PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 vs. AMIT SANKHWAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/173/2026HC DelhiDLHC01110057202510 March 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the case revolved around findings of fact and appreciation of evidence, not raising any substantial question of law. The ITAT's decision was based on the absence of incriminating material.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order that upheld the CIT(A)'s finding of no incriminating material. The High Court noted the delay in filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal raises a substantial question of law, and if the ITAT's finding of no incriminating material is perverse.

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.

$~80 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 173/2026 CM APPL. 14235/2026

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC and Ms Easha Gurung, JSC.

versus

AMIT SANKHWAL .....Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

10.03.2026 O R D E R CM APPL. 14236/2026 (Delay of 585 days in filing appeal) CM APPL. 14237/2026 (for Exemption) CM APPL. 14238/2026 (for Exemption) 1. These interlocutory applications have been filed seeking exemption from filing certified copies; condonation of delay of 47 days in re-filing and delay of 585 days in filing the appeal. CM APPL. 14239/2026 (Delay of 47 days in re-filing appeal) 2. Normally, we could have granted indulgence and at least issued notices but before issuing notice on the application seeking condition of 585 days delay in the appeal, we have cursorily looked at the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 13:25:07

3.

On perusal of the record, we find that the instant appeal lays challenge to an order dated 29.12.2023, whereby the appeal filed by the Department had been rejected while relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla reported in (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 412 (Delhi). 4. While doing so, the Tribunal has observed that the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals)-the First Appellate Authority had found that there is no incriminating material. The Tribunal has also sifted through the record and given the same findings that there is no incriminating material. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any substantial error or infirmity pointing towards perversity in such findings. The present case revolves around finding of fact and appreciation of evidence, and the same does not give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law. 6. Since the appeal has no merit, the appeal, as well as the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and refilling so also the applications for exemption and stay of the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 are dismissed.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J MARCH 10, 2026/dd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 13:25:07

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →