Minda Group was dropped on merits. Since the addition in the hands of the respondent/assessee was only made on a protective basis, and the substantive addition was deleted, the High Court found no reason to interfere. The reasoning is that if the primary liability is extinguished, the protective addition loses its basis. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was closed without deciding the merits of the protective addition itself. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11, filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 (appellant/revenue) against an order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal had considered an order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] concerning AYs 2010-11 to 2012-13. The core issue before the Tribunal was the deletion of an addition made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.4,05,00,000/-, representing unexplained investments by Electrical and Electronic India Ltd. (respondent/assessee) in the JP Minda Group of companies. This addition was made on a protective basis, with the substantive addition being in the hands of the JP Minda Group.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained investments by the assessee in the JP Minda Group of companies. Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the addition was made on a protective basis. It relied on the fact that a coordinate bench of the High Court, in its judgment dated 26.09.2023 (in ITA 358/2022 and ITA 360/2022), had dropped the substantive addition made in the hands of the JP Minda Group on merits. The revenue further pointed out that the coordinate bench's decision was based on the High Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla, (2016) 380 ITR 573, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 481.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.595/2023 Page 1 of 3

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of Decision: 30.10.2023

+ ITA 595/2023

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2

..... Appellant Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Sr Standing Counsel with Ms Hemlata Rawat and Ms Easha Kadian, Standing Counsel.

versus

ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Salil Aggarwal, Sr Adv. with Mr Mahir Aggarwal, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL) 1. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 2. The Tribunal was called upon to examine the sustainability of the order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”] concerning AYs 2010-11 to 2012-13. 3. On merits, the issue that was raised before the Tribunal was whether the CIT(A) had erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”], on account of Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:16.11.2023 21:13:31 Signature Not Verified

ITA No.595/2023 Page 2 of 3

unexplained investments made by the appellant/respondent in the JP Minda Group of companies. 3.1 To be noted, the aggregate amount invested was Rs.4,05,00,000/-. Significantly, the addition in the hands of respondent/assessee was made on a protective basis. The substantive addition had been made in the hands of the JP Minda Group. 4. It is not disputed that insofar as the JP Minda Group is concerned, a challenge was laid before a coordinate bench which was the subject matter of the judgment dated 26.09.2023, concerning a bunch of appeals; the lead appeal being ITA 358/2022, titled Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. M/s JPM Tools Ltd. 4.1 In particular, this judgment also covered ITA 360/2022, titled Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Jay FE Cylinder Ltd. 5. The sum and substance of the judgment dated 26.09.2023 passed by a coordinate bench was that the substantive addition made in the hands of the JP Minda Group was dropped, albeit, on merits. 6. Mr Sanjay Kumar, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, correctly points out that the addition was dropped on the basis of a judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla, (2016) 380 ITR 573. 6.1 To be noted, the said judgment has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 481. 7. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant/revenue, having regard to the fact that the substantive addition on merits was Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:16.11.2023 21:13:31 Signature Not Verified

ITA No.595/2023 Page 3 of 3

dropped. As indicated above, the addition in the hands of the respondent/assessee was only made on a protective basis. 8. In these circumstances, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this court. The appeal is, accordingly, closed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

OCTOBER 30, 2023/pmc

Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:16.11.2023 21:13:31 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →