Principal Commissioner Of Incometax, Kolkata-4, Kolkata v. M/S. Anand Nirman Pvt. Ltd

OD-27 ITAT/316/2018 IA No.GA/2/2018 (Old No.3422/2018) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KOLKATA-4, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. ANAND NIRMAN PVT. LTD. Appearance:Mr. S. N. Dutta, Adv....for the appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.Mr. Asim Chowdhury, Adv.Mr. Soham Sen, Adv....for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 7[th] March, 2022. The Court : This appeal by the revenue filed underSection 260A of the Income Tax, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) isdirected against the order dated 12[th] July, 2017 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (in short the‘Tribunal’) in ITA No.809/Kol/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. The revenue has raised the following substantialquestions of law for consideration: i)Whether on the facts and the circumstances of thecase the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata erred in law and in fact bydeleting the addition of Rs.4,13,36,988/- out ofwhich Rs.1,65,96,969/- was finally derived to beundisclosed investment based on seized documentsin remand proceedings whereas the assessee failedto dispute the relation of the said seizeddocuments with it in the remand proceedings?Whether the Ld. Tribunal failed to apply itsjudicious mind and completely ignored the factthat the assessee has made cash payment to eightparties and the Assessing Officer observed that bythe said act, the provision of section 269SS and269T has been attracted. Thus, in the RemandReport the Assessing Officer also stated thatthese payments and receipts attract the provisionof Section 269SS and 269T? ii) We have heard Mr. S. N. Dutta, learned standing counselfor the appellant/revenue and Mr.J. P. Khaitan, learned seniorcounsel assisted by Mr. Asim Chowdhury and Mr. Soham Sen,learned Advocates for the respondent/assessee.We have carefully perused the findings recorded by thetribunal with regard to the issue raised in the firstsubstantial question of law suggested by the revenue. Thediscussion is in paragraph 11 of the order passed by thetribunal. On going through the findings recorded by thetribunal, we find that the tribunal re-appreciated the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I,Kolkata [CIT(A)] while granting relief go the assessee videorder dated 18[th] January, 2013. We find that the matter isentirely factual and no substantial question of law arose forconsideration. Accordingly, the same stands rejected. So far as the issue which is mentioned in substantialquestion of law no.2, pertains to the initiation of proceedingsunder Section 269SS and 269T of the Act. In this regard, theCIT(A) as well as the tribunal followed the assessee’s own casefor the assessment year 2008-09. Against the said order revenuehas filed ITAT/313/2018 which was dismissed. Further to benoted that in ITAT/313/2018 no such question of law wassuggested by the revenue with regard to initiation ofproceedings under Section 269SS and 269T. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with thefindings recorded by the tribunal. Accordingly, the appealfiled by the revenue stands dismissed.Consequently, the connected application for stay beingIA No.GA/2/2018 (Old No.GA/3422/2018) stands closed. (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)