Itat/63/2024 Ia No: Ga/2/2024 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 Kolkata v. M/S Rootstar Developers Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/63/2024IA NO: GA/2/2024PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATAVS M/S ROOTSTAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADATE : 15 MARCH, 2024. Appearance :Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Adv.Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv...for appellant.Ms. Swapna Das, Adv.Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv.…for respondent. The Court :- This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 6.2.2023 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 33/Kol/2021 for theassessment year 2012-2013. The revenue has raised the following substantialquestions of law for consideration :- a)Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law indeleting the addition of Rs.10,11,00,000/- under section 68 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, while only relying upon paper submissions made by theassessee, without considering the aspect that every credit in a particularaccount book is a fresh credit for which assessee is required to establish thedeleting the addition of Rs.10,11,00,000/- under section 68 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, while only relying upon paper submissions made by theassessee, without considering the aspect that every credit in a particularaccount book is a fresh credit for which assessee is required to establish the identity, creditworthiness of shareholders and the genuineness oftransaction, which in the case at hand the assessee failed to do ? b)Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law by notappreciating the fact that the share subscribing concerns have investedhuge amount in the beginning year of their incorporation which defies thefinancial logic and sense ?appreciating the fact that the share subscribing concerns have investedhuge amount in the beginning year of their incorporation which defies thefinancial logic and sense ? We have elaborately heard learned Counsel on either side. The question is whether the addition made under Section 68 was justifiable.The Tribunal by the impugned order has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenueaffirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals - 7 dated28.08.2020. We have gone though the order passed by the learned Tribunal and wefind that the Tribunal has done a through factual exercise and examined as towhether three ingredients which are required to be satisfied for invoking Section 68stood attracted, and on facts it held that these ingredients had not been fulfilled and,therefore, accepted the view taken by the CIT (A). The Tribunal has clearly recordedthe findings that the assessee has been able to prove the identity, creditworthinessand genuineness of the transaction and has discharged the burden cast upon it. Thus, we find there is no questions of law, much less substantial questions oflaw arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed. . (T.S. SIVAGNANAM)CHIEF JUSTICE ( HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA,J.)