Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-2, Kolkata v. Madhujayanti International Limited

OD-6&7 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/65/2017 IA NO: GA/2/2017(Old No.GA/636/2017) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-2, KOLKATAVERSUS MADHUJAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ITAT/65/2017IA NO: GA/1/2017(Old No.GA/635/2017)PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-2, KOLKATAVERSUS MADHUJAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 18[th] November, 2021 Appearance:- Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, Adv.Ms. Swapna Das, Adv.Mr. Akhilesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv. … For Appellant … For Respondent The Court : We have heard Mr. Debasish Chowdhury, learnedStanding Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Ms.Swapna Das, learned Counsel appearing for therespondent/assessee. We are satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delayin filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal iscondoned. The application being GA/1/2017 is allowed. This appeal of revenue filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act (the `Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated 13[th]November, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”Bench, Kolkata (the `Tribunal’) in ITA No. 683/Kol/2012 for theassessment year 2007-08. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions oflaw for consideration : (i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case thelearned Tribunal was justified in law to uphold the decision ofthe CIT(A) in allowing Rs. 3,19,126/- representing employeescontribution to Provident Fund without considering the clearprovision of Section 2(24)(x) read with Section RWS 36(1)(v)(a)and the Explanation thereof ?learned Tribunal was justified in law to uphold the decision ofthe CIT(A) in allowing Rs. 3,19,126/- representing employeescontribution to Provident Fund without considering the clearprovision of Section 2(24)(x) read with Section RWS 36(1)(v)(a)and the Explanation thereof ? (ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case thelearned Tribunal was justified in law to uphold the order of theCIT(A) by restricting the disallowance to the extent of 1% to theexempted Dividend Income without considering the provision ofSection 14A ?learned Tribunal was justified in law to uphold the order of theCIT(A) by restricting the disallowance to the extent of 1% to theexempted Dividend Income without considering the provision ofSection 14A ? We have heard Mr. Chowdhury, learned Standing Counselappearing for the appellant/revenue and Ms. Das, learned Counselappearing for the respondent/assessee. The respondent/assessee has availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Biswas Scheme and Form 4 hasbeen issued on 30[th] October, 2021. Learned Counsel for therespondent/assessee submitted that till date the assessee is yet toreceive Form No. 5. In any event, since Form 4 has already beenissued, we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed of givingliberty to both the parties to restore the appeal in the unlikely event ofthe application being rejected under the Vivad Se Biswas Scheme. With the above liberty, the appeal stands disposed of. With the disposal of the appeal, the connected application alsostands disposed of. It goes without saying that in the event appeal has to be heardon merits, the revenue will be entitled to urge the above mentionedsubstantial questions of law which they have framed forconsideration. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)