Calcutta High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. P.C.B.L. Industrial Finance Ltd on 30 June, 2010
Author: Sengupta
Bench: Sengupta
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income-tax) Original Side Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Sengupta And The Hon'ble Justice K. Chakraborty 30.06.2010 ITAT 111 of 2010 GA 1660 of 2010 Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-II Vs. M/s. P.C.B.L. Industrial Finance Ltd.
The Court :- This application is sought to be admitted on the points formulated as follows :-
"a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law to uphold the order of CIT(A) by deleting the addition of interest Rs.
14,83,821/- on borrowed fund for the use of house property not used for business following the order passed in favour of the assessee in its own case for assessment year 2000-01 dated 3.2.2005 without going into the merit of the case ?
b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in appeal from the order dated 28th August, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A.No. 2053/Kol/2004 and I.T.A.No. 1917/Kol/2004 for the assessment year 2001-02 ?"
This appeal relates to the Assessment Year 2001-02. We have heard Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the Revenue and we have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue held that the aforesaid points are covered by a judgment and order dated 3rd February, 2005 in favour of the 2 assessee in its own case for the Assessment Year 2002-03. The learned Tribunal has extensively quoted a portion of the judgment. Nothing has been placed before us to establish whether previous judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 3rd February, 2005 in relation to the Assessment Year 2000-01 has been upset by any forum. When the learned Tribunal has rendered a decision following an unchallenged decision in relation to a different Assessment Year of the same assessee, we do not think that there is any infirmity or illegality.
Hence, we do not find any question of law not to speak of substantial question of law is involved in this matter.
We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
There will be no order as to costs.
All parties shall act on a xerox signed copy of this order on usual undertakings.
(Sengupta, J.) (K. Chakraborty, J.) ANC.