COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - II, KOLKATA vs. M/S KAY BEE INDUSTRIAL ALLOYS PVT LTD.

OD-2 ORDER SHEET ITA/62/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - II, KOLKATA VS M/S KAY BEE INDUSTRIAL ALLOYS PVT LTD. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM And The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 25TH MARCH, 2022. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For the Appellant Mr. Atish Dipankar Ray, Adv. Ms. R. Chaterjee, Adv. …For the Respondent The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated 21st December, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1032/Kol/2011 for the assessment year 2008-09. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: “’(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the disallowances of Rs.50,000/- on account of depreciation without judging genunity of the assessee’s claim ?

2 (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribubnal was justified in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.10,66,902/- on account of non deduction of TDS on commission payment to a non resident ? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.1,04,80,652/- on account of contingent liability without appreciating the facts that the tax audit report is the parameter for judging the degree of genunity of the accounts ? ” We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Atish Dipankar Ray, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent /assessee. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant/revenue that this appeal is not being pursued by the revenue on the ground of low tax effect. This submission is placed on record and the appeal stands dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. Consequently, the substantial questions of law are left open. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) SN/S.De