Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S. Anjali Jewellers
2022 Latest Caselaw 2405 Cal/2

OD-18

                           IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                         SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)
                                   ORIGINAL SIDE


                               ITAT/69/2022
                             IA NO: GA/2/2022
        PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-1, KOLKATA
                                    VS.
                          M/s. ANJALI JEWELLERS

BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
            And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA
Date : SEPTEMBER 12, 2022.

                                                                               Appearance:
                                                           Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.
                                                                            ... for appellant
                                                          Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Sr. Adv.
                                                                  Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv.
                                                                           Mr. K. Roy, Adv.
                                                                           ...for respondent

The Court :- On the last hearing date i.e. on 5th September, 2022 we have

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and when the appeal was taken up the learned

Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent/assessee submitted that the tax effect

involved in the instant appeal is only Rs.75,82,781/-. Therefore, the revenue cannot

pursue the appeal.

The learned standing Counsel for appellant submitted that he has oral instruction

to state that there was an audit objection and averred so in the said petition. In order to

clear the factual position we directed the learned standing Counsel to produce the copy

of the audit objection which has been produced before us today. Thus the revenue would

be entitled to pursue this appeal despite the low tax effect.

Heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing Counsel for the appellant and

Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Avra Mazumder,

learned for the respondent.

The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-

a)Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law by

holding the order under 263 of the Act passed by Principal Commissioner of

Income Tax as bad in law ?

b) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law by

placing its reliance on the ratio of CIT vs.Kabul Chawla 380 ITR (Del) and ignoring

the fact that the issue of "incriminating material" has not attained finality and

several SLPs on similar issues are pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

cases of PCIT, Agra Vs. Devi Das Garg (2020) 114 taxmann.com 552 (SC) and in

PCIT Vs. Gahoi Foods (P) Ltd. (20230) 117 taxmann.com 118(SC) ?

c) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law by

overlooking the fact the exactly on the similar issue and on the same

properties the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was made by

the Assessing Officer for Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18

which has never been contested by the assessee and that the Assessing

Officer has made incorrect application of law and assessment order was

passed without proper of mind making it an erroneous and prejudicial to the

interest of revenue ?

d) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in

placing its reliance on judgment of jurisdictional High Court in case of M/s.

Veer Prabhu Marketing Ltd. [388 ITR 574 (Cal)] where the issue was

requirement of "incriminating material" for proceeding under Section 153C of

the Act and was not related to proceeding under Section 153A of the Act as in

the present case and hence distinguishable ?

Let the appellants file requisite number of informal paper book within a period

of ten weeks from date prepared out of Court by serving advance copies on the

respondent.

Since the respondent is represented through learned Counsel, service of notice of

this appeal on the respondent is waived. Settlement of index and all other formalities

are dispensed with.

The stay petition, GA/2/2022 also stands closed.

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)

(SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.) Pkd/GH