Principal Commissioner Of Incometax, Asansol v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd

OD-26 ITAT/96/2018 IA No.GA/2/2018 Old No.GA/831/2018)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. S. Bhattacharya, 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 Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ inbrevity) 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.1637/Kol/2014 andITA No.1654/Kol/2014 for the assessment year 2006-07. 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 upholding the decision of the CIT(Appeals),Asansol in deleting the addition of Rs.87,88,03,000/-made by the assessing officer on account ofdisallowance of “Cess Equalisation Reserve” beingsuppressed income by the assessee? (ii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Learned Tribunal erred in law and on factsby allowing the claim of the assessee which was madeas the additional ground for the fist time before theCIT (Appeals), Asansol by ignoring the fact that nosuch claim was made either at the time of filing ofthe original return or revised return or in the formof any letter filed by the assessee during the courseof the assessment year 2006-07? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Learned Tribunal erred in law bycircumventing the provisions of Section 264 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 by admitting the additionalclaim of the assessee made for the first time beforethe CIT (Appeals) which had not been made at the timeof filing of its return of income or through anyother process in the course of the assessment year2006-07? 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. So far as the substantial question no (i) is concerned,in the assessee’s own case we have held in favour of theassessee by dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue inITAT No.230 of 2017 (PCIT, Asansol Vs. M/s. EasternCoalfields Ltd.) dated 14[th] December, 2021. Following the saiddecision, this substantial question no.(i) is answeredagainst the revenue. The other substantial questions of law are allconcerning the power of the appellate authority/tribunal toentertain an additional claim. This issue is no longer resintegra and as pointed out by the Tribunal, the decisionwhich was relied upon by the CIT (Appeals), namely, thedecision in Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) doesnot impinge on the power of the appellate authority and itonly deals with the power of the assessing officer toentertain an additional claim without the revised return. Theidentical question was considered by the Hon’ble DivisionBench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. reported in [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal) and held that the Tribunal has power to direct theassessing officer to accept the claim of the assessee thoughit had not been made in the original return nor claimed inthe revised return. In the light of the above, the substantial questions oflaw no. (ii) and (iii) are answered against the revenue.Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/96/2018) 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