Itat/249/2023 Ia No: Ga/1/2023 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 Kolkata v. M/S Mahalakshmi Vinimay P. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/249/2023IA NO: GA/1/2023PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATAVSM/S MAHALAKSHMI VINIMAY P. LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 13[th] December, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Aryak Dutta, Adv.Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv.…for appellant. The Court : - This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 18[th] May,2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal B Bench, Kolkata in ITA35/Kol/2020 for the assessment year 2008-09. The respondent has raised thefollowing substantial questions of law for consideration :Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 18[th] May,2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal B Bench, Kolkata in ITA35/Kol/2020 for the assessment year 2008-09. The respondent has raised thefollowing substantial questions of law for consideration : (a)WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case theLearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in deleting theaddition of Rs.9,67,00.000/- under Section 68 of the Act, 1961 relyingupon only on the papers submission made by the Assessee, withoutconsidering the law points that when the credit in the particularaccount books is a fresh credit for which assessee failed to establishthe identity, creditworthiness of share holders and the genuineness ofthe transaction ? (b)WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case theLearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in allowing theLearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee on addition in respect of the share capitaland share premium under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961even though the share subscribing company has only meager incomein the return of income filed? We have heard the learned Counsel on either side. The short question which falls for consideration in the instant case waswhether the assessee was able to prove identity and creditworthiness of thesubscribers and the genuineness of the transaction. The learned Tribunal haselaborately gone into the fact and has found that the subscribers have furnishedall the documents pursuant to the notices issued by the assessing officer underSection 133(6) of the Act. They had also filed their audited financial statement,the acknowledgement of filing their income tax returns, copies of bankstatements to prove their identity and creditworthiness and genuineness of thetransaction. The learned Advocate after having gone through the entire fact hasfound that all the three ingredients have been established by the subscribers.Thus we find that there is no question of law much less substantial questions oflaw arising out for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal isdismissed. Consequently, the application also stands dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)