Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) – 3 v. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd
[Citation -2017-LL-0821-1]

Citation 2017-LL-0821-1
Appellant Name Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) – 3
Respondent Name Dharampal Satyapal Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 21/08/2017
Assessment Year 2004-05
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags incriminating material • question of law • sister concern • reopening of assessment
Bot Summary: This is an appeal by the Revenue against an order dated 8 th January, 2016 passed by the ITAT in ITA Nos.5611/Del/2013 5581/Del/2013 for AY 2004-05. On 30th January 2017 while admitting this appeal, the following question was framed for consideration: Whether in the circumstances of the case, the cancellation of the reassessment made pursuant to notice under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the assessee for AY 2004-05 by the ITAT was warranted 2. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the additions made as a result of the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT has in the impugned order inter alia noticed that there was no fresh tangible material which could justify the reopening of the assessment for the AY in question. It was further noticed that in the reasons for reopening the assessment, a reference was made to the search conducted on the Assessee on 21 st January, 2011, and that in the assessment for the Assessee s sister concern Dharampal Premchand Limited on the basis of the said search under Section 153A of the Act it was held by the ITAT that the material seized did not constitute incriminating material even qua the sister entity concerned. In view of the above finding, this Court does not consider it necessary to consider the further question whether there was a justification for reopening the assessment qua the Assessee for the AY in question. The question of law framed by the order dated 30 th January, 2017 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.


$ 14 * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 544/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 3 Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue. versus DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Satyen Sethi & Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER % 21.08.2017 1. This is appeal by Revenue against order dated 8 th January, 2016 passed by ITAT in ITA Nos.5611/Del/2013 & 5581/Del/2013 for AY 2004-05. On 30th January 2017 while admitting this appeal, following question was framed for consideration: "Whether in circumstances of case, cancellation of reassessment made pursuant to notice under Sections 147/148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of assessee for AY 2004-05 by ITAT was warranted?" 2. short point that arises for consideration is whether ITAT was justified in deleting additions made as result of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ). ITA 544/2016 Page 1 of 3 3. ITAT has in impugned order inter alia noticed that there was no fresh tangible material which could justify reopening of assessment for AY in question. It was noticed that original assessment proceedings already dealt with in great detail issue concerning deduction under Section 80IC of Act. It was further noticed that in reasons for reopening assessment, reference was made to search conducted on Assessee on 21 st January, 2011, and that in assessment for Assessee s sister concern Dharampal Premchand Limited on basis of said search under Section 153A of Act it was held by ITAT that material seized did not constitute incriminating material even qua sister entity concerned. 4. Indeed today by separate order in appeals filed by Revenue against order of ITAT in cases of sister concern, this Court has concurred with decision of ITAT in holding that material seized in course of search did not constitute incriminating material even for FY 2010-11, i.e., year of search. In that view of matter very fundamental basis for reopening is rendered non- existent. 5. In view of above finding, this Court does not consider it necessary to consider further question whether there was justification for reopening assessment qua Assessee for AY in question. ITA 544/2016 Page 2 of 3 6. question of law framed by order dated 30 th January, 2017 is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of Assessee and against Revenue. 7. appeal is accordingly dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. AUGUST 21, 2017 b nesh ITA 544/2016 Page 3 of 3 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) 3 v. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd
Report Error