Itat/71/2024 Ia No: Ga/2/2024 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – (Central)-2, Kolkata v. M/S. Lal Baba Seamless Tubes Pvt. Ltd

OD–21 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/71/2024IA No: GA/2/2024PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – (CENTRAL)-2, KOLKATAVS.M/S. LAL BABA SEAMLESS TUBES PVT. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 26[th] April, 2024 Appearance :Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv.…for appellant Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, Adv.Mr. Anurag Roy, 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 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata, dated 21[st] October, 2022,passed in ITA No. 2641/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law forconsideration : i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunalhas committed substantial error in law by ignoring the fact ofcreditworthiness of the investor companies as well as genuineness of thetransaction was not established by the assessee ? ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld Tribunal haserred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to produceapplicant/investors companies for share allotment for cross examinationand thus failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the shareallotment ? We have elaborately heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing Counselappearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, learnedCounsel for the respondent/assessee. The matter arises under Section 68 of the Act. The Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeal) –14, Kolkata [CIT(A)] had affirmed the order passed by theAssessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 3[rd] March, 2015.Challenging the same, appeal was filed by the assessee. We find the learned Tribunal has done an elaborate exercise to examinethe factual position as well as the documents which were filed by the assessee inthe form of a paper book. Learned Tribunal records the finding of fact that theassessee has established source of source, even though it was not required forthe assessment year under consideration. The documents which were called forby the Assessing Officer were admittedly produced before the Assessing Officerthough the investors or director appeared in person. Thus, on appreciation ofthe factual position the Tribunal has granted the relief. Furthermore, the learnedTribunal has noted that addition has already been made in the hand of thesubscribing company and therefore, no further addition is required to be madein the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that all the companies areactive and have invested money from their own resources. Thus, we find no questions of law, much less substantial questions of law,arising for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is thus dismissed. The stay application IA No: GA/2/2024 also stands dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM)CHIEF JUSTICE (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) SN/mg.AR(CR)