Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 v. L.d. Crystals Pvt. Ltd

$~45 & 46 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 1101/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 ..... Appellant Through :Ms Akriti Dewan and Mr SanjayKumar for Mr Rahul Chaudhary,Advocate.Kumar for Mr Rahul Chaudhary,Advocate. versus L.D. CRYSTALS PVT. LTD...... Respondent Through :None. +ITA 1102/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5..... Appellant Through :Ms Akriti Dewan and Mr SanjayKumar for Mr Rahul Chaudhary,Advocate.Kumar for Mr Rahul Chaudhary,Advocate. versus L. D. CRYSTALS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through :None. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVAO R D E R %04.12.2017 CM No. 43776/2017 (exemption) in ITA 1101/2017CM No.43778/2017 (exemption) in ITA 1101/2017 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. -CM No. 43777/2017 (delay in refiling appeal for 20 days) in ITA 1101/2017 -CM No. 43779/2017 (delay in refiling appeal for 20 days) in ITA1102/2017 1.For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned. 2.The applications stand disposed of.ITA Nos.1101/2017 & 1102/2017 1.In these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, the Assessee was subjected to search proceedings and later theassessment was completed under Section 253A and substantialamounts were added in the assessment made. 2.The ITAT ultimately held that the additions were not justified,onapplicationoftheinterpretationtotheprovisionsinCommissioner of Income Tax versus Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573(Del.), since no incriminating material was seized during the search. 3.The Court in Kabul Chawla (supra), had ruled that in theabsence of any incriminating material, the assessment finalizedoriginally could not be re-opened. 4.Having regard to the above circumstances, there is no merit inthe appeals. 5.The appeals are accordingly dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J DECEMBER 04, 2017 ‘Sn’ SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J