Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, Kolkata v. M/S. Dunlop Inida Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO.GA/1/2017 (Old No. GA/1481/2017)InITAT/179/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, KOLKATAVS.M/S. DUNLOP INIDA LIMITED IA NO.GA/2/2017 (Old No. GA/1482/2017)InITAT/179/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, KOLKATAVS.M/S. DUNLOP INIDA LIMITED BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMA N DTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : February 3, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance :Mr. S.N. Dutta, Adv.Mr. Arunava Ganguly, Adv.… for the appellantMr. Chayan Gupta, Adv.Mr. Soumyajyoti Nandy, Adv.… for the respondent The Court : We have heard Mr. S.N. Dutta, learned standingcounsel duly assisted by Mr. Arunava Ganguly, learned counsel forthe appellant/revenue and Mr. Chayan Gupta and Mr. SoumyajyotiNandy, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. On the last occasion it was represented by the learned counselfor the respondent that the respondent company has gone into liquidation and the Official Liquidator of the High Court at Calcutta isin charge of the affairs of the respondent. However, taking note of thesubmission of the learned standing counsel for the appellant that thisappeal will not be pursued by the revenue on account of low tax effect,we exercise discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the petition for condonation of delay standsallowed. ITAT No. 179 of 2017 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for brevity) is directed against theorder dated 11[th] May, 2016 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 709/Kol/2013 forthe assessment year 2008-09. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions oflaw for consideration : 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the casethe Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BenchKolkata erred in law in upholding the Order of CIT (A)thereby deleting the addition of Rs.44 Crores underSection 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in absence of anyAccounting entries?the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BenchKolkata erred in law in upholding the Order of CIT (A)thereby deleting the addition of Rs.44 Crores underSection 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in absence of anyAccounting entries? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseand in law English Mortgage is applicable in India?and in law English Mortgage is applicable in India? 3.Whether on the basis of additional evidence adduced bythe respondent before the CIT (Appeal) de-novoinvestigation can be done?the respondent before the CIT (Appeal) de-novoinvestigation can be done? 4.Whether the impugned order is bad, arbitrary, illegalperverse and the same is nothing but a total non-application of mind of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Kolkata and the same is liable to be set aside and/orquashed?perverse and the same is nothing but a total non-application of mind of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Kolkata and the same is liable to be set aside and/orquashed? We have heard Mr. S.N. Dutta, learned standing counsel dulyassisted by Mr. Arunava Ganguly, learned counsel for theappellant/revenue and Mr. Chayan Gupta and Mr. SoumyajyotiNandy, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. Learned counsel for the appellant on instructions submittedthat this appeal will not be pursued by the revenue on account of lowtax effect. In the light of the said submission, the appeal stands dismissedon the ground of low tax effect. Consequently, the substantial questions of law are left open.Connected stay application also stands dismissed. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)