Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central - 1, Kolkata v. M/S. Rungta Sons Pvt. Ltd

OD – 2 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO.GA/2/2017 (Old No. GA/1770/2017)InITAT/200/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - 1,KOLKATAVS.M/S. RUNGTA SONS PVT. LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM A N DTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : February 2, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance :Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv.… for the appellantMr. Subhas Agarwal, Adv...for the respondent The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for brevity) is directed againstthe order dated 13[th] May, 2016 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 1482/Kol/2011 forthe assessment year 2007-08. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions oflaw for consideration : 1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theLearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in lawin deleting the addition of Rs. 2,67,09,704/- out ofRs.4,68,02,738/- as unexplained cash credit underSection 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 erroneouslyrelying on the decision of the Learned Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) and accepting the claim of theassessee ignoring the fact that a genuine party must notissue cheques through other non-existing parties forgenuine transactions?Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in lawin deleting the addition of Rs. 2,67,09,704/- out ofRs.4,68,02,738/- as unexplained cash credit underSection 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 erroneouslyrelying on the decision of the Learned Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) and accepting the claim of theassessee ignoring the fact that a genuine party must notissue cheques through other non-existing parties forgenuine transactions? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case theLearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in lawin interpreting section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 byholding that Rs. 1,00,00,523/- credited to the account ofM/s V.K. Minerals on 31.03.2007 did not represent cashcredit as the said amount was credited on account oftransfer entry, but, failed to appreciate that M/s V.K.Minerals is a non existing entity?Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in lawin interpreting section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 byholding that Rs. 1,00,00,523/- credited to the account ofM/s V.K. Minerals on 31.03.2007 did not represent cashcredit as the said amount was credited on account oftransfer entry, but, failed to appreciate that M/s V.K.Minerals is a non existing entity? We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned standingcounsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Subhas Agarwal, learnedcounsel for the respondent/assessee. With regard to the first substantial question of law which hasbeen suggested by the revenue, the discussion made by the Tribunalin the impugned order is in paragraph 7. The Tribunal sustained theorder passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) by which a limited relief was granted to the assessee, after noting the factualposition, more particularly, the remand report submitted by theassessing officer wherein the assessing officer has accepted the factualposition. Therefore, we find there is no question of law, much lesssubstantial question of law, arising out for consideration as suggestedin question no. 1. With regard to the second question as suggested by the revenue,we find that the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the assessingofficer to decide the same afresh. In fact, the assessee also agreed thatthe matter may be restored to the file of the assessing officer to decidethe issue afresh. Thus, we find the second question also does not arisefor consideration. Hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed with theobservation that no substantial question of law arises forconsideration. The stay application also stands dismissed. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)