Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT - ORIGINAL SIDE
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, JJ
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASANSOL – Appellant
Versus
M/S. EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. – Respondent
Income Tax Appeal No. 230 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S.N. Dutta, Adv., Mr. Manabendranath Bandyopadhyay, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Swapna Das, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv.
The court concluded that the appeal did not present substantial questions of law, and affirmed the tribunal's findings based on factual evaluations.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 260A - Appeal against ITAT ruling - Revenue contends tribunal erred in overturning CIT(A) findings regarding depreciation claims and various expenses including IICM contribution, closing stock, and environmental expenditures; issues raised revolve around factual determinations. (Paras 1-14)
(B) Court finds no substantial question of law; decision emphasized the role of appellate authority in factual matters and affirmed the tribunal's conclusions. (Paras 12-14)
Facts of the case:
The revenue filed an appeal against ITAT's ruling favoring the assessee regarding significant depreciation and expense claims across multiple assessment years after original disallowance by CIT(A).
Findings of Court:
Tribunal thoroughly examined evidence and determined facts, allowing claims; the court found no legal basis to overturn factual findings.
Issues: The court determined that the appeals primarily raised factual questions, not substantial legal matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court refrained from re-evaluating factual conclusions as the tribunal is the last fact-finding authority; substantial questions of law were not satisfied.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the nature of the appeal filed under income tax act and the relevant assessment years involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. revenue's arguments against the tribunal's decisions regarding various disallowances. (Para 5 , 10) |
| 3. the tribunal's examination of factual evidence and its conclusive rulings. (Para 7 , 8 , 11) |
| 4. analysis of whether substantial questions of law arose in the case. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. final decision on the dismissal of the appeal based on factual determinations. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.)
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 ad
