PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3, vs. SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTRIES LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/373/2017HC DelhiDLHC01168979201723 May 2017Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. The ITAT had correctly applied previous High Court decisions on limitation and the requirement of incriminating material for additions.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's order concerning assessment years 2001-02 to 2005-06. The ITAT had ruled in favour of the assessee on two key issues.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment framed was barred by limitation and whether additions could be made without incriminating material found during a search.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153G,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.

$-1-5. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 332/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3 Versus SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTRIES LTD + ITA333^7^ PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3 Versus SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTRIES LTD. + ITA 334/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-3 Versus SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTRIES LTD. + ITA 335/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3 Versus SURAY VINAYAK INDUSTRIES LTD; + ITA 373/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3 Versus SURYA VINAYAK INDUSTRIES LTD. Appellant Respondent Appellant Respondent Appellant Respondent Appellant Respondent Appellant Respondent ITAs No.332, 333, 334, 335 & 373 of2017 Page 1 of3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

Through: Mr,Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr.Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate for the Respondents CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL ORDER % 23.05.2017 C.M.No.16644/2017 (Exemptions) in ITA No.332/2017 C.M.No.16646/2017 (Exemptions) in ITA No.333/2017 C.M.No.16649/2017 (Exemptions) in ITA No.335/2017 C.M.No.17103/2017 (Exemptions) in ITA No.373/2017 1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions C.M.No.16645/2017 (delay in filing) in ITA No.332/2017 C.M.No.16647/2017 (delay in filing) in ITA No.333/2017 C.M.No.16648/2017 (delay in filing) in ITA No.334/2017 C.M.No.16650/2017 (delay in filing) in ITA No.335/2017 C.M.No.17104/2017 (delay in filing) in ITA No.373/2017 2. For the reasons explained in the applications, the delay in filing the appeals are condoned. The applications are disposed of. ITAs No.332/2017.333/2017.334/2017,335/2017.373/2017 3. These are appeals filed by the Revenue against the common order dated IS^'^ July, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) inITA Nos.3154 to 3157/Del/2011 for the Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2005-06. 4. Two issues raised in these appeals are whether the ITAT erred in law in holding that: ITAs No.332, 333, 334, 335 &373 of2017 Page 2of3

(i) the assessment framed by Assessing Officer under Section 153G/143(3) ofthe Act was barred by limitation?; and (ii) No addition could be made in case no incriminating material is found during the course of search? 5. In deciding both questions against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee the ITAT has relied on the decisions of this Court in CIT v. J. H. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. (decision dated 30th November 2015 in ITA 27 of 2015) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla (2016)380 ITR 573 (Del). 6. The Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the ITAT. In that view of the matter, the appeals are dismissed. MAY 23,2017 'anb' S.MURALIDHAR, J VINOD GOEL, J ITAs No.332, 333, 334, 335 &373 of2017 Page 3 of3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →