Commissioner Of Income Tax Central- Iii Kolkata - 7 v. Shri Anil Kumar Patwari

OD–4 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/53/2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL- III KOLKATA - 7VS.SHRI ANIL KUMAR PATWARI BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 1[st] March, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.…for appellant The Court : - This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 9[th] August, 2012passed by the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A. No.1638/KOL/2011 relating to the Assessment Year 2007-2008. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law forconsideration :- i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the LearnedTribunal is justified in dismissing the departmental appeal by directing totreat the seized cash as payment towards advance tax where Section132B(1) expressly regulates the mechanism of calculation and impositionof interest. Income Tax Act does not provide for adjustment of seized cashbefore determination of Tax liability ?Tribunal is justified in dismissing the departmental appeal by directing totreat the seized cash as payment towards advance tax where Section132B(1) expressly regulates the mechanism of calculation and impositionof interest. Income Tax Act does not provide for adjustment of seized cashbefore determination of Tax liability ? ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the LearnedTribunal is justified in ignoring CBDT’s Instruction No. 11/2006 dated 1[st]December, 2006 which is binding on the Assessing Officer and allowingTribunal is justified in ignoring CBDT’s Instruction No. 11/2006 dated 1[st]December, 2006 which is binding on the Assessing Officer and allowing Assessee’s appeal without proper appreciation of the materials, brought onrecord by the Assessing Officer in this regard? We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing Counsel for theappellant. As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the appellant that thetax effect as mentioned in the assessment order 5.6.2009 is Rs.38.72,064/- which isless than the threshold limit of Rs. 1 crore and, therefore, the revenue cannot pursuethis appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect.The substantial question of law, which has been admitted, is left open (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) Pkd/GH. (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)