Delhi High Court - Orders
J H Jewellers Llp vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 3 May, 2024
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma, Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 255/2024, CM APPL. 25912/2024 (stay) & CM APPL.
25914/2024 (delay)
J H JEWELLERS LLP ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya
Kapoor, Mr. Sumit
Lalchandani, Mr. Shivam
Yadav, Advs.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL
CIRCLE 30, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sidhartha Sinha, SSC with
Ms. Daachita Shahi, Ms. Ahuja
Pethia, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR
KAURAV
ORDER
% 03.05.2024 CM APPL. 25913/2024 (Ex.)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM APPL. 25914/2024 (delay) Bearing in mind the disclosures made, the delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.
The application shall stand disposed of. ITA 255/2024, CM APPL. 25912/2024 (stay)
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, who contends that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] had annulled the additions amounting to INR 12,44,06,490/- made by the Assessing This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2024 at 21:55:28 Officer ["AO"] and restricted the same to INR 17,50,484/- . While arriving at the said conclusions, the CIT(A) had taken note of the additional material which had been submitted by the assessee coupled with the fact that the remand report as submitted by the AO had not alluded to anything adverse that may have been noticed in the working and reconciliation records submitted.
4. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ["ITAT"], however, has chosen to interfere with the aforesaid order by merely observing that the order of the CIT(A) was rendered erroneous since no specific comments on the working/ reconciliation record as submitted had been addressed.
5. In our considered opinion, once the assessee had placed all the relevant material on the record, the order of remand may prima facie at least not appear to be justified.
6. We consequently admit this appeal on the following questions of law:-
A. Whether the ITAT was correct in not adjudicating the Appellant's case on merits and remanding the matter back to the Respondent AO?
B. Whether the ITAT was right in ignoring the presumption under Section 292C in respect of material found during the survey and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer?
C. Whether the finding of the ITAT is against the facts and material available on record and the said order is perverse?
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2024 at 21:55:28 D. Whether ITAT was right in remanding the matter to the AO particularly when the detailed finding is given by the CIT(A) after seeking the remand report from the AO?
E. Whether the order of the ITAT is sustainable in law and should be set aside?
7. List again on 22.05.2024.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
MAY 03, 2024/neha This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2024 at 21:55:28