COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHAGIRATH AGGARWAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 1555 / 2010HC Delhi07 October 20102 pages
For Petitioner: RASHMI CHOPRA
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, following its earlier decision in a similar case involving a co-owner. The court held that additions solely based on a DVO's report are unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's order deleting an addition made by the Assessing Officer based solely on a DVO's report. The property in question was co-owned by the assessee and others.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition made by the Assessing Officer solely on the basis of a DVO's report is legally sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

#5 & 6 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 5. + ITA 1551/2010

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

..... Appellant Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Standing Counsel

versus

SHRI BHAGIRATH AGGARWAL ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate

AND 6. + ITA 1555/2010

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

..... Appellant Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Standing Counsel

versus

SHRI BHAGIRATH AGGARWAL ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate

Date of Decision: 7th October, 2010

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1.

Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

MANMOHAN, J

CM 17626/2010 in ITA 1555/2010 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2010:DHC:5035-DB

ITA Nos. 1551/2010 & 1555/2010 1. The present appeals have been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, “Act”) challenging the composite order dated 28th August, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short “Tribunal”) in ITA Nos. 3453/Del/2008 and 3596/Del/2008, for the Assessment Year 2005-2006. 2. Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for Revenue submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed investment made by the assessee solely on the basis of DVO’s report. 3. Admittedly, in the case of Smt. Suraj Devi, one of the co-owners of the property in question titled as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Suraj Devi, ITA No. 811/2010 decided on 13th August, 2010, this Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal deleting the addition made solely on account of DVO’s report. 4. Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of law in Smt. Suraj Devi (supra), the present appeal is dismissed.

MANMOHAN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE

OCTOBER 07, 2010 rn 2010:DHC:5035-DB

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →