C.I.T.WB-XI, Calcutta v. Everest Enterprises
[Citation -2015-LL-0429-56]

Citation 2015-LL-0429-56
Appellant Name C.I.T.WB-XI, Calcutta
Respondent Name Everest Enterprises
Court HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 29/04/2015
Assessment Year 1989-90
Judgment View Judgment


ORDER SHEET ITA NO.155 OF 2000 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction(Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE C.I.T.WB-XI CAL. Versus EVEREST ENTERPRISES BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 29th April, 2015. MR.M.P.AGARWAL, MD.NIZAMUDDIN,ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANT MS.MANJU AGARWAL,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Court : appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 8th November, 1999 pertaining to assessment year 1989-90. following two questions were suggested by revenue; i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case ITAT was justified in law in dismissing Appeal of revenue and confirming order of CIT (Appeals) deleting addition of undisclosed income of Rs.6,59,772/- without considering that in relevant previous year assessee has shown payment of Rs.18,11,425/- to D.S.P. for scrap but assessee has recorded payment of Rs.11,51,653/- only in his 2 books of accounts made to D.S.P. while from balance sheet it appeared there was no outstanding in name of D.S.P.? ii)Whether on facts and in circumstances of case order of ITAT is perverse in dismissing Appeal of revenue and confirming order of CIT (Appeals) by holding that discrepancy of scrap was 63,000 kgs and not 1,21,340 kgs as held by Assessing Officer? Mr.Agarwal, learned advocate appearing for appellant submitted that first question is pure question of fact, which cannot be raised in appeal under Section 260A. In so far as second question is concerned, he submitted that discrepancy arose because assessee was entitled in law to have longer previous year under proviso to Section 3 of Income Tax Act. He submitted that, therefore, question does not really pose any substantial question of law warranting interference by this Court. His submissions are recorded and appeal is disposed of. (GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sb. C.I.T.WB-XI, Calcutta v. Everest Enterprise
Report Error