PCIT Vs Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd. (Orissa High Court)
1. For the reasons stated therein, the delay in filing the present appeals is hereby condoned.
2. The applications for condonation of delay are allowed.
I.A. No.39 of 2023, I.A. No.43 of 2023 and I.A. No.50 of 2023 (arising out of ITA Nos.30, 32 & 35 of 2023 respectively)
3. For the reasons stated therein, filing of certified copy of the impugned orders and Annexures is dispensed with. Accordingly, the applications are disposed of.
I.T.A. Nos.30, 32 & 35 of 2023
4. In these three appeals, which are directed against a common order dated 22nd June, 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in ITA Nos.255/CTK/2014 & 179/CTK/2014 (in ITA No.30 of 2023), 332/CTK/2015 & 339/CTK/2015 (in ITA No.32 of 2023) and 278/CTK/2019 (in ITA No.35 of 2023) for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08, 2009-10 and 2014-15 respectively, the following questions are urged for consideration:
“(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. ITAT was justified in law as well as on facts in deletion of addition of Rs.8,17,80,866/- claimed in respect of provision for dam maintenance for five dams being RHEP, Rangali, BHEP, Balimela, UKHPE, Barinut, HPS, Burla and UIHEP, Mukhiguda?
(B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. ITAT was justified in law as well as on facts in holding that the assessee having followed in mercantile system for calculating guarantee commission payable to the State Govt. is an admissible expenditure?
(C) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. ITAT was justified in law as well as on facts in allowing the depreciation claimed on miscellaneous assets @ 15% on such assets?”
5. As far as Question (A) is concerned, in view of the decision of this Court dated 31st January, 2023 passed in ITA No.9 of 2021 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bhubaneswar v. Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar), this Court declines to frame the Question (A) for consideration since it stands answered against the Revenue by the aforementioned order.
6. As far as Question (B) is concerned, it is seen that the ITAT has concurred with the view of the CIT (A) which in turn has relied on the decisions for the earlier AY 2005-06 in respect to the same Assessee. Likewise, even as regards Question (C), the CIT (A) has simply followed the order passed for the AY 2005-06.
7. Tushar Kanti Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue is unable to point out if the said orders for AY 2005-06 have been appealed against by the Revenue. Moreover, these are the concurrent views of the CIT (A) and the ITAT which turned on facts. In that view of the matter, following the rule of consistency, the Court declines to frame the questions as urged.
8. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
