Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur- Ii, Jaipur v. M/S Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd., Office

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 96/2019 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur- Ii, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd., Office No. 2 And 3,7Th Floor, Man Upasana Plaza, C-44, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302001 ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prateek Kedawat. For Respondent(s): Mr. Atul Saxena on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 14/10/2019 This appeal has been filed by the revenue assailingjudgment dated 14.02.2019 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The appellant-revenue hasproposed the following substantial questions of law in the present appeal: “(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the ITAT, is correct in holding thatthe interest receipt of Rs. 7,34,00,000/- will betreated as capital receipts in view of the Hon’bleSupreme Court judgment in the case of BokaroSteel Ltd., (236 ITR 3152) and not as income fromother sources as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin the case of Toticorin Alkali Chemicals & FertilizersLtd., (227 ITR 172)?case and in law the ITAT, is correct in holding thatthe interest receipt of Rs. 7,34,00,000/- will betreated as capital receipts in view of the Hon’bleSupreme Court judgment in the case of BokaroSteel Ltd., (236 ITR 3152) and not as income fromother sources as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin the case of Toticorin Alkali Chemicals & FertilizersLtd., (227 ITR 172)? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the ITAT, was justified in law inreversing the order of CIT(A) holding the interestincome on FDRs to be income from other sources? (3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the ITAT, is correct in deleting thedisallowance made by the Assessing Officer onaccount of mandatory CSR expenses of Rs.2,00,00,000/- made by the assessee in pursuanceto the terms and conditions of the environmentclearance granted by the Ministry of Environment &Forests (MOEF)? (4) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the ITAT, was justified in upholdingthe assessee’s claim for Mines Closure Plan of Rs.5,56,27,993/-as admissible expenditure in the yearunder consideration without appreciating the factthat the said amount set apart by the assessee wasin the nature of provision and thus not allowable asexpenditure?” During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that aforementioned question no.1, 2 and 3 stand already decided by this Court vide judgmentdated 24.07.2018 in Barmer Lignite Mining Co. Ltd. Vs. The DCIT,Central Circle-6, Jaipur (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 54/2018)whereby the appeal filed by the assessee in the present wasallowed and aforementioned question no. 4 has also been decidedby this Court vide judgment dated 17.04.2018 passed in PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur Raj Vs. M/s. BarmerLignite Mining Corp. Ltd. (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 84/2018)whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-revenue was dismissed. In view of above, present appeal stands dismissed inthe light of aforesaid judgments rendered by this Court. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J