Itat/158/2018 Of M/S Sapphire Vanijya Pvt Ltd & Anr v. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4) Kolkata & Ors

OD-64 ORDER SHEETITAT/158/2018IA NO:GA/1/2018(OLD NO.GA/1151/2018)IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION(INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE M/S. SAPPHIRE VANIJYA PVT. LTD. & ANR.-VS-INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), KOL. & ORS. BEFORE:HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMANDHON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA DATE: 16 NOVEMBER 2021. Mr. S. Agarwal,, Adv., for appellant/petitioner.None for respondent. The Court: This appeal by the assessee, filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order datedDecember 8, 2017, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘B’ Bench,Kolkata, in ITA No.855/Kol/2015, for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law: “(a)Whether the Learned Tribunal was justified in holdingthat the first proviso to Section 68 which has beeninserted by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 1.4.2013 appliesto the Assessment Year: 2008-2009?that the first proviso to Section 68 which has beeninserted by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 1.4.2013 appliesto the Assessment Year: 2008-2009? (b)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theLearned Tribunal is correct in holding that the allegedlack of proper enquiries as to the issue of sharecapital/premium in the course of proceedings undersection 147 is to be considered as erroneous andprejudicial to the interest of revenue even though the re-opening was done for the specific purpose of taxingwrongly claim of share expenses of Rs.9,000/- escapingassessment which was not accounted for due tomistake?”Learned Tribunal is correct in holding that the allegedlack of proper enquiries as to the issue of sharecapital/premium in the course of proceedings undersection 147 is to be considered as erroneous andprejudicial to the interest of revenue even though the re-opening was done for the specific purpose of taxingwrongly claim of share expenses of Rs.9,000/- escapingassessment which was not accounted for due tomistake?” We have heard Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for theappellant. The Tribunal had, by the impugned order, dismissed theassessee’s appeal following the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench ofthis Court in the case of Raj Mandir Estates (P) Ltd. –vs- Principal CIT, 386ITR 162 (Calcutta). The said decision of this Hon’ble Court was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petitions, by orderdated November 29, 2017, have been dismissed by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt. Thus, the entire issue has reached finality. We find no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The questions of law are answered against the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal along with the connected stayapplication stand dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) tk