Principal Commissioner Ofincome Tax-2, Kolkata v. West Bengal Agro Industriescorporation Limited

OD – 6 ITAT/57/2023 IA No.GA/1/2023 GA/2/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA -Versus- WEST BENGAL AGRO INDUSTRIESCORPORATION LIMITED BEFORE :THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 31[st ]March, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv.Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv....for the appellantMs. Sarmila Das, Adv....for the respondent. The Court : There is a delay of 88 days in filing theappeal. We have heard Mr. Aryak Dutt, learned standing counselfor the Union of India and Ms. Sarmila Das, learned Advocatefor the respondent and perused the affidavit filed in supportof the application for condonation of delay and we findsufficient cause has been shown for not preferring the appealwithin the period of limitation. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay(IA No.GA/1/2023) is allowed and the delay of 88 days in filingthe appeal is condoned. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity) is directedagainst the order dated June 27, 2022 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITANo.2426/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2011-12. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration: (A)Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law, the Learned Tribunal hascommitted substantial error in law quashing theassessment Order under Section 147 read withSection 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? We have heard Mr. Aryak Dutt, learned standing counselassisted by Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate for theappellant/revenue and Ms. Sarmila Das, learned Advocate for therespondent/assessee. whether the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening theassessment under Section 147 of the Act. On going through theorder passed by the Tribunal we find that the Tribunal hasexamined the facts which were noted by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) who allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and has recorded a finding that the assessee has madefull disclosure of all the transactions in the books of accountwhich have been examined at length by the Assessing Officerduring the course of original assessment proceedings,therefore, the reopening of assessment without any reference tofailure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly discloseall facts regarding the items in the return of income or books,during the assessment proceeding is not justified and is inviolation of proviso to Section 147 of the Act. In our considered view, the learned Tribunal rightlynoted the legal position, took note of the facts and thenrendered a finding in favour of the assessee and against therevenue. Thus, we find that there is no question of law muchless substantial question of law arising for consideration inthis appeal. Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/57/2023) fails andis dismissed.Consequently, the connected application for stay (IANo.GA/2/2023) also stands closed. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)