Ita/122/2011 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-Ix, Kolkata v. M/S. Park International

OD–2 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/122/2011COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-IX, KOLKATAVS.M/S. PARK INTERNATIONAL BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 2[nd] March, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.…for appellant The Court : - This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 25.6.2010 passed by theLearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A. No. 152/Kol/2009for the Assessment Year 2004-2005 and I.T.A. No.153/Kol/2009 for the assessmentyear 2005-2006. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned Advocaterepresenting the revenue/appellant that the tax effect involved in the instant appeal isRs.44,94,103/- which is far below the threshold limit as would be evident from theCircular issued by the C.B.D.T. This appeal was admitted on May 03, 2011 and the following substantialquestions of law have been framed by the Hon’ble Division Bench:- (i)Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law inconfirming the order of disallowance in setting side the order ofdisallowance or labour charges of security guard by totally misconstruingthe provisions contained in Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of theIncome Tax Act, 1961?confirming the order of disallowance in setting side the order ofdisallowance or labour charges of security guard by totally misconstruingthe provisions contained in Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of theIncome Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law inoverlooking the fact that the assessee could not produce even the address ofthe labour sardar to whom money was allegedly paid and in suchcircumstances, whether the learned Tribunal below passed the perversejudgment in setting aside the order of the authorities ?overlooking the fact that the assessee could not produce even the address ofthe labour sardar to whom money was allegedly paid and in suchcircumstances, whether the learned Tribunal below passed the perversejudgment in setting aside the order of the authorities ? In view of the fact that the tax effect is below the threshold limit the revenuecannot proceed with this appeal any further. In view thereof, the appeal stands dismissed and the substantial questions of lawframed in this appeal are, however, left open. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) Pkd/GH. (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)