P) Ltd v. Accordingly The Appeal Stands Dismissed. Consequently Theapplication Also Stands Dismissed

OD – 9 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO: GA/2/2017 (OLD NO: GA/2133/2017)InITAT/249/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-4VS.M/S. CHITRAVALI SALES PVT. LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMA N DTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate: December 2, 2021. Appearance :Mr. D. Chowdhury, AdvocateMr. Madhu Jana, Advocate…for the appellantMr. Avijit Dey, AdvocateMr. Subash Agarwal, Advocate…for the respondent The Court : This appeal by the revenue filed under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act in brevity) is directedagainst the order dated 10[th] August, 2016 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA Nos.116/Kol/2010 for Assessment Year 2006-07. The Revenue has raisedthe following substantial questions of law for consideration: - i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench,case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata was justified in deleting the addition ofRs.7,75,34,884/- being advances received from 470persons on account of alleged trading of sand whoseidentity has not been proved ? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase the order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata was perverse inoverlooking the relevant material brought forward bythe Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4) Kolkata in its orderdated 30[th] December, 2008 on record as evidence toestablish that the impugned advances was bogus innature ? The short question involved in the instant case is whetherthe assesee had discharged the onus cast upon him in explaining thenature of source of credit, the identity of the creditors, genuineness ofthe transactions and creditworthiness of the parties. The Tribunalafter considering the fact found that the amount received by theassessee from 470 persons is only a trade deposit and those personsare customers of the assessee which had been adjusted against thesupplies of sand and sales have been booked by the assessee for theAssessment Year 2007-08 which was accepted by the assessing officerand the assessment was completed. Therefore, the Tribunal held thatthe provisions of Section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked in respect oftrade deposit received from the customers. The Tribunal also tooknote of the decision of this Court in the case of CRYSTAL NETWORKS (P) LTD Vs. CIT in ITA No.158 of 2002 dated 29[th] July 2010. We findthat the Tribunal on facts was satisfied that the provisions of Section68 would not stand attracted and the fact that assessing officer hadaccepted the return filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year2007-08 where the trade advances were duly squared off by thesupply of sand by the assessee to the customers and the sales werebooked in the said Assessment Year 2007-08 and this has beenaccepted by the assessing officer vide proceeding u/S. 154 of the Actwhile granting credit of T.C.S. under Section 206(C)(4) of the Act.Thus we find that there is no question of law, much less substantialquestions of law arising in this appeal. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed. Consequently theapplication also stands dismissed. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) GH/RS.