PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. M/S. THE THIESS MINES (INDIA) PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITAT/13/2024HC CalcuttaWBCHCO000108202431 January 2024Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that identical issues for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 had been decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who granted partial relief to the assessee, and this decision was upheld by the ITAT, attaining finality. Therefore, the High Court found that the ITAT was justified in dismissing the revenue's appeal, as the issue was concluded in favour of the assessee. The Court concluded that no question of law, let alone a substantial question of law, arose for consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad (Revenue) against an order dated October 26, 2021, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), C-Bench, Kolkata. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2014-15 and is directed against the ITAT's order in ITA No. 243/Kol/2020. There was a delay of 671 days in filing the appeal, which the High Court condoned. Notice sent to the respondent, M/s. The Thiess Mines (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Assessee), returned 'unclaimed'. The High Court was required to consider if a substantial question of law arose.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned Tribunal committed a substantial error in law by allowing expenses which are pre-operative expenses, not allowable under Sections 36 and 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Learned Tribunal committed a substantial error in law by not considering the matter in its own merit? (Question of law) Assessee's Arguments: Not recorded. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in allowing pre-operative expenses which are not permissible under Sections 36 and 37 of the Act and that the matter was not considered on its merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 36,Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD – 10 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/13/2024 IA NO: GA/1/2024, GA/2/2024 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD VS M/S. THE THIESS MINES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

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

And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA Date : 31st January, 2024

Appearance : Mr.Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, Adv. Mr.Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...for the appellant.

The Court : There is a delay of 671 days in filing the appeal. Notice sent to the respondent has returned ‘unclaimed’. Since this appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), we are required to consider the substantial question of law arises for consideration. Therefore, we exercise our discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26th October, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C-Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.243/Kol/2020 for the assessment year 2014-15. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : “(a) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in allowing the expenses

which are pre-operative expenses not allowable as expenses under Section 36 and 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (b) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law by not considering the matter in its own merit?” We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue. As could be seen from the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the identical issue arises in the assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 in which years the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted partial relief to the assessee and such order was upheld by the learned Tribunal and the same has attained finality. Therefore, we find that the learned Tribunal was right in dismissing the revenue’s appeal taking note of the fact that the issue raised stood finally concluded in favour of the respondent/assessee. Thus, we find that there is no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for consideration. Hence, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The connected applications stand closed.

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM)

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

(SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.) S.Das/

More judgments on Section 36

All 261 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →