Jay Dee Exports v. Additional Commissioner Of
High Court
20 May 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Jay Dee Exports v. Additional Commissioner Of
Date of order
20 May 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Jay Dee Exports v. Additional Commissioner Of, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.
Issue: The main issue in this writ petition is whether the ITAT has erred in declining to rectify the error pointed out in para 8 of its order dated 26[th]October 2012 in ITA No.
Decision: The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI15.
+ W.P.(C) 4886/2015
JAY DEE EXPORTS
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate.
versus
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME-TAX
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing counsel for Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing counsel.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R% 20.05.2016
1. The main issue in this writ petition is whether the ITAT has erred in declining to rectify the error pointed out in para 8 of its order dated 26[th]October 2012 in ITA No. 2001/Del/2011. In that paragraph, the ITAT had recorded that the Petitioner had never asked for cross-examination of Mr. N.K. Jain.
2. According to learned counsel for the Respondent, the assessment in any event was not based on the statement of Mr. N.K. Jain.
3. From what has been pointed out to this Court by learned counsel for the Petitioner, it appears that the statement as recorded in para 8 of the aforementioned order of the ITAT appears to be erroneous. The documents
W.P(C) No. 4886/2015
show the Petitioner did ask for cross-examination of Mr. N.K. Jain and to that extent the ITAT by the impugned order dated 23rd May 2014 ought not to have declined to correct the error. The Court accordingly orders that the following sentence in para 8 of the ITAT's order dated 26[th] October 2012 viz., "Further, the assessee has never requested to the Assessing Officer to issue summons Sh N.K. Jain for cross-examination" shall stand deleted.
4. However, that would not make a difference to the conclusion of the ITAT as far as the order dated 26[th] October 2012 itself is concerned. The fact remains that the Petitioner did not challenge the said order in an appeal before this Court. If the Petitioner hereafter chooses to challenge the said order dated 26th October 2012 of the ITAT along with an application seeking condonation of delay, that will be considered by the Court in accordance with law.
5. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
S.MURALIDHAR, J
MAY 20, 2016 mg
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
W.P(C) No. 4886/2015
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.