Itat/183/2022 Ia No. Ga/2/2022 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 Kolkata v. M/S. Universal Cables Ltd

OD – 15 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/183/2022IA NO. GA/2/2022PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATAVsM/S. UNIVERSAL CABLES LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : NOVEMBER 03, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv.…for appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Adv.Ms. Swapna Das, Adv.Mr. Siddhertha Das, Adv.…for respondent The Court :- This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 30[th] November, 2022 passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITAT No. 1461/Kol/2019for the assessment years 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following substantialquestions of law for consideration :- i)Whether the assessee was entitled to get benefit of additional depreciation@10% amounting to Rs.1,35,64,743/- on the assets purchased and put touse on latter half of the Financial Year 2012-13 or not ? ii)Whether the provisions of sec. 14A r.w. Rules, 1962 could be invoked todetermine the expenses related to the exempt income or not ? We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, learnedcounsel for the for the respondent. On the second substantial questions of law the Tribunal has dismissed the appealfiled by the revenue on the ground that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) byorder dated 1[st] February 2019 had remanded the matter to the assessing officer for freshconsideration. The Tribunal had affirmed the order of remand. On remand the assessingofficer has passed an effective order on 17[th] March, 2020 by which the substantialamount of the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of Rs.270 lakhs was deletedand the case of the assessee was accepted. The remaining amount was Rs.25.52 lakhs ofdisallowance under Section 14A in terms of the remand order dated 21.02.2017. If thesaid amount is reckoned even without reference to the order the tax effect will be aboutRs.10 lakhs. If that is so the revenue cannot pursue the said substantial question of lawNo. 2. With regard to the first substantial question of law we find that the issue waswhether the assessee was entitled to get benefit of additional depreciation at 10%amounting to Rs.1,35,64,743/- on the assets purchase and put to use in later half of thefinancial year 2012-13. Assuming the said ground is decided against the assessee thenalso the tax effect on the said amount will be less than Rs.50 lakhs. Thus the tax effecton both the question which have been raised before us will be less than the thresholdlimit fixed by the C.B.D.T. which will disentitle the appellant/revenue from pursuing thisappeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed on the ground of lowtax effect. The substantial questions of law are left open and since the appeal in respectof the respondent/assessee for the assessment year 2008-2009 in ITAT No. 291 of 2017had already been admitted on 11[th] December, 2021 it would be open to the revenue topursue the said appeal independently. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)