M/S. Indian Bank v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii,Kolkata

OD-6 ITA/122/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE M/S. INDIAN BANK -Versus- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II,KOLKATA BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 20[th] March, 2023 Appearance :Mr. C. Bhaskaran, Adv.Ms. Swapna Das, Adv....for the appellant. Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv.…for the respondent. The Court : This appeal filed by the assessee underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ forbrevity) is directed against the order dated May 16, 2012passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata(the Tribunal) in ITA No.1349/Kol/2009 for the assessment year2001-02. The appeal was admitted on 27[th] September, 2012 on the following substantial question of law : “Whether on a true and proper interpretation ofsection 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Income Tax Act,1961 including the first proviso thereto, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding thatdeduction under the first proviso was alternateto that under sub-clause(a) and that nodeduction under the first proviso was allowableif deduction had been allowed under sub-clause(a), thereby rejecting the appellant’s claim fordeduction of Rs.63,45,02,440/- under the firstproviso ?” We have heard Mr. C. Bhaskaran, learned counselassisted by Ms. Swapna Das, learned advocate for theappellant/assessee and Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learnedstanding counsel for the respondent/revenue. The substantial question of law which has been framedfor consideration arose in the assessee’s own case for theassessment year 2003-04 in ITA No.70/2011 wherein it wassubstantial question of law no.1. The said question wasanswered in favour of the assessee by judgment dated 20[th]March, 2023 in ITA No.70/2011.Thus, following the said decision, this appeal(ITA/122/2012) is allowed and the substantial question of lawis answered in favour of the assessee. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)