Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kolkata-Iii v. M/S. Empire & Singlo Tea Ltd

OD-5 ITAT/86/2011IA No.GA/1/2011 (Old No.GA/968/2011)IA No.GA/2/2011 (Old No.GA/969/2011) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOLKATA-III -Versus- M/S. EMPIRE & SINGLO TEA LTD. Appearance:Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv....for the appellant. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK Date : 11[th] July, 2022. IA No.GA/1/2011: The Court : We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learnedstanding counsel for the appellant. There is a delay of 104 days in filing the appeal. Though the respondent has not been served, we are of theview that the application can be disposed of since the issueinvolved in the main appeal has to be decided against the revenuefor more than one reason. Therefore, we exercise discretion andallow the application and condone the delay of 104 days in filingthe appeal. Accordingly, IA No.GA/1/2011 (Old No.GA/968/2011) isallowed. ITAT/86/2011: This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity) is directedagainst the order dated 9[th] June, 2010 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Kolkata, “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITANo.697/Kol/2010 for the assessment years 2005-06. The revenue has raised the following substantial questionof law for consideration: i)Whether on the circumstances of the case, thelearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in lawby considering cess payable on green leaves as notrelated solely to agricultural operation but as anallowable deduction from the composite income ofcultivation and manufacturing of tea, before computationof the portion of income chargeable to tax ? We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned standingcounsel for the appellant/revenue. We find from the impugned order that the tax effect willbe less than the threshold limit fixed by the circular issued bythe CBDT since the addition made by the assessing officer was asum of Rs.89,71,000/- and the tax at 33% on the said amount willbe less than Rs.1 crore. That apart, we take note of the fact that the tribunal has relied upon the decision of this Court in CITvs. AFT Industries Ltd. reported in 2004 (270) ITR 167 (Cal.). For the above reasons, the appeal (ITAT/86/2011) isdismissed and the substantial question of law is answered againstthe revenue.Consequently, the connected application for stay (IANo.GA/2/2011) also stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.) As/S.DasAR(CR)