Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -20 v. Shri Chhandak Chakraborty

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/248/2017 IA NO: GA/2/2017 (OLD NO: GA/2125/2017) IN THE MATTER OF : PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA -20VSSHRI CHHANDAK CHAKRABORTY ITAT/248/2017IA NO: GA/1/2017 (OLD NO: GA/2124/2017) IN THE MATTER OF : PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA -20VSSHRI CHHANDAK CHAKRABORTY BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM A N D THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADATED : NOVEMBER 18, 2021. [Via Video Conference] Appearance :Mr. Arunava Ganguly, Advocate …for appellantMr. Siddharth Das, AdvocateMr. G.S. Gupta, Advocate ..for respondent The Court :- Heard Mr. Ganguly, learned Counsel appearing forthe appellant and Mr. Das, learned Counsel appearing for therespondent/assessee. We are satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed insupport of the petition and, therefore, we are exercising discretion tocondone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay iscondoned. The application is allowed. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (the Act in brevity) is directed against the order dated 24[th]August, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata,Bench “A” Kolkata, in the I.T.A. Nos. 411 and 963/Kol/2016 relating toAssessment Year 2008-2009. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of lawfor consideration :- (i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case theLearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in lawby deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer uponadmitting new evidence adduced by theAssessee/Respondent without giving any opportunity to theAssessing Officer to examine the same regarding theundisclosed cash deposit in the various Banks account ofthe Assessee/Respondent. (ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case theLearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in lawthat the evidence on record shows the Assessee/Respondentmade unexplained cash deposit in various Banks while passing the impugned order which is perversed and nottenable in law. (iii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case theLearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in lawin not examining the genuineness of the evidences and notallowing the Assessing Officer to examine the documentsproduced before the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunalfor the first time. We have heard Mr. Ganguly, learned Counsel for theappellant/revenue. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for theappellant that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than thethreshold limit as per the circular issued by the CBDT. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal stands dismissed on theground of low tax effect and the substantial question of law are left openfor consideration. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) GH.