Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central-1, Kolkata v. M/S. P.n.r. Holdings (P) Ltd

O-49 ITA/136/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. P.N.R. HOLDINGS (P) LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANIAnd THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJDate : 13[th] February, 2024 Appearance:Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv....for the appellant. 1.Heard Sri Tilak Mitra, learned senior standing counsel for theappellant/department. None appears for the respondent.appellant/department. None appears for the respondent. 2.This appeal was admitted by this Court by an order dated 03.12.2012 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 was justified in dismissing theappeal preferred by revenue on the basis of the judgment in thecase of Ankita Finvest Pvt. Ltd., which prima facie appears to becontrary to the provisions of law an appeal against which hasalso been admitted and is pending before this Court ? 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. It is informed by learnedcounsel for the appellant that the appeal filed by the department in thematter of Ankita Finvest Pvt. Ltd. has been dismissed 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. It is informed by learnedcounsel for the appellant that the appeal filed by the department in thematter of Ankita Finvest Pvt. Ltd. has been dismissed 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/136/2012) is dismissed. Thesubstantial question of law as framed above is answered accordingly.Consequently, the appeal (ITA/136/2012) is dismissed. Thesubstantial question of law as framed above is answered accordingly. (SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.) (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) As.