B) Whether The Learned Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law Bynot Appreciating The Principle Which Has Been Laid Down By The Hon’blesupreme Court In v. Thereafter Made A Thorough And Factual Exercise And By An Order Dated 10[Th] July,2019 Held

OD-21 ITAT/254/2023 IA No.GA/2/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, KOLKATAVsTRINETRA MERCHANTS (P) LTD. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA Date : 31[st ]January, 2024 Appearance:Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Adv.Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Adv.…for the appellant.Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Sr. Adv.Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv.Mr. Samrat Das, Adv.Mr. K. Roy, Adv...for the respondent The Court:- This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 3[rd] November,2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (theTribunal) in ITA No.570/Kol/2021 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law forconsideration :- (a) Whether the learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law bydeleting the addition of Rs.5.29 crore under Section 68 of the Income TaxAct, 1961, relying upon the paper submissions made by the assessee,without appreciating the fact that the credits were fresh credits in respectof which the assessee failed to establish the identity andcreditworthiness of shareholders and the genuineness of transaction?deleting the addition of Rs.5.29 crore under Section 68 of the Income TaxAct, 1961, relying upon the paper submissions made by the assessee,without appreciating the fact that the credits were fresh credits in respectof which the assessee failed to establish the identity andcreditworthiness of shareholders and the genuineness of transaction? (b) Whether the learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law bynot appreciating the principle which has been laid down by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT (Central)-1, Kolkata vs. NRA Iron &Steel Pvt. Ltd. (412 ITR 161) wherein it has been held that the AssessingOfficer is duty bound to investigate the creditworthiness of thecreditor/subscriber, verify the identity of the subscribers and ascertainwhether the transaction is genuine or is a bogus entry of a name lender?not appreciating the principle which has been laid down by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT (Central)-1, Kolkata vs. NRA Iron &Steel Pvt. Ltd. (412 ITR 161) wherein it has been held that the AssessingOfficer is duty bound to investigate the creditworthiness of thecreditor/subscriber, verify the identity of the subscribers and ascertainwhether the transaction is genuine or is a bogus entry of a name lender? We have heard Mr. Om Narayan Rai, learned standing counsel alongwith Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, learned standing counsel for the appellant andMr. Abhratosh Majumdar, learned senior standing counsel appearing for therespondent assessee. The short question which falls for consideration is whether the learnedTribunal was right in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer underSection 68 of the Act. Initially, the appeal filed by the assessee before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed for non-prosecution andsubsequently orders passed by the learned Tribunal, the appeal was restored tothe file of the CIT(A) to be heard and decided on merits. The CIT(A) has thereafter made a thorough and factual exercise and by an order dated 10[th] July,2019 held in favour of the assessee. This order was put to challenge by theRevenue before the learned Tribunal and we find from the order passed by thelearned Tribunal, more particularly, from paragraph 8 onwards, the learnedTribunal has thoroughly examined the factual issue and has held that theidentity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of thetransaction have been factually established and accordingly the appeal filed bythe revenue was dismissed. Thus, we find that the matter being entirely factual, no substantialquestion of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Consequently, the application stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) thereafter made a thorough and factual exercise and by an order dated 10[th] July,2019 held in favour of the assessee. This order was put to challenge by theRevenue before the learned Tribunal and we find from the order passed by thelearned Tribunal, more particularly, from paragraph 8 onwards, the learnedTribunal has thoroughly examined the factual issue and has held that theidentity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of thetransaction have been factually established and accordingly the appeal filed bythe revenue was dismissed. Thus, we find that the matter being entirely factual, no substantialquestion of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Consequently, the application stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.) sg./bp.