COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-II), KOLKATA vs. M/S. BALARAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD.

PDF · subscribers

ITA/678/2008HC CalcuttaWBCHCO004181200807 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 noted that the appeal filed by the revenue was heard along with another appeal and disposed of by a judgment dated July 2, 2015. The learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said judgment and subsequently availed the benefit under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. In light of these developments, the Court held that no further order is required to be passed in the present appeal. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of without any further order, acknowledging the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II), Kolkata, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated January 18, 2008, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'E' Bench, Kolkata. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2004-05 and was admitted on September 15, 2008. The High Court heard this appeal along with another appeal, ITA No. 176 of 2009, and disposed of both by a judgment dated July 2, 2015. The assessee, M/s. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd., subsequently filed an appeal before the Supreme Court and later availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Given these subsequent developments, no further order is required in the present appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should pass any further order in the present appeal, given that the assessee has availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the original appeal was disposed of by a judgment dated July 2, 2015. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that since they have availed the benefit under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the appeal was already disposed of by a judgment dated July 2, 2015, no further order is required to be passed in this appeal. The assessee relied on the fact that the matter has been resolved through the scheme. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue regarding the present appeal, other than having filed it initially. The revenue's participation in the earlier hearing leading to the July 2, 2015 judgment is implied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

O 66

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE

ITA/678/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-II), KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. BALARAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD.

BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM

And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 7th February, 2023

Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …for appellant.

Mr. A.K. Dey, Adv. …for respondent.

The Court : We have heard learned Counsel for the either side.

This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 18th January, 2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘E’ Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.2022/Kol/2007 for the assessment year 2004-05.

The appeal was admitted on 15th September 2008. Thereafter, the appeal was heard along with ITA No. 176 of 2009 and both the appeals were disposed of by judgment dated 2nd July 2015. Mr. A.K. Dey, learned Counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that as against the said judgment the respondent/assessee has preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and subsequently the assessee had availed benefit under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. In the light of the fact, the appeal

2 had already been disposed of by judgment dated 2nd July, 2015, no further order is required to be passed in this appeal.

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →