Principal Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Kolkata-2 v. West Bengal Infrastructuredevelopment Finance Corporationlimited

OD – 4 ITAT/51/2023 IA No.GA/1/2023 GA/2/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, KOLKATA-2 -Versus- WEST BENGAL INFRASTRUCTUREDEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATIONLIMITED BEFORE :THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 31[st ]March, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Adv.Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv....for the appellantMr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv....for the respondent. The Court : There is a delay of 65 days in filing theappeal. We have heard Mr. Om Narayan Rai, learned standingcounsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learnedsenior counsel for the respondent/assessee and perused theaffidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay and we find sufficient cause has been shown for notpreferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay(IA No.GA/1/2023) is allowed and the delay of 65 days in filingthe appeal is condoned. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity) is directedagainst the order dated July 13, 2022 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITANo.564/Kol/2020 for the assessment year 2008-09. The revenue has raised the following substantialquestions of law for consideration: (a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the Learned Income Tax AppellateTribunal, ‘B’ Bench Kolkata erred in law in notappreciating the fact of applicability of theSection 147 regarding income escaping assessmentof the Income Tax Act, 1961 and quashed the re-opening of assessment ?(b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the Learned Income Tax AppellateTribunal, ‘B’ Bench Kolkata erred in law indeleting the adjustment made in the account ofdisallowances under Section 14A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 ? We have heard Mr. Om Narayan Rai, learned standingcounsel assisted by Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned advocate forthe appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned seniorcounsel for the respondent/assessee.The first question to be considered is whether thereopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act wasvalid. The learned Tribunal had noted the detailed explanationgiven by the assessee for the reasons for reopening and notingthe said explanation the learned Tribunal had examined thefacts of the case and had recorded the following factualfinding : “...The ld. Assessing Officer raised all relevantqueries about disallowance u/s 14A. He applied hismind and thereafter taken a view. This was againagitated before the higher appellate forum and the ld.CIT (Appeals) called for fresh information from theassessee and changed the ultimate quantum ofdisallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Itmeans that both the authorities have actively appliedtheir mind on the issue. On reading of the reasons,we are unable to understand what is the freshinformation possessed by the Revenue for forming thebelief that income has escaped assessment. To ourmind, there is no such information. The informationswere already possessed by the Revenue and those werescrutinized.” The revenue could not dislodged the above factualfinding recorded by the Tribunal which has been done afterexamining the facts of the case. Thus, we find there is no question of law much lesssubstantial question of law arising for consideration in thisappeal. Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/51/2023) fails and isdismissed. Consequently, the connected application for stay (IANo.GA/2/2023) also stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) As./S.Pal