Principal Commissioner Of Incometax-15, Kolkata v. Before

ITAT/30/2020 IA No.GA/1/2020 (Old No.GA/1039/2020)IA No.GA/2/2020 (Old No.GA/1040/2020) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-15, KOLKATA -Versus- SMT. ANITA DIGGA Appearance:Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv.Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv....for the appellant. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- Date : 12[th] April, 2022. The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA The Court : We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury,learned standing counsel assisted by Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee,learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/revenue. There is a delay of 108 days in filing the appeal.Though notice has not been served on the respondent, since weare inclined to take up the appeal for disposal, we exercisediscretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal.Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay IANo.GA/1/2020 (Old No.GA/1039/2020) is allowed. Re: ITAT/30/2020: This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directedagainst the order dated 27[th] June, 2019 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’ inshort) ITA No.2524/Kol/2018 for the assessment year 2014-15. The revenue has raised for the following substantialquestions of law for consideration: “a) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantialerror in law by not admitting that unexplained Long TermCapital Gains (LTCG) comes under the purview ofunexplained cash-credits under Section 68 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 involving proceeding under Section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and suspicious transaction inshares cannot be exempted under Section 10(38) of the Act?error in law by not admitting that unexplained Long TermCapital Gains (LTCG) comes under the purview ofunexplained cash-credits under Section 68 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 involving proceeding under Section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and suspicious transaction inshares cannot be exempted under Section 10(38) of the Act? b) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantialerror in law when the Learned Tribunal failed to giveevidence to investigations made by the Assessing Officer,Investigation wing of the Income Tax Department as wellas SEBI an astronomical rise in pricy of shares ofcompanies which have no net worth and no financialfoundation and thereby failed to apply the test of humanprobability to ascertain the true nature of transactionsresulting the bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) ?error in law when the Learned Tribunal failed to giveevidence to investigations made by the Assessing Officer,Investigation wing of the Income Tax Department as wellas SEBI an astronomical rise in pricy of shares ofcompanies which have no net worth and no financialfoundation and thereby failed to apply the test of humanprobability to ascertain the true nature of transactionsresulting the bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) ?c) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantialerror in law in accepting the transactions inpurchase/sale of penny stock as genuine, mainly in thebasis of documents supplied by the assessee withoutpiercing the veil of the manipulative and fraudulenttransactions entered by assessee in collusion with a helpof share brokers and entry operators for the purpose oftax erosion ?error in law in accepting the transactions inpurchase/sale of penny stock as genuine, mainly in thebasis of documents supplied by the assessee withoutpiercing the veil of the manipulative and fraudulenttransactions entered by assessee in collusion with a helpof share brokers and entry operators for the purpose oftax erosion ? We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learnedstanding counsel for the appellant/revenue. We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learnedstanding counsel for the appellant/revenue. Learned standing counsel for the appellant has producedbefore us a copy of the written instruction given by theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Headquarters-XIII, Kolkatadated 8[th] April, 2022 addressed to the Additional GovernmentAdvocate, Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of LegalAffairs, Kolkata, informing him that the higher authorities haverecommended for withdrawal of this appeal on the ground that therespondent/assessee has opted for the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme,2020. The said communication is placed on record.Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/30/2020) is dismissed aswithdrawn. Consequently, the substantial questions of law areleft open.In the result, the connected application for stay IANo.GA/2/2020 (Old No.GA/1040/2020) stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S.Pal/As.