Itat/108/2024 Ia No: Ga/2/2024 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kolkata v. M/S. Snowwhite Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd

OD- 21 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/108/2024 IA NO: GA/2/2024 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA VS M/S. SNOWWHITE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM -A N D- HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA DATE : 15[th] May, 2024. Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …for appellant. Mr. Prityush Jhunjhunwalla, Adv. .,..for respondent. The Court :- This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.4.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata in ITA no.565/Kol/2020 for the assessment year 2012-13. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- i.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified to grant relief to the respondent assessee and upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] with respect to addition of Rs.17,61,40,800/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of share capital/premium as unexplained cash credit where the respondent assessee has failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the subscribers and genuineness of the transaction ? ii.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified to grant relief to the respondent assessee by upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] despite the fact that none of the directors of the respondent assessee responded and appeared in response to notice issued under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the Assessing Officer for verification, examination of genuineness of transitions, as well as the identity, creditworthiness of the share applicants ? Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified to grant relief to the respondent assessee by upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] despite the fact that none of the directors of the respondent assessee responded and appeared in response to notice issued under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the Assessing Officer for verification, examination of genuineness of transitions, as well as the identity, creditworthiness of the share applicants ? Heard learned advocates on either side. The revenue on appeal challenging the correctness of the order passed by the tribunal by which the appeal filed by the tribunal challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] -17, Kolkata [CIT(A)] dated 22.7.2020 was dismissed. The CIT[A] deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the certain sum of receipt which was treated by the Assessing Officer as unexplained income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had failed to establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the share subscribers. We find that the CIT[A] while allowing the assessee’s appeal has done an elaborate fact finding exercise and also taken note of the various decisions of the Courts. The tribunal on its part also examined the facts and pointed out that the assessee had treated the relevant financial year raised a share capital from one company namely, M/s. Infinity BNKE Infocity [P] Ltd., which is the holding company and the assessee is part of the real estate group of companies. The share subscriber company was a holding company of the assessee company and both the companies were having common directors and that the share subscribing/holding company was interested in the business of the assessee. The nature of business activity was examined by the tribunal and noted that the assessee The share subscriber company was a holding company of the assessee company and both the companies were having common directors and that the share subscribing/holding company was interested in the business of the assessee. The nature of business activity was examined by the tribunal and noted that the assessee company had completed multiple pieces of land in the State of UP for developing a project in phases. The estimated cost of the project at the relevant point of time was Rs.300 crores. The assessee company had registered its project before the Real Estate Development Authority, U.P. The tribunal noted that the funds of the investing company and its creditworthiness has been duly considered and discussed by the CIT[A] in its order dated 22.7.2020. The entire share subscription amount was received by the tribunal from its holding company, i.e., IBIPL which in turn is promoted by Infinity Infotech Parks Limited and provided funds for execution of the project either by own or through subsidiaries. After discussing the other relevant facts, the Tribunal also took note that the CIT[A] called for a remand report from assessing officer in respect of various details and evidence was submitted by the assessee and thereafter after considering the remand report the CIT[A] passed the order. The Tribunal also took note of the decisions of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anmol Stainless (P) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann .com 535 (Calcutta) and ultimately dismissed the appeal. Thus, we find that there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal and the same is dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE pkd/GH. (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)