PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. S.S. CON BUILD PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/57/2022HC DelhiDLHC01043140202122 March 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the case was covered by CIT vs Kabul Chawla as additions were not based on seized material. It also noted that jurisdiction issues can be raised at any stage.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that deleted an addition of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT had relied on the judgment in CIT vs Kabul Chawla, stating the additions were not based on seized material.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT erred in deleting additions under Section 68 based on Kabul Chawla, and whether the ITAT erred in deleting additions on jurisdiction under Section 153A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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 57/2022

Page 1 of 2

$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 57/2022

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 ..... Appellant

Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar with

Ms. Easha Kadian, Advocates.

versus

S.S. CON BUILD PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

Through None.

Date of Decision: 22nd March, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral) 1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 18 : th 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.7,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) relying upon the judgment of this Court in CIT vs Kabul Chawla, [2016] 380 ITR 573. He states that ITAT has further erred in deleting the addition on the issue of jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Act without adverting to the facts and merits of the addition.

February, 2021 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA No. 6447/Del/2015 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001024

ITA 57/2022

Page 2 of 2

3.

He emphasises that ITAT was not justified in law in not appreciating the fact that in the first round the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits of the addition. He further states that ITAT has erred in not considering that in the first round of litigation the issue of jurisdiction was not decided and the additions were decided/remanded back on merits of the addition. 4. Admittedly, the present case is covered by the decision of the Division Bench in CIT vs Kabul Chawla (supra), as the additions were not based on the seized material. 5. Further, it is settled law that the issue of jurisdiction goes to the roots of the cause and such an issue can be raised at any belated stage of the proceeding including appeal. (See: Kanwar Singh Saini vs High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307 and M/s Mavany Brothers vs. CIT, 2015 SCC Online Bom 1686. 6. Consequently, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

MANMOHAN, J

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J MARCH 22, 2022 AS This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001024

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →