Principal Commissioner Ofincome-Tax-Central Circle-L v. Shrivijay Kumar Kataria

$~* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 3-6+ITA 263/2016 + PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME-TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-L .....AppellantThroughi Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standingcounsel & Mr. Sanjay Kumar Junior Standingcounsel versus SHRIVIJAY KUMAR KATARIA Respondent + WithITA 264/2016PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER. OFINCOME-TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, AppellantThrough: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standingcounsel & Mr. Sanjay Kumar Junior Standingcounsel versus SHRI VIJAY KUMAR KATARIA Respondent + WithITA 265/2016PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME-TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, AppellantThrough: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standingcounsel & Mr. Sanjay Kumar Junior Standingcounsel versus SHRIVIJAY KUMAR KATARIA Respondent + AndITA 266/2016 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME-TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, Appellant Through; Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standingcounsel & Mr. Sanjay Kumar Junior Standingcounsel versus SHRI VIJAY KUMAR KATARIA Respondent CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUORDERo/o 25.04.2016 CM No. 14126 of 2016(exemDtionI in ITA 263 of 2016CM No. 14127 of 2016(exemptionl in ITA 264 of 2016CM No. 14128 of 2016rexemptionl in ITA 265 of 2016 1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. ITA Nos. 263 of 2016. 264 of 2016.265 of 2016 & 266 of 20162. These four appeals preferred by the Revenue are directed against thecommon order dated 17^^ November 2015 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (TTAT') in ITA Nos. 5473 to 5477/Del/2010 for theAssessment Years ('AYs') 2002-03 to 2007-08. 3. The ITAT has in the impugned order relied on the decision of this Courtin CIT V. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380ITR 573(Del.) and held that since therewas no incriminating material found during search qua the Assessee, theproceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961stands vitiated. 4. Learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue states that the Revenuehas gone in appeal before the Supreme Court against the aforementioneddecision in CIT v. Kabul Chawla f^wprajand has therefore preferred theseappeals. 5. the decision in Kabul Chawla this Court finds that noFollowing (supra), substantial question of law arises in these appc^^ls. 6. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J APRIL 25,2016/mg VIBHU BAKHRU, J