Ia No: Ga/1/2018 (Old No. Ga/1469/2018); Ga/2/2018 (Old No. Ga/1470/2018) The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) Kolkata v. M/S. Itd-Itd Cem Jv (Consortium Of Itd-Itd Cementation

OD - 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/195/2018 IA NO: GA/1/2018 (OLD NO. GA/1469/2018);GA/2/2018 (OLD NO. GA/1470/2018)THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) KOLKATAVS.M/s. ITD-ITD CEM JV (CONSORTIUM OF ITD-ITD CEMENTATION) BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : AUGUST 03, 2022. Appearance :Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv….for appellantMr. Agnibesh Sengupta, Adv.…for respondent GA/1/2018 (OLD No.GA/1469/2018) The Court : We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned Standing Counselfor the appellant. Since this is an appeal of the year 2018 it appears that thematter has not been assigned to any standing Counsel. We, therefore, direct Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned Advocate to acceptnotice on behalf of the appellant and his appearance shall be regularised. We have heard Mr. Agnibesh Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for therespondent/assessee. There is a delay of 195 days in filing the appeal. We have perused theaffidavit filed in support of the condone delay application and we are satisfied with the reasons given therein. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal iscondoned. The application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is allowed.ITAT/195/2018 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 is directed against the order dated 12[th] July, 2017 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Authority, Kolkata “B” Bench I.T.A. No. 1462/Kol/2014 for theassessment year 2011-2012. The revenue has raised the following substantialquestions of law for consideration:- i] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learnedIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in not interferingwith the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] tothe extent of deletion of charge of TDS and interest of Rs.28,86,995/-under section 194I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in not interferingwith the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] tothe extent of deletion of charge of TDS and interest of Rs.28,86,995/-under section 194I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? ii]Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learnedIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law by failing to treat thepayment of Rs.2,16,90,806/- as land rent to Airport Authority ofIndia on which no TDS had been deducted by the assessee is liablefor tax deducted at source ?Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law by failing to treat thepayment of Rs.2,16,90,806/- as land rent to Airport Authority ofIndia on which no TDS had been deducted by the assessee is liablefor tax deducted at source ? The appeal is of the year 2018 and it appears that the matter has not beenassigned to any specific standing Counsel of the department. Therefore, we havedirected Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standing Counsel to accept notice onbehalf of the appellant and his appearance shall be regularized by the Ministry of Law & Justice. We have heard Mr. Agnibesh Sengupta, learned Advocateappearing for respondent/assessee. As rightly pointed out that the tax effect inthe present appeal is Rs.21,69,081/- as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the stayapplication. If that be the case, the revenue cannot pursue appeal on the groundof low tax effect. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of on the ground of lowtax effect. Consequently, substantial questions of law are left open. As per the note submitted by the Superintendent Appeal Section, HighCourt, Original Side the case papers are not traceable and an unconditionalapology has been tendered by the Registry. The same is accepted and one set ofphotostat copies of the papers of the application and the affidavit shall beobtained from the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent/assessee andkept on record. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) Pkd/GH