SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR, CHATTISGARH V. .ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BILASPUR, CHATTISGARH

ITA 109/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the CIT(A), concerning the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2021-22. The primary issues revolved around the amortization of leasehold land and the application of the principle of consistency in tax assessments. The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been previously adjudicated in the assessee's favor by ITAT benches in Cuttack and Raipur, and these precedents were not followed in the current assessments for the years in question. The Tribunal also addressed the revenue's appeal concerning the deletion of certain additions made under various heads, which were found to be consistent with earlier ITAT decisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472220 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Other Referred Cases: East India Minerals Ltd. V. JCIT ITA No 224/Ctk/2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.L.ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: AJIT KORDE; ANKUR GOEL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Business expenditure; Depreciation; Rule of consistency; TDS; Rectification of order; Charitable institution
• Section: 250; 201; 154; 43; 22; 13; 20

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर Ɋायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR ŵी रिवश सूद, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अŜण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.108,109 & 148/RPR/2024 (AY : 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2021-22) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur-495006 V s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle-1(1), Mahima Complex, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, C.G. PAN No: AADCS2066E (अपीलाथȸ /Appellant) : (Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.166/RPR/2024 (AY : 2021-2022) DCIT, Circle-1(1), First Floor, Shri Ram Plaza, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, C.G. V s South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur-495006 PAN No: AADCS2066E (अपीलाथȸ /Appellant) : (Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent) िनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Ajit Korde & Shri Ankur Goel, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 10.12.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM : The aforesaid appeals are filed by the assessee and revenue against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Delhi, [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, (in short “the Act”), for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2021-2022, respectively. 2 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 2. First, we shall be taking up ITA No. 108/RPR/2024 & 109/RPR/2024 of the assessee, advancing therein identical issues, challenging the orders of Ld. AO, confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without adhering to the principle of consistency while giving effect to the orders of ITAT qua allowing the claim of amortization on lease hold land. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 108 & 109/RPR/2024 are as under: ITA No. 108/RPR/2024 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order assed by the learned Assessing Officer ['Ld. AO'] as well learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre ['Ld. CIT(A), NFAC] is unjust as they have not followed settled principles of law on issue of amortization of leasehold rights on land acquired for purpose of mining activities. 2. a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the learned Assessing Officer [‘Ld. AO'] as well as leaned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre ['Ld. CIT(A), NFAC'] is erroneous for not following the directives given by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT'), Raipur to adjudicate this issue after taking into consideration he views and directions as given by the Hon'ble Cuttack Bench in case of East India Minerals Ltd. V. JCIT ITA No 224/Ctk/2012. b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has incorrectly interpreted the decision of the Hon’ble Cuttack ITAT in the case of East India minerals Ltd. V. JCIT ITA No. 224/Ctk/2012 clearly held that straightline method of claiming of leasehold rights for period of the lease cannot be denied. c) That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has wrongly held that the Appellant is eligible for depreciation at rate of 10% on amount capitalized during the year as against the claim of amortization debited in the profit and loss account. d) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in holding in para 10 that \"assessing officer” has not discussed how the figures of either 3.91 crore or 3.27 crore relating to land compensation and rehabilitation expenditure were arrived at by the “appellant” when the details were available in the financials itself and directing the AO to again call for details and examine the same. e) Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO for AYs 1997-98, AY 1998-99, AY 1999-00, AY 2000-01, AY 2001-02, AY 2004-05, AY 2005-06, AY 2006-07 while giving effect to the directions of Hon'ble ITAT orders dated 10 May 2019 and 06 November 2019 has consistently allowed the claim of amortization on leasehold land. Hence, the instant orders are against the principle of consistency. 