CIT vs. ANOOP GUPTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1183/2011HC DelhiDLHC01148497201126 July 2012Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's appeal, agreeing that the assessment year could not be changed by the CIT(A). The High Court noted that the amount was later accepted in assessment year 2009-2010, rendering the appeal moot.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed trading liabilities of Rs. 55,19,650/- over several years. The Assessing Officer initially added a portion of this liability to the assessment year 2006-2007. Subsequently, the CIT(A) directed the addition to be made in assessment year 2006-2007 instead of 2009-2010.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct assessment year for adding back a trading liability. The court also considered whether the CIT(A) could alter the assessment year based on subsequent information.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 1183/2011

Page 1

$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

DECIDED ON: 26.07.2012

ITA 1183/2011

CIT

..... Appellant

Through: Ms.Rashmi Chopra, Sr.Standing Counsel

versus

ANOOP GUPTA

..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Ved Jain, Advocate

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR

MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 6th May, 2011 whereby the Appeal of the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals), was allowed.

2.

The question of law sought to be raised by the Revenue in this case is which is the correct assessment year i.e. whether it is 2006- 2007 or 2009-2010, for fixing the income of Rs.55,19,650/- .

3.

The assessee had claimed over a number of years trading liabilities, inter-alia to the tune of Rs.55,19,650/-. The assessing

ITA 1183/2011

Page 2

officer by order dated 22nd December, 2008 added a sum of Rs.26,84,276/- lakhs on a consideration of balance sheet available before him in which the sum was shown as trade creditors. During the pendency of the assessee’s appeal, a survey was conducted under Section 133A and a report was furnished on 11.02.2009. Having gone into the report and certain other particulars elucidated from the department, particularly the offer made by the assessee to add back the said trading liability amounting to Rs.55,19,650/- in his return for the assessment year 2009-2010 under Section 41(1), the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the addition of Rs.26,84,276/-lakhs and at the same time directing that it would be substituted with a sum of Rs.55,19,650/- in the assessment year 2006-2007. The assessee’s appeal inter-alia on several grounds including the ground that the year of assessment could not have been changed by the CIT(A) from 2009- 2010 to 2006-2007 was accepted by the Tribunal in its impugned order.

4.

This Court was at one stage inclined to consider the revenue’s grievance whether in the concerned assessment year i.e. 2006-2007, the amount could be added back or whether the Tribunal’s view in accepting assessee’s offer as of assessment year 2009-2010 is correct. However, subsequently another event had occurred by way of assessment order for the assessment year 2009-2010. By that order dated 29th December, 2010, the assessing officer has accepted the assessee’s offer and added back a sum of Rs.55,19,650/-. Having regard to these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no

ITA 1183/2011

Page 3

useful purpose would be served in considering the question of law, as the same amount cannot be added back for two separate years. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

R.V.EASWAR, J JULY 26, 2012 vk

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →