Itat/125/2022 Ia No: Ga/2/2022 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central)-1, Kolkata v. M/S. Mbl Infrastructure Ltd

OD–19 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/125/2022IA NO: GA/2/2022PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-1, KOLKATAVS. M/s. MBL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYADate : SEPTEMBER 12, 2022. Appearance:Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv.… for appellantMr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.…for respondent The Court :- This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 22[nd] October 2020 passed inITA No. 427/Kol/2018 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised thefollowing substantial questions of law for consideration :- i)WHETHER in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, theLearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in quashing thereversionary order under section 263 passed by the Learned Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax as bad in law thereby deleting the addition ofRs.18,88,58,130/0 made on the basis of disallowance of claim of deductionu/s 80IA of the Act ?Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in quashing thereversionary order under section 263 passed by the Learned Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax as bad in law thereby deleting the addition ofRs.18,88,58,130/0 made on the basis of disallowance of claim of deductionu/s 80IA of the Act ? ii)WHETHER in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, theLearned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in ignoring thatAssessing Officer did not apply correct assumption of fact and correctapplication of law on the issue of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act whichmakes assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest ofrevenue as held by Hon’ble Apex Act in the case of Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. Vs. CIT [243 ITR 83] ? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing Counsel for the appellant andMr.J. P. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent. The short issue involved in the instant appeal is whether the Commissioner ofIncome Tax was justifying in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. Wehave elaborately heard the submissions of learned Advocate on either side and carefullyperused the order and the reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal. In paragraph 9 of the impugned order, learned Tribunal has noted the factualcontend namely with regard to the purchases which were undertaken by therespondent/assessee as also the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into bythe assessee with the concerned highways department and having been factuallysatisfied that the deduction claimed by the assessee is admissible, had granted relief.More importantly the Tribunal had taken note of the fact that for the previousassessment years 2010-11 the learned Tribunal had adjudicated the issue and hadgranted relief for assessee and for the subsequent years 2013-14 and 2014-15 nodisallowance has been made under Section 80IA of the Act. That apart the learnedTribunal has also taken note of various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which had laid down the legal principle as to what and under what circumstances theCommissioner of Income Tax can exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. The revenue has not disputed before us that no disallowance was made in theprevious two assessment years as well as the subsequent two assessment years. Thus inthe absence of any distinguished feature in the nature of contract the Rule ofConsistency has to be applied. Thus we find that no questions of law, much lesssubstantial questions of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.) Pkd/GH