Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4, Kolkata v. Sri Sandip Goswami

OD – 3 & 4 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO:GA/1/2017 (OLD NO. GA/1842/2017)IN ITAT/215/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, KOLKATAVS.SRI SANDIP GOSWAMI IA NO:GA/2/2017 (OLD NO. GA/1843/2017) INITAT/215/2017PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, KOLKATAVS.SRI SANDIP GOSWAMI BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM A N DTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate: November 23, 2021. [Via video conference] Appearance :Mr. Radha Mohan Roy, Adv.… for the appellant RE: IA NO:GA/1/2017 (OLD NO. GA/1842/2017) in ITAT/215/2017 The Court : This application has been filed to condone thedelay in preferring the appeal. We have heard Mr. Radha Mohan Roy, learned standingcounsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue. There is a delay of 21 days in filing the appeal. Learned standing counsel for the appellantsubmitted on instruction from the Ministry of Law that the appeal ishit by the Circular issued by the CBDT and cannot be pursued by theRevenue on account of low tax effect. Therefore, we dispense with theissuance of the notice to the respondent and condone the delay sothat the main appeal can be disposed of. Accordingly, the petition isallowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. RE: IA NO:GA/2/2017 (OLD NO. GA/1843/2017) in ITAT/215/2017 This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in brevity) is directed against the orderdated 18.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Kolkata “C” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.71/KOL/2014 for theAssessment Year 2009-10. The Revenue has raised the followingsubstantial question of law for consideration: (a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseand in law, the Learned Income Tax AppellateTribunal, “C” Bench, was justified in expanding thescope of Section 54F thereby allowing therespondent/assessee exemption in capital gain for aproperty purchased outside India i.e. in Canada tocome under the purview of Section 54F when it isunambiguous and clear under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that if the capital gain arisesfrom transfer of any long term capital assets, theassessee has purchased or is within a period of 3years after that date constructed, one residentialhouse in India, the asseessee shall get benefit ofSection 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961? We have heard Mr. Radha Mohan Roy, learned standingcounsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue. Learned standingcounsel on instruction from the Ministry of Law submitted that theappeal is hit on account of low tax and the Revenue cannot pursuethe matter. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of on the groundof low tax effect and the substantial question of law is left open. The stay application is also disposed of. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) RS/bp