Commissioner Of Income Tax, Burdwan v. Rakshit Transport

OD-14 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax] ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/27/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BURDWAN VS RAKSHIT TRANSPORT BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANIAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJDate : 26[th] February, 2024 Appearance:Mr. S. Roy Chowdhury, Adv.Mr. Soumen Bhattacherjee, Adv...for the appellant.Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, Adv.… for the respondent. 1.Heard Mr. S. Roy Chowdhury, learned senior standing Counselassisted by Mr. Soumen Bhattacherjee, learned juniorstanding Counsel for the appellant and Mr. SoumitraChowdhury, learned Counsel for the respondent.2.The assessee disclosed total income of Rs.9,15,850/- forthe assessment year 2005-06. The assessing officer byassessment order dated 31.12.2007 made addition ofRs.3,08,89,898/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income TaxAct, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961) andthus assessed total income of the respondent/assessee atRs.3,18,05,750/-. 3.The assessee challenged the assessment order in appeal no.127/CIT(A)/Asl/Erst.Bwn/Cir-2/2007-08 which was partly mg allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)by orderdated 24.12.2008. The CIT(A) granted relief to thesustaining the aforesaid addition only to RS.30,84,847/-.Aggrieved the respondent/assessee filed I.T.A.No.261/Kol/2009 which was allowed by Income Tax AppellateTribunal “A” Bench Kolkata by order dated 11.9.2009.Aggrieved by the order of the ITAT the revenue has filedthe present appeal. It is undisputed that the order of theCIT(A) was not challenged by the revenue before the ITAT. 4.In view of the aforesaid and as admitted by learned Counselfor the appellant that the tax effect involved in thisappeal is below the limit prescribed by circular no.17/2019dated 8[th] August, 2019 for filing appeal.for the appellant that the tax effect involved in thisappeal is below the limit prescribed by circular no.17/2019dated 8[th] August, 2019 for filing appeal. 5.In view of the aforesaid the appeal (ITA/27/2010) isdismissed for reason that the tax effect is below the limitprescribed in the aforesaid circular.dismissed for reason that the tax effect is below the limitprescribed in the aforesaid circular. (SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.) (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)