PCIT Vs Ravi Bharadwaj (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court considered the Revenue’s appeal against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 21.01.2026, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and observed that the Assessing Officer’s framing of protective assessments under the Income-tax Act, 1961 was premature as proceedings under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 were still pending.
The Revenue contended that the proceedings under the Black Money Act, 2015 related to different assessment years and, therefore, the appeals concerning Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 under the Income-tax Act, 1961 should not have been dismissed merely because the assessments were protective in nature.
After hearing the Revenue, the High Court held that it found hardly any substance in the contention. The Court particularly noted the Tribunal’s finding that the Revenue had been unable to point out any incriminating material. It observed that the existence or absence of incriminating material is a finding of fact and does not warrant interference.
The Revenue also referred to paragraph 16 of the Tribunal’s order, wherein the Tribunal had recorded that it was “not inclined to disturb the finding of the learned CIT(A),” and sought liberty to file a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal if the need arose after completion of the proceedings under the Black Money Act, 2015.
Taking note of the Tribunal’s expression, the High Court granted the Revenue such liberty while rejecting the appeal. The pending application was also disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Mr Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel, contended that the Tribunal order dated 21.01.2026 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-‘A’, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟) has erred in dismissing the Revenue’s appeal by observing that the Assessing Officer’s approach in framing a protective assessment under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 was premature, as the proceedings under the Black Money Act were still underway.
2. Learned counsel argued that the proceedings under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as „Black Money Act, 2015‟) pertained to different assessment years and therefore, the appeal of Revenue qua the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 under the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not have been dismissed, as the assessments were protective in nature.
3.Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we hardly find any substance in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant. More particularly, in light of the observation made by the Tribunal that the Revenue was unable to point out any incriminating material. Existence of or absence of incriminating material is a finding of fact, which does not call for interference.
4. At this juncture, Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel, invited Court’s attention towards the observation made by the Tribunal in para no. 16 of the impugned order, wherein it has recorded- “at this stage, we are not inclined to disturb the finding of the learned CIT(A)” and prayed that atleast this liberty be granted to the Revenue to move a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal that in case any occasion so arises after the completion of the proceedings under the Black Money Act, 2015, they may do so.
5. In view of the expression used by the Tribunal as noted above, we grant such liberty while rejecting the appeal.
6. The pending application is disposed of.
