Calcutta High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Indian Bank on 10 February, 2023
OD-6
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)
ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT/44/2018
IA No.: GA/2/2018 (Old No. GA/537/2018)
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-2, KOLKATA
VS.
INDIAN BANK
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 10th February, 2023
Appearance :
Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv.
Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.
... for appellant
Mr. C. Bhaskaran, Adv.
Ms. Swapna Das, Adv.
... for respondent
The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue filed under Section 260A of
the Income Tax, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated February 8,
2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Kolkata in ITA
Nos.306 and 649/Kol/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10.
The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for
consideration :-
"(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal
has erred in law in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer in
respect of Section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of
Income Tax Rules, 1962 ?
(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal
has erred in law in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer in
respect of loss of Rs.78,09,87,000/- arising due to revaluation of unsettled
interest swap contract ?
(c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal
has erred in law in deleting the addition made by the Assessing officer in
respect of house property income of Rs.1,64,02,078/- where the annual
value of the property was determined by invoking provisions of Sub-
section (a) of Section 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?
We have heard Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned standing Counsel
appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. C. Bhaskaran, learned counsel
assisted by Ms. Swapna Das, learned advocate for the respondent/assessee.
So far as the substantial question of law no.(a) is concerned, identical
issue was considered by this Court in the assessee's own case in ITAT 204 of
2017 and by judgment dated 10th February, 2023 the appeal was dismissed. In
the instant case also, the learned Tribunal has done a thorough factual exercise
and granted relief to the assessee. Thus, we find that there is no substantial
question of law arising on the said issue.
So far as the substantial question of law no.(b) is concerned, it cannot be
disputed by the revenue that the issue is squarely covered against the revenue
by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd.,
(2020) 121 taxmann.com 137 (SC). Identical question was also considered by
this Court in the case of PCIT vs. Himadri Chemicals & Industries Ltd., in ITAT
124 of 2021 dated 20th July, 2022 and in the case of PCIT vs. Price Water House
Coopers P. Ltd., in ITAT 269 of 2017 dated 17th December, 2021.
Thus, applying the above decision, the substantial question of law no.(b) is
decided against the revenue.
With regard to the substantial question of law no.(c) is concerned, the
issue is whether in the absence of any rent received by the respondent/assessee
how the rental value of the premises/buildings has to be computed. The
Assessing Officer arrrived at a value by referring to the website of majic bricks
www.majic.brick.com and, accordingly, worked out the income under the house
property. This order was interfered partly by the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) by holding that the valuation of the municipal corporation has to be
adopted. Aggrieved by such finding, the revenue preferred appeal before the
learned Tribunal which was dismissed.
In our considered view, the finding rendered by the learned Tribunal
approving the view taken by the CIT(A) that the valuation of the municipal
corporation has to be accepted lays down the correct legal principle. In this
regard, we place reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Poddar Bros (P) Ltd., (1999) 240 ITR 925 (Cal.).
Thus, the substantial question of law no.(c) is decided against the revenue.
In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the
substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue.
The stay application being IA No.: GA/2/2018 (Old No. GA/537/2018) is
also dismissed.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
S.Pal/SN