3 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add and /or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the hearing of this appeal. ITA No. 109/RPR/2024 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order assed by the learned Assessing Officer ['Ld. AO'] as well as learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre ['Ld. CIT(A), NFAC'] is unjust as they have not followed settled principles of law on issue of amortization of leasehold rights on land acquired for purpose of mining activities. 2. a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the learned Assessing Officer ['Ld. AO'] as well as learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre ['Ld. CIT(A), NFAC'] is erroneous for not following the directives given by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT'), Raipur to adjudicate this issue after taking into consideration he views and directions as given by the Hon'ble Cuttack Bench in case of East India Minerals Ltd. V. JCIT ITA No 24/Ctk/2012. b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has incorrectly interpreted the decision of the Hon'ble Cuttack ITAT in the case of East Indi Minerals Ltd. V. JCIT ITA No. 224/Ctk/2012 which clearly held that a straightline method of claiming writing of leasehold rights for period of the lease cannot be denied. c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, he Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has wrongly held that the Appellant is eligible for depreciation at rate of 10% on amount capitalized during the year as against the claim of amortization debited •n the profit and loss account. d) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in holding in para 1 hat \"assessing officer” has not discussed how the figures of ither 4.50 crore or 3.83 crore relating to land compensation and rehabilitation expenditure were arrived at by the appellant\" when the details were available in the financials itself and directing the AO to again call for details an examine the same. (e) Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO for AYs 1997-98, AY 1998-99, AY 1999-00, AY 2000-01, AY 2001-02, AY 2004-05, AY 2005-06, AY 2006-07 while giving effect to the directions of Hon'ble ITAT orders dated 10 May 2019 and 06 November 2019 has consistently allowed the claim of amortization on leasehold land. Hence, the instant orders are against the principle of consistency. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add and /or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the hearing of this appeal. 4. At the outset, Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate representing the assessee (in short “Ld. AR”), submitted that the issue of amortization of land rehabilitation expenses was decided by the coordinate bench of Tribunal in ITA No.141/Nag/2001 dated 10.05.2019, wherein the decision of ITAT, Cuttack bench in the case of East India Minerals Limited, in ITA No. 224/CTK/2012 was follow and the issue is remitted 4 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. back to the file of Ld. AO to adjudicate the same afresh, taking into consideration the view and the directions granted by the ITAT, Cuttack Bench in the said decision. Same position was upheld by the coordinate bench of ITAT, Raipur in assessee’s own case in ITA No.201/BIL/2012 (AY 2009-10) and others vide order dated 30.10.2023. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer had followed the directions of ITAT and have allowed the claim of assessee consistently for the AY 1997-98 to 2001-02, AY 2004-05 to 2006-07, however, the claim of assessee for the AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 was restricted by the Ld. AO to the amount of original disallowance stating that the amount of depreciation should not exceed the amount disallowed for the relevant year. 5. During the course of hearing before us, Shri S.L. Anuragi, Ld. CIT-DR representing the revenue has requested to allow for filing of the written submission on this contentious issue. Subsequently, before us, a written submission dated 09.12.2024 along with copy of a report dated 21.11.2024 prepared by the Ld. AO is furnished by the Ld. CIT-DR. For the sake of clarity and completeness, both these documents are culled out as under: 5 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 6 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 7 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 8 