Back
2021 Supreme(Cal) 334
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
T.S. Sivagnanam, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, JJ.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Asansol – Appellant
Versus
M/S. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. – Respondent
I.A NO. GA/2/2017(Old No. GA/2021/2017) In ITAT 230 of 2017
Decided On : 14-12-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S.N. Dutta, Adv., Mr. Manabendranath Bandyopadhyay, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Swapna Das, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv.
Point of Law : Assessment - Revenue cannot dispute the position of law that the tribunal is the last fact finding authority and this court exercising jurisdiction under section 260 A of the Act is not expected to reexamine the facts and record.
Headnote:
Income Tax Act, 1961- section 260 A- Assessment- “Social Overhead- deleting the addition- ‘Environmental Expenditure’- Miscellaneous Expenses’ – Appeal - Assessment by order - Tribunal examined the factual position as well as the documents which were placed by the assessee and held that the said sum paid to IICM was crystalised as liability of the assessee during the relevant previous year and the sum in question is revenue expenditure incurred for training of the employees/executives and the sum is not hit by the provisions of Section 40 - Expression “substantial questions of law.
Finding of the Court : Jurisdiction under section 260 A of the Act is to ascertain as to whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal and if it is so arises, then decide and answer the substantial questions of law one way or the other. As all the issues are entirely factual and we being satisfied that the tribunal has re-examined the facts and rendered the findings on the above issues after re-examining the records, we are not here to upset such factual findings under section 260 A of the Act - Revenue cannot dispute the position of law that the tribunal is the last fact finding authority and this court exercising jurisdiction under section 260 A of the Act is not expected to reexamine the facts and record a different conclusion merely because it may be of the view that different conclusion would be appropriate.
Result : Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.
ITAT 230 of 2017
1. This appeal filed by the revenue under section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the act for brevity) is directed against the order dated 27.07.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 462 to 464/Kol/2009 for the Assessment Years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006.
2. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: -
a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in holding that depreciation of Rs. 7,19,12,000/- for the A.Y. 2003-04, Rs. 5,82,73,000/- for the A.Y. 2004-05, and Rs. 5,92,06,000/- for the A.Y. 2005-06 respectively claimed separately under the head “Social Overhead” over and above depreciation of Rs. 1,38,03,89,764/- Rs. 1,22,80,02,789/- and Rs. 1,48,84,39,000/- respectively already claimed u/s 32 of the Act as not double claim of depreciation?
(b) Whether of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,35,87,000/- for A.Y. 2003-04 and Rs. 1,50,00,000/- for the A.Y. 2005-06 respectively against ‘IICM Contribution’ claimed under section 40A(9) of the Act?
(c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,09,53,935/- for the A.Y. 2003-04, Rs. 10,29,46,358/- for the A.Y. 2004-05 and Rs. 26,91,71,670/- for the A.Y. 2005-06 respectively on account of closing stock of coal?
(d) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- for the A.Y. 2003-04, Rs. 25,00,000/- for the A.Y. 2004-05 and Rs. 11,58,000/- for the A.Y. 2005-06 respectively on account of ‘Guest House Expenses’?
(e) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 43,80,000/- for the A.Y. 2003-04, Rs. 47,28,000/- for the A.Y. 2004-05 and Rs. 61,31,000/- for the A.Y. 2005-06 respectively on account of ‘Grant to sports and recreation’ being non-incidental to the business of the assessee?
(f) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 16,38,000/- for the A.Y. 2003-04, Rs. 67,03,000/- for the A.Y. 2004-05 and Rs. 1,38,23,000/- for the A.Y. 2005-06 respectively on account of ‘Environmental Expenditure’?
(g) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,97,000/- for the A.Y. 2003-04, Rs. 57,13,000/- for the A.Y. 2004-05 respectively on account of ‘Miscellaneous Expenses’?
(h) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,28,25,18,000/- on account of ‘Current Liabilities’?
(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, was justified in reversing the finding of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,35,22,000/- for the A.Y. 2004-05 on account of ‘HRA Expenses Arrear’?
3. The assessee company filed its return of loss on 21.10.2003 disclosing the total loss of Rs. 97,36,94,328/- which was processed under section 143(1) on 08.01.2004. The
