PR. COMMISSIONER OFLNCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 3 vs. M/S JAYPEE FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/42/2021HC Delhi20 July 20214 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the additions were not based on any incriminating material found during the search and that the assessment was not pending on the date of search. The findings of the lower authorities were not perverse.

What were the facts?

A search operation was conducted on the assessee, a financial services company, leading to additions to income based on client code modifications and cash expenditure. The CIT(A) and ITAT deleted these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made by the AO were based on incriminating material found during search and whether the assessment was pending on the date of search, in light of the Kabul Chawla judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 142(2A),Section 40A(3),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 44 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

ITA 42/2021

Page 1 of 4

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 42/2021 & CM No.6138/2021

PR. COMMISSIONER OFLNCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 3 ..... Appellant Through Mr.Ajit Sharma, Sr.SC with Mr.Anant Ram Mishra, Adv.

versus

M/S JAYPEE FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr.Ved Jain and Ms.Richa Mishra, Advs.

Date of Decision: 20th July, 2021

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

1.

The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing. MANMOHAN, J. (Oral)

2.

The present appeal under Section 260A is directed against the order dated 05th September, 2019 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in ITA No. 4262/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 whereby the appeal of the Revenue has been dismissed. 3. Briefly stated, the assesse is a company engaged in trading of equity shares, securities and commodities through recognized exchanges. It filed its return of income on 31.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs. 86,67,680/-. The return was processed on 21.02.2009. Subsequently, on 30.03.2012, a search and seizure operation under 2021:DHC:2127-DB

ITA 42/2021

Page 2 of 4

Section 132 was initiated in the case of the assesse, as part of Jaypee Group. During search, data of the computers found at the premises was cloned and seized along with certain documents. Thereafter, on 05.08.2013, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed its return of income reiterating the return of income filed by them. During the course of post search proceedings, the assessing officer found evidence of Client Code Modifications done by M/s Jaypee Capital Services Ltd. and Futurz Next Services Ltd, companies registered with NSE, MCX, and NCDEX and United Stock Exchange. A Special Auditor was appointed u/s 142(2A) and directed to file a report on the aspect of Client Code Modifications done by the afore-noted companies as well the assessee company. On the basis of the Auditor Report and the response of the assessee, the AO concluded that in the case of member (broker) group companies of the assessee, the Client Code Modification is by and large not for genuine reasons and is rather for extraneous considerations. The net effect of profit and loss shifting in the code of assessee-company has been suppressed in its books of accounts. Accordingly an amount of Rs. 14,97,45,205/- was added to the income on account of Client Code Modification. Further, a sum of Rs. 22,242/- was also disallowed under section 40A(3) of the Act and added to the income of the assessee for expenditure incurred in cash by the assessee beyond the limit prescribed under the Income Tax Act. The total income was assessed as Rs.15,84,35,130/-. 2021:DHC:2127-DB

ITA 42/2021

Page 3 of 4

4.

In appeal preferred by the assessee, the CIT(A), following the dicta of this court laid down in CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11554, held that no assessment/reassessment proceedings were pending on 30.03.2012 when search action took place and hence no assessment was abated. The addition made by the AO is not based on any incriminating document/seized material found during the course of search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act and accordingly the same were deleted. In further appeal preferred by the Revenue before the ITAT, the findings of the CIT(A) were confirmed. 5. Before us, Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue, further submits that findings of the ITAT are perverse in as much as the incriminating material was in fact found during the course of search and therefore additions were justified. In support of his submissions, he refers to para 2 of the assessment order which records that “during the course of search incriminating documents and evidences have been found and seized. The data in the computer was also cloned and seized along with physical documents”. Mr. Sharma further submits that at the stage of passing of the assessment order, the decision of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) was not available and therefore, assessing officer did not consider it necessary to give a complete description of the incriminating material by recording the details of the panchnama. 6. We have perused the record. Both the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have held in the instant case that the addition is not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search and the assessment was not pending on the date of search. The observations of 2021:DHC:2127-DB

ITA 42/2021

Page 4 of 4

the assessing officer relied upon by Mr. Sharma do not give us any insight or clue about the ‘incriminating material’ which is claimed to be in existence. In the proceedings before the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT, the Revenue has not made any attempt so as to disclose the incriminating material. Even in the present appeal, the revenue is unable to explain or give us any indication about the same. 7. The findings of facts returned by CIT(A) and ITAT are not be interfered with lightly. The view taken by the tax authorities based on the decision of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) cannot be held to be perverse. The questions of law proposed by the Revenue are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. 8. In view of the above, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for our consideration. Accordingly, the present appeal, along with pending application, is dismissed. 9. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.

MANMOHAN, J

NAVIN CHAWLA, J JULY 20, 2021

2021:DHC:2127-DB

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →