PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD

OD-3

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

ITAT/268/2024 IA NO : GA/1/2024, GA/2/2024 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA VS ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD.

BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM

And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 17th December, 2024

Appearance : Mr. Tilak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …for appellant Mr. Amit Agarwal, Adv. …for respondent

The Court : There is a delay of 165 days in filing this appeal. As the delay has been properly explained the same is condoned. The application for condonation of delay being GA/1/2024 stands allowed. This appeal filed by the Income Tax Department under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated December 14, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) in ITA No. 908/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2015- 16.

The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : i) Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the disallowance made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unsecured loan from shell companies amounting to Rs.3,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit without appreciating the materials brought on record and facts evaluated by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order ? ii) Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition made under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of interest expenses on such unsecured loan ?

We have heard Mr. Tilak Sharma, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Amit Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The Department was unsuccessful in their challenge before the learned Tribunal wherein they questioned the correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 27, Kolkata [CIT(A)] on 14th June, 2023. By the said order, the [CIT(A)] allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the addition made by the Assessing Officer by invoking power

under Section 68 of the Act. As could be seen from the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the Tribunal has examined the factual details after noting the factual findings recorded by the [CIT(A)], more importantly, the learned Tribunal found that all the loans stood repaid, which has also been factually ascertained by the [CIT(A)] and re-affirmed by the Tribunal. We find the order passed by the [CIT(A)] to be an elaborate order after discussing all the facts. The learned Tribunal has, in fact, quoted the relevant portions of the order passed by the [CIT(A)] and thereafter independently proceeded to examine the correctness of the finding and affirmed the same. Thus, we are of the view that no questions of law, much less substantial questions of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Hence, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The stay application being GA/2/2024 also stands dismissed.

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ.)

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

SN/GH. AR(CR)