High CourtsDivision Bench(2022) 01 DEL CK 0125

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) � 3 vs Ishwar Chand Mittal

Delhi High Court · Decided on 12 January 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manmohan, J · Navin Chawla, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Income Tax Appeal No. 7 Of 2022, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1972 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 310 words

Manmohan, J

1.

The appeal has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2.

Present appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] dated 25th August, 2020 rejecting the

appellant’s appeal being ITA 8706/Del/2019 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

3.

The relevant facts of the present case are that the respondent/assessee filed the original return of income on 27th July, 2011. A search was

conducted at the premises of the respondent/assessee on 22nd March, 2012 and the assessment was framed under Section 153A of the Income Tax

Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) vide order dated 28th February, 2014.

4.

On 31st March, 2016, a notice of reassessment under Section 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the respondent/assessee. The reason for

re-opening the assessment was that the Investigation Directorate of Kolkata had informed the Assessing Officer that the respondent/assessee had

traded in penny stocks and used the said transactions to allegedly book bogus claims of Long Term Capital Gain.

5.

However, the admitted position is that the Long Term Capital Gain had not only been disclosed in the return of income by the respondent/assessee,

but the same was also claimed to be exempt.

6.

No adverse inference was made to the returned income of the respondent/assessee even when the Assessing Officer was fully aware of the Long

Term Capital Gain claimed as exempt from tax.

7.

Consequently, this Court is of the view that in the garb of reassessment proceedings, the appellant cannot seek to verify the same details on the

strength of material which was already available on record. This Court is also in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that the assumption of

jurisdiction by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act is bad in law. Accordingly, the present appeal and application are dismissed.