C. I. T. Kolkata XIX v. Tarapada Paul - 2014-LL-0910-112

Citation	2014-LL-0910-112
Appellant Name	C. I. T. Kolkata XIX
Respondent Name	Tarapada Paul
Court	HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	10/09/2014
Judgment	View Judgment
Bot Summary:	2099 of 2005 for condoning the delay of 429 days in preferring the appeal under section 260A of the 1961 Act. The delay of 429 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. Heard Mr.Sinha, learned advocate for the appellant/revenue This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2 C Bench, Kolkata dated 12th December, 2003 in ITA Nos.901(Kol)/2003, 902(Kol)2003 and 903(Kol)2003 for the assessment years 1989-1990, 1990-91 and 1991-92 on the following questions : 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in dismissing the appeal of the revenue with regard to deletion of addition of Rs.1,10,000/- out of which Rs.1,00,000/- represented undisclosed commission income on the basis of search and seizure. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of the revenue vide Board s instructions No.1903 dated 28.10.1992 and No.1777 dated 4.11.1987 for mandatory limit of filing appeal, although the revenue effect for the assessment year is more than Rs.2 lakhs. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in dismissing the appeal of the revenue with regard to the deletion of addition of 3 Rs.2,13,000/- representing undisclosed commission income on the basis of the seized documents. The appeal being ITA no.275 of 2005 is dismissed.

ORDER SHEET G.A.No.2099 of 2005 ITA 275 of 2005 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE C. I. T. KOLKATA-XIX Versus TARAPADA PAUL BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 10th September, 2014. Appearance : MR.R.N.SINHA,ADVOCATE for appellant. Court : Let application being G.A.No.2099 of 2005 be treated as on day s list. Perused application being G.A.No.2099 of 2005 for condoning delay of 429 days in preferring appeal under section 260A of 1961 Act. Causes shown are sufficient. Therefore, delay of 429 days in preferring appeal is condoned. application being G.A.No.2099 of 2005 is allowed. Heard Mr.Sinha, learned advocate for appellant/revenue This appeal under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by Revenue against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2 C Bench, Kolkata dated 12th December, 2003 in ITA Nos.901(Kol)/2003, 902(Kol)2003 and 903(Kol)2003 for assessment years 1989-1990, 1990-91 and 1991-92 on following questions : 1. Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law in upholding order of C.I.T.(A) in deleting addition of Rs.2,17,095/- which represented undisclosed commission income on basis of seized documents. 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Tribunal was justified in law in dismissing appeal of revenue with regard to deletion of addition of Rs.1,10,000/- out of which Rs.1,00,000/- represented undisclosed commission income on basis of search and seizure. 3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Tribunal was justified in dismissing appeal of revenue vide Board s instructions No.1903 dated 28.10.1992 and No.1777 dated 4.11.1987 for mandatory limit of filing appeal, although revenue effect for assessment year is more than Rs.2 lakhs. 4. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Tribunal was justified in law in dismissing appeal of revenue with regard to deletion of addition of 3 Rs.2,13,000/- representing undisclosed commission income on basis of seized documents. Heard Mr.Sinha, learned advocate for appellant/revenue. We find that learned Tribunal while dismissing appeal has not only dealt with CBDT Instructions but has also dealt with issue with regard to facts, as evident from paragraph 7 thereof. We find that order under challenge needs no interference. Hence, appeal being ITA no.275 of 2005 is dismissed. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to appearing parties on priority basis. (SOUMITRA PAL, J.) (DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) ssaha AR(CR) C. I. T. Kolkata XIX v. Tarapada Paul

Metadata

Judgment