Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 Kolkata v. M/S. Karb Associates Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/40/2023IA NO: GA/2/2023 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATAVS.M/S. KARB ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE T.S. SIVAGNANAM ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 10[th] April, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.…..for appellantMr. Ejaj Khan, Adv.Mr. Dibyangshu Das, Adv.Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv.Ms. Ananya Adhikari, Adv.…for respondent The Court : - This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 13[th] May, 2022 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA 2056/Kol/2019for the assessment year 2011-12. The revenue has raised the following substantialquestion of law for consideration :- i)Whether the Learned Tribunal substantially erred in law by allowingdeduction under Section 80IB of the said Act for a project which is noteligible for such deduction? Heard learned Counsel for the either sides. The short issue falls for consideration in the instant case is whether theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80IB of the Act which order was affirmed by the Tribunal.After going through the facts of the case and on perusal of the order passed by theTribunal we find that consistently such a deduction has been allowed and during thefirst year in which it was allowed. Thereafter, the assessing officer after due verificationhas allowed the deduction for the subsequent years i.e. 2004-2005 and 2005-2006.Thus the deduction having been allowed in the initial years, the revenue cannot denythe same in the subsequent years. The Tribunal rightly noted the above legal positionand also the decisions on the point, and, therefore, we find that no grounds to interferewith the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed. The substantial question of law isanswered against the revenue. The application stands disposed of. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM)ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)