Principal Commissioner Ofincome Tax, K9Olkata-3,Kolkata v. M/S. Shree Ganesh Jewelleryhouse Ltd

O-63 ITA/56/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, K9OLKATA-3,KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. SHREE GANESH JEWELLERYHOUSE LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANIAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJDate :30[th] April, 2024 Appearance:Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv....for the appellant. 1.Heard Sri Tilak Mitra, learned standing counsel for the appellant. Noneappears for the respondent/assessee.appears for the respondent/assessee. 2.This appeal was admitted by this court by order dated 17.5.2018 on thefollowing substantial question of law:“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the casefollowing substantial question of law:“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseconclusion arrived that by the Learned Tribunal in quashing theorder of the CIT passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 is perverse ?”order of the CIT passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 is perverse ?” 3.We have perused the impugned order dated 24.8.2016 passed inITA/1248/Kol/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11 by the Income TaxITA/1248/Kol/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata and we find that the ITAT hasmeticulously considered the entire issue on facts and on law andthereafter recorded the following conclusion in paragraph 9 : “9. Accordingly, in our considered view, we find that the issue ofinterest has been duly considered by the Assessing Officer mergedwith the order of CIT(A). So the impugned order passed by AO isneither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thereforewe find the impugned revision order unsustainable in law, and we,therefore, quash the same. The issue gets the relief accordingly.”interest has been duly considered by the Assessing Officer mergedwith the order of CIT(A). So the impugned order passed by AO isneither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thereforewe find the impugned revision order unsustainable in law, and we,therefore, quash the same. The issue gets the relief accordingly.” 4.We do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order of theITAT. The appeal (ITA/56/2018) has no merit and is, therefore,dismissed. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of theassessee and against the revenue.ITAT. The appeal (ITA/56/2018) has no merit and is, therefore,dismissed. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of theassessee and against the revenue. (SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.) (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)