Commisioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata – Ii v. Projapati Investment & Trading Co. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/364/2003 COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA – IIVS.PROJAPATI INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMA N DTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : February 22, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance :Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.… for the appellant The Court : This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for brevity) is directed against theorder dated December 20, 2002 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 1164/Cal/2001 for theassessment year 1998-99. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions oflaw for consideration : i.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the caseLearned Tribunal was justified in upholding thebenefit of provisions of Section 49(1)(iii)(a) of IncomeTax Act, 1961? ii. Whether the Learned Tribunal was justified inupholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to recompute the capital gains of the shares? We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned counsel forthe appellant/revenue. On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, we find that theTribunal followed its earlier order in the assessee’s own case for theassessment year 1997-98 and dismissed the appeal filed by therevenue. Though it was submitted before the Tribunal that as againstthe earlier order passed by the Tribunal for the assessment year 1997-98, the department had filed an appeal before this Court, thissubmission was not supported by producing necessary ordersshowing that the appeal had been preferred. Furthermore, on perusalof the memorandum of appeal filed before this Court, we find thatthere is no averment to the appeal that the order passed by theTribunal for the assessment year 1997-98 has been appealed against.That apart we find from the order of the assessment the tax assessedis only Rs.19,47,586/-. Therefore, in any event, the revenue cannotpursue this appeal. Thus, for the above reasons, the appeal stands dismissed. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)