Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Indian Habitat Centre

$~119 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 26/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) ..... Appellant Through:

Ms Vibhuti Malhotra, Adv.

versus INDIAN HABITAT CENTRE ..... Respondent Through

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

O R D E R

% 06.02.2017 CM No.963/2017 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CM Nos.964-965/2017 These are applications for condoning the delay of 9 days in filing and 40 days in re-filing the appeal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/revenue. The delay is condoned. The applications stand allowed. ITA 26/2017 This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.2390/DEL/2015 pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11. The said appeal before the tribunal was against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi dated 27.03.2015 which he had passed in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the said Act. One of the points raised in the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was that the order passed under Section 263 of the said Act was without jurisdiction inasmuch

as the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143 (3) of the said Act was not erroneous.

The pointed issue was with regard to the principle of mutuality.

The tribunal has examined this aspect in detail as would be evident from paragraphs 8 to 8.6 of the impugned order. The tribunal has also examined, in paragraph 8.3, the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Green World Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC) with regard to the scope and powers under Section 263 of the said Act. It was also observed that an order would be erroneous only when the assessing officer makes no enquiries during the course of the assessment proceedings. In the present case the tribunal found as a fact that the "Principle of Mutuality" had been examined threadbare by the assessing officer itself and therefore it was not a case where the Commissioner could have exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the said Act. In these circumstances, we do not feel that there is any substantial question of law which arises for the consideration, of this Court. The appeal is dismissed. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J J.R. MIDHA, J FEBRUARY 06, 2017 ns