Ita/432/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Salora International Ltd

$~56 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 432/2005THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX..... Appellant ..... Appellant Through:Mr. Asheesh Jain with Mr.Shahrukh Ejaj, Advocates. versus M/S SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD...... RespondentThrough:Mr. Salil Kapoor with Mr. SumitLalchandani, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVAO R D E R%05.12.2017 1.This Court is informed, at the outset, by counsel for theassessee that the questions of law i.e. with respect to the exercise ofpower under Section 263, has been rendered academic.In thiscontext, it is submitted that the ITAT itself had noted in itsimpugned order of 14.01.2005 that the AO, pursuant to thedirections of the CIT, had, on merits, not added the amounts, whichwas the subject matter of the notice under Section 263 except inrelation to royalty. The impugned order records as follows:- “The learned counsel pointed out that in pursuance tothe impugned order of the learned CIT, the learnedAdditional CIT, Range-9, New Delhi has passed theorder dated 22.03.2004 wherein no disallowances oradditions have been made on any of the points stated by the learned CIT in his notice, except in relation toroyalty. While the assessee had claimed the royaltyas revenue expenditure, the learned Additional CITheld otherwise.There was no justification to holdthat the expenditure was not of revenue character. Inthe latter assessment years, viz. 2001-2002 also apartfrom disallowance of royalty expenditure no additionhad been made. Therefore, at best the learned CITcould allege that the assessment order was cryptic.The same could not be made the basis for holding thatorder to be erroneous. Reliance in this respect wasplaced on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & HaryanaHigh Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chawla TrunkHouse, 139 ITR 182 (P&H). 2.In the light of the above facts, the Court is of the opinion thatthe question of law does not arise. In any event, the permissibilityor otherwise of exercise of power under Section 263, in the saidcircumstances, is largely fact dependent and, in any case, thequestion is left open if any additions were made during theconcerned year. 3.The question of law has therefore been rendered infructuous. 4.The appeal is dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J DECEMBER 05, 2017 st SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J