Delhi High Court - Orders
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 vs M/S Rajdhani Realcon P. Ltd on 4 May, 2022
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan, Dinesh Kumar Sharma
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 113/2021 & C.M.12666/2021 (delay)
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr.Standing
counsel with Mr.Vipul Agrawal and
Mr.Parth Semwal, Jr.standing counsel
for Revenue
Versus
M/S RAJDHANI REALCON P. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Rakesh Jain, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
ORDER
% 04.05.2022
1. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent had stated that the present appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect. In support of his contention, he had referred to the note at the end of the list of dates. The same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"Tax Effect Rs. 3,86,250/-
[Exception mentioned in para 10(e) of Circular No.3/2018 as amended vide F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007- ITJ(Pt.) dated 20.08.2018 is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the name of the assessee is reflected under the beneficiary list in the SFIO report disseminated to the department.] Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:05.05.2022 20:47:40
2. Learned counsel for the respondent had further drawn this Court's attention to the assessment order, wherein it has been stated that the proceedings had been initiated on the basis of information received from DIT (Inv.), New Delhi.
3. Today, Mr.Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue has handed over a photocopy of the letter dated 02nd May, 2022 received by him from Income Tax Officer, Ward 21 (1), New Delhi. He contends that two parallel investigations on the same subject (i.e. by the DIT (Inv.) and SFIO) were conducted simultaneously. He emphasises that the respondent/assessee has been named as one of the beneficiary companies in the SFIO report. In support of his contention, he draws this court's attention to the SFIO report dated 31st March, 2016. Consequently, according to him, the present appeal is maintainable in accordance with the exception in para 10 (e) of the Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11th July, 2018. The relevant portion of the said circular reads as under:
"10. Adverse judgments relating to the following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 above or there is no tax effect:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Where addition is based on information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies such as CBI/ED/DRI/SFIO/Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI)."Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:05.05.2022 20:47:40
4. In response, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee draws attention of this court to the assessment order dated 16.03.2016 passed in the present case wherein it has been stated as under:
"Accordingly, after recording the reasons and with the prior approval of the Addl. CIT notice u/s 148 of the I.T Act was issued on 18.03.2015 and served upon the assessee. In response to notice u/s 148, none attended nor any application for adjournment was filed.
Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of I.T.Act was issued to the assessee at last known address of the company, on 11.01.2016 fixing the case for 19.01.2016. In response to which none attended nor any reply was filed. A show cause notice u/s 271( 1 )(b) was issued on 05.02.2015 fixing the case for 12.02.2015. None attended. In view of principal of natural justice a show cause was issued on 08.03.2016 as to why the proposed addition be not made and case was fixed to 14.03.2016. No compliance was made to this also. In view of narrated stated facts above, I have no other alternative but to compute the assessment exparte u/s 144 on the basis of information available on record."
5. Consequently, accordingly to him, the addition in the present instance is not based on the information received from SFIO.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the papers, this court finds that though the report of SFIO is dated 31.03.2016 yet the assessment order in the present instance is dated 16.03.2016. Consequently, addition in the present case is not based on the information received from an external source like SFIO.
7. Accordingly, this court is of the view that the present appeal is not maintainable due to low tax effect and the exception as contained in Para 10 (e) of the circular dated 20th August, 2018 is not attracted to the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:05.05.2022 20:47:40 present case. Consequently, the present appeal along with the pending application is dismissed. This court makes it clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy.
MANMOHAN, J DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J MAY 4, 2022 rb Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:05.05.2022 20:47:40