Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata – 2, Kolkata v. M/S Madhu Jayanti International Ltd

OD – 7 & 8 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO:GA/2/2017 (OLD NO. GA/3331/2017)INITAT/337/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA – 2,KOLKATAVS. M/S MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LTD. IA NO:GA/1/2017 (OLD NO. GA/3330/2017) INITAT/337/2017PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA – 2,KOLKATAVS. M/S MADHU JAYANTI INTERNATIONAL LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM A N DTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate: November 23, 2021. [Via video conference] Appearance :Ms. Sucharita Biswas, Adv.… for the appellant Ms. Swapna Das, Adv.Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv.… for the respondent/assessee RE: IA NO:GA/1/2017 (OLD NO. GA/3330/2017) in ITAT/337/2017 The Court : This application has been filed to condone thedelay in preferring the appeal. We have heard Ms. Sucharita Biswas, learned standingcounsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue and Ms. Swapna Das,learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. There is adelay of 201 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavitfiled in support of the petition. We are satisfied with the reasons andthe cause shown. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal iscondoned and the petition stands allowed. RE: IA NO:GA/2/2017 (OLD NO. GA/3331/2017) in ITAT/337/2017 This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in brevity) is directed against the orderdated 03.08.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Kolkata “C” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1957/KOL/2013 for theAssessment Year 2006-07. The Revenue has raised the followingsubstantial questions of law for consideration: (a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the Learned Tribunal was justified in law inupholding the decision of the CIT (A) in allowing thebenefit of deduction under Section 10B of the saidAct despite the fact that the assessee did not fulfilthe requisite condition of being a manufacturer ?the case the Learned Tribunal was justified in law inupholding the decision of the CIT (A) in allowing thebenefit of deduction under Section 10B of the saidAct despite the fact that the assessee did not fulfilthe requisite condition of being a manufacturer ? (b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the Learned Tribunal was justified in law todismiss the appeal of the revenue by relying uponthe case the Learned Tribunal was justified in law todismiss the appeal of the revenue by relying upon the assessee’s own case in I.T.A. No.1463/Kol/2007dated 20.07.2013 for the assessment year 2004-2005 without going into the merits of the case ? We have heard Ms. Sucharita Biswas, learned standingcounsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue and Ms. Swapna Das,learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. The learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent/assessee submitted that theassessee has availed the benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme andForm No.4 has been issued by the department on 30.10.2021.Therefore, the appeal stands disposed of with liberty to the Revenue torestore the appeal in the unlikely event of the application beingrejected under the said scheme.With the disposal of the appeal, the connected applicationalso stands disposed of. It goes without saying that in the event appeal has to beheard on merits, the Revenue will be entitled to urge the abovementioned substantial questions of law which they have framed forconsideration. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)