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 9 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 6. In response to the aforesaid submission by the department, Ld. AR also furnished a written submission dated 10.12.2024, the same is extracted as under: 10 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 11 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 12 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 13 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 14 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 15 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 16 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 17 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 7. Having heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and case laws relied upon by parties. After a thoughtful consideration to the facts of present case, we observe that the issue raised is squarely covered by the orders of this tribunal (referred to supra), which are consistently followed by the Ld. AO, as admittedly conceded in her report dated 21.11.2024, wherein it is stated that following the principle of consistency the submission made by the assessee, appears to be acceptable. 8. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find force in the contention of the Ld. AR, that breach of principle of consistency is not permitted under the settled position of law, which is agreed by the revenue too, however, as requested by the revenue, it would be justified to restore the matter to the file of Ld. AO to adjudicate the issue afresh in terms of directions by the coordinate bench of ITAT, Raipur in ITA No. 201/BIL/2012 and others vide order dated 30.10.2023, following the ratio of decision given by the ITAT Cuttack bench in the case of East India Minerals Ltd (supra). 9. Needless to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be provided to the assessee during the set aside proceedings, in accordance with law. 10. In result, the sole issue raised in the grounds of appeal no. 108 & 109/RPR/2024 are restored to the file of Ld. AO, in terms of our aforesaid observations. 18 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 11. The appeals of assessee in ITA No. 108 & 109/RPR/2024, therefore, are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 12. ITA No. 148/RPR/2024 (Assessee) and 166/RPR/2024 (Revenue) 13. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and revenue in the captioned appeals are as under: ITA No. 148/RPR/2024 (Assessee) 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') erred in assessing income at Rs 48,26,09,16,850 as against returned income of Rs.27,70,83,98,450/- 2. (a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming the disallowance of 25% of the total expenditure on power and fuel on the ground of having incurred it for non-business purpose even though the entire expenditure is incurred for the business purposes towards employees' welfare and running the township's common facilities fulfilling the Appellant's contractual obligation arising from the National Coal Wage Agreement leading to partial double taxation. (b) In facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance made on account of \"Power and Fuel\" expenses on an ad-hoc basis, without any evidence or any basis and without pointing out any defects in the Appellant's books o accounts. (c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance by treating expenditure incurred on electricity supplied to the residential quarters of employees as non-business expenditure contra to the position taken by the AO(TDS), who has treated the entire expenditure a 'perquisite' of the employees thereby implying it that entire expenditure is incurred for the purposes of business in the hands of the Appellant. 3. (a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), has erred in restoring the matter to Ld. AO to allow deduction of the provision for expenditure for employee compensation created on the basis of actuarial valuation in the year of actual payment. 19 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. (b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) and Rotork Controls Ltd vs CIT, (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC -on provision for employee compensation created on actuarial basis. (c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), has failed to appreciate that the appellant is duty bound to pay compensation to it workmen meeting fatal accidents/ deaths in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and National Coal Wage Agreement and accordingly, it was required to recognize the liability towards it in accordance with the provisions of the Accounting Standards AS 15. (d) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), has wrongly invoked the principles of law laid down in the case of Union of India vs. Exid Industries Ltd (2020) 425 ITR 1 (SC) and it failed to appreciate that the said decision has nowhere diluted the general principles of law laid down the in the case of Bharat Earth Movers, Rotork Controls, and other cases. