The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law Forconsideration v. M/S. Alagendranfinance Ltd., [2007] 293 Itr 1 [Sc]. In Paragraph 15 Of The Judgment, It Hasbeen Held As Follows

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/252/2023IA NO: GA/2/2023PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATAVSFATEH CHAND CHINDALIA BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 22[nd] January, 2024 Appearance : Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv.Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.Ms. Oindrila Ghosal, Adv.…for appellantMr. S.M. Surana, Sr. Adv.…for respondent The Court:- This appeal by the revenue filed under section 260A of theIncome Tax Act [the Act] is directed against the order dated 16.3.2023 passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] in ITANo.185/Kol/2022 for the assessment year 2011-12. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law forconsideration. [I]Whether the learned Tribunal has committed substantial error inlaw by observing that the Assessing Officer has examined theparticular source of investments and the assessee has fullyexplained the said source of investments ? Whether the learned Tribunal has committed substantial error inlaw in quashing the order under Section 263 of the said Act ignoringthe fact that the Assessing Officer in his order under Section 143[3] read with Section 147 dated 28.12.2018 concluded that the sourceof investment is made out of accumulated Bank balance of theassessee, whereas as per records the said accumulated Bankbalance has come from sale of penny share M/s. Tuni Textiles Ltd.After elaborate hearing of the learned Advocates for the parties andcarefully perusing the materials placed on record, we find that the learnedTribunal was fully justified in following the decision of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. M/s. AlagendranFinance Ltd., [2007] 293 ITR 1 . In paragraph 15 of the judgment, it hasbeen held as follows. “ We, therefore, are clearly of the opinion that keeping in view the factsand circumstances of this case and, in particular, having regard to the factthat the Commissioner of Income Tax exercising its revisional jurisdictionreopened the order of assessment only in relation to lease equalizationfund which being not the subject of the reassessment proceedings, theperiod of limitation provided for under sub-section [2] of Section 263 of theAct would begin to run from the date of the order of assessment and notfrom the order of reassessment. The revisional jurisdiction having, thus,been invoked by the Commissioner of Income Tax beyond the period oflimitation, it was wholly without jurisdiction rendering the entireproceeding a nullity.” The Tribunal examined the facts of the case and found that the doctrine ofmerger did not apply and the period of limitation would commence from the dateof original assessment and not from the reassessment since the latter had notanything to do with the said item of income. Thus, we find there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the questions of law areanswered against the revenue. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) Pkd/GH.