Pr. Commissionerof Income Tax-4, Delhi v. Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd

$~11, 12 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 1044/2018 and CM APPL. 39286/2018 +ITA 1049/2018 PR. COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX-4, DELHI..... AppellantThrough :Mr. Kunal Sharma, Senior StandingCounselforRevenuealongwithMs.Zehra Khan, Advocate. versus GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD. ..... RespondentThrough :Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr.Aniket D.Agrawal, Advocates. % Date of Decision: 18[th]October, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (ORAL): 1.Present Income Tax appeals have been filed challenging the judgmentand order dated 18[th]January, 2018 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, New Delhi (‘the Tribunal’) in ITA Nos. 420/Del/2016and3794/Del/2014 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2010-11 under Section 263of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) The relevant portion of the Signature Not Verified impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow : “On the merits of the case, it can be seen that order underSection 263 of the Act passed, was on the basis of some diarywhich was allegedly stated to be incriminating material by theRevenue and the said diary found in the possession of the thirdparty was held not sufficient to draw an inference about thealleged undisclosed income by the Tribunal vide order dated18/5/2015 in ITA No.5550/Del/2012 and all the advances weredeleted by the Tribunal. Thus, order u/s. 263 of the Act passedby the CIT is set aside. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee isallowed.As related to Revenue Appeal, the same will notsustain as the main issue is already decided by the earlierdecision of this Tribunal.” (emphasis supplied) 2.On 18[th]February, 2020, this Court has passed the following order: “1. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that he has not yetreceived the paper book of the case and the case has beenrecently assigned to him. We are in dismay at the manner inwhich the matter has been pursued by the Revenue. As early ason 25.09.2018, this Court had noticed the submission of theRevenue that against the order dated 18.05.2015, passed by theITAT, which has been relied upon, while passing the impugnedorder, the appeal has been preferred in this Court and is lyingunder office objections. The matter was adjourned at therequest of counsel for the Revenue while making it clear thatno further adjournment shall be granted. Despite that order, onthree occasions, the matter was adjourned. It appears that theappeal preferred against the order dated 18.05.2015 has still notbeen listed before this Court. Learned counsel for the Appellantis not in a position to make the statement in that regard. As avery last and final opportunity, we adjourn the matter whilemaking it clear that under no circumstances, no furtheradjournment shall be granted. 2. List on 28.04.2020.” (emphasis supplied) Signature Not Verified 3.Subsequently, on 2[nd]March, 2021, this Court had passed thefollowing order : “1.Mr.KunalSharma,whoappearsonbehalfoftheappellant/Revenue, says that due to the onset of Covid-19, inspection ofthecasepapersconcerningtheearlierappealfiledbytheappellant/Revenue against theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (inshort -Tribunal') order dated18.05.2015 could not be carried out. 1.1. The record shows that the several opportunities have been taken bythe appellant/Revenue since 25.09.2018. However, given the fact thatin March 2020, on account of Covid-19, Court proceedings weregenerally disrupted, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity tothe appellant/Revenue. 2. To be noted, the order dated 18.05.2015 was passed by theTribunal, in respect of an order passed under Section 263 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. It appears that the Tribunal, via the said order,came to the conclusion that addition to the income of the assesseecould not be made based on purported incriminating material found bythe appellant/Revenue, in a diary, which was in the possession of athird party as it was not sufficient to draw an inference that it was theundisclosed income of the assessee. 1.1. The record shows that the several opportunities have been taken bythe appellant/Revenue since 25.09.2018. However, given the fact thatin March 2020, on account of Covid-19, Court proceedings weregenerally disrupted, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity tothe appellant/Revenue. 2. To be noted, the order dated 18.05.2015 was passed by theTribunal, in respect of an order passed under Section 263 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. It appears that the Tribunal, via the said order,came to the conclusion that addition to the income of the assesseecould not be made based on purported incriminating material found bythe appellant/Revenue, in a diary, which was in the possession of athird party as it was not sufficient to draw an inference that it was theundisclosed income of the assessee. 3. The order, which is assailed by the appellant/Revenue and is thesubject-matter of the instant appeals [i.e., the order of the Tribunaldated 18.01.2018], is pivoted on the order dated 18.05.2015. 4. Therefore, it is made clear that if the appellant/Revenue is unableto bring up its appeal against the order dated 18.05.2015, on the nextdate of hearing, then, these appeals shall stand closed without furtherrecourse. 5. Accordingly, at the request of Mr. Kunal Sharma, list the captionedmatters on 20.04.2021.” (emphasis supplied) Signature Not Verified 4.Today, also the appeal against the order dated 18[th]May, 2015 is notlisted. 5.Learned counsel for the appellant prays for an adjournment onceagain. 6.However, keeping in view the clear, categorical and peremptorydirections given by the learned Predecessor Division Benches vide ordersdated 18[th]February, 2020 and 2[nd]March, 2021, the prayer for adjournmentis declined and present appeals are dismissed in accordance with the saidorders. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J OCTOBER 18, 2022 j ITA 1044/2018 and 1049/2018