Full Text
Decision delivered on: 16.08.2023
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -3 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Shivendra Singh and
Mr Puneett Singhal, Standing Counsels.
Through: None.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -3 ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Shivendra Singh and
Mr Puneett Singhal, Standing Counsels.
Through: None.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
CM No.41738/2023 in ITA 451/2023 CM No.41740/2023 in ITA 452/2023
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. ITA 451-52/2023 Pg. 2 of 3 CM No.41739/2023 in ITA 451/2023 CM No.41741/2023 in ITA 452/2023 [Applications filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the appeals]
2. These are the applications filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals. 2.[1] According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 38 days.
3. Regarding the nature of the delay involved, we are inclined to condone the delay. 3.[1] It is ordered accordingly.
4. The applications are, accordingly, disposed of. ITA 451/2023 ITA 452/2023
5. These appeals concern Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 [ITA No.451/2023] and AY 2013-14 [ITA No.452/2023].
6. Via the above-captioned appeals, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail a common order dated 14.12.2022.
8. Mr Gaurav Gupta, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, does not dispute the fact that the appeal concerning substantive addition is pending adjudication before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”].
9. It is, however, Mr Gupta’s contention that the additions made vis-àvis the respondent/assessee, albeit, on protective basis which were the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal could have been kept pending instead of being closed. ITA 451-52/2023 Pg. 3 of 3
10. According to us, that was one alternative. The other alternative was, which is what the Tribunal has done, to dispose of the appeal with a caveat that “in the event of any deletion” in the hands of Mr P.K. Jindal wherein substantial additions were made, the appellant/revenue will have liberty to take further steps against the respondent/assessee in accordance with law.
11. According to us, this would mean that if the appellant/revenue were to fail in the matter concerning substantive additions, it would have leave to reopen the appeal pending before the Tribunal.
12. The above-captioned appeals are, thus, closed.
13. A copy of the order passed today will be dispatched by the Registry to the respondent/assessee via all modes including e-mail.
14. The appellant/revenue is also given liberty to serve a copy of the order passed today on the respondent/assessee.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J GIRISH KATHPALIA, J AUGUST 16, 2023