Itat/248/2023 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 Kolkata v. M/S Tara Re Rolling Pvt Ltd

OD-1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONORIGINAL SIDE ITAT 248 OF 2023IA NO: GA/1/2023PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA-Versus-M/S. TARA RE-ROLLING PVT. LTD. BEFORE: The Hon’ble T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CHIEF JUSTICE -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 11[th] December, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Aryak Dutta, Adv.Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv...for the appellant Ms. Namrata Jha, Adv.…for the respondent The Court : This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 1[st] May,2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata(Tribunal) in I.T.A. No.49/Kol/2021 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law forconsideration : i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the LearnedIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in deleting the additionIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.4,53,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Act, 1961 relying upon onlyon the papers submission made by the Assessee, without consideringthe law points that when the credit in the particular account books is afresh credit for which assessee failed to establish the identity,creditworthiness of share holders and the genuineness of thetransaction ? ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the LearnedIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in dismissing the appealof the revenue on addition in respect of the share capital and sharepremium under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even though theshare subscribing company has only meagre income in the return ofincome filed ? The short question which falls for consideration is whether theAssessing Officer was justified in holding that the entire amount received bythe assessee on account of issue of shares along with the quantum of premiumpaid for issue of shares are to be treated as unexplained cash credit in thebooks of accounts of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act. The order ofassessment briefly discusses the case of the assessee and the Assessing Officerwas of the view that though notices were issued under Section 131 of the Actto the investors they did not personally appear. Consequently he drew anadverse inference and held against the assessee. The assessee carried thematter in appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals - 7, Kolkata [CIT(A)]. As could be seen from the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 2ndSeptember, 2020, an elaborate factual exercise has been done by the CIT(A)bearing in mind that three issues which are required to be considered in a caseinvolving Section 68 of the Act namely, identity of the share subscriber whichrequires to be proved by documentary evidence; the creditworthiness of theshare subscribers and the genuineness of the transaction. The CIT(A) notedthat all the 13 subscribers had responded to the notices issued by theAssessing Officer and submitted details regarding their investments as well astheir net-worth and also the orders of assessment passed on each of them. This aspect has been noted by the CIT(A) and clearly illustrated in atabulated format. After going through the facts, the CIT(A) held that evidencehas been sworn by the assessee as well as by the investors establishing thecreditworthiness, source of funds as well as the genuineness of thetransaction. Further, the CIT(A) found that though all the materials wereavailable with the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny assessment,they were not considered and no finding has been recorded by the AssessingOfficer while holding against the respondent/assessee. The revenue carried the matter on appeal before the learned Tribunalwhich dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue after re-appreciating thefactual position. Thus, we are of the view that no questions of law, much less anysubstantial question of law, arises for consideration in this appeal. The revenue carried the matter on appeal before the learned Tribunalwhich dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue after re-appreciating thefactual position. Thus, we are of the view that no questions of law, much less anysubstantial question of law, arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.The stay application IA No: GA/1/2023 is also dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) SN.AR(CR)