Ia No: Ga/1/2023, Ga/2/2023 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 2 Kolkata v. M/S Pearl Tracom Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/267/2023 IA NO: GA/1/2023, GA/2/2023PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATAVS M/S PEARL TRACOM PVT LTD BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM ANDTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYADATE : 8 January, 2024. Appearance :Ms. Smita Das De, Adv.Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv...for appellantMr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv.…for respondent The Court :-It appears that there is a delay of 112 days in filing the appeal. Weare satisfied with the reasons given by the appellant department for not preferring theappeal within the period of limitation. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax, 1961 isdirected against the order dated March 6, 2023passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No. 495/Kol/2022 for theassessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law forconsideration;- (a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the LearnedIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law by quashing the orderpassed by the Pr. CIT on the ground that the Assessing Officer hadIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law by quashing the orderpassed by the Pr. CIT on the ground that the Assessing Officer had conducted detailed enquiry after making proper application of mind and theAssessee had filed complete documentary evidence to the satisfaction ofAssessing Officer ? (b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the LearnedIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in not considering theapplication of explanation two to Section 263, whereunder an order passedby the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it isprejudicial to the interest of revenue, if in the opinion of the Principal ChiefCommissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner orCommissioner, the order is passed without making enquiries or verificationwhich would should have been made ?Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in not considering theapplication of explanation two to Section 263, whereunder an order passedby the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it isprejudicial to the interest of revenue, if in the opinion of the Principal ChiefCommissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner orCommissioner, the order is passed without making enquiries or verificationwhich would should have been made ? We have heard learned Counsel on either side. The short question which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether thePrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in invoking his jurisdiction underSection 263 of the Act for the second time from the same issue. The learned Tribunalafter carefully going through the facts of the case found that in the second round ofassessment proceeding the assessing officer issued notice under Section 142(1) of theAct and called for complete details about share capital and share premium received bythe assessee company as well as complete details of the investors. The details werefiled to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. That apart the Tribunal found that thedirectors of the investor companies personally appeared before the Assessing officer inresponse to the summons issued under Section 131 of the Act and the statement onoath was recorded and the books of accounts were also verified. Thus the Tribunalwas satisfied that complete enquiry was conducted by the assessing officer when thematter went before him for the second time pursuant to the order passed underSection 263 of the Act. The Tribunal in our view rightly held that Principal Commissioner of Income Tax merely gave directions but did not give any reasons forcoming to a conclusion that the assessment should be revised for the second time.Furthermore, the Tribunal has noted that assessee no to only filed the completedetails in the first round of assessment and again in the second round of assessmentand demonstrated clearly by producing records that the transactions were genuine.Thus the Tribunal was satisfied that the view taken by the assessing officer in thesecond round of the proceedings was permissible under the law. The Tribunal has alsonoted another decision of the Coordinate Bench where the facts appear to be more orless identical to the case on hand. Thus on reappreciation of the factual position theTribunal has found that it is not the case of non application of mind by assessingofficer nor the case of failure of reappreciation of facts. Thus the Tribunal on facts rightly granted relief to the assessee. Thus We findno questions of law much less substantial questions of law arising for consideration inthis appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. . (T.S. SIVAGNANAM)CHIEF JUSTICE pkd/GH. (SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA,J.)