Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) who had allowed the assessee's appeal. The assessee's appeal was allowed by the CIT(A) by relying on the High Court's judgment in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly observed that the assessment year was not covered within the six assessment years as per Section 153C of the Act, following the High Court's precedent. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merits in the grounds of appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment year in question falls within the six assessment years as per Section 153C of the Act.
Sections Cited
153C, 153A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHIBENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Yogesh Kumar US & Sh. Naveen Chandra
ORDER
Per Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member:
The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-25[‘Ld.
CIT(A)’ for short], New Delhi dated 13.02.2025pertaining to Assessment Year2014-15.
There is a delay of 5 days in filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the petition for condonation of delay, the delayof 5 days infiling the appeal is condoned.
In the above appeal, Revenue challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 13.02.2025 wherein the ld. CIT(A) by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 465 ITR 101 (Del.), allowed the appeal of the assessee.Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), Revenue preferred the captioned allowing the appeal.
It is found that the ld. CIT(A) while setting aside the assessment order observed that the year under consideration is not covered within the six assessment years as per section 153C of the Act and by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case ofOjjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (surpa), held that the assessment year under consideration would fall beyond the ambit of six years provided u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act. Accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, since there is no contrary judgment or differentiable facts brought on record by the department, we find no merits in the grounds of appeal of the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as devoid of merits.
In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.