×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various High Courts of India
These are the latest case laws decided by various High Courts of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
260A, GEETANJALI CREDITS, Section 260A, 68, 127, HIGH COURT OF DELHI
The above captioned appeals by Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, for short) in the case of M/s Geetanjali Credits and Capital Limited, formerly known as Shubh International Limited ('respondent- assessee' for short), relate to Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and arise from common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh ('Tribunal', for short) dated 22nd April, 2016 passed in ITA Nos. 920 and 921/CHD/2008 ('impugned order' for short).
2. The appeals were admitted for hearing vide order dated 10th February, 2017 on the following substantial questions of law:-
“(1) Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that reassessment in the circumstances of the case, was not in accordance with law; and
(2) Did the ITAT fall into error in cancelling the additions made to the tune of Rs.2.1 crores and Rs.48.00 lakhs [Sic. Rs. 40.00 lakhs] (for AYs 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, respectively) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of the Assessee, in the circumstances of the case.”
3. The respondent-assessee has not disputed the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court to decide the afore-captioned appeals in view of order dated 31st July, 2014 passed under Section 127 of the Act.
4. Two issues arise for consideration in view of the substantial questions of law framed vide order dated 10th February 2017. First issue relates to validity of proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer vide notice under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act. The second issue relates to merits i.e. deletion of additions of Rs.2.10 crores and Rs.40 lacs made by the Assessing Officer on protective basis for the Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 respectively, which additions were affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on substantive basis.
5. To avoid prolixity, repetition and for convenience, we have with consent of the parties, treated the appeal preferred by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 as the lead case. Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had also treated the appeal for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 as the lead case and followed and applied their findings to the appeal for the Assessment Year 2000-01.Wherever necessary, we would refer to the facts relevant for the Assessment Year 2000-01.
6. Respondent-assessee is a public limited company, that had made a public issue for Rs. 95 Lakhs in December, 1996 which was fully subscribed. The issue was to fund the project for manufacture and sale of egg trays. However, this business/project did not start though the respondent-assessee had acquired about 2 acres of land in village Haripur, Distt. Panchkula in Haryana. Attempt made once to grow crops on the land was not successful due to non-availability of water etc. Thereafter the land could not be put to any use.
7. Bharat Bhushan Goyal, Kewal Krishan and Sunil Gupta were the Directors of the respondent-assessee, during the period relevant to the Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. Sunil Gupta, a Chartered Accountant by profession, was not a shareholder in the respondent-assessee.
8. The respondent-assessee in the return for the Assessment Year 1999- 2000 filed on 31st December, 1999 had declared taxable income of Rs. 6,899/-and in the return for the Assessment Year 2000-2001 filed on 11t June, 2002 had declared loss of Rs. 41,766/-. The returns were processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and were not taken up for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act.
9. On or about 23rd May, 2002 search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the Act were conducted in the case of M/s Lada Liquor