Mr. Pranit Bag, Advocatemr. A. Agarwalla, Advocatems. P. Guain, Advocatemr v. This Appeal Was Admitted By Order Dated 04.06.2012, On The Followingsubstantial Question Of Law:-Substantial Question Of Law

ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE O – 35 ITA/56/2012J. K. TYRE & INDUSTRIES LIMITEDVERSUSCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - III, KOLKATA BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANIAND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJDate : 5[th] March 2024. Appearance: Mr. Pranit Bag, AdvocateMr. A. Agarwalla, AdvocateMs. P. Guain, AdvocateMr. V. Khaitan, Advocate… for the appellant.Ms. Smita Das De, AdvocateMr. Prithu Dudheria, Advocate… for the respondent. 1.Heard Sri Pranit Bag, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. SmitaDas De, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent.Das De, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent. 2.This appeal was admitted by order dated 04.06.2012, on the followingsubstantial question of law:-substantial question of law:- “a)Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding theassumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Taxunder section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of thededuction of Rs.1,43,00,000/- allowed in the assessment undersection 35(1)(i) in spite of its order dated October 29, 2009directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to adjudicate the appellant’s claim for weighted deduction under section 35(1)(ii)in respect of the said amount? If not whether the Tribunal wasjustified in law in holding that the assessment order datedDecember 19, 2007 allowing deduction under section 35(1)(i) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of Rs.1,43,00,000 paid to theIndian Institute of Technology, Madras for scientific researchrelated to the appellant’s business and so used was erroneousand prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and its purportedfindings in that behalf and upholding the Commissioner’s orderunder section 263 are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse?” 3.Learned counsel for the appellant states that pursuant to the orderpassed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1961’], theassessing officer passed an order dated 31.12.2010, against which, theassessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), Central-I, Kolkata for theassessment year 2005-06, which was allowed by the CIT(A), Central-I,Kolkata by order dated 20.12.2012. He further states that against theorder of the CIT(A), the revenue filed ITA Nos.303-304/Kol/2013(assessment year 2006-06) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Bench-B, Kolkata, which was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated06.10.2015. Thus, since the assessee has ultimately got relief asaforesaid, therefore, the present appeal, which arises out of order of theCIT passed under Section 263 of the Act, 1961, has become infructuous. 4.Learned senior standing counsel for the respondent does not dispute theaforesaid position.aforesaid position. 5.In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed accordingly. (SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.) S. Kumar (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)