COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, KOLKATA vs. M/S. VINTEX TRADE PRIVATE LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/84/2012HC CalcuttaWBCHCO002610201222 January 2024Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the findings recorded by the Tribunal were findings of fact based on the consideration of relevant evidence on record. Therefore, the Court found no manifest error of law in the impugned order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The ratio decidendi is that appellate courts will not interfere with findings of fact by the Tribunal if they are based on relevant evidence and do not suffer from manifest error of law or perversity.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal by the Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I, Kolkata, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent assessee is M/s. Vintex Trade Private Ltd. The appeal was admitted by the High Court on December 22, 2010, on a substantial question of law. The Revenue was represented by counsel, while none appeared for the respondent assessee. The High Court perused the impugned order of the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Tribunal came to a fact-finding of confirming the order of CIT(Appeals) without relying on any acceptable materials, in other words, was the finding perverse? (Question of law and fact, turning on the principles of evidence and perversity in fact-finding). Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Tribunal's findings were perverse as they were not based on acceptable materials.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD-39 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/84/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, KOLKATA VS M/S. VINTEX TRADE PRIVATE LTD. BEFORE: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI AND HON'BLE JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY Date : 22nd January, 2024. Appearance: Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharyya, Adv. … for the appellant. 1. Heard Mr. Om Narayan Rai, learned Senior standing Counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent assessee. 2. This appeal was admitted by order dated 22nd December, 2010 on the following substantial questions of law which is as under:- “Whether the learned Tribunal came to fact finding of confirming the order of CIT(Appeals) without relying on any acceptable materials, in other words perverse”? 3. We have perused the impugned order of the Tribunal and we find that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are finding of the facts based on consideration of relevant evidence on record. 4. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any manifest error of law in the impugned order of the Tribunal.

2 5. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and no substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

(SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.) (RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.) mg

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →