Calcutta High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S. Long View Tea Co. Ltd on 3 February, 2022
OD - 7 & 8
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO.GA/2/2018 (Old No. GA/2110/2018)
In
ITAT/237/2018
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KOLKATA
VS.
M/S. LONG VIEW TEA CO. LTD.
IA NO.GA/1/2018 (Old No. GA/2109/2018)
In
ITAT/237/2018
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KOLKATA
VS.
M/S. LONG VIEW TEA CO. LTD.
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Date : February 3, 2022.
[Via Video Conference]
Appearance :
Mr. Asok Bhowmik, Adv.
... for the appellant
Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soumya Kejriwal, Adv.
Mr. Anand Agarwal, Adv.
..for the respondent
The Court : We have heard Mr. Asok Bhowmik, learned standing
counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan,
learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Soumya Kejriwal and Mr.
Anand Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.
There is a delay of 269 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied
with the reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the condone
delay petition. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned
The petition for condonation of delay is allowed.
ITAT No. 237 of 2018
This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) is directed against the
order dated 7th June, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal "A" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA No. 1570/Kol/2014 for
the assessment year 2006-07.
The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of
law for consideration :
1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred on facts
and in law in allowing the write off of miscellaneous
expenses being the net realisable value of the advance
made against capital goods?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred on facts
and law completely ignoring the facts while allowing
the instant appeal of the assessee, erroneously relying
on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta
in appeal being I.T.A. No. 25 of 2008 in respect of the
Assessment year 2002-03 where an addition as deleted
by the Learned Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon'ble
High Court at Kolkata, wherein the question was
whether setting aside the Order of the Assessing
Officer by the Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise
of his revisionary power under Section 263 of the I.T.
Act, was involved and did not deal with the merit of the
issues raised i.e. whether the write off of the
miscellaneous expenses will be allowed or not?
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case
both in facts and in law, the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal has erred in allowing the miscellaneous
expenses amortized?
We have heard Mr. Asok Bhowmik, learned standing counsel
appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned
senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Soumya Kejriwal and Mr. Anand
Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.
It is brought to our notice that identical substantial questions of
law were raised by the revenue in the assessee's own case for the
assessment year 2001-02 in ITA No. 169 of 2015 and by judgment
date 22.06.2018, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that no
substantial question of law arises for consideration. The said decision
having attained finality could bind the appellant/revenue. Thus,
following the said decision, this appeal is also dismissed on the
ground that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Consequently, the stay application stands dismissed.
(T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
RS/GH
