ACIT, CC-26, DELHI V. JAI MAA BHAWANI OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., DELHI

ITA 228/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the Revenue against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-29, New Delhi for the Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Initially, the Revenue appeals were decided along with the Assessee's cross objections, leading to the quashing of the assessment and dismissal of the revenue appeals. The Revenue filed Miscellaneous Applications due to the concealment of facts regarding the restoration of the assessee's company name by the NCLT. The Tribunal recalled its earlier order and imposed a cost on the assessee for misleading the Bench. However, since the cross objections had already quashed the assessment, the Tribunal found the revenue appeals to be infructuous and dismissed them.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790956 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D.S. SIDHU
• Assessee Lawyers: SHILPI JAIN

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, DELHI BEFORE SH. M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 228/DEL/2022 (AY 2012-13) AND ITA No. 193/DEL/2022 (AY 2013-14) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, DELHI ROOM NO. 323, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN, DELHI – 110 055 Vs. JAI MAA BHAWANI OVERSEAS PVT LTD., B-5/263, SECTOR-03, ROHINI, DELHI – 110 085 (PAN: AABCJ0239L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Ms. Shilpi Jain, CA Department by Sh. D.S. Sidhu, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 26.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-29, New Delhi pertaining to A.YRS. 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively. Printed from counselvise.com 2 2. The brief background of these appeals are that these Revenue appeals were earlier decided along with the Assessee’s cross objections vide common order dated 22.08.2024 wherein, both the cross objections 17 & 18/Del/2023 of the assessee’s were allowed by quashing the assessment therein and as a result thereof, the said revenue appeals have become infructuous and dismissed as such. Aggrieved, the Revenue has filed two Miscellaneous Applications No. 358 & 360/Del/2024 relating to Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively arising out of revenue ITA Nos. 193 & 228/Del/2022 and the Tribunal vide its common order passed in MA Nos. 358 & 360/Del/2024 relating to Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 has allowed both the misc. applications by recalling the Tribunal order dated 26.03.2025 and held as under:- “..4. However, we note that this particular aspect of restoration of the name of assessee’s company to the Registrar of Companies was concealed before us when these appeals were heard by us on 08.08.2024. In fact, much before the hearing of the matter, the Ld. NCLT passed such order of restoration on 19.02.2020. We also note that inspite of such order having been passed by the Ld. NCLT the appeal being No. 193 & 229/Del/2022 were filed before us raising the ground of assessment order being passed in the name of non-existing company. We deprecate this practice and we note that this is nothing but concealment of fact and attempt to mislead the Bench of the Assessee and therefore, we are constrained to impose cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the assessee which is to be deposited to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF) within 7 days from date, the proof whereof to be furnished before the Registry by the assessee positively by 22.04.2025…” Printed from counselvise.com 3 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, it is noted that only Revenue’s appeals were recalled by the Tribunal, but neither the Revenue has requested to recall the cross objection nor the Assessee has made any similar request. However, the Assessee’s cross objections were allowed by quashing the assessment and as a result thereof the revenue appeals were dismissed. In view of the factual matrix, we find there is no useful purpose is served in adjudicate only the revenue appeals, at this juncture, hence, both the Revenue Appeals have become infructuous and dismissed as such. 4. In the result, both the Revenue appeals stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Date: 12.12.2025 SR BHATNAGGAR Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "