Supreme Court: Amalgamating Company Loss Cannot be Set Off Against Amalgamated Income  ||  Supreme Court: Hostile Witness Deposition Admissible to the Extent it is Found Credible and Reliable  ||  SC Upholds Penalty on Bank For Delay in Cheque Presentation under Consumer Protection Act  ||  Karnataka High Court Orders Strict Statewide Implementation of Menstrual Leave Policy  ||  Delhi HC: Emergency Arbitrator Awards are Not Binding on Indian Courts in Interim Relief Proceedings  ||  Del HC Imposes ?10L Fine on Parle Agro For Non-Disclosure of Sales Revenue in Pepsico Trademark Case  ||  Supreme Court: Spouse Cannot Withdraw Consent for Mutual Divorce After Settlement Agreement  ||  Supreme Court Suspends PC Act Sentence of Former Minister Anosh Ekka, Flags Overlapping CBI Cases  ||  Supreme Court: Magistrate’s Probe Order Can’t be Quashed on Accused’s Defence  ||  Delhi High Court: No Adverse Inference if Handwriting Sample Refused Without Section 73 Disclosure    

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (central)-2 Vs. S.S. Con Build Pvt. Ltd. - (High Court of Delhi) (22 Mar 2022)

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

MANU/DE/0901/2022

Direct Taxation

Present appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT]. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,00,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 relying upon the judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla. He states that, ITAT has further erred in deleting the addition on the issue of jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Act without adverting to the facts and merits of the addition.

He emphasises that, ITAT was not justified in law in not appreciating the fact that in the first round the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits of the addition. He further states that, ITAT has erred in not considering that in the first round of litigation the issue of jurisdiction was not decided and the additions were decided/remanded back on merits of the addition.

Admittedly, the present case is covered by the decision of the Division Bench in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, as the additions were not based on the seized material. Further, 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. Consequently, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : ADDITION   DELETION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved