We Have Heard Mr. Debasis Chowdhury, Learned Counsel For v. Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank

OD – 19 & 20 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO:GA/1/2018 (OLD NO. GA/595/2018)INITAT/60/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14, KOLKATAVS.BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK IA NO:GA/2/2018 (OLD NO. GA/596/2018)INITAT/60/2018PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14, KOLKATAVS.BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMA N DTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate: November 23, 2021. [Via video conference] Appearance :Mr. Debasis Chowdhury, Adv.Mr. Radha Mohan Roy, Adv.… for the appellantMr. Abhrotosh Majumder, Adv.Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, Adv.Mr. Avra Majumder, Adv...for the respondent RE: IA NO:GA/1/2018 (OLD NO. GA/595/2018) IN ITAT/60/2018 The Court : Heard Mr. Debasis Chowdhury, learned standingcounsel for the appellant and Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for therespondent. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the petition and we are satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavitand the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The petition is allowed. RE: IA NO:GA/2/2018 (OLD NO. GA/596/2018) IN ITAT/60/2018 This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in brevity) is directed against the orderdated 12[th] May, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘C’Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.877/Kol/2015 for the Assessment Year2010-11. The Revenue has raised the following substantial questionof law for our consideration: a.Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case,the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench,Kolkata, was justified in law or in fact in holding that theassessing officer had made due enquiries on theassessment of deduction of the sum of Rs.25,57,00,000/-on account of arrear payment which are payableconsequent to wage revision and that it was anascertained liability and was liable to be allowed asdeduction?the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench,Kolkata, was justified in law or in fact in holding that theassessing officer had made due enquiries on theassessment of deduction of the sum of Rs.25,57,00,000/-on account of arrear payment which are payableconsequent to wage revision and that it was anascertained liability and was liable to be allowed asdeduction? We have heard Mr. Debasis Chowdhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for therespondent/assessee. The short issue which falls for consideration iswhether the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income We have heard Mr. Debasis Chowdhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for therespondent/assessee. The short issue which falls for consideration iswhether the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax-14 (Kolkata) (CIT) under Section 263 of the Act was just andproper. The Tribunal considered the factual position and noted thatthe CIT was of the opinion that the order of the Assessing Officerdated 18[th] March, 2013 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interestof Revenue and certain reasons were assigned thereto. The matterconcerns the provision and contingencies of Rs.25,57,00,000/- onaccount of arrear payment due to wage revision. Noting the same fact,a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee by the CIT dated 14[th]July, 2011 and the assessee submitted their reply and uponconsidering the reply, the Tribunal was of the view that theassumption of jurisdiction by the CIT under Section 263 of the Actwas incorrect. The Tribunal noted that consequent to the decision ofthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2218/1999 in the caseof South Malabar Gramin Bank versus Co-ordination Committee, it washeld that there should be parity between the employees of thecommercial banks and the employees of the regional rural banks thatas and when the pay structure of the employees of the nationalisedbanks got revised on the basis of any bipartite settlement, the UnionGovernment should take a decision so far as the employees of theregional rural banks are concerned, within a reasonable time so thatthe parity could be maintained. Apart from placing reliance on theaforesaid decision, the assessee also places reliance on the decision ofthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industries Limited 243 ITR 83that the Revenue was heard and the Tribunal after taking note of the factual position and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court hadrecorded a finding of fact that the assessing officer while completingthe assessment has made due enquiries on the aspect of provision forarrears of wages consequent to wage revision and after making dueenquiries, the assessment was completed. Therefore, the Tribunal onfacts came to the conclusion that the action of the assessing officer inallowing the claim of the assessee for deduction cannot be said to beerroneous as it was a possible view which the assessing officer hastaken and merely because the CIT does not agree with the viewexpressed by the assessing officer, he could not invoke his jurisdictionunder Section 263 of the Act. On facts, we have found that there isnothing to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assesseeplaces reliance on a decision in the case of Commissioner of IncomeTax, Ward-3, Tirunelveli versus Smt. Padmavathi[2020]120taxmann.com 187 (Madras). In the said decision it was held that theCommissioner while invoking his power under Section 263 faults theassessing officer on the ground that he did not make proper enquiryand in the absence of any clarity as to why in the opinion of theCommissioner the enquiry was not proper, invocation of power underSection 263 was not justified. In our considered view, the said decision will apply with fullforce to the case on hand. We say so because the Tribunal onexamining the facts found that there was no error in the manner in which the assessment was completed and no fault can be attributedto the assessing officer as to how the enquiry was conducted. Thus,we find that the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for anyinterference. In the result, the appeal fails and the same standsdismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against theRevenue. The connected stay application also stands closed. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) RS/bp