TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal challenging ITAT order under Income Tax Act dismissed for lack of substantial question of law</h1> <h3>PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) -2 Versus S.S. CON BUILD PVT. LTD.</h3> The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the ITAT order that deleted the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the ... Assessment u/s 153A - Addition u/s 68 - addition based on seized material or not? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the present case is covered by the decision of the Division Bench in CIT vs Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT]as the additions were not based on the seized material. It is settled law that the issue of jurisdiction goes to the roots of the cause and such an issue can be raised at any belated stage of the proceeding including appeal. (See: Kanwar Singh Saini vs High Court of Delhi [2011 (9) TMI 960 - SUPREME COURT] And M/s Mavany Brothers vs. CIT [2015 (10) TMI 1093 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Consequently, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Issues:Challenge to ITAT order deleting addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Act.Analysis:The appellant challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleting the addition of Rs.7,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contended that the ITAT erred in relying on a previous judgment and not considering the facts and merits of the addition. Additionally, the appellant argued that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on the merits of the addition. The appellant also highlighted that the issue of jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Act was not properly addressed by the ITAT in the first round of litigation, where the additions were decided based on the merits of the addition.The Court noted that the present case fell within the purview of the decision in CIT vs Kabul Chawla, as the additions were not supported by the seized material. It was emphasized that the issue of jurisdiction is fundamental and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, including on appeal. The Court cited relevant case law to support this principle, such as Kanwar Singh Saini vs High Court of Delhi and M/s Mavany Brothers vs. CIT. As a result, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the ITAT order that deleted the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the jurisdiction issue under Section 153A of the Act. The Court found that the ITAT's decision was in line with established legal principles, and no substantial question of law was identified for further consideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
