Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-I, Kolkata-I v. M/S. Glamour Vanijya Pvt. Ltd

ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE O-50 ITA/20/2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, KOLKATA-IVERSUSM/s. GLAMOUR VANIJYA PVT. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANIANDTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ Date : 13[th] February 2024. Appearance:Mr. Om Narayan Rai, AdvocateMr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate…for the appellant. 1.Heard Sri Om Narayan Rai, learned senior standing counsel for theappellant. None appears for the respondent assessee. 2.This appeal relating to assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 filed bythe revenue was admitted by this Court by order dated 01.02.2013, on thefollowing substantial question of law:-the revenue was admitted by this Court by order dated 01.02.2013, on thefollowing substantial question of law:- “Whether the judgment in the case of Shrishali Nageshi Pare –Vs.-State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1985 SC 866, can have anyapplication to a case where independent evidence was collected bythe investigating agency?” 3.We find that the assessing officer made addition on protective basis andthe basis of making addition was the investigation carried by the Directorof Investigation (Income Tax) in which an allegation of makingaccommodation entry was made. The basis of making allegation was thestatement of the director of the assessee company dated 09.04.2007,which was retracted. The ground taken before the assessing officer forretraction of the statement was rejected by the assessing officer. The CIT(Appeal) examined the facts and evidences on record and deleted theadditions made by the assessing officer. The CIT(A) followed the orderspassed in the case of Ankita Finvest Private Limited and some others. Theappeals filed by the revenue in some other similar matters like the presentone, were dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the orderof the CIT(A) was affirmed. Invocation of Section 69 of the Income Tax,1961 was found to be not justified on facts of the present case on theground that all the investments were recorded in the books of account ofthe assessee and therefore, there was no warrant for the assessing officerto make addition in respect of such investments, that too, on protectivebasis. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that no evidence has beenbrought on record by the revenue to prove that the transaction declared inthe books of account of the assessee is not correct. The retractedstatement was made the sole basis by the assessing officer to makeaddition on protective basis invoking Section 69 of the Income Tax Act,1961. 4.We find that the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and the ITAT in theimpugned order are findings of fact based on consideration of relevantevidences on record. Both the fact-finding authorities have found thatexcept the retracted statement, there was no material to make addition ofthe amount invoking Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that too,on protective basis. The findings recorded by the fact-finding authoritiesi.e. the CIT(A) and the ITAT are findings of fact based on consideration ofthe relevant evidences on record. ITA/86/2012, ITA/89/2012,ITA/93/2012, ITA/96/2012 and ITA/136/2012 filed by the revenueinvolving similar issues have also been dismissed today by this Court.Under the circumstances, the impugned order of the ITAT dated08.03.20212 in ITA Nos.308-309/Kol/2011 for the assessment years2006-07 and 2007-08 requires no interference. The appeal lacks meritand is dismissed. The substantial question of law as framed is answeredaccordingly. (SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.) S. Kumar (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)