PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. SUGAM PARK

PDF · subscribers
ITAT/1/2024HC CalcuttaWBCHCO000004202419 January 2024Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the payment made by the assessee was not on account of infringement of any provision of law, but rather due to the non-fulfillment of contractual obligations. The Tribunal, after examining the agreement, particularly sub-clause 9, found that while the expression 'penalty' was used, the payment was for non-fulfillment of the contract. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ahmedeabad Cotton Manufacturing Co. Ltd., as well as the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indo Asian Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd. (affirmed by the Supreme Court). Based on these precedents, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order. The substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue, and the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9, Kolkata (the revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), B Bench, Kolkata. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2018-19 and challenges the ITAT's decision regarding the allowability of a deduction claimed by the assessee, Sugam Park. The dispute centers on a payment made by the assessee to the Asansol Durgapur Development Authority (ADDA) under an agreement for the construction of a residential township. The revenue contended that this payment, though termed as penalty in the agreement, was not an allowable expenditure.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering that the penalty imposed by ADDA arose from penal clauses embedded in its statutory Rules and Regulations, as ADDA is a statutory body established under the West Bengal Town & Country Planning (Planning & Development) Act, 1979. 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in not considering that the phrase 'prohibited by law' in Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act has a wider meaning, and a penalty arising from the violation of ADDA's laws and bye-laws by the assessee was not an allowable expenditure. The revenue argued that the payment was in the nature of a penalty arising from the violation of statutory provisions and therefore not deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, relying on the wider interpretation of 'prohibited by law'. The assessee argued that the payment was for non-fulfillment of contractual obligations, not for infringement of any provision of law, and thus deductible.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD-9 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/1/2024 IA NO: GA/1/2024 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA VS SUGAM PARK BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 19th January, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …for appellant. Mr. Arvind Agarwal, Adv. Mr. F. Ghaffar, Adv. …for respondent.

The Court :- This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal B Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 390/Kol/203 for the assessment year 2018-19. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : i) Whether the Ld. Tribunal was committed substantial error in law in not considering that penalty imposed by Asansol Durgapur Development Authority (ADDA) has arisen out of penal clauses as embedded in the Rules and Regulations of ADDA, which is a Statutory Body, created in 1980 under

2 Section 11 of West Bengal Town & Country Planning (Planning & Development) Act, 1979 ? ii) Whether the Ld. Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in not considering that the phrase ‘prohibited by law’ as mentioned in Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act has a wider meaning and Asansol Durgapur Development Authority (ADDA), being a Statutory Body, is empowered to enforce it’s Laws and Bye laws on the clients and penalty arising out of violation of such laws by assessee was not an allowable expenditure ? We have heard learned Counsel on either side. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the deduction claimed by the assessee with regard to the payment which was made in terms of the agreement entered into between the assessee and Asansol Durgapur Development Authority for construction of residential township can be disallowed, as it is in the nature of penalty. The learned Tribunal after examining the relevant clauses of the agreement more particularly sub-clause No. 9 held that the amount paid by the assessee towards non fulfillment of contract and though the expression ‘penalty’ had been used in sub clause 9 of the agreement it was found that the payment is not on account of infringement of any provision of law rather it is on account of non fulfillment of contractual obligation. This issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 201 ITR 684 (SC) and in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ahmedeabad Cotton Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1994], 205 ITR 163 (SC). The said decisions have been followed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Commissioner

3 of Income Tax Vs. Indo Asian Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd. ; [1997] 92 taxmann.086 (P&H). The said decision has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the light of the same, the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue. Thus, the applications are also dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM)

CHIEF JUSTICE

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) Pkd/GH.

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →