Calcutta High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Tanishque Tradelink Pvt. Ltd on 6 November, 2024
Author: T.S. Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S. Sivagnanam, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
1
OD 33
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)
ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT/159/2024
IA NO: GA/2/2024
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA
VS.
TANISHQUE TRADELINK PVT. LTD.
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 6th November, 2024
Appearance :
Ms. Smita Das De, Adv.
Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv.
...for Appellant
Ms. Pooja Jewrajka, Adv.
...for respondent
The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 16 th March,
2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Kolkata (the
Tribunal) in ITA No. 17/Kol/2021 for the assessment year 2008-09.
The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for
consideration:
(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble
ITAT has erred in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee despite
the fact that the assessee had failed to simultaneously establish,
the identity of the buyer companies, their creditworthiness and the
genuineness of transaction, which was obligatory under section 68
of the Income tax Act especially in view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) 117 taxman.com 752 (SC) ?
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of
the Hon'ble ITAT is perverse on facts for the Hon'ble ITAT has
ignored that the Ld. CIT(A) had decided the issue in favour of the
assessee without considering the remand report submitted by the
AO as per his direction ?
(iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of
the Hon'ble ITAT is perverse on facts for the Hon'ble ITAT has
acknowledged the existence of the remand but failed to consider
the content of the same, which was against the assessee and
substantially indicating that the share capital raised by the
assessee was bogus and rightly taxed as income under section 68
of the Act ?
We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing counsel appearing
for the appellant/revenue and Ms. Pooja Jewrajka, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent/assessee.
The revenue was unsuccessful before the Tribunal in its challenge to the
order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kol. [CIT(A)]
dated 24th September, 2020. The assessment was completed and thereafter
reassessment proceedings were initiated and the same was completed.
Subsequently the Commissioner of Income Tax thought fit to exercise his
power under section 263 of the Act and the assessee participated in the said
proceedings and ultimately the Assessing Officer decided against the assessee.
The assessee preferred appeal against the said order before the CIT(A). The
CIT(A) before recording any finding called for a remand report which was
received from the Assessing Officer on 8.9.2017 and 17.1.2018. Thereafter, the
CIT(A) has carefully examined the factual position and they have clearly
recorded a finding that the Assessing Officer failed to carry out any of the
directions issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax while exercising its power
under section 263 of the Act. Apart from that the CIT(A) found that relevant
information was provided by the assessee twice, one at the time of
reassessment and second at the time of assessment proceedings pursuant to
the order passed under section 263 of the Act.
We find the order passed by the CIT(A) to be a reasoned order and the
relevant decision which would be applicable to the facts of the case have also
been referred to and the Tribunal on its part also re-examined the factual
position and found that the CIT(A) was fully justified in allowing the assessee's
appeal. Furthermore, the Tribunal has recorded that though the assessee filed
application, documentary evidence, the Assessing Officer failed to point out any
specific error or defect in such documents.
Thus, we find that the matter is entirely factual and no substantial
questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal.
The appeal is thus dismissed.
The stay application being GA/2/2024 is also dismissed.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ.)
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
SN./S.Das
AR(CR)
