Ita/106/2012 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata – Ii, Kolkata v. M/S. Nagreeka Exports Ltd

O–118 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/106/2012COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA – II, KOLKATAVs.M/s. NAGREEKA EXPORTS LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 20 FEBRUARY, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Adv...for appellantMr. R. K. Murarka, Adv.Mr. Vivek Murarma, Adv.…for respondent. The Court : - This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 29.03.2010 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 2203/Kol/2010 and ITANo. 2634/Kol/2003 for the assessment year 1994-95. The appeal was admitted on24.8.2012 on the following substantial questions of law :- i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learnedTribunal was justified in law in holding that the initiation of proceedingsunder section 147 of the Income Tax Act and the assessment made inpursuance thereof is not valid, bad in law and without jurisdiction?Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the initiation of proceedingsunder section 147 of the Income Tax Act and the assessment made inpursuance thereof is not valid, bad in law and without jurisdiction? ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learnedTribunal was justified in law in deciding the issue of deduction undersection 80HHC without considering the various decisions cited on behalf ofthe revenue ?Tribunal was justified in law in deciding the issue of deduction undersection 80HHC without considering the various decisions cited on behalf ofthe revenue ? We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing Counsel and Mr.R.K. Murarka, duly assisted by Mr. Vivek Murarka, learned standing Counsel for therespondent/assessee. It is pointed out by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent that thetax effect involved in this appeal is less than the threshold limit fixed by the C.B.D.T.and the revenue cannot pursue this appeal. To support the said contention thereference was made to the reassessment order which shows that the tax on incomealong with surcharge is Rs.84,31,422/-. If that be the case the revenue cannot pursuethe appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect and thesubstantial questions of law are left open. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)