Supreme Court: Air Force Group Insurance Society qualifies as ‘State’ under Article 12  ||  SC: Anganwadi Workers With Degrees Are Eligible For The 29% Quota For Supervisors in Kerala  ||  SC: Giving Accused the Option of Search Before a Police Officer Breaches Section 50 of the NDPS Act  ||  Gujarat HC: Person is Entitled to Compensation For Injury or Death Within Railway Station Premises  ||  Delhi HC: PMLA Can Apply Even if the Scheduled Offence Occurred Before the Law Came Into Force  ||  J&K&L HC: Accused Can Admit Evidence Recorded under Section 299 Crpc After Appearing in Court  ||  J&K&L HC: District Judge Serving as Reference Court under Land Acquisition Act Acts as a Civil Court  ||  Del HC: Subsequent Bail Pleas From Same FIR Should Usually Go Before the Judge Who Denied the First  ||  J&K&L HC: Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, Despite Statutory Status, is Not a ‘State’ under Article 12  ||  SC: Confirmation of an Auction Sale Does Not Bar Judicial Scrutiny of Reserve Price Valuation    

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