Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Kolkata v. Vesuvius India Ltd

OD – 10 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO:GA/2/2017 (OLD NO. GA/3995/2017)INITAT/426/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATAVS.VESUVIUS INDIA LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMA N DTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate: November 30, 2021. Appearance :Mr. P. K. Bhowmik, Adv.… for the appellantMr. Samak Basu, Adv.Mr. Somnath Bera, Adv.…for the respondent The Court : This appeal by the Revenue filed under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in brevity) is against theorder dated 3[rd] May, 2017 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 2138 (Kol), 2013 for theAssessment Year 2002-03. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questionsof law for consideration: 1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the Learned Tribunal was justified in law byquashing the order passed by the Assessing Officerunder Section 147/143(3) of the Act?the Learned Tribunal was justified in law byquashing the order passed by the Assessing Officerunder Section 147/143(3) of the Act? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the learned Tribunal unless justified in law inholding that no cogent material/evidence/information had been obtained from externalauthorities warranting re-opening of the assessmentand therefore the necessary ingredients of section147 of the Act were not fulfilled?the learned Tribunal unless justified in law inholding that no cogent material/evidence/information had been obtained from externalauthorities warranting re-opening of the assessmentand therefore the necessary ingredients of section147 of the Act were not fulfilled? 3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the learned Tribunal erred in law in failing toappreciable that when the initial return is processedunder Section 143(1) of the Act and hence there isno question of forming any opinion?the learned Tribunal erred in law in failing toappreciable that when the initial return is processedunder Section 143(1) of the Act and hence there isno question of forming any opinion? We have heard Mr. P. K. Bhowmik, learned senior standingcounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr. Basu, learned counsel forthe respondent/Assessee. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant/Revenue that thepresent appeal is hit by the circular issued by the CBDT and theRevenue cannot pursue this appeal on the ground of low tax effect. On the above submission, the appeal stands disposed of onthe ground of low tax effect. Consequently, substantial questions oflaw are left open. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) pkd/sp3