Itat/355/2017 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Kolkata v. The Jute Corporation Of India Ltd

ITAT/355/2017IA NO.GA/1/2017 (Old No.GA/3562/2017)IA No.GA/2/2017 (Old No.GA/3563/2017) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX – I, KOLKATA -Versus-THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIALIMITED Appearance:Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv....for the appellant. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 8[th] June, 2022. Re : IA No.GA/1/2017 The Court : Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant. There is a delay of 336 days in filing the appeal.Despite several adjournments, the Ministry has not been able toserve the notice on the respondent/assessee and no affidavit hasbeen filed. Therefore, we are not inclined to adjourn the matterany further. At this juncture, the learned standing counsel forthe appellant expresses desire to make submission on the merits ofthe matter and requested the court to hear the main appeal. Onlyfor such purposes, we exercise the discretion and condone thedelay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay (IANo.GA/1/2017) stands allowed. Re : ITAT/355/2017 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity) is directedagainst the order dated 25[th] May, 2016 , 2014 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1348/Kol/2013for the assessment year 2008-09. The revenue has raised for the following substantialquestion of law for consideration: “(a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in upholding thedecision of the CIT(A) XXIV Kolkata who allowed a sum ofRs.1,26,04,522/- on account of contingent and unascertainedliability out of the total amount of Rs 1,45,00,000/- disallowedby the assessing officer?” We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned standingcounsel appearing for the appellant/revenue. On reading the above question, we find that the questionis fully factual and it cannot be termed as substantial questionof law. That apart, on going through the order passed by thetribunal which affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), we find that the appeal filed by the assessee beforethe Commissioner was allowed based on the actual payment made by the assessee towards the settlement of claims. Therefore, thetribunal verified the factual position and affirmed the orderpassed by the Commissioner and dismissed the appeal filed by therevenue. Thus, we find that no question of law much less thesubstantial question of law is arising for consideration in thisappeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) Pkd/S.Das