Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Kolkata Iv v. M/S Philips Electronics India Ltd

OD-5 ORDER SHEETIA NO. GA/2/2017(Old No:GA/1308/2017) ITAT/148/2017IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA IV Vs M/S PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM And The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 15 DECEMBER, 2021 Appearance:Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv.Mr. A. Ganguly, Adv.…For the Appellant Mr. J. P. Khitan, Sr. Adv.Mr. P. Jhunjhunwala, Adv.Mr. A. K. Dey, Adv.…For the Respondent The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act (the ‘Act’, in brevity) is directed against the order dated 11[th] May,2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (the‘Tribunal’) in ITA Nos.1460 and 1545/Kol/2009 for the assessment year 2004-05. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law forconsideration : “(a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theorder of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata wasperverse in not restoring back or setting aside the case of the assessee tothe file of the A.O. in spite of clear finding of the A.O. that the benefit derivedby the assessee by way of remission in the liability was taxable receipt in itshands?” We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned Standing Counsel appearing forthe appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khitan, learned Senior Counsel assisted byMr. A. K. Dey, Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent/assessee. The substantial question of law raised by the revenue is squarelycovered against the revenue in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Mum. V. BalkrishnaIndustries Ltd. reported in [2017] 88 taxmann.com 273(SC) where in sales taxDeferral Scheme, option was given to assessee to approach the State Industrialand Investment Corporation for premature payment and discharge of liabilitywhether doing so would amount to remission or cessation of liability. The Hon’bleSupreme Court held that it would not amount to remission or cessation ofliability. In the light of the aforesaid decision, we have no option but to reject theappeal of the revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the substantialquestion of law is answered against the revenue. The application being GA No. IA NO.GA/2/2017 (Old No. 1308/2017) isdisposed of accordingly. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) pkd./S.De