PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, AGRA vs. M/S CHITRAKOOT MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1050/2017HC DelhiDLHC01470458201727 November 2017Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The ITAT held that the seized incriminating materials could not justify the additions made under Section 68. The High Court agreed, finding no substantial question of law as the ITAT had applied established precedent.

What were the facts?

During a search assessment, the Assessing Officer made additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act based on documents seized from another group that belonged to the assessee. The assessee's appeals to the CIT(A) and ITAT followed.

What were the issues?

Whether additions under Section 68 are justified based on seized documents belonging to the assessee, and if the ITAT's decision applying precedent raises a substantial question of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 153C,Section 143(2)

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.

$-7 & 9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1050/2017 PIONCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2, AGRA Appellant versus M/S CHITRAKOOT MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. Respondent + ITA 1052/2017 C& CM No.42541/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, AGRA Appellant versus M/S CHITRAKOOT MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD Respondent Present; Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA ORDER % 27.n.2017 1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the ITAT which had reversed the findings of the lower authorities. It is contended that the additions made in the course ofsearch assessment under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') were valid andjustified having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA NOS.1050/2017& 1052/2017 Pagel Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

2.

The premises of one "Rajdarbar Group" were searched on 31.07.2008. Certain documents were seized - which belonged to the assessee company. Notice was issued under Section 153C of the Act on 23.07.2010 to the assessee which responded subsequently by filing return of income for the concerned assessment years. The assessee was subjected to notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The AO completed the assessment by adding substantial amounts for both the years in question i.e. 2003-04 and 2004-05. The assessee was aggrieved and approached the CIT(A); affirmed the AO's orders and therefore appealedto the ITAT. 3. The ITAT was of the opinion that though incriminating materials were seized, they could not have led to the additions made under Section 68 of the Act. The ITAT relied upon Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573. 4. This Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises because the ITAT merely applied the law declared in Kabul Chawla (supra). The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. NOVEMBER 27,2017 kks ITA Nos.1050/2017 &1052/2017 S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J c sanjeW sachdeva, j Page 2

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →