Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Kolkata v. M/S. Ashiana Housing Ltd

OD–11 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/246/2022IA NO: GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, KOLKATAVS.M/S. ASHIANA HOUSING LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 9[th] January, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Prithu Dhudheria, Adv.…for appellant.Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwalla, Adv...for respondent The Court : - We have heard Mr. Prithu Dhudheria, learned standing counsel forthe appellant and Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwalla, learned counsel for therespondent/assessee. There is a delay of 895 days in filing the appeal. Though the reasons given in theaffidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition are not convincing yet we proposeto examine the merits of the matter to consider as to whether any substantial questionof law arises for consideration. For such reason alone, we exercise discretion andcondone the delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the petition is allowed. Delay in filing theappeal is condoned. This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (theAct) is directed against the order dated 17[th] January, 2021 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, A Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/1219/KOL/2018 for theassessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial questionsof law for consideration:- i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law as well as in fact in upholding theorder of CIT(A) allowing the future development expenses amounting toRs.2,24,85,000/- whereas such liability has not crystallized during therelevant previous year and unascertain liabilities are not allowable as theAssessee is following mercantile system of accounting ?Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law as well as in fact in upholding theorder of CIT(A) allowing the future development expenses amounting toRs.2,24,85,000/- whereas such liability has not crystallized during therelevant previous year and unascertain liabilities are not allowable as theAssessee is following mercantile system of accounting ? We have heard Mr. Prithu Dhudheria, learned standing counsel for the appellantand Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwalla, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. After elaborate hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and carefullyperusing the order passed by the learned Tribunal we find grievances raised by therevenue as against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) isonly on one issue as to whether the CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in acceptingthe assessee’s future development expenses claimed by ignoring the fact that the samewas in the nature of mere provision for unascertained liability only. The learnedTribunal after considering the factual position has approved the findings recorded bythe CIT(A). In fact before the learned Tribunal the revenue could not pinpoint anydistinction on facts or on law in respect of the findings recorded by the CIT(A). Thus we are convinced to hold that there is no substantial question of law arisingfor consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)