Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Delhi v. M/S Aravali Infra Power Ltd
High Court
13 Sep 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Delhi v. M/S Aravali Infra Power Ltd
Date of order
13 Sep 2024
Assessment year(s)
2011-2012
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Delhi v. M/S Aravali Infra Power Ltd, the High Court (2024) decided the matter.
Issue: The Tribunal thereafter is stated to have repeatedly adjourned the appeal to enable the appellant to obtain appropriate instructions as to whether any final assessment had been framed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 445/2024
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI
.....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC.
versus
M/S ARAVALI INFRA POWER LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Somil Agarwal & Mr. Dushyant Agarwal, Advs.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
O R D E R% 13.09.2024
CM APPL. 47213/2024 (60 Days Delay) -CM APPL. 47214/2024 (105 Days Delay in Refiling)
Bearing in the mind the disclosures made, the delay of 60 in filing the appeal and the delay of 105 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
Both the applications shall stand disposed of.
ITA 445/2024
1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“Tribunal”] dated 31 August 2023. That order pertained to an appeal instituted and concerning Assessment Year [“A.Y.”] 2011-2012. The Tribunal had taken note of the view expressed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] which had allowed the appeal of the assessee.
2.We take note of the fact that no substantive additions were made and that the entire proceedings were continuing solely on the
basis of the protective additions which had been suggested. The Tribunal thereafter is stated to have repeatedly adjourned the appeal to enable the appellant to obtain appropriate instructions as to whether any final assessment had been framed.
3.Constrained by a failure on the part of the appellants to apprise the Tribunal of whether a final assessment order had in fact been made, the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the appeal.
4.It becomes pertinent to note that even in the present proceedings, the appellant has been unable to inform us whether any final assessment order has been passed for A.Y. 2011-2012.
5.Since the conceptual distinction between a protective and substantive assessment already stands duly enunciated, we find no justification to entertain the appeal.
6.It consequently fails and shall stand dismissed.
YASHWANT VARMA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
SEPTEMBER 13, 2024
sk
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.