PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V vs. VIKAS GUTGUTIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/487/2017HC DelhiDLHC01181661201710 July 2017Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court declined to frame the questions posed by the Revenue. It noted that similar additions in the case of the assessee's wife were deleted and affirmed by the Court. Furthermore, the Revenue had chosen Section 153A proceedings without sufficient incriminating material.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's order concerning assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05. The appeals questioned whether intimations under Section 143(1) constituted completed assessments and if additions not based on incriminating material were justified.

What were the issues?

Whether intimations under Section 143(1) are completed assessments, and if additions made without incriminating material during a search are sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 153A,Section 260A

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 Nos. 487,488 and 489 of 2017 Page 1 of 4 $~46 to 48

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ITA 487/2017

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V ..... Appellant

Through : Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel and Ms.Lakshmi Gurang, Advocate for Revenue.

versus

VIKAS GUTGUTIA

..... Respondent

Through : Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate.

With

ITA 488/2017

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL -2 NEW DELHI

..... Appellant Through : Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel and Ms.Lakshmi Gurang, Advocate for Revenue.

versus

VIKAS GUTGUTIA

..... Respondent

Through : Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate.

With

ITA 489/2017

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL-2 NEW DELHI

..... Appellant

ITA Nos. 487,488 and 489 of 2017 Page 2 of 4 Through : Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel and Ms.Lakshmi Gurang, Advocate for Revenue.

versus

VIKAS GUTGUTIA

..... Respondent

Through : Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

O R D E R %

10.07.2017

CM Nos. 23601, 23603 & 23605 /2017 (delay in filing) and CM Nos. 23602, 23604 & 23606 /2017 (delay re-filing)

1.

For the reasons stated, the delay in re-filing and filing the appeal is condoned. The applications are allowed.

ITA Nos. 487/2017, 488/2017 & 489/2017 2. These appeals by the Revenue under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act 961 (‘Act’) are directed against the order common dated 25th October, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos.858, 859 and 860/Del/2014 for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05.

3.

The two questions sought to be urged by the Revenue read as under:

(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in holding that intimation sent under Section 143(1) of for A.Y.s 2002-03 to 2004-05 fall in the category of completed assessments when there was no assessment made under Section 143 (3)?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the

ITA Nos. 487,488 and 489 of 2017 Page 3 of 4 case, the ITAT was justified in deleting the additions made in the assessment orders for A.Y.s 2002-03 to 2004-05 on the ground that additions not based on incriminating material found during course of search cannot be sustained?

4.

As far as question (ii) is concerned, it is not in dispute that arising out of the same search proceedings, additions sought to be made in the hands of Ms. Meeta Gutgutia, wife of the Assessee have been deleted by the CIT (A) and the ITAT and the said orders were affirmed by this Court by dismissing the Revenue’s appeal by the decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2 New Delhi v. Meeta Gutgutia Prop. M/s. Ferns ‘N’ Petals, (2017) 395 ITR 526 (Del). Therefore, the Court is not inclined to frame question (ii) as urged by the Revenue.

5.

As far as question (i) is concerned, it sought to be contended by Ms. Laxmi Gurung, the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue that in all these three AYs, the returns were filed by the Assessee were not picked up for scrutiny and only an intimation was sent under Section 143 (1) of the Act. She contends that there was no completed assessment for the said three AYs. She submitted that the said assessments should be treated as ‘pending’ assessments in respect of which proceedings under Section 147 of the Act could have been validly initiated.

6.

In the first place, question (i) was not raised by the Revenue in its appeals before the ITAT. Secondly, the fact remains that the Revenue chose the route of Section 153 A of the act to proceed against the Assessee. Having chosen that route, there had to be some incriminating material qua the Assessee to justify the initiation of proceedings thereunder. There was none in the present case. In the circumstances, the question of examining whether the Revenue could instead have validly

ITA Nos. 487,488 and 489 of 2017 Page 4 of 4 proceeded under Section 147 of the Act is academic and need not be examined. The Court declines to frame question (i) either.

7.

The appeals are dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J JULY 10, 2017 dk

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →