PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. ALISHAN STEELS PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITAT/50/2024HC CalcuttaWBCHCO000422202419 February 2024Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial question of law raised by the revenue had to be answered against the appellant/revenue. This decision was made in light of the High Court's own prior decision in ITAT/187/2023 dated 17.11.2023, in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Kolkata vs. M/s Abhijit Enterprise Ltd. The High Court exercised its discretion to condone the significant delay of 1132 days in filing the appeal, deeming it necessary to examine the substantial question of law. Following the precedent set in the cited case, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. The specific reasoning of the ITAT or CIT(A) regarding the barter system was not elaborated upon by the High Court, other than stating that the deletion was upheld based on the prior ruling.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata (the revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court at Calcutta against an order dated 18.3.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata. The ITAT's order concerned assessment year 2012-13 and was in appeal No. 2244/Kol/2017. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1132 days, for which an application to condone the delay was made. The dispute involved an addition of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- made by the revenue under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained cash credit in the form of share capital and share premium. The assessee is Alishan Steels Pvt Ltd.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has substantially erred in law in upholding the decision of the Learned CIT (Appeals)-9, Kolkata, thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained cash credit in the form of share capital and share premium, solely on the ground that no cash or cheque was actually received by the respondent assessee and the purchase of share assets and allotment of shares by the assessee was under a barter system? Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The High Court's decision was based on a prior judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in law by deleting the addition of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- made under Section 68, as unexplained cash credit, on the basis of a barter system for share transactions, implying that cash or cheque was not received. The revenue contended that this deletion was a substantial error in law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD–10 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/50/2024 IA NO: GA/1/2024, GA/2/2024 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA VS ALISHAN STEELS PVT LTD BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 19th February, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …for appellant Mr. Ramesh Kr. Patodia, Adv. Ms. Megha Agarwal, Adv. …for respondent

The Court :- We have heard learned Counsel on either side. It appears that there is a delay of 1132 days in filing the appeal, though the explanation offered is not fully satisfactory, since this appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, we are required to examine as to whether any substantial questions of law arise for consideration. Therefore, we exercise discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application is allowed. This appeal filed by the Income Tax Department is directed against the order dated 18.3.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal B Bench,

2 Kolkata in ITA No. 2244/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration :- “i) Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal has substantially erred in law in upholding the decision of the Learned CIT (Appeals)-9, Kolkata thereby deleting the addition of Rs.6,00,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained cash credit in the form of share capital and share premium only on the ground that no cash or cheque was actually received by the respondent assessee and the purchase of share assets and allotment of share by the assessee was under barter system ? After we have elaborately heard the learned Advocates for the parties we have no hesitation to hold that substantial question of law raised in this appeal has to be answered against the appellant/revenuer in the light of the decision of this Court in ITAT/187/2023 dated 17.11.2023 in the case of ITAT/187/2023 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1,KOLKATA VS. M/S ABHIJEET ENTERPRISE LTD. Thus, following the decision the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) pkd/GH.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →