PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA V. M/S PATTON INTERNATIONAL LTD

ITAT/136/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata, against M/s. Patton International Ltd., concerning an order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal challenged the Tribunal's decision which quashed the Section 263 order, arguing that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Tribunal had previously found that the Assessing Officer had conducted a thorough inquiry and that the issues raised were factual, not warranting the invocation of Section 263. The High Court, after reviewing the Tribunal's findings, agreed with the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 719794 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: HEMANT TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: SMITA DE; PRITHU DUDHORIA
• Keywords: 80G Certificate; Assessment Year; Erroneous order; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Prejudicial Interest
• Section: 263; 260A

Judgement Text

"OD- 8 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/136/2023 IA NO. GA/1/2023 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, KOLKATA -VS- M/s. PATTON INTERNATIONAL LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA Date : 21ST June, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ...for the appellant Mr. Hemant Tiwari, Adv. …for respondent The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated November 22, 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2022 for the assessment year 2017-2018. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- (a) WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the appeal of the respondent/assessee by quashing the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the fact that assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous in so far as prejudicial interest of the revenue ? (b) WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not appreciating the fact that at the time of assessment proceedings Assessing Officer failed 2 and/or neglected to obtain 80G certificate from the done and the payment advised for allowing the claim of the assessee ? We have heard learned Counsel on either side. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta – 1 was right in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act for passing an order on 24.03.2022. On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal we find that Tribunal has examined the entire facts on all the three issues which were pointed out in the order passed under Section 263 of the Act. After being satisfied that a thorough enquiry had been conducted by the assessing officer, the Tribunal held that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act was not in accordance with law. Pertinently, in paragraph 7 of the impugned order the Tribunal points out the three issues in the present case are purely on facts, which are verifiable from the records of the assessee. Further, the Tribunal states that the examination and on verification of the record as placed in the paper book also reveal a correct state of affairs in respect of the issues raised in the order passed under Section 263 of the Act, and that the department could not bring any material on record to controvert the variable factual position. Thus we find that there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed. Consequently, the application also stands dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.) pkd/GH. "