Itat/172/2023 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Asansol v. Jagabandhu Das

OD-13 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT 172 OF 2023IA NO: GA/2/2023PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASANSOL-Versus-JAGABANDHU DAS BEFORE: The Hon’ble T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CHIEF JUSTICE -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA Date : 22[nd] November, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv...for the appellant Mr. Hemant Tiwari, Adv.…for the respondent The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 29[th]September, 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench,Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 322/Kol/2022 for the assessment year 2015-16. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law forconsideration : i)Whether in the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committedsubstantial error in law in quashing the order under Section 263 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 when it is apparent from the records that thesubstantial error in law in quashing the order under Section 263 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 when it is apparent from the records that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of theRevenue inasmuch as the same had been passed by the assessing officerwithout making due and proper enquiry and without verification of theaspect of cash payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- for purchasing lands inviolation of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? ii)Whether in the Learned Tribunal has substantially erred in law inquashing the order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 without appreciating the fact that the appeal of the assesseerespondent preferred before the CIT (Appeals) is against the addition ofnet amount of Rs.7,40,754/- under the head income from businessearned from sale of three properties and whereas the said order underSection 263 of the said Act has been passed for not making enquiry onthe aspect of violation of provisions of Section 40A(3) of the said Act asthe assessee made cash payment of more than Rs.20,000/- in day to aparty ? We have heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned standing counsel appearingfor the appellant and Mr. Hemant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for therespondent. After elaborately hearing the learned Advocates for the parties andcarefully perusing the order impugned as well as the order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the assessment order, we find that the learned Tribunal has rightly taken note of the factual position and heldthat the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act was bad in law.We find that the respondent assessee is an individual and the factual aspectswere examined by the Tribunal and if the case was not under section 263 ofthe Act, the appeal itself would not be maintainable as it would be hit by themonetary limit as the tax which was demanded was only Rs.1,40,000/-. In any event, we are convinced that the facts of the case have beenexamined and the Tribunal returned a finding in favour of the assessee. Thus,we find there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration.Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The stay application being IA NO: GA/2/2023 is also dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE (SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.)