Itat/73/2023 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 Kolkata v. M/S D R Steel Construction Co Pvt Ltd

OD - 15 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/73/2023IA No.GA/2/2023PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA-Versus-M/s. D.R. STEEL CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 17[th] May, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv....for the appellant The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax |Act, 1961(the Act) is directed against the order dated March30, 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench Kolkata inITA No. 64/Kol/2022 for the assessment year 2013-14. The revenue hasraised the following substantial questions of law for consideration. (a)WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law indeleting the addition of Rs.12,32,290/- without considering thefact that Assessee had failed to satisfactorily explained theadmissibility of the claim before the Assessing officer and theHigher Appellate Authorities ? (b)WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law indeleting the disallowance on account of payment of Sales Tax onearlier years ?deleting the disallowance on account of payment of Sales Tax onearlier years ? (c)WHETHER on the facts and circumstances of the case in lawwhether the ITAT was right in allowing the claim of deduction infull which was substantially reduced by the West Bengal TaxTribunal (WBTT), as sales tax claim?whether the ITAT was right in allowing the claim of deduction infull which was substantially reduced by the West Bengal TaxTribunal (WBTT), as sales tax claim? We have heard Mr. Dudhoria, learned standing counsel for theappellant. We find that the learned Tribunal after noting Section 43B of theAct and that the said provision commences with an non-obstantive clausehas considered the factual position in the case on hand and has recorded thefollowing findings :- “Now, going through the facts of the case, we find that the year underappeal is AY 2013-14. The alleged amount pertains to AY 2005-06 andAY 2010-11 and such liability did not exist at that point of time and,therefore, there was no possibility to make the payment during therelevant assessment year or before the due date of filing of return ofincome for such assessment year. The fact is that the liability of salestax payment of Rs.12,32,290/- crystallized during the AY 2013-14 postsales tax assessment completion/sales tax proceedings. The assesseemade the payment during the year which is not in dispute. Therefore, inour considered view provisions of Section 43B of the Act are squarely applicable on the alleged sum and the assessee as rightly claimed it asdeduction against income for AY 2013-14. We, therefore, under thegiven facts and circumstances, find that the ld. CIT(A) erred insustaining the disallowance made by the AO, as the alleged sum ofRs.12,32,290/- is eligible as a deduction against the income for AY2013-14 as per provisions of Section 43B of the Act. The addition somade by the AO stands deleted and ground nos. 1 to 4 raised by theassessee in the instant appeal are allowed.” The revenue is unable to dislodge the above factual conclusion arrivedat by the learned Tribunal. Thus, we find no substantial questions of lawmuch less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed so also the application. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) pkd/GH.