Ia No: Ga/1/2022, Ga/2/2022 In Itat/7/2022 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 9, Kolkata v. Mala Roy

OD-30 ORDER SHEETIN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO: GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022InITAT/7/2022PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9, KOLKATAVersusMALA ROY BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA[[th]] Date : 17[[th]] May, 2022. Mr. S. Roy Chowdhury, Advocate…for appellant. Mr. S. M.Surana, Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, Advocates…for the respondent. The Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. There is a delay of 678 days in filing the appeal. As we are inclined todispose of the main appeal itself, we exercise discretion and condone thedelay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application for condonation ofdelay being GA/1/2022 is allowed. RE: ITAT/7/2022 This appeal filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act, in brevity] is directed against the order dated 31.12.2019 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Calcutta in ITA No.407[Kol] of 2018 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised thefollowing substantial question of law for consideration : (i) (ii) (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the LearnedIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata failed toappreciate that the report of inquiry as submitted by Hon’ble JusticeShri Shah Commissioner is not a mere piece of information, thereport itself is a judicial document as set up under section 3 of theCommissioner of Inquiry Act, 1952 is holding power of a civil courtas envisaged in Section 4 of the said Commission of Inquiry Act,1952? Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the LearnedIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata has erred in lawto uphold the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal); themerits of the case which involves serious encroachment and defaulton the part of the assessee resulting in gross loss to GovernmentExchequer should have been taken into account? Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the LearnedIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata has erred in factas well as law by placing complete reliance on the calculation putforth by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) whereas theassessing officer had specifically calculated the excess production.The same calculations were also presented before the LearnedIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal will all corroborative evidence.However Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has only reliedupon the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)? Heard learned counsel for the parties. Upon perusal of the order impugned in this appeal passed by theTribunal, we find that the Tribunal has examined the factual position andconcurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax[Appeal]-20, Kolkata [CIT(A)] and affirmed the factual findings recorded bythe CIT[A]. On perusal of the reasoning given by the Tribunal fromparagraph 9 of the impugned order we fiind that the matter is entirelyfactual. The Tribunal has also recorded that the factual finding could notbe controverted by the department before the Tribunal. Thus, we fiind noquestion of law much less substantial question of law arising forconsideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The application for stay beingGA/2/2022 stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) pkd/kb (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)