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in allowing the deduction of the provision on mine closure on payment basis without appreciating the act that the said provision is an ascertained liability quantified as per the Ministry's guidelines, on scientific basic and even though the deduction of the provision on min closure is allowed by different Courts in other cases. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in directing the Ld. AO to allow Ove Burden Removal (OBR)/ Stripping adjustment expenses on payment basis without appreciating that the Hon'ble ITAT while applying the decision of Northem Coalfields Ltd. reported in 59 taxmann.com 394 (Jabalpur Trib.) had allowed the entire amount of the provision created in respect of OBR expenses despite the fact that the CIT(A was required to merely follow the binding decisions of the superior court. (a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in not appreciating the fact that the the Department in the past has been inconsistent in filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT on this issue and therefore, the AO is not permitted to raise this issue in accordance with the principle of consistency laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. J.K Charitable Trust (2009) 308 ITR 161 (SC). (b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance ignoring the fact that the Department has accepted the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT on identical issue 'in the case of ITO vs. Western Coalfields Ltd. (ITA 163 to 167/ Nag/ 1986) (Nagpur Tribunal) date 4 November 1991 and it has not preferred appeal before the Hon'ble High Court in compliance to the direction of the Committee of Disputes (COD) dated 18 February 1997 and therefore, the AO cannot make disallowance on an identical issue in the Appellant' case in accordance with the principle laid down by the Apex Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Narendra Doshi (2002) 254 ITR 606 (SC). 20 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. erred in not adjudicating additional ground raised by the Appellant before the Ld. CIT(A), against erroneous addition to income of approx. Rs. 200 Crore made in the computation sheet appended to the assessment order. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add and /or alter, amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the hearing of this appeal. 166/RPR/2024 (Revenue) 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing amortization of land compensation of Rs. 113,41,00,000/- when the same issue is pending before the Hon'ble High Court in Tax Case No.09/2020 and others for adjudication. 2 Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 92,56,00,000/- made under the head disallowance of grants to schools and institutions when the same issue is pending before the Hon'ble High Court in Tax Case No.23/2020 and others for adjudication. 3 Whether the CIT(A) has erred in law by holding the decision in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, though there is no nexus between the conclusion of the fact and primary fact upon which that conclusion is based ? 4 Whether the CIT(A) has erred in law in drawing a conclusion which cannot be drawn by any reasonable person or authority, on the material and facts placed before it? 5 The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous both in law and on facts. 6 Any other ground that may be adducted at the time of hearing of appeal. 14. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that various ground raised in the present appeals either by assessee or by the revenue are covered by the decision and observations in the recent order of the ITAT, Raipur dated 30.10.2023 in ITA No 201 & others in assessee’s own case, thus the ratio / principle / analogy drawn in the impugned order shall be mutatis mutandis applicable on the identical issues in the instant appeals. A chart showing respective covered issues with corresponding para number in the ITAT’s aforesaid order dated 30.10.2023 (refer column 3 of the chart) is submitted. For the sake of reference, the same is extracted as under: 21 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. HON’BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR South Eastern Coalfields Limited vs DCIT ITA Nos. 148/RPR/2024 and 166/RPR/2024 Assessment Year ('AY') 2021-22 Date of the Hearing: 20 June 2024 List of the Grounds of Appeal covered by the Hon’ble ITAT’s orders and new Grounds of Appeal Sl. No . Issues Involved Reference Particular s AY 2021-22 148/RPR/2024 166/RPR/2024 Assessee Department (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1 Social Overheads - Fuel & Power Para 58 to Para 62, Page 38 to Page 40 of Hon'ble ITAT's Order dated 06 November 2019 Para 6.9 to 6.13, Page 31 to Page 35 of Hon'ble ITAT's order dated 30 October 2023 