Calcutta High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Emote Wealth Private Limited on 1 July, 2025
Author: T.S. Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S. Sivagnanam
OD-10
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX]
ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT /123/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR
VS.
EMOTE WEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
Dated : 1st July, 2025
Appearance:
Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv.
Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. Ankan Das, Adv.
Ms. Shradhya Ghosh, Adv.
..for Appellant
Mr. Sanjay Dixit, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, Adv.
..for Respondent
THE COURT: We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.
There is a delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. As the explanation
offered for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation is
acceptable, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application for
condonation of delay being IA No: GA/1/2025 is allowed.
This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 18.10.2024
passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (the
Tribunal) in ITA No.245/Kol/2024 for the assessment year 2011-12.
2
The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for
consideration :
I. Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
has committed substantial error in law in allowing
the appeal of assessee on Legal issue only finding
that the re-opening of the assessment in the case
was bad in law and could not be sustained, more
particularly, when such legal issue which has now
been allowed by the Learned Tribunal, Kolkata
Bench, was never raised by the appellant assessee
before the Learned CIT (A) in their Grounds of
Appeal nor during the Appellate Proceedings while
filing additional grounds/evidences under
prescribed Rules?
II. Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
has committed substantial error in law in not
appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case
in correct perspective with regard to issuance of
notice under section 148 of the Act by the Assessing
Officer, as had duly been appreciated by the
Learned CIT (A) while passing his order?
III. Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
has committed substantial error in law by quashing
the very initiation of re-assessment proceedings by
stating that the Assessing Officer didn’t apply his
independent mind to the information received from
DDIT (Inv.) Kolkata, whereas, the notice under
section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was duly
issued by the Assessing Officer after
considering/examining the information so received
from the Investigation wing vis-à-vis the material
available on his record forming his “reasons to
3believe” for such re-opening of assessment under
the purview of Section 147 of the Act and the case
was re-opened after obtaining the due approval of
competent authority as was required under section
151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
We have elaborately heard the learned Advocates appearing for the
parties and perused the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority as
well as the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. The issue which
falls for consideration is whether the re-opening of the assessment was
valid. The learned Tribunal has taken note of the facts and has pointed out
that the Assessing Officer has not applied his independent mind to the
information received from the DDIT (Investigation), Kolkata as the
information received was extracted in the reasons recorded as they were
received even without verifying the same whether those were correct or not
and the assessment was re-opened under Section 147 of the Act.
Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has pointed out that the Assessing
Officer has not verified the facts as there was no unsecured loan raised by
the assessee from M/s. Sadabhar Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Further, the
learned Tribunal has pointed out that even the name of the assessee has
also been wrongly noted by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the learned
Tribunal on facts concluded that the re-opening of the assessment was bad
in law.
We find no justifiable ground to upset the finding recorded by the
learned Tribunal which was rendered upon re-appreciation of the factual
position. Apart from that, the learned Tribunal has also found that Section
4
133C(2) of the Act which was inserted with effect from 1.6.2016 has no
application to the assessee’s case.
Thus, for all the above reasons, we find no ground to interfere with the
order of the learned Tribunal and in particular, we find no question of law,
much less substantial questions of law, arising for consideration in this
appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
The stay petition (GA/2/2025) stands dismissed.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ.)
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
sm