$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 576/2026 & CM APPL. 47002/2026 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr.Ashvini Kr. & Mr. Rishabh Nangia, JSCs & Ms. Nancy Jain, Adv. versus RAVI BHARADWAJ .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA O R D E R % 24.07.2026 1. Mr Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant/Department, contended that the order dated 21.01.2026 for Assessment Year 2013-14 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-‘A’, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟) in ITA Nos. 2230/Del/2025, 2231/Del/2025 & 2232/Del/2025 has erred in dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue 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 (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as „Black Money Act, 2015‟) were still underway. 2. Learned counsel argued that the proceedings under the Black Money Act, 2015 pertained to different assessment years and therefore, the appeal of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 14:55:24 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 him. 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 inclined not to disturb the finding of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.” and prayed that at least 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 the liberty as prayed, while rejecting the appeal. 6. The pending application is also disposed of. DINESH MEHTA, J RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J JULY 24, 2026/kk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/07/2026 at 14:55:24