Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central-Iii, Kolkata v. Rampuria Industries &Investment Ltd

O-109 ITA/78/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL-III, KOLKATA -Versus- RAMPURIA INDUSTRIES &INVESTMENT LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 20[th] February, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv.…for the appellant. Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh, Adv....for the respondent. The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ forbrevity) is directed against the order dated 16[th] September,2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench,Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.1882/Kol/2009 for theassessment year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted on 17[th] July, 2012 on thefollowing substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the learned Tribunal has erred in lawin allowing the amount paid for getting thepremises vacated from the tenant has been abusiness expenditure in any sense particularlywhen the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956has provided such kind of payment illegal andalso under the provision of explanation of sub-Section (1) of Section 37 ?the case, the learned Tribunal has erred in lawin allowing the amount paid for getting thepremises vacated from the tenant has been abusiness expenditure in any sense particularlywhen the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956has provided such kind of payment illegal andalso under the provision of explanation of sub-Section (1) of Section 37 ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the learned Tribunal has erred in lawin dismissing the appeal of the revenue byrelying on the decisions in case of CIT vs. AutoDistributors Ltd., reported in 210 ITR 222 (Cal)the facts of which are distinguishable from thefacts of the instant case inasmuch as thatassessee was not the owner of the propertywhereas in the instant case the assessee is theowner of the property and by getting vacated thesame it got enduring benefit of free possessionwhich is of capital nature ?”the case, the learned Tribunal has erred in lawin dismissing the appeal of the revenue byrelying on the decisions in case of CIT vs. AutoDistributors Ltd., reported in 210 ITR 222 (Cal)the facts of which are distinguishable from thefacts of the instant case inasmuch as thatassessee was not the owner of the propertywhereas in the instant case the assessee is theowner of the property and by getting vacated thesame it got enduring benefit of free possessionwhich is of capital nature ?” We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standingcounsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh,learned Advocate appearing for the respondent/assessee. From the memorandum of grounds of appeal filed by therevenue, we find that the tax effect in the instant case isRs.10,09,800/-. If that be the case, the revenue cannot pursuethis appeal on the ground of low tax effect. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue(ITA/78/2012) stands disposed of on the ground of low taxeffect and the substantial questions of law are left open. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S.Das/As.