Para 6-7, Page 16 and Para 22, Page 34 of Hon'ble ITAT's order dated 11 January 2024 Amt (Rs.) 622,800,000 Ground No. 2 AO's Order Para 3C, Page 30 to 36 CIT(A)'s Order Para 9, Page 14 to 16 2 Actuarial Valuation of Employee Compensatio n Para 7.3 to Para 7.12, Page 45 to 56 of Hon'ble ITAT's Order dated 30 October 2023 Para 6, Page 16 and Para 22, Page 34 of Hon'ble ITAT's order dated 11 January 2024 Amt (Rs.) 1,106,500,000 Ground No. 3 AO's Order Para 3E, Page 51 to 60 CIT(A)'s Order Para 11, Page 19 to 22 3 Provision made for Mine Closure Para 10.7 to Para 10.9, Page 105 to Page 111 of Hon'ble ITAT's Order dated 30 October 2023 Para 6, Page 16 and Para 22, Page 34 of Hon'ble ITAT's order dated 11 January 2024 Amt (Rs.) 1,218,218,400 Ground No. 4 AO's Order Para 3F(A), Page 60 to 74 22 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. CIT(A)'s Order Para 12, Page 22 to 24 4 Claim for OBR Adjustment* Para 84 to Para 88, Page 49 to Page 51 of Hon'ble ITAT's Order dated 06 November 2019 Para 16, Page 8 of Hon'ble ITAT's order dated 04 November 1991 (WCL) and Para 6.25 to Para 6.27, Page 42 to Page 44 of Hon'ble ITAT's order dated 30 October 2023 Para 6, Page 16 and Para 22, Page 34 of Hon'ble ITAT's order dated 11 January 2024 Amt (Rs.) 12,272,300,000 Ground No. 5 AO's Order Para 3F(B), Page 74 to 83 CIT(A)'s Order Para 13, Page 24 to 27 5 Inflating the income in computation New issue Amt (Rs.) 2,024,000,000 Ground No. 6 AO's Order - CIT(A)'s Order - 6 Amortization of Land Rehabilitatio n Para 12 to Para 14, Page 19 to Page 21 of Hon'ble ITAT's Order dated 10 May 2019 Para 27 to Para 29, Page 22 to Page 24 of Hon'ble ITAT's order dated 06 November 2019 and Para 5.5 to Para 5.9, Page 5 to Page 9 of Hon'ble ITAT's order dated 30 October 2023 Para 6, Page 16 and Para 22, Page 34 of Hon'ble Amt (Rs.) 1,134,100,000 Ground No. 1 AO's Order Para 3A, Page 2 to 15 23 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. ITAT's order dated 11 January 2024 CIT(A)'s Order Para 7, Page 7 to 12 7 Grants to Schools and Institutions Para 63 to Para 67, Page 40 to Page 43 of Hon'ble ITAT's Order dated 06 November 2019 Para 13.1 to Para 13.3 of Hon'ble ITAT's order dated 28 February 2002 and Para 6.14 to Para 6.16, Page 35 to Page 38 of Hon'ble ITAT's order dated 30 October 2023 Para 6-7, Page 16 and Para 22, Page 34 of Hon'ble ITAT's order dated 11 January 2024 Amt (Rs.) 925,600,000 Ground No. 2 AO's Order Para 3B, Page 15 to 30 CIT(A)'s Order Para 8, Page 12 to 14 15. On a perusal of the aforesaid chart, we found that certain grounds are squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in its earlier orders dated 06.11.2019, 30.10.2023 & 11.01.2024. This fact is confronted to the revenue, in response to which they accepted and agreed to the aforesaid fact. 16. After giving a thoughtful consideration on the aforesaid submission of the Ld. AR, we are of the view that ground no. 2,3,4 & 5 of the ITA 148/RPR/2024 of the assessee and ground no. 2 of the ITA 166/RPR/2024 of the department are 24 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. squarely covered by the decision of ITAT, Raipur in ITA No. 201/BIL/2012 & Ors. Dated 30.10.2023 following the earlier orders of ITAT dated 06.11.2019, therefore, the observations / decision recorded in the said orders shall apply mutatis mutandis on the concurrent grounds as specified hereinabove, thus, are disposed-off accordingly. 17. Resultantly, ground no. 2,3,4 & 5 of the ITA 148/RPR/2024 of the assessee and ground no. 2 of the ITA 166/RPR/2024 of the department, being squarely covered by the orders of ITAT (refer to supra), are disposed-off in terms of our observations in ITA No. 201/BIL/2012 & Ors. Dated 30.10.2023. 18. Now, we are adverting to the remaining grounds in ITA NO. 148/RPR/2024 of the assessee, for the AY 2021-22, which are not covered by any existing decision, thus, the same are argued, deliberated upon and discussed in the ensuing para’s: 19. Ground No. 6 of ITA NO. 148/RPR/2024: Regarding not adjudicating the additional ground raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) against the erroneous addition to income of approx. Rs. 200 Crores made in the computation sheet annexed with the assessment order. 19.1 Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee submitted that while making the computation the assessee company in the assessment order there was an error of approximately Rs. 200 Crores enhancing the taxable income of assessee, for 25 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. which an additional ground was raised before the Ld. CIT(A), but the same was not adjudicated. Further, it is clarified that as the mistakes was apparent from record, the assessee had also adopted the recourse available by way of making an application u/s 154 for rectification of mistake before the Ld. AO, the same is still pending. With such assertion, it was the prayer that the Ld. AO may be directed to rectify the mistake. 19.2 Per contra, Ld. CIT DR submitted that as the matter is pending u/s 154 before the Ld. AO, therefore, it would be premature to raise such dispute at this stage before the ITAT. He requested, that certain issues are being restored back to the file of Ld. AO, therefore, the issue of mistake shall be taken care of while the consequential assessment would be framed, and income of assessee would be recomputed. In view of such facts, the matter of mistake is consequential in nature, thus, need not be addressed at this juncture. 19.3 We have considered the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and the orders of revenue authorities. Since the issue pertains to a mistake apparent from records which is subject to verification of facts and also pending under section 154 proceedings before the Ld. AO, thus, at this stage, we do not see any necessity of our indulgence or directions. Accordingly, we refrain ourselves to deal with such premature contention raised by the assessee. 19.4 Resultantly, Ground No. 06 of the assessee is dismissed, in terms of our aforesaid observation. 26 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 20. Ground No. 1 & 7 of ITA NO. 148/RPR/2024: These grounds are general, academic and consequential in nature, wherein no further arguments are advanced by the assessee, thus, the same does not warrants specific adjudication, accordingly, stands dismissed. 21. Now, we shall be adverting to the remaining grounds in ITA NO. 166/RPR/2024 of revenue, for the AY 2021-22, which are not covered by any existing decision, thus, the same are argued, deliberated upon and discussed in the ensuing para’s: 22. Ground No. 1 of ITA NO. 166/RPR/2024: Challenging the admissibility of Amortization of Land Compensation of Rs.113,41,00,000/- by the Ld. CIT(A), whereas the issue is pending before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. 22.1 We may herein observe that the issue of amortization of land compensation and rehabilitation expenses is decided by this tribunal and its earlier order dated 30.10.2023 in ITA No. 201/BIL/2012 and others in the assessee’s own case, wherein the earlier order of ITAT dated 10.05.2019 in ITA No. 141/NAG/2001, and ITA No. 187/JAB/2008 dated 06.11.2019 were followed, accordingly, the matter was remitted to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in terms of the decision by ITAT, Cuttack Bench in the case of East India Minerals Limited in ITA No. 224/CTK/2012. As no new facts, information, evidence, decision have been 27 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. brought on record by either parties, we do not see any reason to deviate from our earlier inference. In view of aforesaid observations, the order of Ld. CIT(A) found to be justified in observing that the Assessing Officer is directed to allow amortization of land compensation following the decision of ITAT, Cuttack. 22.2 Considering the aforesaid facts, we do not see any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, we uphold the same. Ground No. 1 of the department, therefore, is dismissed. 22.3 Before parting with, it would be pertinent to note that the contention of the revenue that the issue is pending before Hon’ble High Court in Tax Case No. 09/2020, therefore, following the decision of ITAT was an error on the part of Ld. CIT(A), is found to be misplaced. We observe that, admission of case before the Hon’ble High Court cannot be the basis for deciding the issue otherwise by the revenue authorities, until the same is decided by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, till than following the principle of consistency, the observations of the Tribunal in assessee’s case remain continue to be applicable. However, once the issue is decided by the Hon’ble High Court the same has to be ritually followed by the parties. 23. Ground No. 3, 4, 5 & 6 of ITA NO. 166/RPR/2024: These grounds are general, academic and consequential in nature, wherein no further arguments are advanced by the revenue, thus, the same does not necessitate any specific adjudication, accordingly, stands dismissed. 28 ITA Nos. 108, 109 & 148/RPR/2024(A) & ITA No. 166/RPR/2024(D) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. 24. In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are partly allowed, in accordance with our observations herein above. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/12/2024. Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) Ûयाियक सदèय / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदèय / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर/Raipur; Ǒदनांक Dated 23/12/2024 Vaibhav Shrivastav आदेश कȧ Ĥितिलǒप अĒेǒषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ITAT, Raipur 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant- 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुƠ / CIT 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 5. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file. // स×याǒपत Ĥित True copy // "