The Principal Commissioner Ofincome Tax-1, Kolkata v. M/S. Umang Commercial Companyprivate Limited

OD-14 ITAT/297/2017IA No.GA/1/2017 (Old No.GA/2801/2017) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. UMANG COMMERCIAL COMPANYPRIVATE LIMITED Appearance:Mr. Debasish Choudhury, Adv....for the appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.Mr. P. Jhunjhunwala, Adv.Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv.Ms. Swapna Das, Adv....for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA The Court : This appeal of the revenue filed underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act (the ‘Act’ in brevity) isdirected against the order dated 8[th] March, 2017 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, C-Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’)in ITA No.1173/Kol/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. The revenue has raised the following substantialquestions of law for consideration: “a)Whether on the facts and circumstances and pointsof law involved in this case, the learned Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was justified quashing the revision orderof the Commissioner of Income Tax without considering thefact that the assessment order of the assessing officer iserroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue? b) Whether on the facts and circumstances and points oflaw involved in this case, the learned Income Tax AppellateTribunal ought to have held that the revisionary order passedby the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 stands in the eyes of the law and by notholding the same erred in law?” We have heard Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, learned Counsel forthe appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned seniorcounsel for the respondent/assessee. The short question involved in the instant case iswhether the commissioner is justified in exercising hisjurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act? The commissioner wasof the view that the assessing officer has not examined therecords qua the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Thetribunal tested the correctness of the said order and has pointedout as to how the assessing officer has furnished the detailedquestionnaire to the assessee, received his response, perused allthe records and has recorded the factual finding. The tribunalre-examined the same and found that the assessing officer had dulyexamined the aspect of interest paid on loans and interest received on loans in the assessment proceedings. Furthermore, thetribunal noted that the assessing officer had sent notices underSection 133(6) of the Act to the third parties and cross-verifiedthe loan statements with their records and no adverse inferencewas drawn by the assessing officer. Thus, the tribunal came tothe factual conclusion that the assessing officer had madeelaborate enquiries on the issue of disallowance under Section 14Aof the Act. That apart, the tribunal has also noted the decisionsplaced by the assessee with regard to the exercise of jurisdictionunder Section 263 of the Act and held that no error can beattributed to the order passed by the assessing officer. Thus, wefind that there is no good ground to interfere with the orderpassed by the tribunal much less no substantial question of lawarising for consideration.In the result, the appeal (ITAT/297/2017) fails andstands dismissed. Consequently, the stay petition (IA No.GA/1/2017 (OldNo.GA/2801/2017) is also dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) A/s./skc.