Allowed

Shri Jai Kishan Goel v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Delhi HC3 Apr 2018ITA/112/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of appeals against an ITAT order, holding that adverse inferences regarding the assessee's conduct and allegations of notice tampering were unwarranted. The court directed the expungement of such observations from the ITAT order and disposed of all pending applications.

What did the court decide?

Directed expungement of adverse observations regarding conduct and notice tampering; disposed of appeals and pending applications.

Shri Jai Kishan Goel Vs Principal Commissioner of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~1 & 2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ITA 112/2018 & CM APPL. 4000/2018

¶4

ITA 113/2018 & CM APPL. 4001/2018

¶5

SHRI JAI KISHAN GOEL ..... Appellant Through Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal, Ms. Manika Ghai and Mr.Rohit Kumar Gupta, Advs.

¶6

versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing Counsel.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 03.04.2018

¶10

The assessee’s grievance in this appeal is that the ITAT’s order impugned in the proceedings has made certain adverse remarks which impinges on his conduct and action.

¶11

The controversy was whether the Assessing Officer had issued a notice returnable on 16.11.2007. The assessee alleges that the notice in fact received by him reflected 26.11.2007 as the returnable date. The AO brought to tax certain amounts under Section 68 in the ex-parte best judgment assessment under Section 144; the assessee succeeded before the CIT(A). The Revenue’s appeal to the ITAT was

¶12

allowed. In the course of the order, the ITAT made certain observations with respect to the assessee’s submissions about the date of the notice; imputing motives to him. The assessee sought rectification of those observations under Section 254(2); his attempts on this score were unsuccessful because the application was dismissed.

¶13

This Court has considered the materials on record and heard the counsel for the parties.

¶14

Adverse inferences drawn by the Tribunal, having regard to the totality of the circumstances do not appear to be warranted or justified. Accordingly, its observations with respect to conduct and allegations with respect to the tampering of the notice so far as it pertains to the date are hereby directed to be expunged.

¶15

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. All the pending applications are also disposed of.

¶16

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

¶17

A. K. CHAWLA, J

¶18

APRIL 03, 2018 rc

Shri Jai Kishan Goel v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Jai Kishan Goel v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Budhi Vidhata Jan Kalyan Samiti Vs Union of India & Anr.

Discovery Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Xiii, & Anr.

Apar Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Director of Income Tax Delhi Vs the Delhi Public School Society

Director of Income Tax Exemption Vs the Delhi Public School Society

Director of Income Tax Exemption Vs the Delhi Public School Society