Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Kolkata v. M/S. Shree Parasnath Re-Rolling Mills Ltd

OD-23 ITAT/260/2023IA No.GA/2/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, KOLKATAVsM/S. SHREE PARASNATH RE-ROLLING MILLS LTD. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA Date : 31[st ]January, 2024 Appearance:Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Adv.Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.…for the appellant.Mr. Subash Agarwal, Adv.Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh, Adv.Mr. Nitish Bhandary, Adv...for the 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 17[th] November,2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (theTribunal) in ITA No.2470/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 and in law, theLearned Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the additionunder Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting toRs.20,20,00,000/- on the basis of submission of the respondentassessee without going into the actual facts and materials of thecase?Learned Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the additionunder Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting toRs.20,20,00,000/- on the basis of submission of the respondentassessee without going into the actual facts and materials of thecase? ii)Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in lawin failing to appreciate that the transactions of share applicationcannot be said to be genuine transactions when admittedly therespondent assessee and the three investor companies are groupcompanies having cross shareholding ?in failing to appreciate that the transactions of share applicationcannot be said to be genuine transactions when admittedly therespondent assessee and the three investor companies are groupcompanies having cross shareholding ? iii)Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in lawin failing to appreciate that if at all the respondent assessee requiredfunds for expansion of its business or funding projects undertaken byit, it could have done so by selling and/or offloading its holding/ stakein any of aforesaid group companies in favour of any outside investorand would not have asked money from its group company wherein therespondent assessee itself had made investment ?in failing to appreciate that if at all the respondent assessee requiredfunds for expansion of its business or funding projects undertaken byit, it could have done so by selling and/or offloading its holding/ stakein any of aforesaid group companies in favour of any outside investorand would not have asked money from its group company wherein therespondent assessee itself had made investment ? We have heard Mr. Om Narayan Rai, learned standing counsel alongwith Mr. Amit Sharma, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Mr.Subash Agarwal, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondentassessee. After elaborately hearing learned Advocates for the parties and carefullyconsidering the entire materials placed on record, we find that both theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Kolkata and the learned Tribunalhave examined the factual aspect in a detailed manner and found that theinvestor companies are admittedly group companies with common directorshaving cross shareholdings. On being satisfied with the genuineness of thetransaction and identity and creditworthiness of the investors, relief was grantedby the CIT(A) in favour of the assessee which order has been affirmed by thelearned Tribunal after re-appreciating the facts. Thus, we find that there is no substantial question of law arising forconsideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.Consequently, the application stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.) sg./bp.