Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kolkata-3, Kolkata v. M/S. Snowtex Udyog Limited

OD-21 ITAT/74/2015IA No.GA/1/2015 (Old No.GA/1701/2015)IA No.GA/2/2015 (Old No.GA/1702/2015) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOLKATA-3, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. SNOWTEX UDYOG LIMITED Appearance: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Adv....for the appellant.Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Adv.Mr. G. S. Gupta, Adv....for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 6[th] June, 2022. The Court : We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya,learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue andMr. J. P. Khaitan, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. SaumyaKejriwal and Mr. G. S. Gupta, learned Advocates for therespondent/assessee. There is a delay of 174 days in filing the appeal. Wehave perused the affidavit filed in support of the application forcondonation of delay and we found that the explanation given aresatisfactory and reasonable. Therefore, we exercise discretionand condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, theapplication for condonation of delay (IA No.GA/1701/2015) isallowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity) is directedagainst the order dated 26[th] June, 2014 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.266/Kol/2011 forthe assessment year 2004-05. The revenue has raised for the following substantialquestion of law for consideration: i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the casethe Learned Tribunal was justified in law in holdingthat the nature and source of the credit wassatisfactorily explained ignoring the full facts ofthe case ?ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the casethe order of the Learned Tribunal is perverse in lawas well as in facts by ignoring the facts of thecase ?” Learned standing counsel for the appellant, oninstruction, submits that the appeal cannot be pursued by therevenue on the ground that the tax effect is below the threshold limit filed by the circular issued by the CBDT. In this regard,the learned counsel has referred to the order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax, Central-I, Kolkata dated 2[nd] November,2010 wherein it has been indicated that the tax demanded isRs.44,60,239/-. If that be the case, the revenue cannot pursuethis appeal. Hence. The appeal is dismissed on the ground of lowtax effect and the substantial questions of law are left open.Consequently, the connected application for stay (IANo.GA/1702/2015) also stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)