Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S. Kesoram Industries Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 42 Cal/2

                                                 Serial No. OD - 5


                   HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                               (ORIGINAL SIDE)

                                                           ITAT/17/2020
                                 IA NO:GA/1/2020 (OLD NO:GA/693/2020)
                                       GA/2/2020 (OLD NO:GA/695/2020)
                                            (Through Video Conferencing)

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA
                                           ....Appellant(s)

                                     Through:      Mr.    Prabir     Bhowmick,
                                     Advocate

                                      v/s

M/s. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD.
                                             .           ....Respondent(s)


                                     Through: Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal,
                                     Advocate



Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE

            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY, JUDGE

                                     ORDER

1. Challenging order passed by the Income Tax Appellate

Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 1660/Kol/2016 for assessment year 2003-04, dated

07.03.2018, the present appeal has been filed in this Court.

2. The present appeal is accompanied by an application seeking

condonation of delay of 551 days in filing thereof. The following substantial

question of law is sought to be raised :-

(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,

the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata has erred

in sustaining the order passed by the Commissioner of Income

Tax (Appeals) in holding that addition of Rs.5,66,83,746/- on 2 ITAT/17/2020

account of excise duty included in closing stock was not

correct, ignoring the fact that the appellant had not considered

excise duty in its closing stock as per provisions of section 145

of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and accounting standard

prescribed ?

3. At the very outset, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted

that the issue raised in the present appeal is covered by the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court Berger Paints India Ltd. v. Commissioner of

Income-tax, reported in [2004] 135 Taxman 586 (SC).

4. In view of aforesaid stand taken by the learned Counsel for the

appellant no substantial question would arise in the appeal, hence, even

application for condonation of delay is not required to be considered by this

Court, the same is accordingly dismissed.

5. Before parting with the order we intend to observe that the

department should be careful in filing the appeal where the issue is covered

by any judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court or this Court, which is not

challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that event the department

may be burdened with costs.

KOLKATA                            (ANIRUDDHA ROY)               (RAJESH BINDAL)
13.01.2021                                  JUDGE                         JUDGE
GH/S.Das.