Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ]
Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM
This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 17.02.2015 of C.I.T.- Kolkata-I, Kolkata passed u/s 263 of the Act.
The assessee is a statutory corporation established by an act of state of West Bengal. It is engaged in the business of transmission of electricity. The assessment for A.Y.2010-11 was completed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act by order dated 23.03.2013. 3. The CIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 of the Act was of the view that the aforesaid order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in as much as the AO before concluding the assessment failed to consider carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation as per the books of accounts and that the AO failed to examine the accrual of income in the hands of the assessee u/s 41(1) of the Act in respect of re- payment of loans from Power Finance Corporation Limited. In the impugned order, the CIT directed the AO to make enquiries on the aforesaid two issues afresh. Aggrieved on the aforesaid order of the CIT the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as follows :-
2 West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co.Ltd. A.Yr.2010-11 “1. That the Commissioner of Income-tax was wrong in passing an Order U/S 263 setting aside the Assessment Order passed U/S 143(3)/ 1115JB dated 23/03/2013.
2. That without prejudice to the contention raised in Ground No.l above, the Commissioner of Income-tax failed to appreciate that the difference of amounts as regards Unabsorbed Depreciation referred to by him, had been in relation to the Unabsorbed Depreciation as per the Books of Accounts and not in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act and thus he erred in considering such difference as allegedly appearing to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
That without prejudice to the contentions raised in Ground No.1 above, the Commissioner of Income-tax failed to appreciate that the difference in the balance of PFCL Loan as calculated by him, had arisen due to the fact of his not taking into account the actual repayments of Loan made during the year and thus he erred in considering that such difference as allegedly appearing to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any ground or grounds of Appeal before or at the hearing of the Appeal.”
At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that in the set aside proceedings pursuant to the order of CIT the AO has not taken any adverse view on both the aforesaid issues and therefore the present appeal filed by the assessee has become infructuous. In view of the above submission we dismiss this appeal as infructuous.
In the result the appeal by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 03.02.2017. Sd/- Sd/- [M.Balaganesh] [ N.V.Vasudevan ] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 03.02.2017. [RG PS] Copy of the order forwarded to: 1.West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co.Ltd., Vidyut Bhavan, 9th Floor, ‘A ‘Block, Salt Lake, Sector-II, Block ‘DJ ‘, Kolkata-700091. 2. C.I.T., Kolkata-I, Kolkata. 3..CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.