Calcutta High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mitul Krishna Kapoor on 9 June, 2016
ORDER SHEET
ITA NO.333 OF 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION(INCOME-TAX)
ORIGINAL SIDE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL-III
Versus
MITUL KRISHNA KAPOOR
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHA ARORA
Date : 9th June, 2016.
MR.RANJAN SINHA,ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
The Court : The appeal is directed against an
order dated 31st March, 2009 passed by the learned Tribunal
I.T.(SS)A. No.31 (Kol)/2007:Block Period 1996-97 to 2002-03
(Upto 19.12.01) dismissing an appeal preferred by the
revenue. The revenue has once again come up in appeal which
was admitted by this Court on 7th January, 2010. The following
question of law was formulated.
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case the Learned Tribunal is justified in law
2
in confirming the order of C.I.T.(Appeals) in
deleting the addition of Rs.33,90,000/- and
Rs.72,57,686/- made under Section 68 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961?"
Addition of a sum of Rs.33.90 lakhs was made on the
basis that the assessee had allegedly taken loan from the corpus
fund, which the assessee has denied.
The assessing officer proceeded to add this sum of
Rs.33.90 under section 68. C.I.T.(A) has clearly held that there
is no knowledge as to what the corpus fund is. The C.I.T. also
opined that there was no material on the basis of which the
aforesaid addition could be made and on that basis the C.I.T.
deleted the addition. The learned Tribunal concurred with such
finding of the C.I.T.(A).
As regards other sum of Rs.72,57,686/- is concerned,
the addition was found altogether unmeritorious because "all these
amounts are paid by cheque out of accounted fund in the regular
books of accounts. A copy of the confirmation along with the bank
statement in respect of the assessee's accounts with Bharat
Overseas Bank is filed, duly confirmed by Shri A E Medhora on
behalf of M/s. Novrojee & Co. A copy of the bank account disclosed
and the regular books of accounts were filed before the Ld.CIT(A)
3
which were also made available before the AO. Based on these
submissions, the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the same."
The facts and circumstances of the case, we are sorry
to say, depict clear abuse of power of the assessing officer.
We were inclined to impose exemplary costs upon the
revenue but refrained from doing so because notice of this appeal
has not been given to the respondent. No one has appeared. The
question formulated in this case is answered in the affirmative and against the revenue.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ASHA ARORA, J.) sb.