Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Kolkata v. Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank

OD – 5 & 6 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO: GA/2/2021INITAT/17/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 1, KOLKATAVS.BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK IA NO: GA/1/2021INITAT/17/2021PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 1, KOLKATAVS.BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMA N DTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : February 21, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance :Mr. Debasish Chaudhuri, Adv.… for the appellantMr. Soumitra Chowdhury, Adv.Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv.Mr. K. Roy, Adv.Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv.… for the respondent Re : IA No. GA/1/2021 The Court : We have heard Mr. Debasish Chaudhuri, learnedstanding counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr.Soumitra Chowdhury duly assisted by Mr. Avra Mazumder, Mr. K.Roy, Mr. B. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. There is a delay of 732 days in filing the appeal. Therespondent/assessee has filed affidavit-in-opposition objecting to thecondonation of delay. However, taking note of the fact that the orderpassed by the Tribunal which is impugned before us is aconsequential order giving effect to an order passed under Section 263of the Act, we exercise discretion and condone the delay in filing theappeal. Hence, the petition for condonation of delay is allowed. Re : ITAT 17 of 2021 This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity) against the order dated28[th] August, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 2219/Kol/2017 for theassessment year 2010-11. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions oflaw for consideration : a.Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, Learned ITAT erred in holding that thefresh order passed by the assessing officer underSection 143/263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on theissue has become infructuous and upholding the orderof the CIT (A) in spite of the facts that the order the ITATin ITA No. 877/Kol/2015 dated 12-05-2017 has notattained finality and appeal has been filed before theHon’ble High Court at Calcutta on this issue? b.Whether the ITAT erred in law and in the facts of thiscase in holding that the fresh order passed by theassessing officer under Section 143/263 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 on the issue has become infructuous andupholding the order of the CIT (A) in spite of the factsthat the order the ITAT in ITA No. 877/Kol/2015 dated12-05-2017 has not attained finality and appeal hasbeen filed before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta onthis issue? We have heard Mr. Debasish Chaudhuri, learned standingcounsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. SoumitraChowdhury duly assisted by Mr. Avra Mazumder, Mr. K. Roy, Mr. B.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. The order impugned before us is in an appeal filed by therevenue arising out of an order passed by the assessing officer dated3[rd] March, 2016. This order was for giving effect to an order passed bythe Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata – 14 exercising itsjurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The substantive orderpassed by the Tribunal is the order dated 12[th] May, 2017 in ITA No.877/Kol/2015 which was decided in favour of therespondent/assessee. The revenue preferred appeal against the saidorder in ITAT No. 60 of 2018 which was dismissed by judgment dated23.11.2021. As mentioned, the order impugned before us arises out ofconsequential proceedings pursuant to the order passed under Section 263 of the Act which order has been set aside and the samehas been confirmed by this Court in ITAT No. 60 of 2018 dated23.11.2018. Therefore, we have to necessarily hold that thesubstantial questions of law suggested do not arise in this case andconsequently, the appeal stands dismissed. Connected application also stands dismissed. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)