P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved