Principal Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Central-1, Kolkata v. Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd

OD-11 ITAT/119/2022IA No.GA/1/2022,GA/2/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA -Versus- CORPORATE ISPAT ALLOYS LTD. Appearance:Ms. Smita Dsa De, Adv....for the appellant.Mr. Iqbal Hussain Ansari,...the Official Liquidator. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 14[th] November, 2022. The Court: We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learnedstanding counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. IqbalHussain Ansari, the Official Liquidator attached to this Court.There is a delay of 926 days in filing the appeal. On account of certain developments which have takenplace during the pendency of the appeal and the matter havingtransferred to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), we exercise discretion and condone the delay of 926 in filing theappeal. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay(IA No.GA/1/2022) stands allowed. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, is directed against the order dated 9[th]August, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in IT(SS)A Nos.113 & 114/Kol/2017for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseand in law, the learned Income Tax AppellateTribunal erred in law by holding that deemeddividend provisions under Section 2(22)(e) of theAct would not apply in present case for theAssessment Years ? 2010-11 and 2011-12 ?Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseand in law, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e)shall apply in this case, as the lending was madeto the beneficial owner through shareholding forthe Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 ? (ii) (iii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseand in law, order of learned Income Tax AppellateTribunal for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 is not maintainable as learned Tribunal haserred in relying on judgments, none of which hasaddressed the key issue regarding shareholders ?(iv)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseand in law, order of learned Income Tax Appellate (iv) Tribunal for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 is not maintainable as Learned Tribunal haserred in relying on judgments in which set of factsare completely different from present case ?(v)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseand in law, learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunalhas erred in deleting the addition made on accountof unaccounted sell in the Assessment Year 2011-12? (vi)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseand in law, order of learned Income Tax AppellateTribunal is perverse, in view of facts that theassessee has made unaccounted sell in theAssessment Year 2011-12 ? We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standingcounsel for the appellant/revenue and the Official Liquidatorattached to this Court and perused the status report filed bythe learned Official Liquidator. It is submitted by thelearned counsel appearing for the appellant and the OfficialLiquidator that CP No.896/2016 which was initially filed beforethis Court has been transferred to the National Company LawTribunal (NCLT) and the connected applications have also beentransferred to the learned Tribunal. That apart, the claimshave also been lodged by the department before the learnedOfficial Liquidator. The copy of the order dated 7[th] November,2022 passed in CP/896/2016 by the learned Single Bench shall bekept on record. In the light of the said development, we are notrequired to decide the substantial question of law and whileleaving the substantial question of law open, we grant libertyto the appellant/revenue to raise all pleas before theNCLT/Official Liquidator. Accordingly, this appeal (ITAT/11//2022) stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected application for stay (IANo.GA/2/2022) also stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) In the light of the said development, we are notrequired to decide the substantial question of law and whileleaving the substantial question of law open, we grant libertyto the appellant/revenue to raise all pleas before theNCLT/Official Liquidator. Accordingly, this appeal (ITAT/11//2022) stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected application for stay (IANo.GA/2/2022) also stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) A/s./TR