High Court Of Calcutta
CIT, Central -III, Kolkata VS. Nandadevi Sales Agency
Assessment Year : 2006-07
Section : 41(1), 69C
Girish Chandra Gupta And Tapash Mookherjee, Jj.
ITAT No. 167 Of 2013
G.A. No. 3262 Of 2013
February  13, 2014
ORDER
1. The Court : The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 22nd May, 2013 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue challenging the order of the CIT (Appeal). Once again challenging the order of the learned Tribunal, the Revenue has come up before this Court. The following questions have been suggested in paragraph-8 of the stay petition.
“I. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in law by upholding the decision of the CIT (A) by allowing the grounds in order under Section 250 for the assessment year 2006-2007 and opined that there is no reason to disbelieve the purchases.
II. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in law by upholding the decision of the CIT(A) by taking the view that in absence of satisfactory explanation as laid down under Section 41(1) of the IT Act, the A.O. had made the addition as concealed income;
III. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in law by upholding the decision of the CIT(A) and took the decision that there was neither cessation of liability nor the unexplained purchases as observed and held by A.O. Therefore, learned Tribunal directed to delete the addition of Rs.47,00,771/-.
IV. Whether the order of the learned Tribunal is bad, illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction and the same not sustainable in law.”
2. The sole question for consideration by the learned Tribunal was whether the addition of Rs.47,00,771/- made by the Assessing Officer and deleted by the CIT (Appeal) was correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. Both the CIT (Appeal) and the Tribunal appear to have concurrently held that the Assessing Officer without sufficient reason arrived at the finding that there was cessation of liability to the extent of Rs.13,28,282/- because he was of the opinion that the liability for the aforesaid sum was not carried over in the following accounting year, whereas the fact, according to the CIT (Appeal), was that the credit entry for the aforesaid sum was the first entry in the ledger of the concerned party. As regards a sum of Rs.33,72,489/-, the CIT (Appeal) has given some particulars with which the learned Tribunal concurred in holding that the Assessing Officer ignored those figures. It is, in these circumstances, that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted by the CIT (Appeal) and was approved by the learned Tribunal. The decision entirely is on facts. The questions raised by the Revenue are all related to the aforesaid questions of fact.
3. Considering that the matter related to the questions of fact and that both the CIT (Appeal) and the learned Tribunal concurrently held that the Assessing Officer was wrong, we are not inclined to admit the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.
[Citation :Â 362 ITR 5]
