Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Navin Chand Suchanti
2021 Latest Caselaw 1478 Cal/2

OD-15

                           ITAT/1/2018
              IA NO: GA/1/2018(Old No.GA/328/2018)
                 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
               SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)
                          ORIGINAL SIDE


            PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4
                            VERSUS
                     NAVIN CHAND SUCHANTI


BEFORE :

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
         And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Date : 24th November, 2021

                                      Appearance :-

                                      Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, Adv.
                                                 ... For Appellant
                                      Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Adv.
                                                 ... For Respondent

The Court : This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A

of the Income Tax, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the

order dated 25th August, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate

Tribunal, "B" Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 799/Kol/2015 for the

assessment year 2009-10. The revenue has raised the following

substantial questions of law for consideration :-

a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,

learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata erred in deleting

the addition of deemed dividend in the hand of the assessee as

per the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) ?

b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,

learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata erred in holding

that the advance as advance of salary relying on the judgment of

the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court whereas in this particular

case the word "advance" means such advance which carries

with an obligation of repayment ?

We have heard Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the appellant revenue and Mr. Sanjay

Bhowmick, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. It

is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent

assessee that in paragraph 8 of the stay application the tax effect has

been mentioned as Rs.20,52,777/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the

appeal is hit by the Circular issued by the CBDT and that the same

cannot be pursued by the Department on the ground of low tax effect.

In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the

respondent assessee in paragraph 8 of the stay application, this

appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect.

Consequently, the subsequent questions of law are left open.

With the disposal of the appeal, the connected application also

stands disposed of.

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) SN/S. Das AR(CR)