Principal Commissioner Of Incometax, Asansol v. Burdwan Development Authority

ITAT/93/2022IA No.GA/1/2022IA No.GA/2/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, ASANSOL -Versus- BURDWAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appearance:Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv....for the appellant.Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Sr. Adv.Mr. Pingal Bhattacharyya, Adv....for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 1[st] August, 2022. The Court : We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learnedstanding counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. AbhratoshMajumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. PingalBhattacharyya, learned Advocate for the respondent/assessee.There is a delay of 236 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of theapplication for condonation of delay and we find that sufficientcause has been shown for not being able to file the appeal withinthe time.Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay (IANo.GA/1/2022) is allowed and the delay in filing the delay iscondoned. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, is directed against the order dated 17[th] March,2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench,Kolkata in ITA No.1972/Kol/2014 for the assessment year 2006-07. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal haserred in law in deleting income of the Assesseefrom sale of development right to the tune ofRs.4,90,52,168/- being not actually received in therelevant previous year. But the accrual took placeon February 8, 2006 which was within the FinancialYear 2005-06 ?case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal haserred in law in deleting income of the Assesseefrom sale of development right to the tune ofRs.4,90,52,168/- being not actually received in therelevant previous year. But the accrual took placeon February 8, 2006 which was within the FinancialYear 2005-06 ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunalerred in law in agreeing the Project CompletionMethod followed by the Assessee as the accrual ofamount was due to the Assessee in the year underthe case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunalerred in law in agreeing the Project CompletionMethod followed by the Assessee as the accrual ofamount was due to the Assessee in the year under consideration, therefore, was rightly assessed bythe Assessing Officer ? We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned standingcounsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar,learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Pingal Bhattacharyya,learned Advocate for the respondent/assessee. On perusal of the order passed by the tribunal we findthat the tribunal has rightly taken note of the legal position andgranted relief to the assessee. Apart from that, the tribunal hasalso noted the factual position and relevant details were calledfor. The assessing officer could not place anything on record todispute the claim of the assessee of having not received the sameduring the year under consideration. In paragraph 7 of the orderpassed by the tribunal, the following factual finding has beenrecorded: “During the course of appellate proceedings, theassessee, however, furnished the relevant details to show thatthe said amount was actually not received during the year underconsideration and since the Assessing Officer could not rebutor controvert this assertion made by the assessee, the ld.CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs.4,90,52,168/- made bythe Assessing Officer by holding that the said amount notreceived by the assessee during the year under consideration could not brought to tax in the hands of the assessee in theyear under consideration.” “During the course of appellate proceedings, theassessee, however, furnished the relevant details to show thatthe said amount was actually not received during the year underconsideration and since the Assessing Officer could not rebutor controvert this assertion made by the assessee, the ld.CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs.4,90,52,168/- made bythe Assessing Officer by holding that the said amount notreceived by the assessee during the year under consideration could not brought to tax in the hands of the assessee in theyear under consideration.” After noting the above factual position, the tribunal hasobserved that the learned departmental representative has broughtout nothing on record to dispute the finding/observation arrivedat by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). That apart, thetribunal also noted that the assessee has been following theProject Completion Method and another project namely, PoddarProject has been completed in the previous year relevant to theassessment year 2009-10 and the entire income from the saidproject actually accrued to the assessee in the assessment year2009-10 and the same was accordingly recognised and offered to taxas could be seen from the assessment order dated 20[th] December,2016. On perusal of the said assessment order the tribunal notedthat the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- has already taxed in the handsof the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 when the relevantprojected was completed and the amount in question actuallyaccrued to the assessee as income on the basis of ProjectCompletion Method followed by it. Furthermore, the tribunal alsore-examined the relevant clauses of the agreement entered into bythe assessee with M/s. Dheeraj Promoters and also noted thevarious conditions imposed therein. Thus, we find that there is no question of law much lesssubstantial question of law arising for consideration in thisappeal. Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/93/2022) fails and isdismissed. Consequently, the connected application for stay (IANo.GA/2/2022) also stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S.Das/As.