Principal Commisioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-1, Kolkata v. West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE IA No.GA/1/2017(Old No. GA/1327/2017) InITAT/155/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATAVsWEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM ANDThe Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : December 13, 2021.(Via Video Conference) Appearance:Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, Adv.Mr. Asok Bhowmick, Adv.… for the appellant/Revenue Mr. Pronit Bag, Adv.Mr. Soumyadeep Biswas, Adv.… for the respondent/assessee The Court : This appeal by the Revenue filed under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated21[st] October, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench,Kolkata in ITA No. 1005/Kol/2013 for the assessment year 2008-09. TheRevenue has raised the following substantial questions of law forconsideration : i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the casethe Learned Tribunal was justified in law in quashing therevision order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the issue of assessee’s claim of additionaldepreciation of Rs.19,26,87,056/- when the assessee wasneither engaged in business of generation and distributionof power nor engaged in the business of manufacture orproduction of any article or thing in relation to assessmentyear 2008-09? ii) Whether the finding of facts given by the Learned Tribunalwas perverse and based on surmises when the AssessingOfficer had not made an enquiry of verification on theassessee’s claim of additional depreciation in the course ofassessment proceedings? We have heard Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, learned standing counselappearing for the appellant/Revenue. The short issue involved in this case is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in exercising its powers under Section 263 of theAct. This issue was considered by the Tribunal on facts and on facts, theTribunal found that material evidence was available on record and from theassessment orders and file, it was evident that the Assessing Officer verifiedthe entire aspect of claim of depreciation which includes additionaldepreciation and accordingly, granted relief. Further the Tribunal on perusalof the statement of computation of total income found that this fact wasclearly evident in the statement. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded thatadequate enquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer in the assessmentproceedings. Hence, we find that the conclusion of the Tribunal is right, namely, when enquiry has already been made on the issue, the same cannotbe subject matter of revision under Section 263 of the Act. Therefore, we findthat there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, theappeal stands dismissed. The substantial questions of law are answeredagainst the Revenue. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) RS/GH.