Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kolkata v. Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd

OD-18 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income tax)ORIGINAL SIDE IA No.GA 2 of 2021 In ITAT 107 of 2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATAVs.NIPHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 8[th] December, 2021. Appearance:Mr. P. K. Bhowmik, Adv.Mr. Manabendra Nath Bandopadhyay, Adv. …for the appellant. Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv.Mr. Sanjay Ginodia, Adv. Ms. Mini Agarwal, Adv.…for the respondent. The Court : This appeal of the revenue filed under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated17[th] January, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B-Bench,Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’) in ITA No.873/Kol/2018 for the assessment year2013-14. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law forconsideration: i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on law, thelearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in granting relief, inrespect of ‘VAT’ refund receivable amounting to Rs.30,19,963/- without appreciating the case on merit and observation made by C.I.T. in hisorder under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? We have heard Mr. P. K. Bhowmik, learned Standing Counsel assistedby Mr. Manabendra Nath Bandopadhyay, learned Junior Standing Counselappearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala,learned Counsel assisted by Ms. Mini Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing forthe respondent/assessee. The short question involved in the instant case is whether the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata was justified in invoking his powerunder Section 263 of the Act on the ground that the order of assessmentorder 15[th] July, 2015 under Section 143(3) of the Act was erroneous andprejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The issue concerns VAT refundreceivable by the respondent assessee. The PCIT was of the view that theAssessing Officer did not enquire into the matter and, therefore, sought tojustify his action under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal tested thevalidity of the order and took note of the fact that the Assessing Officer hadspecifically raised this issue during the course of assessment and issued anotice to the assessee and conducted an enquiry under Section 142(1) byintimating the assessee vide letter dated 6[th] July, 2015 and the assesseesubmitted its explanation by a letter dated 10[th] July, 2015 along with a copyof the relevant details and after examining the explanation, the assessmentwas completed. This factual position was taken note by the Tribunal andfound that there is no question of excercising jurisdiction under Section 263of the Act. Thus, we find that there is no question of law much lesssubstantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. pa/S.Das In the result, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)