Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - Ii, Kolkata v. M/S Rungta Sons (P) Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/25/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOLKATA - II, KOLKATAVSM/S RUNGTA SONS (P) LTD. BEFORE : THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI -A N D- THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJDATED : 1 APRIL, 2024 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv.….for appellant….for appellantMr. Subash Agarwal, Adv.Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh, Adv.Mr. Nitish Bhanddery, Adv.….for respondentMr. Nitish Bhanddery, Adv.….for respondent 1.Heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing Counsel for the appellantand Sri Subash Agarwal, learned counsel assisted by Mr. BrijeshKumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.and Sri Subash Agarwal, learned counsel assisted by Mr. BrijeshKumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 2.This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questionsof law:-of law:- “(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case theIncome Tax, Appellate Tribunal erred in law in upholding the order ofCIT(A) deleting the disallowance of ‘Net Present Value’ (NPV) ofRs.3,95,56,500/- without appreciating the fact that it relates toIncome Tax, Appellate Tribunal erred in law in upholding the order ofCIT(A) deleting the disallowance of ‘Net Present Value’ (NPV) ofRs.3,95,56,500/- without appreciating the fact that it relates to earlier previous years and is capital in nature and hence cannot beallowed U/s. 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (b) Whether the impugned order is bad, arbitrary, illegal perverse andthe same is nothing but a total non-application of mind of theconcerned respondent and the same is liable to be set aside and/orquashed?” 3.The assessee paid a sum of Rs.3,95,56,500/-towards the ‘Net PresentValue’ so as to carry on the mining operation. Hon’ble Supreme Courtin T.N. Godavaram Thirumalpad –vs- Union of India in I.A. No. 826 inW.P.(C) No. 202/1995 decided on 26.09.2005 held that the ‘NetPresent Value’ is a fee. Without payment of NPV the assessee couldnot carry on his mining operation. He was compelled to makepayment so as to continue his mining business. The Tribunal haselaborately dealt with the issue and recorded its finding in paragraph12 to 15 of the impugned order dated 5.8.2011 in I.T.A. No.933/Kol/2009 relating to assessment year 2006-07. The CIT(A)allowed the appeal of the respondent/assessee and the order of theCIT(A) was affirmed by the I.T.A.T. by the impugned order.Value’ so as to carry on the mining operation. Hon’ble Supreme Courtin T.N. Godavaram Thirumalpad –vs- Union of India in I.A. No. 826 inW.P.(C) No. 202/1995 decided on 26.09.2005 held that the ‘NetPresent Value’ is a fee. Without payment of NPV the assessee couldnot carry on his mining operation. He was compelled to makepayment so as to continue his mining business. The Tribunal haselaborately dealt with the issue and recorded its finding in paragraph12 to 15 of the impugned order dated 5.8.2011 in I.T.A. No.933/Kol/2009 relating to assessment year 2006-07. The CIT(A)allowed the appeal of the respondent/assessee and the order of theCIT(A) was affirmed by the I.T.A.T. by the impugned order. 4.Similar question as involved in the present appeal, came forconsideration before this Court in the case of Principal Commissionerof Income Tax, Central Tax 1 –vs-. Rungta Mines Ltd. [2018] 96taxmann.com 166 (Calcutta) in G.A. No. 2977 of 2015 decided on21.06.2018. By the aforesaid order this Court dismissed the appealconsideration before this Court in the case of Principal Commissionerof Income Tax, Central Tax 1 –vs-. Rungta Mines Ltd. [2018] 96taxmann.com 166 (Calcutta) in G.A. No. 2977 of 2015 decided on21.06.2018. By the aforesaid order this Court dismissed the appeal of the Income Tax Department, following some judgements of Hon’bleSupreme Court on principle of law. 4.Similar question as involved in the present appeal, came forconsideration before this Court in the case of Principal Commissionerof Income Tax, Central Tax 1 –vs-. Rungta Mines Ltd. [2018] 96taxmann.com 166 (Calcutta) in G.A. No. 2977 of 2015 decided on21.06.2018. By the aforesaid order this Court dismissed the appealconsideration before this Court in the case of Principal Commissionerof Income Tax, Central Tax 1 –vs-. Rungta Mines Ltd. [2018] 96taxmann.com 166 (Calcutta) in G.A. No. 2977 of 2015 decided on21.06.2018. By the aforesaid order this Court dismissed the appeal of the Income Tax Department, following some judgements of Hon’bleSupreme Court on principle of law. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings offact recorded by the I.T.A.T. in the impugned order and thejudgement of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Rungta Mines Ltd.(supra) we do not find any merit in this appeal.fact recorded by the I.T.A.T. in the impugned order and thejudgement of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Rungta Mines Ltd.(supra) we do not find any merit in this appeal. 6.Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 7.Both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour ofassessee and against the revenue.assessee and against the revenue. (SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.) GH/sg. (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)