Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2, Kolkata v. Universal Industrial Fund Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO.GA/2/2017(OLD NO. GA/3609/2017)InITAT/359/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KOLKATAVS.UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL FUND LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMA N DTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate: January 3, 2022. [Via video conference] Appearance :Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv.Mr. A. Bhowmik, Adv.… for the appellant/revenueMr. Sanjay Bbhowmick, Adv.Mr. A.K.Dey, Adv.… for the respondent The Court : This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in brevity) is directedagainst the order dated 24[th] March, 2017, passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No.297/Kol/2014 for the assessment year 2010-11. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions oflaw for our consideration: 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal erred in law in deleting thedisallowance made by the assessing officer on account ofbad debt written off without considering that the case ofthe assessee is not covered under the provisions ofsection 36(1) (vii) read with section 36 (2) (i) of the IncomeTax Act and its purported findings in this regard arearbitrary, unreasonable and perverse?case, the Tribunal erred in law in deleting thedisallowance made by the assessing officer on account ofbad debt written off without considering that the case ofthe assessee is not covered under the provisions ofsection 36(1) (vii) read with section 36 (2) (i) of the IncomeTax Act and its purported findings in this regard arearbitrary, unreasonable and perverse? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal erred in law in deleting thedisallowance made under section 14A of the Income TaxAct read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules sincethe provisions of Rule 8D (2) (ii) applies only to expensesrelating to tax free income and not interest income of theassessee which is assessed to tax and its purportedfindings in this regard are arbitrary, unreasonable andperverse?case, the Tribunal erred in law in deleting thedisallowance made under section 14A of the Income TaxAct read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules sincethe provisions of Rule 8D (2) (ii) applies only to expensesrelating to tax free income and not interest income of theassessee which is assessed to tax and its purportedfindings in this regard are arbitrary, unreasonable andperverse? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing Counsel for theappellant/Revenue and Mr. A. K. Dey, learned Counsel for therespondent/assessee. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondentassessee that the assessee has availed the benefit of the Vivad SeVishwas Scheme and Form No. 4 dated 25[th] January, 2021 has beenissued. In the light of the same, the appeal stands disposed of onthe ground that the assessee has availed the benefit of Vivad SeVishwas Scheme. Consequently, the substantial questions of law are left open. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) RS/GH