Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S. Salarpuria Properties ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1643 Cal/2

OD-11

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

                             ITAT/158/2022
                     IA NO: GA/1/2023, GA/2/2023
     PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA
                                  VS.
             M/S. SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED

BEFORE :

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
                And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 24th July, 2023

                                                                     Appearance :
                                                           Ms. Smita Das De, Adv.
                                                                   ...for appellant

                                                         Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.
                                                        Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv.
                                                            Mr. S.K. Debnath, Adv.
                                                                  ... for respondent

The Court :- This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section

260A of the Income Tax Act (the Act) challenging the order passed by the Income

Tax Appellate Tribunal, `A' Bench, Kolkata, in IT(SS)A No. 56/Kol/2019, IT(SS)A

66/Kol/2019, CO No. 44/Kol/2019, for the assessment year 2015-16.

The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for

consideration :-

a) Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was

justified in law to delete the addition could be made under Section

153A/143(3) of the said Act ?

b) Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was

justified in law to delete the disallowances on account of sundry balances

and stock written off under Section 37(1) of the said Act ?

c) Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was

justified in law to delete the disallowances on account of sundry balances

and stock written off under Section 37(1) of the said Act ?

We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing counsel appearing for

the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned senior Advocate appearing

for the respondent/assessee.

There is a delay of 252 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the

affidavit filed in respect of the condone delay petition and we find sufficient

cause has been shown for not preferring the appeal within the period of

limitation. Accordingly, the condone delay petition is allowed and the delay in

filing the appeal is condoned.

So far as the substantial questions of law (a) and (b) are concerned,

identical question was raised by the revenue in the assessee's own case in ITAT

No. 156 of 2023. Though substantial question of law (a) is slightly different in

wording, it is identical to substantial question of law (a) in ITAT No. 156 of 2023.

By judgment dated 24th July, 2023 those questions were decided against the

revenue and the appeal in ITAT No. 156 of 2023 was dismissed. Thus, applying

the said decision, substantial questions of law (a) and (b) are decided against the

revenue.

So far as the substantial question of law (c) is concerned, the learned

Tribunal has elaborately taken into consideration the factual matrix and gave its

finding and in paragraph 8.18 has come to the conclusion that the on-money

has been calculated by the Assessing Officer and based on estimation and

extrapolation the income and upheld the decision of the Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals) which deleted the said addition. Thus, we find there is no

substantial question of law arising for consideration on this aspect.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

substantial questions of law (a) and (b) are answered against the revenue and so

far as the issue raised in substantial question of la (c) is concerned, we find the

matter to be entirely factual and no substantial question of law arises on the

said issue.

The stay application GA/2/2023 is also dismissed.

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

Pkd/SN/S.Das.