Ita/156/2018 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Paradeep Port Trust

Order No. 05. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No.156 of 2018 …. Appellant Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuttack Mr. R. Chimanka, Sr. Standing Counsel along with A. Kedia, Jr. Standing Counsel -versus- …. Paradeep Port Trust Respondent Mr. R.V. Easwar, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Rubal Bansal, Advocate; Ms. Ananya Rath, Advocate and Mr. Ashutosh Mohanty, Advocate CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN ORDER05.01.2023 1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against an order dated 27[th]April 2018, passed by the ITAT in dismissing the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.256/CTK/2016 for the assessment year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The first question sought to be urged by the Revenue concerns the CIT(A) allowing “unascertained liabilities” claimed by the Assessee on account of accrued expenses. 3. It is pointed out by Mr. Easwar, learned Senior Advocate for the Assessee that in the earlier AY 2009-10, the CIT(A) allowed a similar claim of the Assessee after calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer (AO). It is pointed out that in the remand report the AO confirmed that what was being claimed was in fact S.K. Guin ‘ascertained liabilities’. It is pointed out that even in the subsequent AY 2011-12, a similar issue arose which was carried in appeal to the Tribunal by the Revenue, but before this Court, no such issue was raised in the further appeal filed by the Revenue. Following the rule of consistency, therefore, the Court declines to frame the question for the AY in question. 4. A second issue raised pertains to deletion of an addition made on account of interest earned on two reserve funds. This issue has already been answered by this Court today in a separate order passed in ITA No.90 of 2017 and accordingly, the Court declines to frame the question. 5. The third question pertains to depreciation on railways and rolling stock. In view of the separate order passed today by this Court in ITA No.64 of 2012 answering the same question against the Revenue, the Court declines to frame the question. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge