Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kolkata-X v. Ashish Lal Gupta

ITA/247/2009 IA No.GA/1/2009 (Old No.GA/2451/2009) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOLKATA-X -Versus- ASHISH LAL GUPTA BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 9[th ]February, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Adv.…for the appellant. The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue is timebarred. There is a delay of 246 days in filing the appeal. Since we are inclined to consider as to whether anysubstantial question of law arises for consideration in thisappeal, though the respondent has not been served, we exercisediscretion and condone the delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay(IA No.GA/1/2009) is allowed and the delay of 246 days infiling 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 30[th] June, 2008 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) inITA Nos.486 & 487/Kol/2018 for the assessment years 2003-04 and2004-05. question of law for consideration: (i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasjustified in law in cancelling he order of theCommissioner of Income Tax for invoking Section263 of the Income Tax act and allowing theassessee’s appeal without appreciating the pointsof law involved ? standing counsel for the appellant/revenue. whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal setting asidethe order passed by the Commissioner of Income TaxunderSection 263 of the Act was justified.On going through the facts as noted by the learnedTribunal, we find that the CIT did not spell out as to whatother evidence was required to be filed by the assessingofficer in spite of the assessing officer having made detailed enquiries on more than seven occasions in which the assesseehad submitted all documents and materials. Furthermore, thelearned Tribunal found that the power Section 263 of the Acthas been invoked only based on the assessment records and therewas no new material brought on record by the CIT. Thus, we find that the matter revolves entirely onfacts and the Tribunal rightly interfered with the order passedunder Section 263 of the Act. Thus, we find there is no substantial question of lawarising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal(ITA/247/2009) filed by the revenue fails and is dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)