Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sikka Overseas Pvt. Ltd. on 23 September, 2010
Author: Manmohan
20-21
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 640/2010
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, Advocate.
versus
SIKKA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. K.R. Manjani, Advocate.
And
+ ITA 644/2010
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, Advocate.
versus
SIKKA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. K.R. Manjani, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 23rd 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
ITAs No.640/2010 & 644/2010 Page 1 of 4
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J
1. The present two appeals have been filed under Section 260A of
the Income Tax Act,1961 (for brevity "Act") challenging the common
judgment and order dated 06th August, 2009 passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in ITAs No. 1480/Del/2008
and 799/Del/2009 for the Assessment Year 2005-2006.
2. It is pertinent to mention that while the first appeal is a quantum
appeal, the second is a penalty appeal. However, as both the appeals
arise out of a single judgment, they are being disposed of by a common
order.
3. Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, learned counsel for the revenue pointed
out that the respondent-assessee had neither produced the relevant
documents before the Assessing Officer (in short, "AO") nor had made
any request under Rule 46A of the Act for admission of the said
documents as additional evidence. Consequently, Ms. Aggarwal
submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in holding that the
respondent-assessee had produced all the relevant documents before the
AO especially when AO in his assessment order had stated that though
confirmation from the Director had been filed but no copy of bank
account and I.T. particulars had been furnished by the respondent-
assessee before the AO.
4. However, upon perusal of the impugned order, we find that the
final fact finding authority namely, the Tribunal has found that the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, "CIT(A)"] had
wrongly treated the papers filed by the respondent-assessee as new
evidence when from the written submissions filed by the respondent-
assessee before the CIT(A), it was apparent that the said documents had
been placed along with the paper book. Since this fact was not disputed
by the departmental representative, the Tribunal concluded that the
said relevant papers along with copy of confirmation and returns had
been filed before the AO.
5. During the course of hearing, we offered to Ms. Suruchii
Aggarwal, learned counsel for the revenue that if she would like to
withdraw the present appeals to file an application under Section 254(2)
of the Act. However, she stated that she had no instructions to make
such a statement. In any event, in our opinion, the said finding can
neither be disputed nor said to be perverse especially when the appeal
paper book filed by the respondent-assessee before the CIT(A) has not
been filed along with the appeal.
6. Morever, upon perusal of the appeal paper book, we find that as
the respondent-assessee Director's identity was established and the
transactions were not denied, the initial burden cast on the respondent-
assessee stood discharged. Accordingly, the present quantum appeal,
being bereft of merit, is dismissed.
7. Since we are not inclined to interfere in the quantum appeal, the
second appeal pertaining to penalty is also dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
SEPTEMBER 23, 2010
js
