SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 - Appellant
Versus
S.S. Con Build Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
ITA 132 of 2022
Decided On : 28-04-2022




The absence of incriminating material does not preclude assessment under Section 153A, as established by existing judicial precedents.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 68 - Assessment under Section 153A - Challenge to ITAT order deleting addition of unexplained credit of Rs.33,91,35,982/- - ITAT erred in determining that no incriminating documents/assets were found during the search, without recognizing that Section 153A does not mandate such a condition. (Paras 2, 3)

(B) Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer - Appellant contended that reliance on judgments necessitating incriminating material for reassessment was incorrect, citing the pending status of Special Leave petitions against these judgments. (Paras 4, 5)

(C) Case law relevance - The present appeal is dismissed in light of existing precedents, including those from the Supreme Court, thereby affirming the ITAT's approach. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
The appeal challenges the ITAT's decision to delete a significant addition made by the Assessing Officer due to a lack of incriminating evidence during the search related to the assessment year 2007-08.

Findings of Court:
The appeal is dismissed, aligning with prior judicial rulings that affect the assessment jurisdiction under Section 153A.

Issues: The primary issues include the interpretation of Section 153A regarding incriminating documents and the applicability of appellate court precedents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the ITAT's reliance on prior judgments is justified despite ongoing challenges, emphasizing the absence of a stay on these judgments as critical.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. identifies the appeal and its background. (Para 1)
2. challenges itat decision citing legal precedent. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court dismisses appeal based on precedent. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)

1. Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 8th April, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA No. 1986/Del./2016 for the Assessment Year 2007-08.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.33,91,35,982/-made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as `the Act') on account of the fact that the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded to frame assessment under Section 153A of the Act as no incriminating documents/assets were found during the search without appreciating that the provision of Section 153A of the Act does not stipulate any such condition.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant further states that the ITAT has erred in placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla, (2016) 380 ITR 573 wherein it was held that in the absence of any incriminating material, the Assessing Officer cannot re-apprise and review the assessments already completed and settled before the date of search under Section 153A of the Act.

4. He states that the Revenue has not accepted the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) and has preferred Special Leave petitions which are pending adjudication.

5. Though the judgment of this Court has been challenged and is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, yet there is no stay of the said judgment till date.

6. Consequently, in view of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359 and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras, (1992) 3 SCC 1, the present appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top