PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 DELHI v. KRBL FOODS LTD

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Revenue challenged the Tribunal’s 8 June 2023 order in ITA 3962 and 3963/Del/2019, affirming the CIT(A)’s 28 January 2019 order. It alleged that a seized document at paper-book page 52 named KRBL Foods Ltd. against Rs.1,28,27,500. Both appellate authorities instead read the name as KRBL Infrastructure Ltd. Despite repeated directions, Revenue could not produce the original for inspection. An AO email of 17 July 2026 reported a traced sealed hard disk and working copy, with some approximately ten-year-old data corrupted or not readily retrievable and recovery efforts continuing.

Source: Paragraphs 1–4; PDF pp.1–4

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Court found that the original necessary to test Revenue’s contention had not been produced. Independently, it considered the controversy a concurrent finding of fact by both appellate authorities which could not be called perverse. The earlier warning of dismissal for want of prosecution was part of the procedural history; the final reasoning also expressly addressed non-perversity.

Source: Paragraphs 3–5; PDF pp.2–4

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The appeal and pending application were dismissed. If the Department could produce the original documents, it could apply for revival; that application would be considered on its own merits.

Source: Paragraphs 6–7; PDF p.4

4. OUTCOME

The concurrent finding remained undisturbed, favouring KRBL Foods in this appeal. Revival was conditional and discretionary on a future application, not an automatic consequence of locating a disk.

Source: Paragraphs 5–7; PDF p.4

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

The identity dispute required the actual evidence

The decisive factual distinction was between KRBL Foods and KRBL Infrastructure. A perversity challenge needed material capable of disproving the concurrent reading of that inscription. Producing an undifferentiated record did not meet the Court’s specific request to flag the original corresponding to paper-book page 52. The practical lesson concerns traceable evidence for the challenged finding, not a general prohibition on scanned material.

Source: PDF p.2 · PDF p.3 · PDF p.4

The final reasoning is broader than non-production alone

The Court separately found no perversity in the concurrent factual conclusion. Describing this solely as a default dismissal would omit that assessment; treating it as a universal evidentiary rule would overstate it. The reported corruption explains the production difficulty but does not establish permanent loss, fabrication or inadmissibility of all electronic evidence.

Source: PDF p.3 · PDF p.4

Revival requires a further judicial decision

The express liberty is tied to production of the original documents. Successful recovery may enable an application, but does not itself reverse the dismissal or prove Revenue’s reading of the name. A revival request must address the identified document and remains subject to its own merits; the order gives no automatic reopening, recovery deadline or fresh tax determination.

Source: PDF p.4