Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions v. Indian Habitat Centre

$~119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 26/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) ..... AppellantThrough:Ms Vibhuti Malhotra, Adv.versus INDIAN HABITAT CENTRE..... Respondent Through CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMEDHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHAO R D E R%06.02.2017 CM No.963/2017 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM Nos.964-965/2017 These are applications for condoning the delay of 9 days in filing and 40days in re-filing the appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for theappellant/revenue. The delay is condoned. The applications stand allowed.ITA 26/2017 This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITANo.2390/DEL/2015 pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11. The said appeal before the tribunal was against an order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi dated 27.03.2015 whichhe had passed in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the said Act. One of thepoints raised in the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was that theorder passed under Section 263 of the said Act was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143 (3) of the said Actwas not erroneous.The pointed issue was with regard to the principle ofmutuality. The tribunal has examined this aspect in detail as would be evident fromparagraphs 8 to 8.6 of the impugned order. The tribunal has also examined, inparagraph 8.3, the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case ofCIT vs.Green World Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC)with regard to the scope and powersunder Section 263 of the said Act. It was also observed that an order would beerroneous only when the assessing officer makes no enquiries during the course ofthe assessment proceedings. In the present case the tribunal found as a fact thatthe “Principle of Mutuality” had been examined threadbare by the assessingofficer itself and therefore it was not a case where the Commissioner could haveexercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the said Act. In these circumstances,we do not feel that there is any substantial question of law which arises for theconsideration, of this Court. The appeal is dismissed. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J FEBRUARY 06, 2017ns J.R. MIDHA, J