Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kolkata-Xii, Kolkata v. M/S. Banwari Lall Pasari

OD-16 ITA/125/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOLKATA-XII, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. BANWARI LALL PASARI Appearance:Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv....for the appellant. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 14[th] November, 2022. The Court: This appeal filed by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, is directed against theorder dated 16[th] July, 2010 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITANo.523/Kol/2010 for the assessment year 2006-07. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: (i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case the Tribunal was justified in lawto quash and/or set aside the Order of theCIT(A) holding inter alia that the issues as per the show cause notice stood fullyexplained, on rental income as income frombusiness, under charging interest from fourparties, non verification of a long standingunsecured creditor and suppression of incomefrom a Delhi property and its purportedfinding in this behalf have been arrived at byignoring the relevant materials and/or bytaking into consideration irrelevant and/orextraneous materials and/or are otherwisearbitrary, unreasonable and perverse ? We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned standingcounsel for the appellant/revenue. Though the respondent hasbeen served, none appears for the respondent.The short issue which falls for consideration in theinstant case is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax-XII,Kolkata (CIT) was justified in invoking his power under Section263 of the act.On perusal of the impugned order passed by the learnedTribunal we find that the learned Tribunal has re-examined thefactual position and held that assumption of jurisdiction underSection 263 of the Act by the CIT was not sustainable. Thelearned Tribunal has pointed out that pursuant to the showcause notice issued by the CIT dated 5[th] October, 2009, theassessee had submitted an elaborate explanation and theexplanation was examined for its correctness and the learnedtribunal has given a seal of approval. Thus, we find there is no question of law much lesssubstantial question of law arising for consideration in thisappeal. Accordingly, the appeal (ITA/125/2019) fails and isdismissed. Consequently, the connected application for stay(GA/982/2011) also stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) A/s./TR