Under Section 69B Of The Said Act Made On Account Of Bogus Gifts,Disregarding The Fact That The Alleged Gift Involves Transfer Of Undivided Shareof Joint Proper v. Note Of A Decision Which Has No Application In The Facts And Circumstances Of The Case.thus We Find That There Is No Question Of Law Much Less Substantial Quest

O 83 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/175/2013IA NO. GA/2/2015 (OLD No. GA/635/2015)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURIVS.SHRI INDRA CHAND AGARWAL BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYADate : SEPTEMBER 7, 2022. Appearance:Mr. Samarjit Roychowdhury, Adv.Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.… for appellantMr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.… for appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.Mr. Saymya Kejriwal, Adv.Mr. G.S. Gupta, Adv.…for respondentMr. G.S. Gupta, Adv.…for respondent The Court:- This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 14[th] May, 1993 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) ITA/1380/Kol/2010 forthe assessment year 2006-07. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law forconsideration: a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the LearnedTribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.14,70,34,400/-Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.14,70,34,400/- under Section 69B of the said Act made on account of bogus gifts,disregarding the fact that the alleged gift involves transfer of undivided shareof joint property and the same cannot be treated as valid gift? We have heard Mr. Samarjit Roychowdhury, learned Advocate and Mr. PrithuDudhoria, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learnedSenior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, learned Advocate for therespondent. The short question involved in this case was whether the property which is thesubject matter of consideration was owned by the assessee, a co-owner along with sevenof his family members or whether it was a joint Hindu Undivided Family propertygoverned by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. On perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)Siliguri, CIT(A) dated 16[th] March, 2010 and the order passed by the Tribunal we findthat the CIT(A) as well as Tribunal rightly noted the factual position and pointed outthat the assessing officer has quoted the term “coparcener” with co-owner of theproperty. The assessing officer placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in THAMMA VENKATA SUBBAMMA Versus THAMMA RATTAMA AND OTHERS,(1987) 3 SCC 294 for the proposition that a coparcener can make a gift of his undividedinterest in coparcenary property to another coparcener or to a stranger with the priorconsent of all other coparcerners. It is an undisputed fact. In the said case the propertyin question was Joint Hindu Family Property governed by the Mitakshara School ofHindu Law, whereas in the case on hand there were eight co-owners of the property whowere blood relatives and, therefore, the CIT(A) and the learned Tribunal rightly noted thesaid descriptions and held that the assessing officer has misdirected himself by taking note of a decision which has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case.Thus we find that there is no question of law much less substantial questions of lawarising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed. Consequently, stay petition stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.) Pkd/GH