PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, AGRA vs. M/S GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1098/2017HC DelhiDLHC01453057201704 December 2017Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The ITAT deleted the additions made under Section 68, finding no incriminating material from the search and noting that the Assessee's original returns had been accepted. The High Court found no substantial question of law as the ITAT followed a previous Division Bench decision.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for amounts received as share capital and unsecured creditors. These additions were made after a search of a third party's premises, and the Assessee's cases were transferred. The ITAT deleted these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether additions under Section 68 are sustainable when no incriminating material is found during a search of a third party and the assessee's original returns were accepted. Whether a substantial question of law arises when the ITAT follows a binding precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 153C,Section 127,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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 1097/2017, 1098/2017, 1099/2017 & 1100/2017 Page 1 $~41 to 44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1097/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 ..... Appellant Through : Mr Sanjay Kumar and Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Advocates. versus M/S GLOBAL REALTY CREATIONS LTD. ..... Respondent Through : None. + ITA 1098/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, AGRA ..... Appellant Through : Mr Sanjay Kumar and Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Advocates. versus M/S GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD. ..... Respondent Through : None. + ITA 1099/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, AGRA ..... Appellant Through : Mr Sanjay Kumar and Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Advocates. versus M/S GLOBAL TELEVENTURE LTD. ..... Respondent

ITA 1097/2017, 1098/2017, 1099/2017 & 1100/2017 Page 2 Through : None. + ITA 1100/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, AGRA ..... Appellant Through : Mr Sanjay Kumar and Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Advocates. versus M/S GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD. ..... Respondent Through : None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R % 04.12.2017 CM No.43770/2017(exemption) in ITA No.1097/2017 CM No.43772/2017(exemption) in ITA No.1098/2017 CM No.43774/2017(exemption) in ITA No.1099/2017 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA No.1097/2017 & CM No.43769/2017(delay in filing appeal for 20 days) ITA No.1098/2017 & CM No.43771/2017(delay in filing appeal for 20 days) ITA No.1099/2017 & CM No.43773/2017(delay in filing appeal for 20 days) ITA No.1100/2017 & CM No.43775/2017(delay in filing appeal for 20 days) 1. In all these appeals, the Assessing Officer (A.O.), for Assessment Years 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, had brought to tax various amounts under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA 1097/2017, 1098/2017, 1099/2017 & 1100/2017 Page 3 2. In all these cases, the Assesses received notice under Section 153C after the premises of the third party, i.e. Rajdarbar Group, was searched on 31.07.2008. 3. The Assessee’s cases were transferred under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and they were served notices sometimes in 2010 pursuant to which they filed returns. The CIT (Appeals) confirmed the additions made under Section 68 of the Act, by the Assessing Officer. The Assesses appeals were accepted. It was noticed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that in the course of the search proceedings, nothing incriminating was found in the premises, which could have led to the additions made. On the contrary, in some of these Appeals, the Assessee’s Returns, originally filed, had been scrutinized under Section 143(3) of the Act and the declarations with respect to share capital and/or unsecured creditors were accepted. 4. As a consequence, applying the ratio in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Del.), the ITAT deleted the amounts brought to tax under Section 68 of the Act. 5. Since Kabul Chawla (supra) was the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and the ITAT merely followed it, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises. 6. The Appeals are, therefore, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J DECEMBER 04, 2017/‘Sn’ SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →