Calcutta High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Leonard Commercial (P) Ltd on 13 June, 2011
Author: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
ITAT 114 OF 2011
G.A.1275 OF 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction (Income-tax)
Original Side
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-II,KOL. Appellant
Versus
M/S.LEONARD COMMERCIAL (P) LTD. Respondent
For Appellant : Md.Nizamuddin, Advocate For Respondents :
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BHATTACHARYA The Hon'ble JUSTICE DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI Date : 13th June, 2011.
THE COURT : This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against order dated 6th August 2010 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Kolkata in IT(SS)A No.133(Kol) of 2003 for the Block Assessment for Block Period ended 3-11-1998 thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue.
Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal.
The only question raised in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal below erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.8,52,000/-, Rs.91,50,000/- and Rs.13,00,000/- made by the Assessing 2 Officer on account of share capital, share application money and investment in HTCCL respectively.
After hearing Md. Nizamuddin, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the materials on record, we find that all such application money were received by the assessee by way of account payee cheques and the assessee also disclosed the complete list of shareholders with their complete addresses and GIR Numbers for the relevant assessment years in which share application was contributed. It further appears that all the payments were made by the applicants by account payee cheques.
It appears from the Assessing Officer's order that his grievance was that the assessee was not willing to produce the parties who had allegedly advanced the fund. In our opinion, both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal below were justified in holding that after disclosure of the full particulars indicated above, the initial onus of the assessee was shifted and it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to enquire whether those particulars were correct or not and if the Assessing Officer was of the view that the particulars supplied were insufficient to detect the real share applicants, to ask for further particulars.3
The Assessing Officer has not adopted either of the aforesaid courses but has simply blamed the assessee for not producing those share applicants.
In our view, in the case before us so long the Assessing Officer was unable to arrive at a finding that the particulars given by the assessee were false, there was no scope of adding those money under section 68 of the Income- tax Act and the Tribunal below rightly held that the onus was validly discharged.
We, thus, find that both the authorities below, on consideration of the materials on record, rightly applied the correct law which are required to be applied in the facts of the present case and, thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact based on materials on record.
The appeal is, thus, devoid of any substance and is dismissed summarily as it does not involve any substantial question of law.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal itself, the connection application has become infructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly.4
Photostat certified copy of this order be made available to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.
( BHATTACHARYA, J.) (DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J.) Rsg (ARCR)