Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Kolkata v. Machino Techno Sales Pvt. Ltd

OD-36 ORDER SHEETIA NO. GA/2/2018(Old No: GA/2112/2018) ITAT/238/2018IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATAVsMACHINO TECHNO SALES PVT. LTD. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM And The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 13 DECEMBER, 2021 Appearance:Mr. Debashis Chaudhry, Adv.…For the Appellant Mr. Malay Dhar, Adv.Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, Adv.…For the Respondent The Court : This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity) is directed against the order dated18[th] October, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench,Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’) in ITA No.1317/Kol/2015 and C.O. No.55/Kol/2015 forthe assessment year 2011-12. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law forconsideration : “(a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal wrongly deleted the addition of Rs.3,74,41,906/- made bythe assessing officer on account of disallowance of discount? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal erred in overlooking the fact that no sales, bill etc. werefurnished during the course of assessment proceedings to validate discounts andCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), by way of admission to additionalevidence upheld the appeal filed by the assessee, thereby violating provisions ofRule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962? (c)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,06,85,656/- madeby the assessing officer on account of “advance received from customers” asunexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” Heard Mr. Debashis Chowdhury, learned Standing Counsel appearingfor the appellant/revenue and Mr. Malay Dhar, learned Counsel appearing forthe respondent/assessee. We have carefully perused the order passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] as well as the tribunal. The first appellate authorityand the tribunal have examined the facts in its entirety and more importantlynoted that the business model followed by the assessee has been consistent, theybeing a dealer of Maruti Udyog Limited and in the earlier assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, which were scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of theAct, the assessments were completed without making any addition. The tribunalre-appreciated the facts and concurred with the CIT(A). Thus, we find that there is no questions of law, much less substantialquestions of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. With the dismissal of the appeal, the application being GA/2/2018 (OldNo:GA/2112/2018) is also dismissed. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) SN/S.De