DIVINE INFRACON PVT LTD vs PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3

Judgment text excerpt

$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 08.01.2025 + ITA 426/2024 DIVINE INFRACON PVT LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr Salil Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr Mr Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 .....Respondent Through: Mr Vipul Agrawal, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Gibran Naushad and Ms Sakshi Shairwal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ. 1. The appellant (hereafter the Assessee) has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) impugning an order dated 07.02.2024 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ITAT) in ITA No.3067/Del/2014 in respect of assessment year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The Revenue had preferred the aforementioned appeal (ITA No. 3067/Del/2014) impugning an order dated 24.02.2014 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XXXII, New Delhi [hereafter the CIT(A)] in respect of AY 2009-10. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:15.01.2025 ITA 426/2024 Page 1 of 12 11:05:06 3. The Revenue had challenged the learned CIT(A)’s order, essentially, on two grounds. First, that the learned CIT(A) had erred in holding that the provisions of Section 153A of the Act are inapplicable as no incriminating material was found during the course of the search and seizure. And second, that the learned CIT(A) had erred in law in deleting an addition of ₹4,30,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act. QUESTION OF LAW 4. The present appeal was admitted by an order dated 13.09.2024 on the following question of law: “1. Whether the Tribunal has grossly erred in allowing the appeal of the Re