Principal Commissioner Ofincome Tax-2, Kolkata v. M/S. Intent Dealers Pvt. Ltd

ITAT/92/2022 IA No.GA/2/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. INTENT DEALERS PVT. LTD. Appearance:Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv....for the appellant. Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv.Mr. Asok Bhowmick, Adv.... for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA -And- Date : 10[th] November, 2022. The Court: This appeal filed by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, is directed against theorder dated 20[th] March, 2020 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITANo.2179/Kol/2016 relating to the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration: (i)Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in quashingthe order under Section 263 dated 14[th] March, 2019where there is sufficient reason that the assessmentorder passed under Sections 263/143 sub-clause (3)the order under Section 263 dated 14[th] March, 2019where there is sufficient reason that the assessmentorder passed under Sections 263/143 sub-clause (3) dated 11[th] July, 2016 is erroneous in so far it isprejudicial to the interest of the revenue ? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standingcounsel for the appellant/department and Mr. Pranit Bag,learned counsel assisted by Mr. Asok Bhowmick, learned Advocatefor the respondent/assessee.After elaborately hearing the learned Advocates forthe parties and carefully perusing the order passed by thelearned Tribunal impugned in this appeal, we find that thepresent appeal arises out of an order passed by the Tribunalsetting aside an order passed by the Commissioner under Section263 of the Act which is a second proceedings initiated underthe said provision. After the first order was passed underSection 263 of the Act, the assessing officer has conducted ade novo reassessment proceedings, issued summons to thedirectors and the shareholders as well as the assessee andexamined the books of accounts, bank statement and the otherdocuments produced by them to discharge the onus on them aboutthe identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of thetransaction and the assessing officer has recorded theirstatement during the reassessment proceedings where he hasquestioned an elucidated answer about all these factors. Thelearned Tribunal has elaborately discussed the factual positionand noted as to how the enquiry was conducted by the assessingofficer after the first order was passed under Section 263. The learned Tribunal, after noting various decisions of thetribunal, also noted the decisions of this Court in the case ofCommissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Dataware Pvt. Ltd. inITAT/263/2011 dated 21[st] September, 2011; Commissioner ofIncome Tax-IV vs. Roseberry Mercantile (P) Ltd. inITAT/241/2010 dated 10[th] January, 2011; Commissioner of IncomeTax vs. M/s. Nishan Indo Commerce Ltd. in ITA/52/2001 dated 2[nd]December, 2013 and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. LeonardCommercial (P) Ltd. in ITAT/114/2011 dated 13[th] June, 2011. Inall those decisions, this Court considered the similar factualissue and decided in favour of the assessee and after notingthe decisions, the Tribunal has examined the factual positionand granted relief to the assessee. Thus, we find there is no question of law much lesssubstantial question of law arising for consideration in thisappeal. Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/92/2022) fails and isdismissed.Consequently, the connected application for stay (IANo.GA/2/2022) stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)