Delhi High Court - Orders
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S Ridgeview Construction Pvt. Ltd on 14 March, 2024
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma, Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~16 & 17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 618/2019
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 3
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr.
Standing Counsel for Mr.
Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
versus
M/S RIDGEVIEW CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Gautam Jain and Mr.
Manish Yadav, Advs.
+ ITA 621/2019
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 3
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr.
Standing Counsel for Mr.
Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
versus
M/S RIDGEVIEW CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Gautam Jain and Mr.
Manish Yadav, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR
KAURAV
ORDER
% 14.03.2024 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 29/03/2024 at 22:05:49
1. The appellant impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ['ITAT'] dated 31 October 2018 and principally assails the view expressed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] as was affirmed by the ITAT on the issue of applicability of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act']. The ITAT while disposing of the appeal has taken note of the following conclusions which came to be recorded by the CIT(A):-
"6.5 Applying the above judgments to the facts of the appellant, it is evident here that the Assessing Officer has not observed that Taneja-Puri Group of case or its directors have disclosed the ownership of the said papers found from their premises so as tore but the applicability of presumption under section 292C made applicable by the Hon'ble High Court. Furthermore the document referred in the satisfaction note is marked as page 75 to 77 of Annexure A-2 which is a copy of unsigned provisional balance sheet of appellant company as on 30.9.2005. Thus apparently the said paper belongs to financial year 2005-06 relevant to assessment year 2006-07. In the instant case no addition has been made in the order of assessment under section 153C of the act for assessment year 2006-07. Further even original assessment year for Assessment Year 2006-07 had been framed under section 153(3) of the Act wherein too returned income had been accepted. Thus, in the absence of incriminating found as a result of search on the searched person notice under section 153C is bad in law and without jurisdiction."
2. It is on the aforesaid basis that Mr. Menon, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the view as taken is wholly untenable bearing in mind the fact that although the document bore a date which fell in Assessment Year ['AY'] 2006-07, it contained details relevant to AYs' 2004-05 and 2005-06 and thus the ITAT has erred in affirming the decision rendered by the CIT(A).
3. We note that identical questions pertaining to incriminating material and the years to which they should necessarily relate in order for an action under Section 153C of the Act being sustained is one on which we have already heard arguments and judgment stands reserved 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 29/03/2024 at 22:05:49 with the lead matter being W.P.(C) 1459/2024 amongst the batch of petitions.
4. In view of the aforesaid, let these appeals be re-notified for 21.05.2024.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
MARCH 14, 2024/RW 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 29/03/2024 at 22:05:49