Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. Gabs Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.through:none

$~50 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 126/2017 & CM No.4722/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV..... AppellantThrough:Mr. Zoheb Hossain and Mr. DeepakAnand, Advocates. Versus GABS FABRICS PVT. LTD.Through:None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R%07.02.2017 1.The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal (‘ITAT’), which in a reassessment proceeding, upset the findings ofthe Assessment Officer (‘AO’) and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’]. 2.The brief facts of the case are that the assessment proceedings framedunder Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) were reopenedby a notice under Sections 147/148 of the Act.In the course of thereassessment, the AO added a sum of `45,42,125/- under Sections 68/69C ofthe Act. The assessee’s appeal to the CIT(A) was unsuccessful. The ITATreasoned that contrary to the lower authorities’ findings - the relevantmaterials in the form of bank statements, PAN of the share applicants,Income Tax Returns, and other relevant particulars were part of the record. Upon re-appreciation of these materials, the ITAT concluded that theadditions were unwarranted. 3.This Court has gone through the grounds urged in support of theappeal and also heard submissions of the Revenue.At the outset, it isnoticed that the appeal is highly belated – and has been re-filed after 759days. The rationale for the delay is change of counsel and also, apparently,the heavy workload of the Revenue. These cannot be legitimate grounds forcondoning the delay. 4.Quite apart from the question of delay, the Court is of the opinion thatthe ITAT’s appreciation of the facts as closure is based upon records.Furthermore, the tax effect in this case – upon an addition of `45,42,125/-, isalso low. In the circumstances, given that the findings affected cannot becalled unreasonable, and also on the ground of delay, the application and theappeal are dismissed as meritless. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. FEBRUARY 07, 2017sb NAJMI WAZIRI, J.