Principal Commissioner Of Incometax-4, Kolkata v. M/S. V2 Retail Ltd

OD-9 ITAT/18/2020 IA NO.GA/2/2020 (Old No.GA/697/2020) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-4, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. V2 RETAIL LTD. Appearance:Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv....for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, Adv.Mr.Praveen Sharma, Adv.Mr. Swetank Rai, Adv....for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK Date : 28[th] July, 2022.The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity)is directed against the order dated 31[st] October, 2018 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (in shortthe ‘Tribunal’) in ITA No.1517/Kol/2015 related to the assessment year 2011-12 and C.O. No.123/Kol/2017 arising out of ITANo.1517/Kol/2015 for the assessment year 2011-12. The revenue has raised the following substantial questionof law for consideration: i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseand in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erredin confirming the order of the Learned Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals) deleting addition of Rupees605,23,24,263/- without appreciating the fact thatthe Assessee was required to prepare its Profit andLoss account in accordance with the provisions ofPart II and Part III of Schedule VI of theCompanies Act, 1956, as required by the provisionof Section 115JB(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961? We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned standingcounsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learnedsenior counsel assisted by Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, learned Advocateappearing for the respondent/assessee. On going through the order passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [CIT(A)] as well as the orderpassed by the learned Tribunal impugned in this appeal, we findthat the first appellate authority as well as the tribunal rightlytook note of the settled legal position as settled by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of Appollo Tyres Ltd. vs. Commissionerof Income Tax reported in 2002 (255) ITR 273. The issue in the present case is with regard to the object of Section 115J of theAct. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “Therefore, we are of the opinion, the AssessingOfficer while computing the income under section 115Jhas only the power of examining whether the books ofaccount are certified by the authorities under theCompanies Act as having been properly mentioned inaccordance within the Companies Act. The AssessingOfficer thereafter has the limited power of makingincreases and reductions as provided for in theExplanation to the said section. To put itdifferently, the Assessing Officer does not have thejurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in theprofit and loss account except to the extent providedin the Explanation to section 115.” The CIT(A) as well as the tribunal, after noting thefacts, held that the accounts of the assessee are maintained inaccordance with the Schedule-6 of the Companies Act. This factualconclusion is not being disputed by the revenue before us. Insuch circumstances, the learned tribunal was fully justified inrelying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court andaffirmed the order passed by the CIT(A). Thus, we find there is no question of law much lesssubstantial question of law arising for consideration in thisappeal. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue(ITAT/18/2020) fails and is dismissed. Consequently, the connected application (GA/2/2020) also stands closed. for stay (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.) A.Sadhukhan/S.DasAR(CR)