Ia No. Ga/1/2021 In Itat/173/2021 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Kolkata v. Ananda Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd

OD-6 & 7 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income tax)ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO. GA/1/2021InITAT/173/2021PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 1, KOLKATAVs. ANANDA BAZAR PATRIKA PVT. LTD. IA NO. GA/2/2021InITAT/173/2021PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 1, KOLKATAVs.ANANDA BAZAR PATRIKA PVT. LTD. BEFORE:The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM ANDThe Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 24[th]FEBRUARY, 2022[Via Video Conference] Appearance:Mr. Tilak Mitra, AdvocateMr. Saumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate…for the appellant.Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateMr. Agnibesh Sengupta, AdvocateMr. Soumitra Datta, Advocate…for the respondent. The Court : - It appears there is a delay of 715 days in filing the appeal.We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the condone of delay application and find the reasons given for the inordinate delay are far from satisfactory.However, learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellant requested thatthe Court may consider the merits of the matter. The learned Counsel forrespondent was also willing for such course being adopted. Therefore, we exercise the discretion and condone the delay. ITAT/173/2021 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated August 9, 2019 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench (Tribunal) in ITANo.1121/Kol/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04. The revenue has raisedthe following substantial questions of law for consideration:- A.Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law bydirecting the Assessing Officer to allow additional depreciation on assetspurchased and acquired before 31.03.2002 as because as per Section32(1)(iia) additional depreciation can only be availed when acquisitionand installation of the machines were acquired through purchase before31.03.2002 though installed after 31.03.2002 ?directing the Assessing Officer to allow additional depreciation on assetspurchased and acquired before 31.03.2002 as because as per Section32(1)(iia) additional depreciation can only be availed when acquisitionand installation of the machines were acquired through purchase before31.03.2002 though installed after 31.03.2002 ? B.Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law byallowing additional depreciation even after the machineries acquiredbefore 01.04.2002 and installed after 01.04.2020, were not satisfied bythe Assessee for eligibility of the claim ?allowing additional depreciation even after the machineries acquiredbefore 01.04.2002 and installed after 01.04.2020, were not satisfied bythe Assessee for eligibility of the claim ? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned counsel duly assisted by Mr.Saumen Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P.Khaitan, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Agnibesh Sengupta and Mr. SoumitraDatta, learned Advocates for respondents/assessee. B.Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law byallowing additional depreciation even after the machineries acquiredbefore 01.04.2002 and installed after 01.04.2020, were not satisfied bythe Assessee for eligibility of the claim ?allowing additional depreciation even after the machineries acquiredbefore 01.04.2002 and installed after 01.04.2020, were not satisfied bythe Assessee for eligibility of the claim ? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned counsel duly assisted by Mr.Saumen Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P.Khaitan, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Agnibesh Sengupta and Mr. SoumitraDatta, learned Advocates for respondents/assessee. The short question which falls for consideration in the case on hand iswhether the assessee is entitled for additional depreciation under Section32(1)(iia) of the Act. Earlier the revenue had challenged the order passed by theTribunal in ITA No.313 of 2008. The said appeal of the revenue was allowed andthe order passed by the Tribunal was set aside on the ground that there wasabsolutely no application of mind by the Tribunal to the evidence which wasplaced by the assessee and there was no discussion. Upon remand the Tribunalanalysed the factual position and allowed the assessee’s appeal and sustainedthe finding of the assessing officer allowing the claim for additional depreciation.On going through the impugned order more particularly in paragraph 15 we findthe particulars regarding date of pro forma invoice, the date of original invoice,date of acquisition, date of installation as per certificate, date of entry in thebooks of accounts and the amount including insurance, installation etc. havebeen furnished in a tabular form. The Tribunal after going through the factfound that all the machinery have been purchased much after 1.4.2002. Thisfactual position was in fact analysed by the assessing officer and the claim foradditional depreciation was granted by order dated 30.11.2004 under Section143(3) of the Act. Thus we find that on facts the Tribunal was convinced thatthe assessee would be entitled to the claim for additional depreciation in respect of the machinery which they have acquired, which has been used for thepurpose of business. Furthermore, the assessee was able to establish that byinstalling the new machinery they have increased production capacity by morethan 27%. Thus we find that there is no question of law, much less substantialquestion of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly the appeal ITAT/173/2021 fails and is dismissed. Consequently, connected application for stay stands closed. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)