The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no sufficient cause to condone the 738-day delay, and upheld the ITAT's findings regarding reassessment validity and additions under Section 68.
The applications for condonation of delay and the appeals were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~42&45
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C)-I ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.
versus
SAHARA INDIA SAVING & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.
..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arta Tarana Panda, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
%
O R D E R 05.12.2016
There is an inordinate delay of 738 days in filing the appeals. The revenue seeks to explain this on account of reorganisation of its panel of counsel and further that there were a large number of cases pending as a result of which there was no monitoring of its appeals.
In the opinion of this Court - as expressed in previous other appeals as well - these reasons cannot be characterized as sufficient cause to entitle the appellant/revenue for condonation of delay. In any case there are no valid grounds for that purpose. The applications have to be, therefore, dismissed.
On the merits as well, we notice that the two appeals concerned two years. In one year, the issue was whether reassessment notice under Section 147/148 was validly issued. The ITAT concluded that on an application of the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) a s a matter of fact there was no tangible material. We see no reason to disagree with those findings.
For the other year, i.e., 1994-95, two issues are sought to be urged by the revenue. One concerns the provisioning of interest. The revenue had initially urged that the provision for interest was not made on a rational basis and was excessive. The ITAT concluded otherwise. It was also noticed that in the subsequent year, a statutory audit had in fact confirmed the assessee’s contentions. These are factual and the Court finds no rationale to interfere with these findings.
The second issue urged on the merits for AY 1994-95 is the verification of materials. The matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for due appraisal of the fact. This order of the ITAT does not call for interference.
The last issue was the addition made under Section 68 by the Commissioner who exercised his power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT concluded that the Commissioner’s order was not warranted in the circumstances of the case. This too does not call for any interference.
No substantial question of law arises; the applications for condonation of delay and the appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
DECEMBER 05, 2016 / vikas /
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a sufficient cause existed to condone the inordinate delay of 738 days in filing the appeals.
Whether the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and 148 were validly instituted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.Applied¶14
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax (C)-I
Sahara India Saving & Investment Corp. Ltd.
S. Ravindra Bhat
Najmí Wazírí
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
