Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Girish Kathpalia, JJ.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-central-1 – Appellant
Versus
Smc Power Generation Ltd. – Respondent
ITA 262 of 2023 & CM APPL. 23108 of 2023
Decided On : 08-05-2023
Delay Condonation - Income Tax Appeal - The court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal concerning the addition made on account of unexplained credit found in the books of the respondent/assessee qua share application money.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal concerning the addition made on account of unexplained credit found in the books of the respondent/assessee qua share application money. The appeal concerned Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no substantial question of law arises for consideration and accordingly closed the appeal.
Issues: The only issue raised in the present appeal concerns addition made on account of unexplained credit found in the books of the respondent/assessee qua share application money.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that no substantial question of law arises for consideration based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The appeal was closed, and the parties were directed to act based on the digitally signed copies of the order.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 23108/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 300 days in re-filing the appeal]
1. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
1.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 300 days.
2. For the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned.
3. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
ITA 262/2023
4. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09.
5. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"].
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/revenue says that the issue raised in the present appeal is covered by the judgment of the coordinate bench dated 18.09.2017 passed in ITA No. 603/2017.
7. We may note that the only issue which arises in the present appeal concerns addition made on account of unexplained credit found in the books of the respondent/assessee qua share application money.
7.1 The amount was sought to be added by the Assessing Officer(AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short `the Act.]. The amount was quantified at Rs.30,00,00,000/-.
8. An order was passed, in the first instance, by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 31.03.2014, by framing an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act.
9. The Commissioner of Income Tax(CIT), in exercise of his powers under Section 263 of the Act, via order dated 02.03.2016 set aside the said order.
10. This resulted in the AO passing the second assessment order dated 26.12.2016.
11. However, the Tribunal via order dated 31.01.2017 set aside the order dated 02.03.2016 passed by the CIT, referred to above, under Section 263 of the Act.
12. It is an appeal against this order, which was preferred by the appellant/revenue, that was dismissed by a coordinate bench of this court via order dated 18.09.2017 passed in ITA No. 603/2017.
13. Via the impugned order, the Tribunal has, thus, set aside, in effect, the second assessment order dated 26.12.2016.
14. Thus, having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, according to us, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
15. The appeal is, accordingly, closed.
16. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copies of the order.
17. The Registry will dispatch a copy of the order to the respondent/assessee at the address given in the memo of parties.
The court's decision was based on the absence of a substantial question of law for consideration in the appeal.
The court has the discretion to condone delay in re-filing appeals and may rely on previous decisions to close appeals.
The principle of condonation of delay and the requirement for a substantial question of law to arise for consideration in an appeal.
The court's decision was based on the lack of substantial question of law arising for consideration and the coverage of the issue by a previous court decision.
The court's decision was influenced by its previous ruling on a similar issue, indicating the importance of consistency in judicial decisions.
The incriminating material found during the search must concern the assessment year in issue for the proceedings to be valid.
Clarity in penalty notices and the debatable nature of issues at the relevant time can influence the imposition of penalties.
The liability to pay interest under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arises only with respect to the amount specified in the notice of demand issued under Section 156 of the Act, which was ....
The absence of substantial question of law can lead to the closure of appeals.
The court's decision was influenced by the lack of substantial question of law and the specific provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
