Itat/60/2023 Ia No. Ga/2/2023 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata v. Rydak Syndicate Ltd

OD-3 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/60/2023IA NO. GA/2/2023PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, KOLKATAVs.RYDAK SYNDICATE LTD. BEFORE:THE HON'BLE T. S. SIVAGNANAM ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANDThe Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 12 APRIL, 2023. Appearance:Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv.…for appellantMr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr., Adv.Mr. Swapna Das, Adv.Mr. S. Das, Adv.…for respondent The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata dated 9.3.2022 passed in ITANo.561/Kol/2021 for the assessment year 2019-2020. The revenue has suggested the following substantial question of law forconsideration :- i)WHETHER the Learned Tribunal has erred in law and fact inallowing the claim of the assessee in violation of Section 36(1)(va)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even though the assessee failed to deposit employee’s contribution to the Provident Fund within duedate? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing Counsel for theappellant/department and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel dulyassisted by Ms. Swapna Das and Mr. S. Das, learned Advocates for therespondent/assessee. On the last occasion, it was pointed out by the learned Senior Advocateappearing for the respondent/assessee the tax effect in the instant case isRs.92,87,087/- and therefore, below the threshold limit and hence therevenue cannot pursue the appeal. To enable the learned Advocate appearingfor the appellant/department to get the instruction, the matter wasadjourned till today. Today, on instruction the learned Counsel appearing for the appellantstates that he has received a WhatsApp message from the officer of thedepartment stating that the tax effect is Rs.98,81,449/-. It is the submissionof the learned standing Counsel for the respondent if the amount iscalculated at 7% which was the prevailing rate at the relevant point of time,the tax effect is only Rs.92,87,087/- whereas the department has calculatedat the rate of 15%. In any event, even going by the tax effect as mentioned bythe department, it is less than Rs.1 crore and, therefore, the revenue cannotpursue the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of on the groundof low tax effect and the substantial question of law is left open. Consequently, GA/2.2023 stands disposed of. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM)ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) GH/Skumar