Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Calcutta High Court

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Trinetra Commerce & Trade Pvt. Ltd on 27 July, 2016

ORDER SHEET

                           IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

                                 Special Jurisdiction
                                    [Income Tax]

                                   ORIGINAL SIDE

                                   ITA 619 of 2008


             COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA

                                       Versus

                 M/S. TRINETRA COMMERCE & TRADE PVT. LTD.


 BEFORE:

 The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA

The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 27th July, 2016.

                                                               Mr. M. P. Agarwal,     Adv.
                                                             Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr.   Adv.
                                                                 Mr. M. S. Tiwari,    Adv.
                                                                   Mr. Pranit Bag,    Adv.
                                                                  Mr. A. K. Sukla,    Adv.


The Court : The learned Tribunal allowed the appeal solely on the ground that K.P. Kedia had owned up the liability with respect to the funds contributed to the share capital of the assessee-company. This impression was gained by the learned Tribunal on the basis of an information that K.D. Kedia had filed an application before the Settlement Commission which was rejected.

Mr. Agarwal, learned advocate appearing for the revenue, submitted with some justification that the impression, gained by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the aforesaid information, is not a correct impression. There is nothing to show that 2 the rejection of the petition by the Settlement Commission has become final. There is nothing to show that consequent to owning up the capital contributed to the assessee the said K.P. Kedia has accepted the assessment or has made payment in pursuance thereof. Evidently by taking recourse to Settlement Commission, he wanted to get rid of those assessment order. Therefore, only on the basis of the information that the Settlement Commission rejected the application made by Sri K. P. Kedia, it was not open to the learned Tribunal to allow the appeal preferred by the assessee.

Mr. Khaitan, learned senior advocate appearing for the assessee-company, submitted that he needs two weeks time to ascertain the actual state of affairs.

Let the matter be listed after two weeks along ITA No.638 of 2008, which arises out of the common judgment.

(GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sm