Itat/175/2018 Ia No.ga/1/2018 (Old No. Ga/1225/2018) Ga/2/2018 (Old No. Ga/1226/2018) Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Kolkata – 12, Kolkata v. Sri Raghu Nandan Modi

OD-1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/175/2018IA No.GA/1/2018 (OLD NO. GA/1225/2018)GA/2/2018 (OLD NO. GA/1226/2018)PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA – 12, KOLKATAVS.SRI RAGHU NANDAN MODI BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAKDate : 26[th] July, 2022 Appearance :Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv…for the appellant.Mr. Sohom Sen, Adv.….for respondent. GA/1/2018 The Court : There is a delay of 124 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the petition and find thatsufficient cause has been shown for not having preferred the appeal within thetime. Hence, the delay is condoned. The application is allowed. ITAT/175/2018 We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standing Counsel for theappellant and Mr. Sohom Sen, learned Advocate for the respondent. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 11[th] August, 2017 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A. No.1087 to 1090/Kol/2015 for the assessment year 2006-07 to 2009-10 along withC.O. Nos. 41 to 44/Kol/2015 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law forconsideration :- i)Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the LearnedIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata was erred in lawand on facts in determining the annual value of the property asprovided in Section 23(1)(a) and (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata was erred in lawand on facts in determining the annual value of the property asprovided in Section 23(1)(a) and (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? ii)Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the LearnedTribunal misdirected itself in holding that as the assessee was notdrawing any salary from Prabhukripa Overseas Limited, then theperquisites cannot be determined in terms of the provision of Section17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 3 of the Income TaxRules, 1962 ?Tribunal misdirected itself in holding that as the assessee was notdrawing any salary from Prabhukripa Overseas Limited, then theperquisites cannot be determined in terms of the provision of Section17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 3 of the Income TaxRules, 1962 ? iii) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the LearnedTribunal misdirected itself by holding that the provisions of Section28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are attracted if the benefit ofperquisites is arising to the assessee from the business or exercise ofthe profession ?Tribunal misdirected itself by holding that the provisions of Section28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are attracted if the benefit ofperquisites is arising to the assessee from the business or exercise ofthe profession ? We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standing Counsel for theappellant and Mr. Sohom Sen, learned Advocate for the respondent. It is pointed out by the learned Advocate for the respondent/assessee thatin all the four assessment years which are involved in this appeal the tax effect isless than the threshold limit fixed by the C.B.D.T. in their circular. This isevident from the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) – 10,CIT(A) dated 22.5.2015. From the said order we find that the demand raised forthe assessment year 2006-07 is Rs.64,44,320, for the assessment year 2007-08is Rs.59,37,580/- , for the assessment year 2008-09 is Rs.56,07,100/- and forthe assessment year Rs.52,31,270/-. Thus the tax effect in this appeal for all the four assessment years is belowthe threshold limit fixed in the circular. For such reason, the appeal cannot beproceeded with by the revenue and the same stands disposed of on the ground oflow tax effect. Consequently, the substantial questions of law are left open. The application GA/2/2018 stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) Thus the tax effect in this appeal for all the four assessment years is belowthe threshold limit fixed in the circular. For such reason, the appeal cannot beproceeded with by the revenue and the same stands disposed of on the ground oflow tax effect. Consequently, the substantial questions of law are left open. The application GA/2/2018 stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.) Pkd/GH