Calcutta High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 vs M/S. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd on 24 August, 2016
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
ORDER SHEET
G.A. No. 1929 of 2016
I.T.A.T. No. 264 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax]
ORIGINAL SIDE
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA
Versus
M/S. SALASAR STOCK BROKING LTD.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
-And-
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Date : 24th August, 2016.
For Appellant : Mrs. Smita Das De, Adv.
For Respondent : Mr. Saurabh Bagaria with
Mr. Pranab Sharma, Advs.
Subject matter of challenge is a judgement and order dated 18th December, 2015 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed an appeal preferred by the Revenue registered as ITA No.1775/Kol/2012 and allowed a cross-objection registered as CO-30/Kol/2013 both pertaining to the assessment year 2005-06. The learned Tribunal was of the opinion that the 2 Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act to reopen the concluded cases when the search and seizure did not disclose any incriminating material. In taking the aforesaid view, the learned Tribunal relied upon a judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT[A] vs. Kabul Chawla in ITA No.707/2014 dated 28th August, 2014. The aggrieved Revenue has come up in appeal.
Mr. Bagaria, learned Advocate appearing for the assessee, submitted that more or less an identical view was taken by this Bench in ITA 661/2008 [CIT vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd.] wherein the following views were expressed -
"We are in agreement with the views expressed by the Karnataka High Court that incriminating material is a pre- requisite before power could have been exercised under section153C read with section 153A.
In the case before us, the assessing officer has made disallowances of the expenditure, which were already disclosed, for one reason or the other. But such disallowances were not contemplated by the provisions contained under section 153C read with section 153A. The disallowances made by the assessing officer were upheld by the CIT(A) but the learned Tribunal deleted those disallowances." 3
In that view of the matter, we are unable to admit the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) K. Banerjee A.R. [C.R.]