Itat/171/2021 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kolkata v. M/S. Dunlop India Ltd

Form No. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE PRESENT:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA ITAT/171/2021IA NO:GA/1/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATAVS. M/S. DUNLOP INDIA LTD.……… ITAT/171/2021IA NO:GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATAVS. M/S. DUNLOP INDIA LTD.……… For the appellant: Mr. P. B. Bhowmik, Adv.,Mr. Arunava Ganguly, Adv. For the respondent: None appears. Heard on : January 25, 2022. Judgement on : January 25, 2022. RE: IA NO:GA/1/2021 T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. : We have heard Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant/revenue. There is a delay of720 days in filing this appeal. Though in the affidavit filed in supportof the condone delay petition the dates and events have been given. They are all administrative delay and the revenue cannot take anyspecial privilege for not filing the appeal within the period oflimitation. However, considering the fact that the respondent/assesseehas already gone into liquidation and the company was notrepresented before the Tribunal and considering the nature of theissue, with consent of the learned senior standing counsel for theappellant we are inclined to take up the main appeal itself. Therefore,we exercise discretion and condone the delay. Accordingly, the delayin filing this appeal is condoned. The application, IA NO.GA/1/2021 stands disposed ofaccordingly. RE: ITAT/171/2021 This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, (the Act, in brevity) is directed against theorder dated 31.7.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,“C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 1272/Cal/2003 for theassessment year 1997-98. The revenue has raised the followingsubstantial questions of law for our consideration. a.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, haserred in facts as well as in law in allowing CapitalPayment towards purchase of knowhow wrongly claimedas Royalty Revenue Expenditure ?in law, the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, haserred in facts as well as in law in allowing CapitalPayment towards purchase of knowhow wrongly claimedas Royalty Revenue Expenditure ? b.Whether in the facts and in law method of payment is notconclusive to determine the nature of payment as Capitalor Revenue Expenditure ? We have heard Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior standing counselfor the appellant. The identical questions of law raised before us inthis appeal were considered by us in ITAT/170/2021 in the assessee’sown case for the earlier assessment year and by judgment dated25.1.2022 the appeal was dismissed. Therefore, following saiddecision, the present appeal is also dismissed and the substantialquestions of law are answered against the revenue. The stay application, IA NO.GA/2/2021 also stands dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) I agree. (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)