The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1182 (SC) : (2020) 270 TAXMAN 0183

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 61 Section 271D Section 269SS

Where the department preferred SLP to appeal against the Order of Delhi High Court in Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [ITA No. 1178 of 2017, C.M Appl. 46756 of 2017, dt. 21-12-2017] : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 1341 (Del-HC), whereby the High Court held that Tribunal completely ignored its previous order which had the effect of restoring the matter back to AO for the relevant assessment years for fresh assessment, that the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, Ambala City (2015) 379 ITR 521 (SC) : 2015 TaxPub(DT0 551 (SC) is authority for the proposition of law that after remand, the matter is at large and , AO has to apply his mind afresh to materials and circumstances based on which the appropriate provision could be sought recourse to. Order was accordingly set aside and it was open to AO to consider all the materials afresh and pass appropriate orders, having regard to the current position, in accordance with law on the merits as to the valaution, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.

Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition - Condonation of delay - Penalty under section 271D--Allegation that sum received by assessee contrary to section 269SS

Department preferred SLP to appeal against the order of Delhi High Court in Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [ITA No. 1178 of 2017, C.M Appl. 46756 of 2017, dt. 21-12-2017] : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 1341 (Del-HC), whereby the High Court held that Tribunal completely ignored its previous order which had the effect of restoring the matter back to AO for the relevant assessment years for fresh assessment, that the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City (2015) 379 ITR 521 (SC) : 2015 TaxPub(DT0 551 (SC) is authority for the proposition of law that after remand, the matter is at large and , AO has to apply his mind afresh to materials and circumstances based on which the appropriate provision could be sought recourse to. Order was accordingly set aside and it was open to AO to consider all the materials afresh and pass appropriate orders, having regard to the current position, in accordance with law on the merits as to the valaution. Held: There was delay of 254 days in filing the Special Leave Petition for which no reasonable explanation has been given. Even otherwise, there was no merit in the special leave petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed both on the ground of delay and merit. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT