Pawan Putra Nirman v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kolkata & Anr

OD-65 ITAT/325/2017IA NO: GA/1/2017(Old No.GA/3130/2017)IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE PAWAN PUTRA NIRMANVERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA & ANR. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 23[rd] November, 2021 Appearance:- The Court : This appeal filed by the assessee under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directedagainst the order dated 3[rd] May, 2017 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1958/Kol/2016 forassessment year 2008-09. The assessee has formulated followingquestions of law for our consideration :- I.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theLearned Tribunal inspite of documents being available on record II. and inspite of adequate submissions being made, which provedthat invocation of jurisdiction under section 263 was whollyillegal, uncalled for and arbitrary the Learned Tribunal ratherthan quashing the order passed under section 263, could not atall set aside the order with directions to the respondent no. 1 topass a fresh order and such action apart from being withoutand/or in excess of jurisdiction was perverse in law ? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case theLearned Tribunal could exercise the statutory power of settingaside mechanically and in a routine manner and that too forgiving a second innings to the concerned authority whensituation demanded quashing of the order passed under section263 and whether such of passing an order of remand is perversein law ? We have heard Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Counselappearing for the appellant and Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned StandingCounsel appearing for the respondent revenue. After elaborately hearing the learned Counsel for the appellantand the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and carefullyperusing the materials placed on record and the conclusion arrived atby the Tribunal in the impugned order, we find that no question of lawarises for consideration before this Court, much less substantialquestions of law. The Tribunal after going through the facts deemed it appropriate that the matter should be remanded back to theCommissioner of Income Tax since the earlier exercise done by theCommissioner was in violation of the principles of natural justice asthe assessee was not put on notice. We find the order passed by the Tribunal to be just and properwarranting no interference. That apart, we find that no substantialquestions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly theappeal fails and the same is dismissed. The order passed by theTribunal is upheld. With the dismissal of the appeal, the connected application isalso dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)