COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-IV vs. M/S. THE DIAMOND CO. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/110/2010HC CalcuttaWBCHCO002267201001 December 2023Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal (ITA/110/2010) filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The dismissal was based on two primary reasons. Firstly, both parties jointly submitted that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by Circular No. 17/2019, which governs the filing of appeals by the Department. Secondly, the Court observed that the appellant had failed to file the paper book, despite a clear direction given by the Court on December 23, 2015. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on these procedural and administrative grounds, without delving into the merits of the ITAT's decision or the substantive legal issue raised.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Kolkata-IV, filed an appeal (ITA/110/2010) before the High Court at Calcutta against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'B' Bench, Kolkata. The appeal was confined to a single ground concerning the treatment of business income of Rs. 2,53,03,344/- as capital gain. The ITAT's decision was challenged for allegedly violating the Supreme Court's ruling in G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT. The High Court noted that the appellant (CIT) had not filed a paper book despite a prior direction from the Court. Both parties jointly pointed out that the tax effect was below the limit prescribed by Circular No. 17/2019 for filing appeals by the Department.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in treating business income of Rs. 2,53,03,344/- as capital gain, thereby violating the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. –vs.- CIT [35 ITR 594 (SC)]? (Question of law). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the ITAT erred in treating the business income as capital gain, which was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT. The revenue also pointed out that the tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by Circular No. 17/2019, and that the appellant had failed to file the paper book despite a court direction.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD-5 ITA/110/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-IV -Versus- M/S. THE DIAMOND CO. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ Date : 1st December, 2023 Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...for the appellant. Ms. D. Mukherji, Adv. ...for the respondent. The Court : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. Both the learned counsel for the parties jointly point out that the Income Tax Department had filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Kolkata confining the appeal to the following ground: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the business income of Rs.2,53,03,344/- as capital gain violating the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. –vs.- CIT [35 ITR 594 (SC)]”.

2 In view of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the parties pointed out that the tax effect would be less than the limit prescribed vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019 fixing the limit for filing of appeal by the Department. From the perusal of the report we also find that paper book has not yet been filed by the appellant despite a clear direction given by this Court by order dated 23rd December, 2015. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal (ITA/110/2010) is dismissed being below the monetary limit fixed under the aforesaid circular. (SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.) (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) As.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →