Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata v. M/S. Outcome Buildcom Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/3/2024IA NO: GA/1/2024 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATAVsM/S. OUTCOME BUILDCOM PVT. LTD. BEFORE: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAnd THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 3[rd] May, 2024. Appearance:Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv.Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv.…for the appellant Mr. Rites Goel, Adv.Mr. Santanu Chakraborty, Adv.…for the respondent The Court: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). It is directed against an orderdated July 3, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench,Kolkata (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in I.T.A No.652/Kol/2020 for the AssessmentYear 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law forconsideration. (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case theLearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was erred in law in deleting theaddition of Rs.13,56,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961 on account of share capital and premium in absence of identity ofcreditors and, genuineness and creditworthiness of the entiretransactions? The short question which falls for consideration is whether theaddition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act wasjustifiable. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 7 Kolkata (CITA) setaside the addition made and allowed the assessee’s appeal. The Revenuecarried the matter on appeal. We find from the order passed by the learnedTribunal that the facts of the case have been re-appreciated and the learnedTribunal has recorded a finding that the assessee has demonstratedsuccessfully the nature of the sum received during the year and the source ofthe said sum being received from the share applicants and complete evidencehas been submitted. Further, it has been pointed out that the Assessing Officerhas not pointed out any specific error in all the documents nor anydiscrepancies in the information provided by the assessee. Furthermore, theTribunal on facts found that the Assessing Officer has not paid anyindependent enquiry to verify the genuineness of the transaction in spite of theassessee having furnished all details and documents before the AssessingOfficer.Thus, we find that the matter is fully factual and no substantialquestion of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Consequently, the application stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) bp/R.Bhar