Commissioner of Income-tax, Kol - IV v. Haldia Petro Chemicals Ltd
[Citation -2015-LL-0427-35]

Citation 2015-LL-0427-35
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax, Kol - IV
Respondent Name Haldia Petro Chemicals Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 27/04/2015
Assessment Year 2001-02
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags revenue receipt • sales tax
Bot Summary: Advocate Mr.A.D.Roy,Advocate Mr.S.K.Datta,Advocate The Court : The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgement and order dated 31st October, 2006 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02 by which the learned Tribunal in an appeal preferred by the assessee has set aside an order passed by the CIT in exercise of power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The following question of law has been pressed by Mr.Sinha, learned advocate on behalf of the revenue in this appeal: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the order passed by the 2 Commissioner of Income Tax both on technical grounds and on merits of the case After hearing the learned advocates for the parties we are satisfied that the order under challenge cannot be sustained. There is some substance in the submission of Mr.Khaitan,learned Senior Advocate that while remanding the matter to the assessing officer, the CIT should not have loaded the dice by making observations as would appear from paragraph 14 of his judgement which reads as follows : I direct the assessing officer to draw the assessee s Profit Loss Account and Balance Sheet on the basis that the business was set up during the previous year under consideration and thereafter determine the profit or loss for the year under consideration. The questions which the CIT wanted the assessing officer to consider include a) Whether production was started by the assessee during the previous year; b) Whether sales tax subsidy was a revenue receipt; c) With regard to the miscellaneous receipts. These are the questions which the CIT wanted the assessing officer to consider on the basis of evidence. The learned Tribunal erred in interferring with the order of the CIT. The order is set aside. The order passed by the CIT is clarified by observing that the issue shall be considered by the assessing officer on the basis of evidence in accordance with law without being influenced by the observation made by the CIT which may be prima facie and tentative in nature.


ORDER SHEET ITA 312 OF 2007 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL - IV Versus HALDIA PETRO CHEMICALS LTD. BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 27th April, 2015. For APPELLANT: Mr.R.K.Sinha,Advocate For Respondent : Mr.J.P.Khaitan,Sr.Advocate Mr.A.D.Roy,Advocate Mr.S.K.Datta,Advocate Court : subject matter of challenge in this appeal is judgement and order dated 31st October, 2006 pertaining to assessment year 2001-02 by which learned Tribunal in appeal preferred by assessee has set aside order passed by CIT in exercise of power under section 263 of Income Tax Act. Being aggrieved, revenue has come up in appeal. following question of law has been pressed by Mr.Sinha, learned advocate on behalf of revenue in this appeal: Whether on facts and in circumstances of case learned Tribunal was justified in law in quashing order passed by 2 Commissioner of Income Tax both on technical grounds and on merits of case ? After hearing learned advocates for parties we are satisfied that order under challenge cannot be sustained. There is some substance, however, in submission of Mr.Khaitan,learned Senior Advocate that while remanding matter to assessing officer, CIT should not have loaded dice by making observations as would appear from paragraph 14 of his judgement which reads as follows : I, therefore, direct assessing officer to draw assessee s Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet on basis that business was set up during previous year under consideration and thereafter determine profit or loss for year under consideration. questions which CIT wanted assessing officer to consider include a) Whether production was started by assessee during previous year; b) Whether sales tax subsidy was revenue receipt; c) With regard to miscellaneous receipts. These are questions which CIT wanted assessing officer to consider on basis of evidence. assessing officer on his part had not undertaken any enquiry with regard to these items. Therefore, exercise of power under section 263 was 3 well justified. learned Tribunal erred in interferring with order of CIT. order is, therefore, set aside. order passed by CIT is clarified by observing that issue shall be considered by assessing officer on basis of evidence in accordance with law without being influenced by observation made by CIT which may be prima facie and tentative in nature. question is answered in negative and in favour of revenue. Thus, appeal is disposed of. (GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) ssaha AR(CR) Commissioner of Income-tax, Kol - IV v. Haldia Petro Chemicals Ltd
Report Error