$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                  Judgment delivered on: 27.11.2017
+       ITA 54/2017
        PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF
        INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) ­ 1                    ..... Appellant
                          Through :     Mr Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.

                          versus

        ADITYA KHANNA                             ..... Respondent
                    Through :           Mr B.N.Goswamy, Advocate.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
1.      The Revenue's grievance in this case is that its appeal is
rejected by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on the ground
that the tax effect is lower than the stipulated amount in terms of the
prevailing Circular.    The assessments involving similar questions
were remitted for fresh consideration to the Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals) in the case of other parties, i.e. Mr Arvind Khanna and
Mr Navin Khanna.






2.      The Revenue urges that the sum of Rs.33,51,269/-, in the facts
and circumstances of this case, has to be added under Section 68 of
the Income Tax Act (hereafter referred to as `the Act').


ITA 54/2017                                                      Page 1 of 3
3.        Learned counsel relies upon the notice issued under Section
148 of the Act contending that the Revenue had received information
from the Enforcement Directorate with respect to the possible
disallowance under Section 68.

4.            The Assessee, who is represented by the counsel, urges that
the respondent is a non-resident and the amounts were remitted by one
M/s. Newheaven Nominees Limited.

5.        It is contended that the original assessment was completed
after filing of Return, when the net income was declared as
Rs.98,850/-. Soon thereafter, proceedings under Section 148 were
initiated culminating by substantial acceptance of the Assessee's
arguments and not resulting in any noticeable addition ­ by an order
dated 31.12.2007.        The Assessee has produced the copy of that
Assessment Order.          It refers to a letter of the Directorate of
Enforcement dated 28.03.2006, mentioning about some transactions
by the Assessee. The Revenue appears to have issued a fresh notice
under Section 148 on 23.02.2012 and recounted virtually the same
facts.

6.       In this case, the Assessing Officer (A.O.) appears to have
completely ignored the earlier re-assessment order ­ framed under
Section 148/143(3) on 31.12.2007.          The first re-assessment order
noticed all the relevant facts and accepted the net income at
Rs.1,03,890/- . The assessment made in the course of assessment
proceeding, in the present case, does not refer to any subsequent

ITA 54/2017                                                      Page 2 of 3
material other than the Directorate of Enforcement's letter of
28.03.2006; instead the A.O. appears to have just made a Chart as the
basis even while acknowledging that the earlier re-assessment
proceedings were concluded on 31.12.2007, clearly stated that
"perusal in assessment records reveals that the remittances received
are not considered in the return of income filed by the Assessee and in
the course of the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Years
2003-2004 & 2006-2007". That clearly shows that the A.O. ignored
that the material, which led the Revenue to re-open the Assessment, in
the first instance, was the same that he sought to resuscitate in order to
make substantial additions.






7.        Having regard to these facts, the Court is of the opinion that
no substantial question of law arises.

8.      The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.


                                                S. RAVINDRA BHAT
                                                     (JUDGE)



                                               SANJEEV SACHDEVA
                                                    (JUDGE)


NOVEMBER 27, 2017
`Sn'




ITA 54/2017                                                       Page 3 of 3