Ita/50/2014 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kol-Xviii, Kolkata v. M/S. Rakshit Jewellery Palace

OD – 4 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/50/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-XVIII, KOLKATAVS.M/S. RAKSHIT JEWELLERY PALACE BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYADate : SEPTEMBER 22, 2022. Appearance:Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.…for appellantNone appears…for respondent The Court :- As per office report the original case file is not traceable and,therefore, the learned standing Counsel has provided a photocopy of the case file whichshall be treated as original until the original case file is traced out. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated January 17, 2014 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 2665/Kol/2013 for theassessment year 2009-2010. The appeal was admitted on the following substantialquestions of law :- 1.“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the learnedTribunal was correct in law in reducing the addition of Rs.40,81,656/- madeunder section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs.1,62,417/- being thevalue of unexplained stock of gold ornaments found during survey at thebusiness premises of the assessee without appreciating the evidences onrecord ?Tribunal was correct in law in reducing the addition of Rs.40,81,656/- madeunder section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs.1,62,417/- being thevalue of unexplained stock of gold ornaments found during survey at thebusiness premises of the assessee without appreciating the evidences onrecord ? 2.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the learnedTribunal was correct in law in granting the above relief without appreciatingthat :-Tribunal was correct in law in granting the above relief without appreciatingthat :- (i)Partner Shri Sourav Rakshit in his sworn statement during surveystated that no stock pertaining to anyone else was kept at the businesspremises of the assessee;stated that no stock pertaining to anyone else was kept at the businesspremises of the assessee; (ii)Evidence on record do not establish that any part of stock waspertaining to third parties ;pertaining to third parties ; and, therefore the finding of the Learned Tribunal was perverse to thatextent?”extent?” We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing Counsel for theappellant. None appears for the respondent. On perusal of the order passed by the COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) –XXXIII, KOLKATA [CIT(A)] that the tax demanded is Rs.33,57,363/-. If thatbe so the tax effect is below the threshold limit prescribed in the circular issued by theCBDT and, therefore, the revenue cannot pursue this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law are left open. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.) Pkd/GH