Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central-1, Kolkata v. M/S. Macro Leafin (P) Ltd

ITA/93/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. MACRO LEAFIN (P) LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANIAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJDate : 13[th] February, 2024 Appearance:Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv....for the appellant. 1.Heard Sri Smarajit Roychowdhury learned senior standing counsel forthe appellant/department. None appears for the respondent/assessee.the appellant/department. None appears for the respondent/assessee. 2.This appeal was admitted by this Court by an order dated 30.07.2012 onthe following substantial question of law relating to the assessment years2006-07 and 2007-08:the following substantial question of law relating to the assessment years2006-07 and 2007-08: “Whether the Learned Tribunal came to a finding whileconfirming the order of CIT (A) without relying on any acceptablematerials, in other words perverse ?” 3.On similar set of facts, another appeal being ITA No.86/2012(Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I, Kolkata vs. M/s. Cube TrafinPrivate Limited) has been dismissed today by this Court.(Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I, Kolkata vs. M/s. Cube TrafinPrivate Limited) has been dismissed today by this Court. 4.We have perused the impugned order of the Tribunal and the orderpassed by the CIT(A). We find that the addition made by the AssessingOfficer was set aside by the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) has beenaffirmed by the impugned order of the ITAT. No perversity in theimpugned order could be pointed out by the learned counsel for theappellant despite being asked by this Court.passed by the CIT(A). We find that the addition made by the AssessingOfficer was set aside by the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) has beenaffirmed by the impugned order of the ITAT. No perversity in theimpugned order could be pointed out by the learned counsel for theappellant despite being asked by this Court. 5.The findings recorded by the CIT(A) and the ITAT are findings of factsbased on consideration of relevant evidence on record.based on consideration of relevant evidence on record. 6.For all the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in the appeal.Consequently, the appeal (ITA/93/2012) is dismissed. Thesubstantial question of law as framed above is answered accordingly.Consequently, the appeal (ITA/93/2012) is dismissed. Thesubstantial question of law as framed above is answered accordingly. (SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.) (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) As.