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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/132/2022HC DelhiDLHC01016043202228 April 2022Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that despite the Revenue's challenge to a relevant precedent, no stay was granted. Therefore, the appeal was covered by the existing judgment.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that deleted an addition made under Section 68. The Assessing Officer had made the addition on account of unexplained credit in a Section 153A assessment, arguing the ITAT wrongly relied on a precedent where no incriminating material was found.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition under Section 68 can be made in a Section 153A assessment without finding incriminating material during the search, and the applicability of precedent in the absence of a stay.

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(3)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 132/2022 Page 1 of 2 $~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 132/2022 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. versus S.S. CON BUILD PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None. % Date of Decision: 28th April, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1. Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 8th April, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA No. 1986/Del./2016 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.33,91,35,982/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on account of the fact that the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded to frame assessment under Section 153A of the Act as no incriminating documents/assets were found during the search without appreciating that the provision of Section 153A of the Act does not stipulate any such condition. This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001611

ITA 132/2022 Page 2 of 2 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant further states that the ITAT has erred in placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla, (2016) 380 ITR 573 wherein it was held that in the absence of any incriminating material, the Assessing Officer cannot re-apprise and review the assessments already completed and settled before the date of search under Section 153A of the Act. 4. He states that the Revenue has not accepted the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) and has preferred Special Leave petitions which are pending adjudication. 5. Though the judgment of this Court has been challenged and is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, yet there is no stay of the said judgment till date. 6. Consequently, in view of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359 and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1, the present appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench. MANMOHAN, J SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J APRIL 28, 2022 AS This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001611

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →