COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA- XIV vs. M/S. FIBRE BOX COMPANY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/154/2009HC CalcuttaWBCHCO002630200913 February 2023Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal on the ground of low tax effect. The learned standing counsel for the appellant (Revenue) pointed out that the tax effect in the appeal was Rs. 26,86,946/-. This amount was noted to be well below the threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore fixed by the CBDT for pursuing appeals. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of on this administrative ground. The substantial question of law, which was admitted by the Court, was left open and not decided on merits. No finding was given by the High Court on the applicability of Section 45(4) to the dissolved partnership firm.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-XIV) against an order dated 24th December, 2008, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata. The ITAT's order pertained to ITA Nos. 1301 and 983/Kol/2008 for the assessment year 1999-00. The High Court admitted the appeal on 28th January, 2010, on a substantial question of law concerning the applicability of Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to a dissolved partnership firm after 1st April, 1999. The tax effect in the appeal was stated to be Rs. 26,86,946/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in law in holding that Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, came into operation after 1st April, 1999, when the partnership firm stood dissolved, and thereby did not apply the said provision? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (M/s. Fibre Box Company) before the High Court. The Tribunal's finding, which is the subject of the appeal, was that Section 45(4) did not apply as the partnership firm stood dissolved after 1st April, 1999. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its learned standing counsel, argued that the substantial question of law as framed should be considered. However, the primary ground for disposal was the low tax effect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 45(4),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

O-76 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/154/2009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XIV VS. M/S. FIBRE BOX COMPANY BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 13th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. … for appellant The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 24th December, 2008, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA Nos. 1301 and 983/Kol/2008 for the assessment year 1999-00. The appeal was admitted on 28th January, 2010 on the following substantial questions of law :- “Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in law in holding that Section 45 sub-section (4) has come into operation after 1st April, 1999 when the partnership firm stood dissolved and thereby did not apply the said provision ?” We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant.

2 Learned standing counsel upon referring to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) XII, dated 30th April, 2008 points out that the tax effect in this appeal is Rs.26,86,946/-. If that be so, the revenue cannot pursue this appeal as it is well below the threshold limit of Rs.1 Crore as fixed by the CBDT. For the above reason, the appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect and the substantial question of law is left open. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) SN/S.Pal

More judgments on Section 45(4)

All 107 judgments and leading authorities on Section 45(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →