Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-1, Delhi Vs Ravi Bharadwaj — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-1, Delhi Vs Ravi Bharadwaj — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revenue's appeal rejected/dismissed; liberty granted to the Revenue to move a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal should any occasion arise after completion of the Black Money Act, 2015 proceedings; pending application CM APPL. 45025/2026 disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should interfere with the Tribunal's dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, founded on the Tribunal's view that the Assessing Officer's framing of protective assessments under the Income Tax Act, 1961 was premature while proceedings under the Black Money Act were underway. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court found hardly any substance in the contention urged by learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue).

Ratio / Principle

Interference was declined because, as observed by the Tribunal, the Revenue was unable to point out any incriminating material, and existence or absence of incriminating material is a finding of fact which does not call for interference.

Key takeaways

In view of the expression used by the Tribunal (that it was not inclined to disturb the CIT(A)'s finding), liberty was granted to the Revenue to move a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal should any occasion arise after completion of the Black Money Act, 2015 proceedings, while rejecting the appeal.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi | ITA 545/2026 & CM APPL. 45025/2026 | Order dated 20 July 2026 | Dinesh Mehta & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ. — Held: Existence or absence of incriminating material is a finding of fact and does not call for interference. The Tribunal (ITAT, Delhi Bench 'A'), by order dated 21.01.2026, had dismissed the Revenue's appeal, observing that the Assessing Officer's framing of a protective assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 was premature as proceedings under the Black Money Act, 2015 were still underway, and noting that the Revenue was unable to point out any incriminating material. Finding hardly any substance in the Revenue's challenge, the High Court, considering the Tribunal's recorded expression that it was not inclined to disturb the CIT(A)'s finding, granted liberty to the Revenue to move a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal should any occasion arise after completion of the Black Money Act proceedings, and rejected the appeal; the pending application was disposed of.

$~89

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- ITA 545/2026 & CM APPL. 45025/2026

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr. Ashwini Kumar & Mr. Rishabh Nangia, JSCs.

versus

RAVI BHARADWAJ .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

O R D E R

% 20.07.2026

Mr Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel, contended that the Tribunal order dated 21.01.2026 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-‘A’, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟) has erred in dismissing the Revenue’s appeal by observing that the Assessing Officer’s approach in framing a protective assessment under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 was premature, as the proceedings under the Black Money Act were still underway.

Learned counsel argued that the proceedings under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as „Black Money Act, 2015‟) pertained to different assessment years and therefore, the appeal of Revenue qua the Assessment

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 23/07/2026 at 12:01:02

Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 under the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not have been dismissed, as the assessments were protective in nature.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we hardly find any substance in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant. More particularly, in light of the observation made by the Tribunal that the Revenue was unable to point out any incriminating material. Existence of or absence of incriminating material is a finding of fact, which does not call for interference.

At this juncture, Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel, invited Court’s attention towards the observation made by the Tribunal in para no. 16 of the impugned order, wherein it has recorded- “at this stage, we are not inclined to disturb the finding of the learned CIT(A)” and prayed that atleast this liberty be granted to the Revenue to move a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal that in case any occasion so arises after the completion of the proceedings under the Black Money Act, 2015, they may do so.

In view of the expression used by the Tribunal as noted above, we grant such liberty while rejecting the appeal.

The pending application is disposed of.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

JULY 20, 2026 /nk

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 23/07/2026 at 12:01:02