Calcutta High Court
M/S. Video Plaza vs Income Tax Officer on 10 May, 2011
Author: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
G.A.1272 of 2011
G.A.1273 of 2011
ITAT No. 113 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction (Income-tax)
Original Side
M/S. VIDEO PLAZA Appellant
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), DURGAPUR Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate For Respondent :
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BHATTACHARYA The Hon'ble JUSTICE DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI Date : 10th May, 2011.
THE COURT : After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the explanation given in the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. We, thus, condone the delay in filing the appeal.
This appeal will be heard on the following substantial question of law :2
Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in treating the expenditure towards bank charges of Rs.6,79,331/- as capital expenditure by totally overlooking the fact that it was for the expansion of the selfsame business where common books of account and common bank account are maintained by the assessee for the above expansion.
Let notice of this appeal be served by the department on the respondent in usual course.
Let requisite numbers of informal paper book containing all relevant papers used before the authority below be filed within two months from date. In default, the appeal will stand dismissed.
Liberty to mention after filing of paper book for inclusion in the hearing list.
Photostat certified copy of this order be made available to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.
( BHATTACHARYA, J.) ( DR. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J.) Rsg AR(CR)