Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central-1 v. M/S. Cube Trafin Privatelimited

ITA/86/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL-1 -Versus- M/S. CUBE TRAFIN PRIVATELIMITED BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANIAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJDate : 13[th] February, 2024 Appearance:Ms. Smita Das De, Adv....for the appellant. 1.Heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing counsel for theappellant/department. None appears for the respondent/assessee.2.This appeal was admitted by this Court by an order dated 18.07.2012 onthe following substantial question of law: “Whether the Learned Tribunal came to fact finding ofconfirming the order of CIT (Appeals) without relying on anyacceptable materials, in other words perverse ?” 3.We have perused the impugned order dated 24.02.2012 passed in ITANos.312-313 (Kol) of 2011 for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench- “A”, Kolkata. We findthat the addition made by the Assessing Officer invoking Section 69 ofthe Act and determined commission on productive basis, was set asideby the CIT(A) by a detailed order. We have also perused the order of theCIT(A) and found that the CIT(A) has well discussed all the relevant factsand evidences. The only ground on which the addition invoking Section69 of the Act, 1961 was made by the Assessing Officer, was thestatement of one of the Directors of the respondent which was retracted.The retraction of the statements was found by the CIT(A) and theTribunal to be correct and valid. There was no other evidence to justifythe additions made. Consequently, the CIT(A) deleted the addition whichwas upheld by the impugned order passed by the ITAT. While passingthe impugned order, the ITAT has also followed the order passed by theITAT in the case of M/s. Ankit Finvest Pvt. Ltd. on similar set of facts.Learned counsel for the appellant has informed that the income taxappeal No.13 of 2011 filed by the revenue before this Court wasdismissed by this Court by order dated 19.12.2023.4.No perversity could be pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant. 5.In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the appeal.Consequently, the appeal (ITA/86/2012) is dismissed. Thesubstantial question of law as framed above is answered accordingly.Consequently, the appeal (ITA/86/2012) is dismissed. Thesubstantial question of law as framed above is answered accordingly. (SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.) (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) As.