Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central 1, Kolkata v. Amrit Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/124/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL 1,KOLKATAVS.AMRIT HATCHERIES PVT. LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMA N DTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate: December 2, 2021. Appearance :Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, Adv.… for the appellant/revenueMr. Asim Choudhury, 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 5[th] April, 2017 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in IT(SS)A No. 125 to128/Kol/2016 for the assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law : i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the Learned Tribunal was justified in lawin deleting the addition of Rs.5,19,954/- of interestthe case the Learned Tribunal was justified in lawin deleting the addition of Rs.5,19,954/- of interest income being not considered eligible for deductionunder Section 80IB for the assessment year 2012-13? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the learned Tribunal was justified in law inupholding the order of CIT (A) in deleting thedisallowances of the deduction claimed by theassessee under Section 80IB of the said Act byrelying upon the decision of the Tribunal inassessee’s own case in earlier years ? iii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the learned Tribunal was justified in law touphold the order of the CIT (A) to dismiss theappeal of the revenue on the ground that, since theinterest income and the interest expenses has directnexus, therefore, netting of interest income againstthe interest expenses has to be allowed? We have heard Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, learned standingcounsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. AsimChoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel who have enteredappearance on behalf of the respondent submitted that therespondent/assessee has been subjected to insolvency proceedings and an Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) has been appointedand therefore, he is unable to represent the respondent/assessee. Learned standing counsel appearing for theappellant/revenue submitted on instruction from the department thatthe appeal should be dismissed on the ground of low tax effect.Recording such submission, the appeal is dismissed on the ground oflow tax effect. Consequently, substantial questions of law are leftopen. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) RS/GH