Dismissed

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Kolkata v. the Jute Corporation of India Ltd.

Calcutta HC8 Jun 2022ITAT/355/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Calcutta HC Special Jurisdiction dismissed the revenue appeal under Section 260A IT Act. The court held the question was purely factual and no substantial question of law arose as the Tribunal verified actual payment and affirmed the CIT(A)'s order.

What did the court decide?

No substantial question of law is held to have arisen; the appeal is dismissed.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Kolkata Vs the Jute… — Income Tax | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

OD- 7

¶2

ITAT/355/2017 IA NO.GA/1/2017 (Old No.GA/3562/2017) IA No.GA/2/2017 (Old No.GA/3563/2017)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE

¶4

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – I, KOLKATA

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED

¶7

Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv. ...for the appellant.

¶8

BEFORE:

¶9

The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM

¶10

-And-

¶11

The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

¶12

Date : 8^th June, 2022.

¶13

Re : IA No.GA/1/2017

¶14

The Court : Heard the learned standing counsel for the

¶15

appellant. There is a delay of 336 days in filing the appeal. Despite several adjournments, the Ministry has not been able to serve the notice on the respondent/assessee and no affidavit has been filed. Therefore, we are not inclined to adjourn the matter any further. At this juncture, the learned standing counsel for the appellant expresses desire to make submission on the merits of the matter and requested the court to hear the main appeal. Only for such purposes, we exercise the discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal.

¶16

¶17

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay (IA No.GA/1/2017) stands allowed.

¶18

Re : ITAT/355/2017

¶19

This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity) is directed against the order dated 25^th May, 2016 , 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1348/Kol/2013 for the assessment year 2008-09.

¶20

The revenue has raised for the following substantial question of law for consideration:

¶21

“(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of

¶22

the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in upholding the

¶23

decision of the CIT(A) XXIV Kolkata who allowed a sum of Rs.1,26,04,522/- on account of contingent and unascertained liability out of the total amount of Rs 1,45,00,000/- disallowed by the assessing officer?”

¶24

We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue.

¶25

On reading the above question, we find that the question is fully factual and it cannot be termed as substantial question of law. That apart, on going through the order passed by the tribunal which affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we find that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner was allowed based on the actual payment made by

¶26

¶27

the assessee towards the settlement of claims. Therefore, the tribunal verified the factual position and affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Thus, we find that no question of law much less the substantial question of law is arising for consideration in this appeal.

¶28

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶29

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

¶30

Pkd/S.Das

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Kolkata v. the Jute Corporation of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Kolkata v. the Jute Corporation of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harshita Chhawchharia Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, KOLKATA-20

Sarwan Kumar Poddar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mageba Bridge Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes , Central Audit Unit and Ors.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Kolkata Vs Subhlabh Steels Private Limited

Commissioner of Income Tax , Kol - Iii, Kol Vs M/S. Meenakshi Tea Co. Ltd.

Amar Kumar Saha, Proprietor of M/S. Amar Construction Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue,Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Enforcement and Ors.