SHRI JAI KISHAN GOEL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court found that the adverse inferences drawn by the ITAT were not warranted. The court directed that the ITAT's observations regarding the assessee's conduct and allegations of notice tampering be expunged.
What were the facts?
The assessee alleged receiving an income tax notice with a later returnable date than what the Assessing Officer claimed. The ITAT made adverse remarks about the assessee's conduct regarding the notice date.
What were the issues?
Whether the ITAT's adverse remarks on the assessee's conduct and alleged tampering of a notice were justified. Whether the ITAT's observations should be expunged.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~1 & 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 112/2018 & CM APPL. 4000/2018
ITA 113/2018 & CM APPL. 4001/2018
SHRI JAI KISHAN GOEL
..... Appellant Through Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal, Ms. Manika Ghai and Mr.Rohit Kumar Gupta, Advs.
versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing Counsel.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
O R D E R %
03.04.2018
The assessee’s grievance in this appeal is that the ITAT’s order impugned in the proceedings has made certain adverse remarks which impinges on his conduct and action.
The controversy was whether the Assessing Officer had issued a notice returnable on 16.11.2007. The assessee alleges that the notice in fact received by him reflected 26.11.2007 as the returnable date. The AO brought to tax certain amounts under Section 68 in the ex-parte best judgment assessment under Section 144; the assessee succeeded before the CIT(A). The Revenue’s appeal to the ITAT was
allowed. In the course of the order, the ITAT made certain observations with respect to the assessee’s submissions about the date of the notice; imputing motives to him. The assessee sought rectification of those observations under Section 254(2); his attempts on this score were unsuccessful because the application was dismissed.
This Court has considered the materials on record and heard the counsel for the parties.
Adverse inferences drawn by the Tribunal, having regard to the totality of the circumstances do not appear to be warranted or justified. Accordingly, its observations with respect to conduct and allegations with respect to the tampering of the notice so far as it pertains to the date are hereby directed to be expunged. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. All the pending applications are also disposed of.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J APRIL 03, 2018 rc
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026