Dismissed

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, DELHI-17 v. Ankur Exports

Delhi HC12 Sept 2017ITA/781/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Revenue filed an appeal challenging the ITAT's order regarding a delay in issuing a Section 143(2) notice beyond 12 months. The Single Judge held there was no legal infirmity in the impugned order and no substantial question of law arose, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with the view that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order and no substantial question of law arises.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, DELHI-17 Vs Ankur Exports — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~23

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ITA No. 781/2017

¶4

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-17 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Sr.Standing Counsel.

¶5

versus

¶6

ANKUR EXPORTS ..... Respondent Through: None.

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

¶8

O R D E R % 12.09.2017

¶9

C.M. No. 33298/2017 (Exemptions)

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

C.M. No. 33299/2017 (delay in re-filing)

¶12

For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned and the application is disposed of.

¶13

ITA No. 781/2017

¶14

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against an order dated 16^th November 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in IT(SS)A No.19/Del/2011 for the block period 1^st April 1996 to 6^th March 2003.

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

ITA 781/2017

¶17

The question urged by the Revenue for consideration is:

¶18

“Whether the Ld. ITAT was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer should have issued the notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act within time limit for issuance of notice in this regard which was done much beyond the time limit?”

¶19

The ITAT has, by the impugned order, upheld the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] that the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act was beyond the prescribed period of 12 months from the date of filing of the return under Section 158 BD of the Act. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hotel Blue Moon, [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC) .

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, the Court is of the view that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order of the ITAT and no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

¶21

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶22

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

¶23

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶24

SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 ‘anb’

¶25

Page 2 of 2

¶26

ITA 781/2017

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, DELHI-17 v. Ankur Exports

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, DELHI-17 v. Ankur Exports

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surjit Kumar Chetal Vs Commissioner of Income Tax-Xv

Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 2 Vs M/S Cheil India Private Limited

National Engineering Industries Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Surya Recreation Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Comniissioner of Income Tax (Tds) & Ors.

Ester Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax IV

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax - 12 New Delhi Vs Ms. Sudhiksha Singh