Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Asansol v. Sri Tushar Kanti Banerjee

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/181/2019 IA NO:GA/1/2019 [OLD NO:GA/2655/2019] PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASANSOLVS.SRI TUSHAR KANTI BANERJEE ……… ITAT/181/2019 IA NO:GA/2/2019 [OLD NO:GA/2656/2019] PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASANSOLVS.SRI TUSHAR KANTI BANERJEE ……… PRESENT:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA14[th] February, 2022.[Video Conference] Mr. P. K. Bhowmick, Adv…for appellant. RE: IA NO:GA/1/2019 [OLD NO:GA/2655/2019] The Court: We have heard Mr. P. K. Bhowmick, learned senior standingcounsel for the appellant/revenue. None appears for the respondent. We findthat none appeared for the respondent before the Tribunal. There is a delay of 223 days in filing this appeal. We are satisfied withthe reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petitionand, accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application, IA NO:GA/1/2019 [OLD NO:GA/2655/2019]standsdisposed of accordingly. RE: ITAT/181/2019 This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961, (the Act, in brevity) is directed against the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) dated29.08.2018 in ITA Nos. 1741 to 1742 [Kol] of 2017 for the assessment years2012-13 and 2013-14. The revenue has raised the following substantialquestions of law for our consideration. a.Whether the Learned Tribunal committed substantial error of lawin dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue and in holding thatcash payment to M/s. Assansol Bottoling and Packaging Co. Ltd.is not a violation of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?in dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue and in holding thatcash payment to M/s. Assansol Bottoling and Packaging Co. Ltd.is not a violation of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? b.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the LearnedTribunal was justified in law in holding that cash payment toM/s. Assansol Bottling & Packaging Co. Ltd. is exempt as perRule 6DD(b) and 6DD(k) read with Section 40A(3) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 when there are no rules to specify that thispayment was required to be made in cash only ?Tribunal was justified in law in holding that cash payment toM/s. Assansol Bottling & Packaging Co. Ltd. is exempt as perRule 6DD(b) and 6DD(k) read with Section 40A(3) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 when there are no rules to specify that thispayment was required to be made in cash only ? We have heard Mr. P. K. Bhowmick, learned senior standing counsel forthe appellant/revenue. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by therevenue for both the assessment years following the order passed in theassessee’s own case wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal concludedthat the transaction would fall within the exception provided under Rule 6DD(k) of the Income Tax Rules since they were acting as an agent of theGovernment of West Bengal, who were the Principal. Before the Tribunal therevenue was not able to point out any exception on facts for the assessmentyears under consideration. We find from the order passed by the Tribunal thatthe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has made a thorough factualexercise and has brought out the necessary ingredients to hold that theassessee’s case falls under the exception provided under Rule 6DD(b) and6DD(k). Thus, we find there is no question of law much less substantialquestion of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, theappeal is dismissed. Consequently, the stay application,IA NO:GA/2/2019 [OLDNO:GA/2656/2019] also stands dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)