Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax -1(2) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. Jindal Power Limited Kharsia Raod, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPURTAXC No. 48 of 2019 NAFR Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax -1(2) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus Jindal Power Limited Kharsia Raod, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent ________________________________________________________________ For Appellant: Shri Amit Chaudhari and Ms. Naushina Ali, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kapoor and Shri Romir S. Goyal, Advocates _________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief JusticeHon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 20.01.2020 1.The appeal is arising from the order dated 15.01.2018 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur in ITANo.210/RPR/2014. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur in ITANo.210/RPR/2014. 2.On filing the return by the Assessee declaring a total income ofRs.98,66,03,568/-, the case was selected for scrutiny/assessment and theproceedings were completed in terms of Section 143(3) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 whereby an addition to the extent of Rs.3,36,18,098/- was madeand assessed accordingly.Rs.98,66,03,568/-, the case was selected for scrutiny/assessment and theproceedings were completed in terms of Section 143(3) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 whereby an addition to the extent of Rs.3,36,18,098/- was madeand assessed accordingly. 3.The course and proceedings pursued by the Department, made theAssessee to feel aggrieved, who filed an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) where the appeal was allowed in part. This made theAssessee to feel aggrieved, who filed an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) where the appeal was allowed in part. This made the Department to take up a matter before the Tribunal referring to the factsand figures, where interference was declined and the appeal wasdismissed. This, in turn is put to challenge in this appeal preferred by theRevenue, suggesting the following as substantial questions of law : “1. Whether in law and on facts & circumstances ofthe case, the ITAT is justified in upholding thedecision of CIT (A) restricting the disallowance toRs.1,23,83,429/- as against disallowance made bythe AO at Rs.3,36,18,098/- on account of CorporateSocial Responsibilities expenses as the AO hascategorically mentioned in the assessment order thatparticulars of the villagers and communities wheresuch development activities were carried out andnature of each and every activity with the quantum ofexpenditure incurred thereon also has not beenfurnished and no material whatsoever has beenplaced in support of occurrence of such activities ? 2. Whether in law and on facts & circumstances ofthe case, the ITAT is justified in confirming the orderof CIT (A) who has erred by restricting thedisallowance to Rs.1,23,83,429/- as againstdisallowance made by the AO at Rs.3,36,18,098/- ofCorporate Social responsibility for the A.Y.2009-10,an issue which was decided as per the then prevalentlegal provisions u/s 37(1) of the Act, 1961 forA.Y.2009-10, by taking resort to the amendedprovision of Explanation 2 of Section 37(1) of the I.T.Act, which was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act,2014 ? 3. Whether in law and on facts & circumstances ofthe case, the ITATA is justified in interpreting the Anu Explanation 2 to Sec. 37(1) introduced w.e.f.01.04.2015 when the Explanation itself starts with thephrase “for removal of doubts” thereby making itsapplication retrospective and clarificatory in natureand the interpretation by ITAT as erroneous and isincorrect thereby rendering the decision, which isperverse ?” 4.Heard Shri Amit Chaudhari, the learned standing counsel for theDepartment at length.Department at length. 3. Whether in law and on facts & circumstances ofthe case, the ITATA is justified in interpreting the Anu Explanation 2 to Sec. 37(1) introduced w.e.f.01.04.2015 when the Explanation itself starts with thephrase “for removal of doubts” thereby making itsapplication retrospective and clarificatory in natureand the interpretation by ITAT as erroneous and isincorrect thereby rendering the decision, which isperverse ?” 4.Heard Shri Amit Chaudhari, the learned standing counsel for theDepartment at length.Department at length. 5.Considering the nature of pleadings raised and also the discussion madeby the Tribunal in detail, we are of the view that the decision has beenrendered by the Tribunal clearly on question of facts and it does notinvolve any question of law; much less any substantial question of law. by the Tribunal in detail, we are of the view that the decision has beenrendered by the Tribunal clearly on question of facts and it does notinvolve any question of law; much less any substantial question of law. 6.This appeal is devoid of any merit, so as to have it entertained in terms ofSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Interference is declined andappeal stands dismissed.Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Interference is declined andappeal stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (P.R. Ramachandra Menon) Chief Justice Judge Chief Justice Judge (Parth Prateem Sahu)