Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Kolkata v. M/S. Long View Tea Co. Ltd

OD – 7 & 8 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO.GA/2/2018 (Old No. GA/2110/2018)In ITAT/237/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 2, KOLKATAVS.M/S. LONG VIEW TEA CO. LTD. IA NO.GA/1/2018 (Old No. GA/2109/2018) InITAT/237/2018PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 2, KOLKATAVS.M/S. LONG VIEW TEA CO. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMA N DTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : February 3, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance :Mr. Asok Bhowmik, Adv.… for the appellantMr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.Mr. Soumya Kejriwal, Adv.Mr. Anand Agarwal, Adv...for the respondent The Court : We have heard Mr. Asok Bhowmik, learned standingcounsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan,learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Soumya Kejriwal and Mr.Anand Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. There is a delay of 269 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfiedwith the reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the condonedelay petition. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condonedThe petition for condonation of delay is allowed. ITAT No. 237 of 2018 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for brevity) is directed against theorder dated 7[th] June, 2017 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 1570/Kol/2014 forthe assessment year 2006-07. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions oflaw for consideration : 1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the casethe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred on factsand in law in allowing the write off of miscellaneousexpenses being the net realisable value of the advancemade against capital goods?the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred on factsand in law in allowing the write off of miscellaneousexpenses being the net realisable value of the advancemade against capital goods? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the casethe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred on factsand law completely ignoring the facts while allowingthe instant appeal of the assessee, erroneously relyingon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcuttain appeal being I.T.A. No. 25 of 2008 in respect of thethe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred on factsand law completely ignoring the facts while allowingthe instant appeal of the assessee, erroneously relyingon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcuttain appeal being I.T.A. No. 25 of 2008 in respect of the Assessment year 2002-03 where an addition as deletedby the Learned Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon’bleHigh Court at Kolkata, wherein the question waswhether setting aside the Order of the AssessingOfficer by the Commissioner of Income Tax in exerciseof his revisionary power under Section 263 of the I.T.Act, was involved and did not deal with the merit of theissues raised i.e. whether the write off of themiscellaneous expenses will be allowed or not? 3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseboth in facts and in law, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal has erred in allowing the miscellaneousexpenses amortized?both in facts and in law, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal has erred in allowing the miscellaneousexpenses amortized? We have heard Mr. Asok Bhowmik, learned standing counselappearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learnedsenior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Soumya Kejriwal and Mr. AnandAgarwal, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. It is brought to our notice that identical substantial questions oflaw were raised by the revenue in the assessee’s own case for theassessment year 2001-02 in ITA No. 169 of 2015 and by judgmentdate 22.06.2018, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that nosubstantial question of law arises for consideration. The said decisionhaving attained finality could bind the appellant/revenue. Thus, We have heard Mr. Asok Bhowmik, learned standing counselappearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learnedsenior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Soumya Kejriwal and Mr. AnandAgarwal, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. It is brought to our notice that identical substantial questions oflaw were raised by the revenue in the assessee’s own case for theassessment year 2001-02 in ITA No. 169 of 2015 and by judgmentdate 22.06.2018, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that nosubstantial question of law arises for consideration. The said decisionhaving attained finality could bind the appellant/revenue. Thus, following the said decision, this appeal is also dismissed on theground that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.Consequently, the stay application stands dismissed. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) RS/GH