Calcutta High Court
Singlo (India) Tea Co Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 11 September, 2015
Author: Soumitra Pal
Bench: Soumitra Pal
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction
[Income Tax]
ORIGINAL SIDE
ITA 337 of 2007
SINGLO (INDIA) TEA CO LTD
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MIR DARA SHEKO
Date : 11th September, 2015.
Mrs. N. Banerjee Pal, Adv.
Mr. P. Dudhoria, Adv.
The Court : The instant appeal, under section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 preferred against the consolidated order dated 16th February, 2007 passed by
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A Nos. 1077/Kol/2006,
1052/Kol/2006, 1053/Kol/2006, 1054/Kol/2006, 1078/Kol/2006 and
1111/Kol/2006 for the assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91,
1991-92 and 1992-93 respectively, was admitted on the following substantial
questions of law :
"(a) Whether on a true and proper interpretation of Section 80HHC of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 the Tribunal was justified in not allowing the
2
deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in computing
the mixed income derived from the tea grown and manufactured by the
assessee and thereafter proceed under Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962
to apportion the said income between non-agricultural income and
agricultural income on 40 : 60 basis for the assessment years 1987-'88 to
1991-'92 ?
(b) Whether on a true and proper examination of the facts and
materials on record the Tribunal erred in law in not allowing the deduction
under section 80HHC of the Act before the apportionment of income
computed under Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 between agricultural
and non-agricultural income for the assessment years 1987-'88 to 1991-'92 ?
(c) Whether on a true and proper interpretation of the scope of
Section 33AB of the Act, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the
deduction under Section 33AB of the Act is to be allowed only against non
agricultural portion of the income after apportionment of the composite
income is computed under Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for the
assessment years 1987-'88, 1991-'92 and 1992-'93?"
It is submitted by Mrs. Banerjee Pal, learned advocate for the
appellant/assessee that the question nos. (a) and (b) stand covered against the
assessee in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Williamson
Financial Services & Ors : (2008) 297 ITR 17 (SC). So far as the question no.(c) is
concerned, it is submitted that in view of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court
delivered on 19th May, 2011 in ITA No.651 of 2004 [ Goodricke Group Ltd. vs.
3
Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kolkata ], the said question is covered in favour of the
assessee.
Such submission of Mrs. Banerjee Pal is not disputed by Mr. P. Dudhoria,
learned advocate for the respondent.
Therefore, in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Williamson Financial Services & Ors. (supra), the question nos. (a) and (b) are answered in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. In view of the judgment in Goodricke Group Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kolkata (supra), the question (c) is answered in the negative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
The appeal is partly allowed.
(SOUMITRA PAL, J.) (MIR DARA SHEKO, J.) sm