Dismissed

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Asansol v. Jagabandhu Das

Calcutta HC22 Nov 2023ITAT/172/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Calcutta High Court Bench dismissed a revenue appeal filed under Section 260A against a Tribunal order quashing a notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the Tribunal correctly examined the facts and returned a finding in favour of the assessee, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

What the court decided

AI extract

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Asansol Vs Jagabandhu Das — Income Tax | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

OD-13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE

¶3

ITAT 172 OF 2023 IA NO: GA/2/2023 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASANSOL

-Versus-

JAGABANDHU DAS

BEFORE:

The Hon’ble T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶8

-And-

¶9

The Hon’ble JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA Date : 22^nd November, 2023

¶10

Appearance : Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. ..for the appellant

¶11

Mr. Hemant Tiwari, Adv. …for the respondent

¶12

The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under section 260A of

¶13

the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 29^th September, 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 322/Kol/2022 for the assessment year 2015-16.

¶14

The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for

¶15

consideration :

¶16

i) Whether in the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in quashing the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when it is apparent from the records that the

¶17

¶18

assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue inasmuch as the same had been passed by the assessing officer without making due and proper enquiry and without verification of the aspect of cash payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- for purchasing lands in violation of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?

¶19

ii) Whether in the Learned Tribunal has substantially erred in law in quashing the order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the appeal of the assessee respondent preferred before the CIT (Appeals) is against the addition of net amount of Rs.7,40,754/- under the head income from business earned from sale of three properties and whereas the said order under Section 263 of the said Act has been passed for not making enquiry on the aspect of violation of provisions of Section 40A(3) of the said Act as the assessee made cash payment of more than Rs.20,000/- in day to a party ?

¶20

We have heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Hemant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶21

After elaborately hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and carefully perusing the order impugned as well as the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the assessment order, we find that

¶22

¶23

the learned Tribunal has rightly taken note of the factual position and held that the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act was bad in law. We find that the respondent assessee is an individual and the factual aspects were examined by the Tribunal and if the case was not under section 263 of the Act, the appeal itself would not be maintainable as it would be hit by the monetary limit as the tax which was demanded was only Rs.1,40,000/-.

¶24

In any event, we are convinced that the facts of the case have been examined and the Tribunal returned a finding in favour of the assessee. Thus, we find there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

¶25

The stay application being IA NO: GA/2/2023 is also dismissed.

¶26

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

(SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.)

¶28

S.Das/SN. AR(CR)

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Asansol v. Jagabandhu Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Asansol v. Jagabandhu Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs M/S. Tata Steel Limited

Macneill Engineering Ltd. Vs the Sales Tax Officer, Behala Charge & Ors.

Macneill Engineering Ltd. Vs the Sales Tax Officer & Ors.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 Kolkata Vs M/S Electrosteel Castings Ltd.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 Kolkata Vs M/S Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise Kolkata III Commissionerate Vs M/S Texmaco Ugl Rail Pvt. Ltd.