Full Judgment
ITA No.184 of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX W.B.-II CAL -VersusT.M.& M.C.PVT.LTD.Appearance: Mr.P.K.Bhowmik, Adv...for the appellant.
Mr.Sourav Bagaria, Adv...for the respondent.
BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 7th August, 2014.
The Income Tax Court Act : arising This out appeal of the under order Section of the 260A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “E” Bench, Calcutta dated 13th February, 2000 in ITA No.1957/Cal/93 for the assessment year 1991 was admitted on 5th September, 2001 on the following questions: “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the disallowance of rent amounting to Rs.5,53,200/- without verifying of details as to its allowability ?.” (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal without examining the details to arrive its conclusion that the said expenditure is made for the purpose of business and as such the finding of the Tribunal is perveRs.or not ?.” Mr.Bhowmik, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that though the Assessing Officer had recorded despite clear requisition from the assessee company, it could not furnish necessary supporting building/flat being evidence expressly with regard utilised by to the each and company every for its business purpose and hence disallowed the rental expenditure, but the Tribunal had erred in overturning the finding made by the Assessing Officer.
Mr.Bagaria, learned Advocate appearing as amicus curiae in this matter submitted in the earlier years similar claims made by the assessee were accepted as being connected with genuine business need of the assessee and, therefore, the scanty details furnished by the assessee for the present assessment year should be considered to be sufficient.
He further submitted the Assessing Officer had not made out a case at all that the rent paid in respect of the building/flats was not in connection with the business needs of the assessee.
In such view of the matter, the tribunal was justified in passing the order and hence the questions should be answered in the affirmative and against the revenue.
Heard the learned Advocates.
Since we find in the earlier years similar claims made by the assessee were accepted by the department as being connected with the genuine business needs of the assessee, those scanty details furnished by the assessee ought to have been considered sufficient for the grant of relief.
In our view, the Tribunal was justified in holding the revenue to its position taken.
Accordingly, the fiRs.question is answered in the affirmative and the second question in the negative, both against the revenue.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
This Court records its appreciation of the assistance rendered by Mr.Sourav Bagaria, learned Advocate as amicus curiae.
Urgent certified copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently given to the appearing parties on priority basis.
(SOUMITRA PAL, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) A/s.