Calcutta High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Arcl Organics Limited on 5 August, 2025
Author: T.S. Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S Sivagnanam
O-11
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INICOME TAX]
ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT/27/2025
IA NO: GA/2/2025
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA
VS
ARCL ORGANICS LIMITED
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM
-A N D-
HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
DATE : 5th August, 2025
Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv.
...for appellant
Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv.
Mr. Anuj Mishra, Adv.
Mr. R.R. Modi, Adv.
...for respondent
The Court : We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing counsel
appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Pranit Bag, learned counsel for
the respondent/assessee.
The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :
a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the
addition made u/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.
55,00,000/- received by the assessee through a non-existent entity M/s.
Satyatej Vyapaar Private Limited ?
b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the
addition made u/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on the
submission of the assessee that the investing company changed its
address on record, without appreciating the fact that even on the date of
passing the order on 30.12.2017, the company address on the MCA
website was shown as Aloka House, 1st Floor, 6B, Bentinck Street,
Kolkata-700 001 ?
c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the
addition made u/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without remanding
the case to the Assessing Officer which is in contravention of section
254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?
d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being the last fact-finding authority has
erred by not giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer ?
e) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that lack of
cross-examination makes it fatal for addition in contravention of the
principles laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO
vs. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 245 CTR 233 : (2011) 334 ITR 262 ?
f) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the
Assessing Officer has not done enquiry while enquiry through Inspector
of Income-tax has been made ?
The stay application, IA No: GA/2/2025, stands closed.
The appellant is directed to file requisite number of informal paper books
prepared out of Court including therein all relevant papers and documents
used before the learned Court below within 10(ten) weeks from date by serving
copies thereof to the learned Advocate for the respondent.
Settlement of index and all other formalities are dispensed with.
Since the respondent is represented by their learned Advocate, service of
notice of appeal on them is dispensed with.
List the appeal after 12(twelve) weeks.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ. )
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
SN.
AR[CR]
