Itat/147/2021 Ia No.ga/2/2021 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9, Kolkata v. Shri Prabir Santra

O-68 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/147/2021IA No.GA/2/2021PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATAVS.SHRI PRABIR SANTRA BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAKDate : 20[th] July, 2022 Appearance :Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv…for the appellant. The Court : This appeal by the revenue filed under section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 [the Act, for brevity] is directed against the order dated 7[th] August, 2019passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1681-1683/Kol/2017 relating to assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10 respectively. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration. i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in upholding Ld. CIT[A]’s order whichwas passed overlooking the fact that the sources of money deposited in thebanks accounts of the assessee, were not at all explained at any stage ofthe Income Tax proceedings giving rise to the flaw in basing the decision onextraneous materials and which gives rise to the vice of flaw in thedecision making process ?Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in upholding Ld. CIT[A]’s order whichwas passed overlooking the fact that the sources of money deposited in thebanks accounts of the assessee, were not at all explained at any stage ofthe Income Tax proceedings giving rise to the flaw in basing the decision onextraneous materials and which gives rise to the vice of flaw in thedecision making process ? ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned tribunalwas justified in law in deleting the addition made by the AO as unexpectedmoney of the assessee and added the income of the assessment for therelevant years under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? We have heard learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant.Though notices have been served on the respondent none appearson behalf of the respondent. After elaborate hearing of the learned counsel for the appellant, weare of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in thisappeal. We support such conclusion with the following reasons. Admittedly, the assessments were completed by the assessing officerfor all the three assessments years under section 144 read with section 147of theAct. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeal before theCommissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-9, Kolkata [CIT[A]]. During the pendency ofthe appeal the Commissioner had called for a remand report. Before submittingthe remand report the assessee was given an opportunity to make submission onthe proposed report of the assessing officer. The assessee made submissions andin the remand report the assessing officer has affirmed that the bank account ofthe assessee have been used for the purpose of providing accommodation entry tovarious companies. Accepting such stand, and also the stand of the assesseereceiving commission of making such accommodation entry the addition wasrestricted to 0.5% for the commission earned. The following is the findingrecorded by the CIT[A] : “As regards Grounds no.5,6 and 7 which contain the merit of theappeal and is against the addition Rs.47,17,77,433/-, I find that the threebank accounts pertaining to the three proprietorship firms run by theappellant have deposits of cash, cheque and then withdrawal of sums sodeposited in form of cheques issue to various beneficiaries. Such chequeshave been issued to the beneficiaries on the subsequent day of the deposititself. The bank accounts so mentioned by the AO find mention in thestatus report so sent by the AO along with the remand report. The statusreport given by the investigation wing very clearly mentions that such bankaccounts have been used for the purpose of providing accommodationentry to various companies so mentioned in remand report and to name afew i.e. Sarowar Goods Pvt. Ltd., Chitra Goods Pvt. Ltd., Kingsuk NiwasPvt. Ltd. and so many others as mentioned therein. The status report veryclearly indicates that the bank accounts have been used for providingaccommodation entry to such company/concern. The appellant had itselfadmitted that it had earned commission @ 0.20% - 0.25%. The contentionof the appellant is acceptable in the background and the light of theremand report and the status report so placed before me and I concur withthe submission so made in such respect and restrict the addition to 0.5%of the addition so made i.e. Rs.23,58,888/- for the commission earned onsuch sum. Hence, these grounds of the appellant are partly allowed.” The revenue filed appeal before the tribunal, which was dismissed bythe impugned order. The tribunal noted the remand report from the assessingofficer and aggrieved with the factual finding recorded by the CIT[A] we find that Pkd/GH. there is no question of law much less substantial question of law arises forconsideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.Accordingly, stay application being GA/2/2021 stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.)