Delhi High Court · 2025-01-30
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2 vs M/S CELEBI DELHI CARGO MANAGEMENT INDIA PVT. LTD.
- Citation / case number
- ITA-619/2019 2025:DHC:830-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2
- Respondent
- M/S CELEBI DELHI CARGO MANAGEMENT INDIA PVT. LTD.
Judgment text excerpt
$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 30.01.2025 + ITA 619/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, JSC, Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC, Mr. Anmol Jagga & Mr. Prathviraj Day, Advs. versus M/S CELEBI DELHI CARGO MANAGEMENT INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Himanshu Aggarwal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR JUDGMENT YASHWANT VARMA, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 dated 23 October 2018 and came to be admitted on the following question of law: - “(a). Whether the ITAT was legally justified in quashing the order passed by the PCIT-2 under Section 263 of the Act which had been passed as the order of the Assessing Officer ["AO"] was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue?” 2. The principal issue which arises for our consideration is 1 Tribunal ITA 619/2019 Signature Not Verified Page 1 of 31 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:15.02.2025 10:31:10 whether the respondent-assessee could have claimed benefits flowing from Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 19612. Although the respondent-assessee was held eligible to claim benefits under that provision by the Assessing Officer3, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax4 while exercising powers under Section 263 chose to overturn the view so expressed. It is this order of the PCIT dated 31 March 2016 which was ultimately assailed before the Tribunal. 3. We find that the PCIT had, while dealing with the question of whether Section 80IA could apply in the case of the respondent- assessee, held as follows: - “No evidence is available on assessment record