M/s Rabin Singha Heavy Earth Movers Co. Pvt. Ltd., Bankura V. DCIT, CIR-3, Bankura, Bankura

CO 32/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5220 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AND RESPECTIVELY AGAINST COM

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 789/KOL/2015 & C.O. NO. 32/KOL/2015 M/S RABIN SINGH HEAVY EARTH MOVERS CO. PVT. LTD. 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C B ENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE : SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBE R I.T.A. NO. 789/KOL/2015 A.Y : 2010-11 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, BANKURA BILASH BHAWAN, CHANDMARIDANGA P.O. & DIST. BANKURA, PIN-722101 AP PELLANT -VS- M/S RABIN SINGH HEAVY EARTH MOVERS CO. PVT. LTD. AT. DESHURIA, DURLOVPUR, DIST. BANKURA, PIN-722102 PAN: AABCR 6351 H RESPONDENT C.O. NO. 32/KOL/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 789/KOL/2015) A.Y : 2010-11 M/S RABIN SINGH HEAVY EARTH MOVERS CO. PVT. LTD. AT. DESHURIA, DURLOVPUR, DIST. BANKURA, PIN-722102 PAN: AABCR 6351 H CROSS OBJECTOR -VS- DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, BANKURA BILASH BHAWAN, CHANDMARIDANGA P.O. & DIST. BANKURA, PIN-722101 RE SPONDENT ITA NO. 789/KOL/2015 & C.O. NO. 32/KOL/2015 M/S RABIN SINGH HEAVY EARTH MOVERS CO. PVT. LTD. 2 APPEARANCES BY: FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI SAURAV KUMAR, ADDL. C IT FOR THE RESPONDENT: NONE DATE OF HEARING : 07/01/ 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/02/2019 SHRI. S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM: 1. BOTH THE APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATE D 26.03.2015 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-DURGAPUR FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN I.T.A. NO. 789/KOL/2015. THE APPELLANT REVENUE FILED THIS APPEAL ON 03.06.2015 AND REGISTRY ISSUED MANY NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE INTIMATING THE FIXATION OF DATE OF HEARING BY RPAD WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: SL. NO. DATE OF NOTICE DATE OF HEARING REMARKS I. 14.08.2017 25.09.2017 DR REQUESTED ADJOURNMENT II. 25.09.2017 20.11.2017 NO PROCEEDINGS III. 20.11.2017 09.01.2018 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IV. 09.01.2018 27.02.2018 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE V. 27.02.2018 25.04.2018 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE VI. 25.04.2018 19.06.2018 NO PROCEEDINGS VII. 19.06.2018 25.09.2018 NO PROCEEDINGS. VIII. 25.09.2018 22.11.2018 NO PROCEEDINGS. IX. 22.11.2018 07.01.2019 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE CALLED ABSENT. ON PERUS AL OF THE RECORD IT IS NOTED THAT THE REGISTRY ISSUED NOTICES DATED 05.12.2018 INTIMATING ITA NO. 789/KOL/2015 & C.O. NO. 32/KOL/2015 M/S RABIN SINGH HEAVY EARTH MOVERS CO. PVT. LTD. 3 THE DATE OF HEARING TO THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY R PAD ON 07.01.2019 I.E. TODAY BUT WE FIND NO REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FLIED SEEKING ADJOURNM ENT. THE LD. DR SUBMITS THIS TRIBUNAL ISSUED NOTICES THROUGH DR ON 22.11.2018 AND NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE THROUGH DEPARTME NT. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE RECORD AND SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR , WE SET EX PARTE AND PROCEED TO HEAR THE LD. DR FOR APPELLANT REVEN UE AND PASS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 4. HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUS INESS OF CIVIL CONTRACTS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE A SSESSEE FILED NON- CORROBORATING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2009 AMOUNTING TO RS. 66,13,857/-. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HELD THERE IS A SHORT FALL IN RESPECT OF SNC POWER CORPORATION PVT. LTD. TO AN EXPENDITURE OF RS. 41,09,398/-. FURTHER HE HE LD THAT THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY DID NOT PRODUCE PARTY LEDGER ACCOUNTS IN THE NAME OF BHEL AND THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADD ED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 41,09,398/- + RS. 10,43,637/- ON ACCOUNT OF UND ERSTATEMENT OF CONTRACT RECEIPT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E. 5. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN ADDING THE SAID AMOUNTS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE I N RESPECT OF SNC POWER CORPORATION PVT. LTD. EXAMINED THE AUDITED BA LANCE SHEET PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE BREAKUP OF THE SCHEDULE L WHICH IS GROSS SALES FIGURES AS ON 31.03.2010 HAS C LEARLY SHOWN THE ITA NO. 789/KOL/2015 & C.O. NO. 32/KOL/2015 M/S RABIN SINGH HEAVY EARTH MOVERS CO. PVT. LTD. 4 FIGURE OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS FROM SNC POWER CORPORAT ION PVT. LTD. OF RS. 2,27,80,457/-. THE CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT SNC P OWER CORPORATION PVT. LTD. DID NOT DENY THE SAID RECEIPT WHICH WAS P AID BY MAKING VARIOUS ADJUSTMENTS SUCH AS TDS, SECURITY DEPOSIT, RETENTION AND OTHER RECOVERY ETC. 6. IN RESPECT OF UNDERSTATEMENT OF TWO RECEIPTS OF M/S BHEL, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FOLL OW ACCOUNTING POLICY AND BHEL HAS PAID RS. 14,78,953/- WHICH IS REFLEC TED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.03.2010 AND A LSO IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE IN FORM 26AS. FURTHER HE HELD THE LEDGE R OF M/S BHEL IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFLECTS THE SAID ACCOUN TS AND HELD THAT ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERSTATEMENT OF TWO R ECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF BHEL IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND DELETED BOTH THE ADDIT IONS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: 6.1. IN THE CASE OF M/S SNC POWER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.., THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TABLE-B HAS GIVEN FIGURES OF BILLS PAYABLE AS ON 01.04.2009 AT RS. 70,54,999/- AND THE BILLS RAISED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 AT RS. 1,98,34,856/-. THESE TWO FIGURES TOGETHER COMES TO RS. 2,68,89,855/-. SIMILARLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN FIGURE OF BILLS PAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 AT RS .1,51,72,100/- AND THE CLOSING B ALANCE AS ON 31.03.2010 AT RS. 1,17,17,755/-. THESE TWO FIGURES TOGETHER COMES TO RS. 2,68,89,855/-. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE CONTRACT RECEIPT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE P & L ACCOUNT BY THE APPELLANT AND OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN OF RS. 2,68,89;855 /- AND SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS. 2,27,80,457/- IN ITS P&L AC COUNT, AS PER THE A.O. THE DIFFERENCE COMES TO RS. 41,09,398/- (RS. 2,68,89,855/- RS. 2,27,80,4 57/-), WHICH THE A.O. CONSIDERED AS THE UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPT. HOWEVER, THE A.O. HAS ALSO GIVEN ANOTHER SET OF FIG URES IN THIS TABLE -8 BASED ON THE FIGURES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IS AS U NDER. THE BILLS PAYABLE AS ON 01.04.2009 IS OF RS. 66,13,857/- AND THE BILLS RAISED IN THE FINA NCIAL YEAR 2009-10 IS OF RS. 1,83,95,350/- AND TOGETHER THIS FIGURE COMES TO RS. 2,50,09,207/-. THE A.O. HAS ALSO GIVEN THE FIGURE OF BILLS PAID IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 AT RS. 1,51,50,0 00/- AND THE CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2010 OF RS. 98,59,207/- WHICH TOGETHER COMES TO RS. 2,50,09,207/. THIS FIGURE OF RS. 2,50,09,207/- AS PER THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE CONTRACT RECEIPT AND OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS P&L ACCOUNT AND SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS. 2,27,80,457/- , THE A.O. ARRIVED AT THE DIFF ERENCE OF RS. 22,28,750/-. THUS IN THE CASE OF M/S. SNC POWER CORPORATION (P) LTD. IN TABLE -8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. HAS ARRIVED AT TWO SETS OF FIGURES OF UNDERSTATEMENT OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS SUCH AS RS. 41,09,398/- ITA NO. 789/KOL/2015 & C.O. NO. 32/KOL/2015 M/S RABIN SINGH HEAVY EARTH MOVERS CO. PVT. LTD. 5 AS PER THE REPLY OF M/S. SNC POWER CORPORATION (P) LTD. AND RS. 22,28,750/- AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE A.O. HAS PREFERRED TO ADOPT THE FIGURE OF RS. 41,09,398/- FOR ADDITION THEREBY DISCARDING THE FIG URE OF RS. 22,28,750/:; THEREBY WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS FOR SUCH PICK CHOOSE OF FIGU RES BY HIM. HOWEVER, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE METHOD ADOPTE D BY THE A.O. FOR DERIVING THE UNDERSTATEMENT OF CONTRACT RECEIPT IS NOTHING BUT T HE JUGGLERY OF FIGURES WHICH HAS NO SUPPORT OF ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES. BESIDES, THE FINDING GIVE N BY THE A.O. IS HIGHLY CRYPTIC AND IT IS PURELY BASED ON PURE PERMUTATION AND COMBINATION AND IT HA S NO BASE IN THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES FOLLOWED IN THE PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURES OF EXECUT ION OF LT. ACT. THE APPELLANT IS HAVING AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND THE OPENING BALANCE OF TH E BILLS PAYABLE ARE ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE IMMEDIATE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2009-10 AND THIS FIGURE BEING OPENING BALANCE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR SUCH CALCULATION AS HAS BE EN DONE BY THE A.O. THE A.O. HAS MENTIONED THAT THE APPELLANT IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS AND YET WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS, THE A.O. HAS PROCEEDED TO INCLUDE THE OPENING BALANCE OF BILLS PAYABLE IN THIS CASE. BESI DES, THE A.O. HAS ALSO INCLUDED THE BILLS PAID DURING THE YEAR ALONG WITH THE CLOSING BALANCE OF T HE BILLS PAYABLE IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT THE FIGURE OF RS. 2,68,89,855/- WHICH IS AGAIN GROSSLY FAULTY METHOD OF ACCOUNTING BY THE A.O. THE APPELLANT IN HIS AUDITED BALANCE SHEET IN THE BREAK - UP OF SCHEDULE' LT WHICH IS GROSS SALES FIGURE AS ON 31.03.2010 HAS CLEARLY SHOWN THE FIGUR E OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS FROM M/S. SNC POWER CORPORATION (P) LTD. OF RS. 2,27,80,457/-. THIS 'FI GURE HAS NOT BEEN DENIED BY M/S. SNC POWER CORPORATION (P) LTD. AND AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ADJUST MENTS SUCH AS TDS, SECURITY DEPOSIT, RETENTION, OTHER RECOVERY ETC., OUT OF THIS GROSS B ILL AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,27,80,457/-, THE APPELLANT WAS PAID RS. 1,83,95,350/-. THIS FIGURE O F RS. 2,27,80,457/- IS THE GROSS BILL RAISED BY M/S. SNC POWER CORPORATION (P) LTD. AND THIS AMOU NT IS REFLECTED IN THE TDS STATEMENT IN FORM 26AS. AS PER THE LEDGER OF M/S. SNC POWER CORPO RATION (P) LTD, THE CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2009 IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IS RS. 66,13,857/- AND THE CLOSING BALANCE IN THE LEDGER AS ON 31.03.2010 IS RS. 98,59,207/- AND THIS CLOSING BALANCE HAS ALSO BECOME THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2010 IN THE CASE OF M/S . SNC POWER CORPORATION (P) LTD. THUS, THIS CLOSING BALANCE OF RS. 98,59,207/- COMES OUT O F THE GROSS BILLS RAISED DURING THE YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,27,80,457/- AND SINCE THE APPELLA NT HAS ALREADY CREDITED IN ITS P&L A/C WITH THE FIGURE OF GROSS BILLS OF RS. 2,27,80,457/- , THE CLOSING BALANCE IN THIS CASE CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE BILLS PAID DURING THE YEAR TO DERIVE T HE CONTRACT RECEIPT WHICH THE A.O HAS DONE OTHERWISE. SIMILAR IS THE CASE WITH THE OPENING BALA NCE OF RS. 66,13,857/- WHICH IS AS ON 01.04.2009 AND SINCE THIS IS THE BROUGHT FORWARD CL OSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2009, THE SAME ALSO CANNOT BE ADDED WITH THE BILLS RAISED DURING T HE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10, AS THIS AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE GROSS BILLS OF M/S. SNC POWER CORPORATION (P) LTD. FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09. BESIDES, THIS AMOUNT IS ALSO SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2009 UNDER THE HEAD OF 'SUNDRY DEBTORS'. SIMIL ARLY THE AMOUNT OF RS. 98,59,207/- IS ALSO SHOWN IN THE LIST OF SUNDRY DEBTORS IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2010. THUS CONSIDERING ALL THE ABOVE ASPECTS, IT WILL BE SEEN AND APPRECIA TED THAT DERIVATION BY THE A.O. OF THE UNDERSTATEMENT OF CONTRACT RECEIPT IS DEFINITELY BY A CONTRIVED METHOD AND BECAUSE OF THE POOR UNDERSTANDING OF THE A.O. OF THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS AND CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS, THE FIGURES GIVEN IN THE TABLE - B REVEALS THE UNIQ UE HYBRID METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE A.O. THEREBY MIXING BOTH THE METHODS OF ACCOUNTING PRINC IPLE WHICH IS DEFINITELY NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS ABSOLUTE NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE A.O. IN DERIVING SUCH FIGURES. THUS CONSIDERING ALL THESE ASPECTS OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE FIRM OPINION THAT ADDITION OF RS. 41,09,398/- IN THIS CA SE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. 6.2 THE A.O. HAS ALSO DERIVED THE UNDERSTATEMENT OF CONTRACT RECEIPT IN THE CASE OF M/S. BHEL AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,43,637/-. IN THIS CASE, IN THE T ABLE- B , AS STATED THAT THE BILLS PAYABLE IN THE CASE OF M/S. BHEL AS ON AS OF RS. 25,2 ,590/- A ND THE BILLS PAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IS OF RS. 13,41,913/- AND THE CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31 .03.2010 IS OF RS. 11,80,677/-. THUS AS ITA NO. 789/KOL/2015 & C.O. NO. 32/KOL/2015 M/S RABIN SINGH HEAVY EARTH MOVERS CO. PVT. LTD. 6 PER THE A.O. THE CONTRACT RECEIPT OUGHT TO BE SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE P&L A/C SHOULD HAVE BEEN RS. 25,22,590/- AND SINCE THE APPELLANT H AS SHOWN RS. 14,78,953/- IN THE P&L ACCOUNT, THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 10,43,637/- (RS. 25, 22,590/- - RS. 14,78,953/-) IS STATED AS UNDERSTATEMENT OF CONTRACT RECEIPT. AS HAS ALREADY BEEN STATED IN PARA 6.1 OF THIS ORDER, THE METHOD OF CALCULATION OF THE A.O IN THE CASE OF BHEL IN DERIVING THIS FIGURE OF RS. 10,43,637/- IS AGAIN FULL OF LOOPHOLES AND THE A.O. HAS AGAIN F OLLOWED HIS OWN UNIQUE HYBRID SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING TO ARRIVE AT THIS FIGURE IN A CONTRIVED MANNER. IN THIS REGARD, M/S. BHEL VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 19.03.2013 HAVE CLEARLY STATED THAT AS A CONTRACTEE, THEY HAVE NOT RECOGNIZED THE LIABILITY OF THE BILL AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,80,867/- A ND THEY HAVE NOT PASSED ANY ACCOUNTING ENTRY ON THIS AMOUNT IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN TH E FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10. THIS AMOUNT WAS SETTLED BY M/S. BHEL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 . DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, M/S. BHEL HAS PAID RS. 14,78,953/- WHICH IS REFLECT ED IN THE P &L A/C OF THE APPELLANT AS ON 31.03.2010 AND ALSO IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE IN FORM 2 6AS. THE LEDGER OF M/S. BHEL IN THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT ALSO REFLECTS THIS FIGURE. THE A MOUNT OF RS. 11,80,677/- IS CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR2011- 12 AND IN THAT YEAR RS. 12,97, 447/- HAS BEEN PAID TO THE APPELLANT BY M/S. BHEL WHICH INCLUDES AN AMOUNT OF RS. 11,80,627/ -. THE FIGURE OF RS. 12,97,447/- IS REFLECTED IN THE DETAILS OF THE SALES' OF THE APPE LLANT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND IS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE IN FORM 26AS. THUS CONSIDERING ALL THESE ASPECTS OF THIS TRANSACTION OF THE APPELLANT WITH M/S BHEL, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,43,637/- IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND NOT WARRANTED IN T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,43,637/- IS HER EBY DELETED. 7. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE WE ARE UNABLE TO ENDORSE THE FINDING OF CIT(A) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE AS SESSEE OR ITS COUNSEL. IT IS NEEDLESS TO MENTION IT IS THE RESPO NSIBILITY AND ONUS IS ON THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE TO FILE ALL THE DOCUMEN TS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. SINCE THERE IS NO DOCUM ENTS EVIDENCING SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM AND VIEW OF CIT(A), WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED. 8. THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN C. O. NO. 32/KOL/2015, WE FIND THE ASSESSEE PARTICULARLY CONT ENDED AT GROUND NO. 6 OF CROSS OBJECTION THAT ABOVE SAID CROSS OBJE CTION WAS FILED IN SUPPORT OF ORDER OF CIT(A). IN VIEW OF OUR DISCUSSI ON IN REVENUES APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 789/KOL/2015 IN ABOVE MENTIONE D PARAGRAPHS AND GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CROSS OBJECTION B ECOMES ACADEMIC ITA NO. 789/KOL/2015 & C.O. NO. 32/KOL/2015 M/S RABIN SINGH HEAVY EARTH MOVERS CO. PVT. LTD. 7 WHICH REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION FROM US. THUS GROUND S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06-02-2019. SD/- SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 06-02-2019 SB,SR. PS COPIES TO : (1) APPELLANT/DEPARTMENT: DCIT, CIRCLE-3, BANKURA (2) RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: M/S RABIN SINGH HEAVY EARTH MOVERS CO. PVT. LTD. (3)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA