INCOME TAX vs. INDUSTRIES LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1400/2010HC Delhi17 September 20102 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal upheld the deletion as the shares were sold in the previous assessment year and the income was accepted by the Department. The assessment order was rightly set aside as no opportunity for cross-examination was provided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue challenged the ITAT's deletion of an addition of Rs. 21,81,983/- made by the AO on account of income from undisclosed sources. The addition was deleted by both the CIT(A) and the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT erred in deleting the addition on account of income from undisclosed sources, and whether the assessment order was rightly set aside due to lack of cross-examination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

#12 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 1400/2010

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Senior

Standing Counsel.

versus

FLAWLESS HOLDING & INDUSTRIES LTD.

..... Respondent Through Mrs. Kavita Jha, Advocate

Date of Decision: 17th September, 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? No.

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.

MANMOHAN, J:

1.

The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1961”) challenging the order dated 23rd September, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity “Tribunal”) in ITA No. 1494/Del/2008 for the Assessment Year 2001-02.

2.

Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the addition of ` 21,81,983/- made by the Assessing Officer (for short 2010:DHC:4632-DB

„AO‟) on account of income from undisclosed sources.

3.

However, upon a perusal of the file we find that the said addition was deleted both by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Tribunal on the ground that the respondent-assessee had sold the shares during the last Assessment Year 2000-01 and the income arising therefrom had been accepted by the Department in that year. Further, we find that the Department has not controverted the charge of the assessee that additions were made on general statements and more importantly, no opportunity for cross-examination was provided to the assessee and hence, assessment order has been right set aside.

4.

Consequently, in our opinion, there is no scope for interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in limine.

MANMOHAN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE SEPTEMBER 17, 2010 rn 2010:DHC:4632-DB

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →