Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 1503
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, JJ.
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
M/s Goldstone Cements Limited – Respondent
Income Tax Appeal No.08 Of 2022
Decided On : 17-12-2024
For the Appellants : Mr. S.C. Keyal, Standing Counsel, CBDT, IT
For the Respondent:Dr. A. Saraf, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. P.K. Bora, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing that the genuineness and creditworthiness of share application transactions were established, and the appeal did not involve substantial questions of law.
Headnote:
(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 260A - Appeal to High Court - The appeal is maintainable only if it involves a substantial question of law. The court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 7, 26)
(B) Substantial Question of Law - The questions framed by the court were found to be essentially questions of fact and did not involve substantial questions of law. (Paras 12, 30)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which dismissed the appeal of the Assessing Authority regarding the addition of share application money under Section 68 of the IT Act. The Assessing Authority doubted the genuineness of the transactions, but both the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal found the transactions to be genuine based on evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the findings of the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, stating that the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions were established.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee had discharged its burden of substantiation and whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition under Section 68.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the findings of the Tribunal were based on evidence and could not be disturbed by the High Court.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Kaushik Goswami, J.)
Heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CBDT, IT for the appellants as well as Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal is preferred under the provision of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IT Act’) against the impugned order dated 10.12.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench in I.T.A. Nos. 126 to 131/GAU/2020 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2015-16 & 2017-18.
3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as follows:-
Upon a search and seizure as per Section 132 of the IT Act being conducted in the office premises of the respondent company as well as in the residence of family members and other business concerns etc., the Assessing Authority having doubted the sale transaction in respect of few companies, framed assessment under Section 153A/143 (3) of the IT Act and determined the assessed income of the respondent company for the annual year 2017-19. The Assessing Authority, doubted the genuineness of the transaction in respect of share capital received from M/s. Orchid Finlease Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 1,75,54,848/- and M/s. Shantidham Marketing Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 32,94,00,000/- and accordingly added Rs. 34,69,54,848/- to the income of the respondent company under Section 68 of the IT Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer, the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati-2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Authority’) and the said Appellate Authority was pleased to delete the aforesaid addition made by the Assessing Authority by order dated 18.03.2020. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Appellate Authority, the appellants filed an appeal before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Second Appellate Tribunal’). The learned Second Appellate Tribunal by order dated 10.12.2021 dismissed the aforesaid appeal of the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the present third appeal is being preferred by the Appellants.
4. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order of the Second Appellate Tribunal is totally erroneous. He further submits that the respondent/assessee has not been able to establish the source of source as regards the transaction in question and as such, the order of the Assessing Authority under Section 68 of the IT Act is valid and ought not to have been interfered with by both the Appellate Authorities. He further submits that under Section 68 of the IT Act, the obligation stands with the assessee to explain the source of source and hence, in the present case, since the assessee has not been able to explain the source of source as regards the transaction in question, the Assessing Officer has rightly added the sum to be charged to income tax as the income of the respondent/assessee for the assessing year in question. He further relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) 1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2019) 15 SCC 529.
5. Per contra, Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee submits that the present appeal being filed before the Third Appellate Court, this Court shall not go to the factual matrix of the case and shall also not disturb the concurrent findings of the Appellate Authority and the Second Appellate Tribunal. He further submits that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal and hence, the appeal is not maintainable. He further submits that the Appellate Authority as well as the Second Appellate Tribunal elaborately discussed the materials placed by both parties and by discussing the same has returned the verdict against the Assessing Authorities/Appellants. Accordingly, he submits that this appeal
