Itat/136/2023 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 Kolkata v. M/S Patton International Ltd

OD- 8 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/136/2023IA NO. GA/1/2023PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, KOLKATA-VS- M/s. PATTON INTERNATIONAL LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTADate : 21 June, 2023 Appearance :Ms. Smita Das De, Adv.Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv....for the appellantMr. Hemant Tiwari, Adv.…for respondent The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated November 22,2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A. No.261/Kol/2022 for the assessment year 2017-2018. 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 was justified in law in allowing the appealof the respondent/assessee by quashing the order passed under Section263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the fact thatassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous in so faras prejudicial interest of the revenue ?Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the appealof the respondent/assessee by quashing the order passed under Section263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the fact thatassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous in so faras prejudicial interest of the revenue ? (b)WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the LearnedIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not appreciating thefact that at the time of assessment proceedings Assessing Officer failedIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not appreciating thefact that at the time of assessment proceedings Assessing Officer failed 2 and/or neglected to obtain 80G certificate from the done and thepayment advised for allowing the claim of the assessee ? We have heard learned Counsel on either side. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta – 1 was right in assuming jurisdiction underSection 263 of the Act for passing an order on 24.03.2022. On perusal of the orderpassed by the Tribunal we find that Tribunal has examined the entire facts on allthe three issues which were pointed out in the order passed under Section 263 ofthe Act. After being satisfied that a thorough enquiry had been conducted by theassessing officer, the Tribunal held that assumption of jurisdiction under Section263 of the Act was not in accordance with law. Pertinently, in paragraph 7 of theimpugned order the Tribunal points out the three issues in the present case arepurely on facts, which are verifiable from the records of the assessee. Further, theTribunal states that the examination and on verification of the record as placed inthe paper book also reveal a correct state of affairs in respect of the issues raised inthe order passed under Section 263 of the Act, and that the department could notbring any material on record to controvert the variable factual position. Thus we find that there is no question of law, much less substantial questionof law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed. Consequently, the application also stands dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.)