Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kolkata-1, Kolkata v. Garden Reach Shipbuilders &Engineers Ltd

OD-26 ITAT/145/2014 IA NO.GA/1/2014 (Old No.GA/2988/2014) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA -Versus- GARDEN REACH SHIPBUILDERS &ENGINEERS LTD. Appearance:Ms. Smita Das De, Adv....for the appellant. Mr. Debashish Mitra, Adv.Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv....for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 21[st] June, 2022. The Court:- This appeal filed by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity)is directed against the order dated 31[st] March, 2014 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘B’ Bench, Kolkata in ITANo.278/Kol/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09.The revenue has raised the following substantialquestions of law for consideration : i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the Ld. Tribunal has erred in law in deletingthe addition of Rs.32,93,75,797/- made by the AssessingOfficer on account of provision of Liquidated Damages?ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the Ld. Tribunal has erred in law indisregarding concurrent finding of both the AssessingOfficer and CIT(Appeals) that aforesaid claim ofRs.32,93,75,797/- could not be regarded as liabilitysince it was not supported by any realistic estimate to areasonable certainties and therefore, not crystalizedduring the previous year? We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing counsel forthe appellant/revenue and Mr. Debashish Mitra, learned counselassisted by Mr. Siddharth Das, learned advocate appearing for therespondent/assessee. We need not labour much to decide the substantial questionsof law in the instant case on account of earlier decision of thisCourt in the assessee’s own case in ITA No.724 of 2017 dated 15[th]January, 2008 pertaining to the assessment year 2003-04. Identicalissue was considered by the tribunal and relief was granted bydeleting the addition made by the assessing officer and affirmedby the CIT(A). Further, it is submitted by the learned advocatefor the respondent that for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 identical issue arose for consideration and the CIT(A) deletedthe addition and the department though filed an appeal before the tribunal but did not agitate the said ground before the tribunal.For the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 no addition has beenmade by the assessing officer on the said ground. In the light of the above facts, a consistent approach isrequired to be maintained by the income tax department whenidentical issues were dealt with in the previous assessment yearand there are no distinguishing factors in any particularassessment year for the assessing officer to depart from thisearlier year. The revenue has not been able to show as to anydistinguishing feature in the case on hand as to that of the factswhich are involved in the assessment years 2003-04 and 2007-08. Infact, for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 on the saidissue there was no addition made by the assessing officer himself.For the above reasons, we find that there is no error in theorder passed by the tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal fails andthe same stands dismissed. The substantial questions of law areanswered against the revenue. With the dismissal of the appeal, the connected application(IA No.GA/1/2014) stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) A/s/S.Das