PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter back. The Tribunal is to decide both the validity of the reopening of assessment and the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return for AY 2001-02 was processed under Section 143(1), not a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3). The Tribunal's reasoning that this was a case of mere change of opinion was conceded to be incorrect.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity of reopening the assessment. The secondary issue was the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 41/2018
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Dushyant Sarna, Advocate for Income Tax Department.
versus
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ved Jain, Mr. Kislaya Parashar and Miss Umang Luthra, Advocates.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
O R D E R %
13.12.2018
Counsel for the respondent-assesee concedes that the reasoning given by the Tribunal in paragraphs 6 to 9 is incorrect as the return for the Assessment Year 2001-02 was processed under Section 143(1) and was not subjected to scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the finding that this was a case of mere change of opinion cannot be sustained. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent-assesee, however, clarifies that the statement is made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
respondent-assessee that the „reasons to believe‟ itself do not justify re- opening and are invalid. He states that the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal to decide the question of reopening as well as on merits of the additions made by the Officer. 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue states that this would be acceptable. This statement is also without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Revenue. 4. Taking the statements of the counsel for the respondent and the Revenue on record, we set aside the impugned order with an order of remand to the Tribunal to decide the question of reopening and merits of the assessment order. In these circumstances and in view of the concessions made by the parties, we are not framing any substantial question of law. 5. Appeal is disposed of, without any order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J. DECEMBER 13, 2018 MR/VKR
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026