PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. GRAMEEN SHAKTI MICROFINANCE SERVICES P LTD

od-2 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE

ITAT/212/2024 IA NO: GA/1/2024, GA/2/2024 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA VS GRAMEEN SHAKTI MICROFINANCE SERVICES P LTD

BEFORE : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM -A N D- HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA DATE : September 18, 2024. Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …for appellant. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Girdhar Dhelia, Adv. Ms. Alisha Das, Adv. Mr. Suman Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. Ms. Elina Dey, Adv. Mr. Sourendra Nath Banerjee, Adv. ….for respondent

The Court :- We have heard learned advocates on either side. The delay is only 62 days. Therefore, we exercise discretion and condone delay in filing the appeal. The application is allowed. This appeal filed by the Income Tax Department under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench in ITA No. 284/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2017-18. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- a) WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances in the case, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law to delete the addition of Rs.2,71,76,548/- u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by merely relying upon the paper submissions made by the assessee, ignoring the legal aspect

2 involved herein that when the credit in the particular account books is a fresh credit it is incumbent upon the assessee to establish and prove the identity, creditworthiness of shareholders and the genuineness of transactions in question ? b) WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances in the case, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not appreciating the fact that the share subscribing concerns had failed to make any compliance to notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act, for ascertaining the transaction resulting which is contrary to the mandate of the establishing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions? c) WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances in the case, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not considering the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT (Central) -1, Kolkata vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (412 ITR 161) wherein it is held that the Assessing Officer is duty bound to investigate the creditworthiness of the creditor/subscriber, verify the identity of the subscribers and ascertain whether the transaction is genuine of these are bogus entries of name lenders? This appeal is hit by the monetary limit fixed by the CBDT Circular No. 9/24, as the tax effect is less than Rs.2 crores. Therefore, the appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect. The substantial questions of law are left open.

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

pkd/GH