ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. PRIYANK SUKHIJA CAFE CONCEPT PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

Date of hearing 08.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 08.12.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These Revenue’s twin appeals & 2107/Del/2025 for assessment years 2015-16 & 2016-17 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s orders, both dated 17.12.2024 passed in case Nos. 30/10663/2014-15 and 30/11493/2015-16, involving proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee/respondent’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

1. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the facts of the case.

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in dismissing 2 the stand of AO that the income in question here is related to the assessee and same will be considered only in the hands of the assessee.

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in ignoring the fact that Priyank Sukhija Café Concept Pvt. Ltd. was not the applicant before the settlement application.

4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee despite the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Gupta Perfumers (P) Ltd. vs Income Tax Settlement Commission in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4368 of 2010 wherein it was held that the Income Tax Department must tax the right person and the right person alone. The right person means the person who is liable to the tax according to the law with respect to a particular income.

5. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.

3. Suffice to say, the Revenue’s sole substantive argument/ground herein is that the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in granting relief to the assessee that the income sought to be assessed in its hands herein has already been 2 | P a g e considered in the Interim Board of Settlement-VII, Chennai’s order; reading as under: “7.2 From the perusal of above-referred submission made by the appellant alongwith the relevant extract of order passed by Hon’ble Interim Board for Settlement-VII, Chennai, it is observed that Mr. Y.P. Ashok and his family members particularly Mrs. Sunita Sukhija and Mr. Priyank Sukhija have declared all the undisclosed receipts from various restaurants owned/controlled by them. It is further observed that the name of appellant company is also appearing on page no. 90 of the order and Rs.3,04,11,321/-have been declared by the appellant Mr. Priyank Sukhija and his family members as undisclosed receipts for A.Y. 2015-16. This aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Interim Board for Settlement-VII, Chennai in its order dated 23.06.2023 after considering the report of Pr. CIT (Central)-III in this regard. 7.3 In view of the above findings and respectfully following the order of Hon'ble Interim Board of Settlement-VII, Chennai, the addition of Rs.2,13,51,645/- on account of undisclosed receipts is hereby deleted as the amount declared before the hon'ble Settlement Commission is more than the amount determined by the Id. AO. It is to be noted that one of the reason for addition by AO was because there was no final order of Settlement Commission. However, in view of the order of Settlement Commission vide dated 23.06.2023 ground no. 3 is allowed. Hence, the Ground No. 3 is allowed.”

4. That being the case, learned CIT(DR) could hardly dispute that the Interim Board of Settlement has already considered the addition made in the assessee’s hands as it was filed before the CIT(A) at page 90 of the lower appellate discussion.

5. We thus conclude that the learned CIT(A) has rightly given the benefit of the Interim Board of Settlement-VII, Chennai’s adjudication to the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the 3 | P a g e cases. We thus see no merit in the Revenue’s instant identical sole substantive ground in both these appeals. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.