The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Flawless Holding & Industries ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 4385 Del

                                                                                     #12
$~
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       ITA 1400/2010
THE COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX                                      ..... Appellant
                 Through                        Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Senior
                                                Standing Counsel.

                        versus

FLAWLESS HOLDING &
INDUSTRIES LTD.                                 ..... Respondent

                 Through                        Mrs. Kavita Jha, Advocate


%                                        Date of Decision: 17th September, 2010

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.

MANMOHAN, J:

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961")

challenging the order dated 23rd September, 2009 passed by the Income

Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "Tribunal") in ITA No.

1494/Del/2008 for the Assessment Year 2001-02.

2. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned senior standing counsel for the

Revenue submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the

addition of ` 21,81,983/- made by the Assessing Officer (for short

„AO‟) on account of income from undisclosed sources.

3. However, upon a perusal of the file we find that the said addition

was deleted both by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and

Tribunal on the ground that the respondent-assessee had sold the shares

during the last Assessment Year 2000-01 and the income arising

therefrom had been accepted by the Department in that year. Further,

we find that the Department has not controverted the charge of the

assessee that additions were made on general statements and more

importantly, no opportunity for cross-examination was provided to the

assessee and hence, assessment order has been right set aside.

4. Consequently, in our opinion, there is no scope for interference

with the impugned order. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed

in limine.

MANMOHAN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE SEPTEMBER 17, 2010 rn