Calcutta High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Roseberry Mercantile (P) Ltd on 10 January, 2011
Author: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
Bench: Sambuddha Chakrabarti, Bhaskar Bhattacharya
GA No. 3296 of 2010
ITAT No. 241 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction
[ Income Tax ]
ORIGINAL SIDE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-IV
Versus
ROSEBERRY MERCANTILE (P) LTD.
For Appellant : Mr. P. Dudhoria, Advocate
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BHATTACHARYA
And The Hon'ble JUSTICE DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI Date : 10th January, 2011.
This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against order dated May 18, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.2119/Kol/2009 relating to the Assessment Year 2003-04.
The aforesaid appeal was preferred by the revenue against the order of the learned CIT (A) Kolkata dated September 23, 2009 on the following ground:
"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) ought to have upheld the assessment order as the transaction entered into by 2 the assessee was a scheme for laundering black money into white money or accounted money and the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the assessee had not established the genuineness of the transaction."
It appears from the record that in the assessment proceedings it was noticed that the assessee company during the year under consideration had brought Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- towards share capital and share premium respectively amounting to Rs.24,00,000/- from four shareholders being private limited companies. The Assessing Officer on his part called for the details from the assessee and also from the share applicants and analyzed the facts and ultimately observed certain abnormal features, which were mentioned in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer, therefore, concluded that nature and source of such money was questionable and evidence produced was unsatisfactory. Consequently, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions under Section 68/69 of the Income Tax Act and made addition of Rs.24,00,000/-.
On appeal the Learned CIT (A) by following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. M/s. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2008) 216 CTR 195 allowed the appeal by holding that share capital/premium of Rs.24,00,000/- received from the investors was not liable to be treated under Section 68 as unexplained credits and it should not be taxed in the hands of the appellant company.
As indicated earlier, the Tribunal below dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. M/s. Lovely 3 Exports Pvt. Ltd. [supra], we are at one with the Tribunal below that the point involved in this appeal is covered by the said Supreme Court decision in favour of the assessee and thus, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of any substance and is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the connected stay application is also dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(BHATTACHARYA, J.) (DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J.) sm AR[CR]