Principal Commissioner Of Incometax, Asansol v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd

OD-27 ITAT/98/2018 IA No.GA/2/2018 Old No.GA/835/2018)IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, ASANSOL -Versus- EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. Appearance:Mr. P. K. Bhowmick, Adv.Mr. Radhamohan Roy, Adv....for the appellant.Mr. J.P.Khaitan, Sr. Adv.Ms. Swapna Das, Adv.Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv....for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 4[th] January, 2022. The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ forbrevity) is directed against the order dated 26[th] July, 2017passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench,Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’ in short) in ITA No.1636/Kol/2014 forthe assessment year 2005-06. The revenue has raised the following substantialquestions of law for consideration: (i)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Learned Tribunal erred in law and on factsby ignoring the record that in fact the appellant hadduly challenged the decision of the CIT (Appeals),Asansol in its grounds of appeal by mentioning “thatthe learned CIT (Appeals), Asansol has erred in lawthat the order of re-assessment is bad in law sincethe prescribed procedure was not followed.Accordingly cancelled the order of re-assessment madeby the assessing officer and therefore such findingof the Learned Tribunal perverse and not tenable inlaw”? (ii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Learned Tribunal erred in law by holdingthat the appellant does not have any grievanceagainst the action of CIT(Appeals), Asansol inallowing the appeal on the legal issue that theprocedure relating to re-assessment under Section 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961 mandated by the Hon’bleSupreme Court of India that assessee’s objection inrespect of re-opening has to be disposed of by aspeaking order has not been followed is incorrect? We have heard Mr. P. K. Bhowmick, learned standingcounsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Swapna Das,learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. The short issue which falls for consideration iswhether the order passed by the Tribunal affirming the orderpassed by the CIT (Appeals) holding that the reassessment wasbad in law calls for interference. We find that initially theassessing officer did not comply with the mandate of theHon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft ( India) Ltd. Vs. ITO& Ors. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC), in the sense that he did notpass a speaking order on the objection given by the assesseeto the proposal to reassess the income. When this order wasput to challenge before the CIT (Appeals), the order was setaside and the matter was remanded to the assessing officer topass a speaking order on the objection by keeping the appealpending on the file of the CIT(A). Despite such opportunity,the assessing officer failed to follow the mandate laid downby Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. Whenthe appeal was taken up by the CIT (Appeals), this aspect wasnoted and relief was granted to the assessee. This order wastested for its correctness by the Tribunal and on facts wefind that the Tribunal was right in holding that the orderpassed by the CIT (Appeals) holding that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law had attained finality. Thus, weare of the view that considering the peculiar facts andcircumstances of the case, relief was granted to theassessee. We find that no question of law much lesssubstantial question of law arises for consideration in thisappeal. Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/98/2018) fails and standsdismissed. The connected application for stay (IA No.GA/2/2018)also stands dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) nm./S.Das