Supreme Court upholds Section 271(1B) of Income Tax Act in appeal against Delhi High Court decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India and the Department against the Delhi High Court's decision upholding the Constitutional validity of Section 271 (1B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent/Assessee had obtained relief from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and the subsequent appeal by the Revenue was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. The appeal was deemed infructuous, and the questions of law were left open for future cases.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the Constitutional validity of Section 271 (1B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directions issued by the Delhi High Court, remand to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), relief granted to the respondent/Assessee, appeal filed by the Revenue, dismissal of the appeal by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, rendering of the appeal infructuous, and leaving open questions of law for future cases.

The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Union of India and the Department against the Delhi High Court's decision upholding the Constitutional validity of Section 271 (1B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and issuing certain directions. The respondent/Assessee had the matter remanded to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for fresh consideration following the Delhi High Court's order. Subsequently, the ITAT granted relief to the respondent/Assessee by allowing her appeal. The Revenue challenged this decision in ITA No.47/2013 before the Delhi High Court, which ultimately dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants was deemed infructuous in relation to the respondent/Assessee.

The learned counsel for the appellant(s)/Union of India and Anr. did not dispute the facts presented by the respondent's counsel. However, they requested that the questions of law arising in the appeal be kept open for future litigation in suitable cases. In light of the submissions from both parties, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal concerning only the respondent/Assessee due to the developments outlined. The questions of law raised in the appeal were preserved for the appellants to raise in any appropriate future case as deemed necessary. The pending application(s) were disposed of accordingly.

---