HCL EMPLOYEES & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(6), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6874/DEL/1995Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 March 2025AY 1989-90Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to the tax effect being below the prescribed limit. The assessee's appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the issue of share ownership and title.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an unexplained investment addition. In a separate appeal, an assessee challenged an addition representing the difference between alleged sale price and market price of shares. The assessee did not appear in either case.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable based on tax effect, and whether the addition for share sale difference was correctly made without establishing assessee's title to the shares.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Hearing: 12.03.2025Pronounced: 19.03.2025

Assessment Year: 1989-90 Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax HCL Employees & Investment Co. Ltd., (Appeals)-X, 808, Sidharth 96, New Delhi Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN: AAACH1240G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. D.S. Sidhu, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 12.03.2025 Date of pronouncement 19.03.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

The instant batch of two appeals pertain to as many assessees herein M/s. Associated Techno Plastics (P.) Ltd. and M/s. HCL Employees & Investment Co. Ltd. The Revenue has filed [ACIT Vs. M/s. Associated Techno Plastics (P.) Ltd.] and the latter assessee i.e. M/s. HCL Employees & Investment Co. Ltd. has filed its appeal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), New Delhi’s orders dated 19.08.1992 and 31.06.1995 for assessment year 1989-90 passed in case nos.107/92-93 and 125/95-96 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), respectively.

2.

Cases called twice. None appears at the assessees’ behest. They are accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

We have heard Sh. D.S. Sidhu, learned CIT(DR) representing the department and case files perused. It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that so far as Revenue’s appeal herein is concerned, its sole substantive ground seeks to reverse CIT(A)’s action deleting section 69 unexplained investment addition of Rs. 26,48,017/- made by the Assessing Officer in his assessment framed on 30.03.1992. It thus emerges in this factual backdrop that the tax effect involved in this appeal file is less than the minimum tax effect prescribed of Rs.60 lakhs 2 | P a g e in the CBDT latest Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17.09.2024 with retrospective effect.

4.

Learned CIT-DR is indeed very fair in not disputing the fact that the CBDT’s foregoing tax effect circular has been made applicable on all pending appeals as well. We thus reject the Revenue’s instant appeal for this precise reason subject to all just exceptions.

5.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

6.

We now advert to the latter assessee M/s. HCL Employee & Investment Co. Ltd.’s appeal Rs.2,39,86,572/- in course of assessment framed on 31.03.1989 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. Learned CIT(DR) could hardly dispute that the impugned addition admittedly represents the difference between the assessee alleged sale price and market price of the shares, in the relevant previous year, going by the price quoted at the recognized stock exchange.

7.

Faced with this situation, learned CIT(DR) seeks to buttress the point that this is a remand case as per the hon’ble jurisdictional

3 | P a g e high court’s directions dated 21st November, 2013 in the Revenue’s preferred against the tribunal’s first round order dated 15.10.2001 deleting the impugned addition. Our attention has not only been invited to their lordships’ detailed discussion in the Revenue’s tax appeal but also to the tribunal’s first round order deleting the impugned addition. It emerges from a perusal of the case records that the tribunal had recorded the Revenue’s categoric stand/arguments that although the assessee never happened to be the owner of the shares sold in the relevant previous year, it had to be taxed since it “is the best person in whose hands the addition could be made” in para 31 thereof.

8.

We are of the considered view in this clinching backdrop that there is no indication either in the assessment order or in the CIT(A)’s order herein as to how and in what manner the assessee has been held to have acquired title of the shares sold in the relevant previous year. There could be hardly any dispute going by the ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah [1996] 218 ITR 239 (SC) that any taxable income has to be assessed in the correct assessee’s hands only. We thus, deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the learned CIT(A) for his

More judgments on Section 69

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →