Delhi High Court Judgments — 2020

The ITAT held that the remand assessment order was null and void ab initio because the AO failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 144C of the Act, which requires issuing a draft assessment order and allowing objections to the DRP, even in a remand assessment involving transfer pricing adjustments. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating nothing survived for consideration.

The High Court allowed the appellant's application for early hearing and withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn, granting the appellant liberty to avail the 'Vivad se Vishwas' Amnesty Scheme.

The High Court condoned the delay, clarifying that Section 254(2) and Section 260A are distinct remedies. It held that the Tribunal erred by not considering the Rule 29 application for additional evidence before passing its order. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to first decide the Rule 29 application and then the appeal on merits.

The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision to delete the penalties. It ruled that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the quantum appeals are admitted by the High Court, indicating a debatable issue. Additionally, the show cause notice and assessment orders for penalty lacked specific charges.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal due to low tax effect. It noted that the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, which is the threshold limit for filing appeals before the High Court as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.