Full Text
ITA 274/2016
THEPRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-18 Appellant
Through: Mr.Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing counsel with Mr.Sanjay Kumar,Advocate.
Through:Mr.Piyush Kausik,Advocate.
6./
THEPRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME
Through:Mr.Piyush Kausik,Advocate.
ORDER o/o 29.04.2016 CM No.15007/2016(for exemption!in ITA No.276/2016
ITA Nos.274/2016&276/2016 ^ 2016:DHC:8487-DB 1.Exemption allowed subjectto alljust exceptions.
2.The application is disposed of.
ITA No.274/2016 & 276/2016 3.These appeals by the Revenue are,under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax
Act, 1961 ('Act'), against the common
JUDGMENT
2140/Del/2006 and 2141/Del/2006 for Assessment Years ('AYs') 1998-99 and 1999-2000.
4. By the impugned order, the ITAT dismissed the appeal ofthe Assessee and allowed the cross objections ofthe Assessee.
5. The short point involved is whether the ITAT was correct in concluding that there had to be incriminating material recovered during the search qua the Assessee in each ofthe years for the purposes offraming an assessment under Section 153A ofthe Act?
6. Itis notin dispute thatin respect ofthe Respondent Assessee for the AYs in question the initial assessment proceedings took place under Section 143(3)ofthe Act. Thereafter they were sought to be reopened by issuing notice under Section 147 ofthe Act and re-assessment orders were passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act. During both the aforementioned proceedings the question whether the gold and silver utensils were the capital assets or personal effects of the Assessee was examined.They were held notto be the personal effects. ITA Nos.274/2016&276/2016 ^
7. It has been noticed by the ITAT in the impugned order thatfor the AYs in question no incriminating material quathe Assessee wasfound.
8. In that view ofthe matter,and in light ofthe decision ofthis Court in CIT
V. Kabul Chawla[2016]380ITR 573(Delhi),the Court is ofthe view that the impugned order of the ITAT suffers from no legal infirmity and no substantial question oflaw arises for determination.
9. The appeals are dismissed.
S.MURALIDHAR,J VIBHU BAKHRU,J APRIL 29,2016/dn ITA Nos.274/2016&276/2016 Page3of[3] £) $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
21. + ITA 274/2016 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME Through: Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing counsel with Mr Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing counsel, versus MS.LATA JAIN, Respondent Through:MrPiyush Kaushik,Advocate. AND
22. + ITA 276/2016 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18 Appellant Through: Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing counsel with Mr Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing counsel, versus MS.LATA JAIN Respondent Through:MrPiyush Kaushik,Advocate. "CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR ORDER % 06.05.2016
1. These appeals are taken up on the basis ofan office note. The order dated 29^^ April,2016is corrected and shallread as under: "+ ITA 274/2016 counsel with Mr.Sanjay Kumar,Advocate, versus Through:Mr.Piyush Kaushik,Advocate. AND + ITA 276/2016 Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing versus Through:Mr.Piyush Kaushik,Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER % 29.04.2016 CM No.15007/2016(for exemption!in ITA No.276/2016
1. Exemption allowed subjectto alljust exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of. ITA No.274/2016 & 276/2016
3. These appeals by the Revenue are, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), against the common judgment dated 29^*^ May 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal('ITAT')in ITA Nos. 2140/Del/2008 and 2141/Del/2008 for Assessment Years ('AYs') 1998-99 and 1999-2000.
4. By the impugned order, the ITAT dismissed the appeal of the Assessee and allowed the cross objections ofthe Assessee. G)
5. The short point involved is whether the ITAT was correctin concluding that there had to be incriminating material recovered during the search qua the Assessee in each of the years for the purposes offraming an assessment under Section 153A ofthe Act?
6. It is not in dispute that in respect of the Respondent Assessee for the AYs in question the initial assessment proceedings took place under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter they were sought to be reopened by issuing notice under Section 147 of the Act and re-assessment orders were passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3)ofthe Act. During both the aforementioned proceedings the question whether the gold and silver utensils were the capital assets or personal effects of the Assessee was examined. They were held notto be the personal effects.
7. It has been noticed by the ITAT in the impugned order that for the AYs in question no incriminating material qua the Assessee was found.
8. In that view ofthe matter,and in light ofthe decision ofthis Court in CIT v. Kabul Chawla[2016]380ITR 573 (Delhi), the Court is ofthe view that the impugned order ofthe ITAT suffers from no legal infirmity and no substantial question of law arises for determination.
9. The appeals are dismissed." S.MURALIDHAR,J VIBHU BAKHRU,J