Bisseswarlal Mannalal & Sons., Kolkata V. ACIT, CIR-34, Kolkata, Kolkata

CO 80/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3483 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAVID Z CHAWNGTHU
• Assessee Lawyers: P J BHIDE
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1259 / KOL / 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 ACIT, CICLE-34, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, POORVA, 7 TH FLOOR, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-107 V/S . M/S BISSESWARLALL MANNALAL & SONS, 12, PRETORIA STREET, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-01 [ PAN NO.AACFB 7736 K ] . /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT C.O. NO.80/KOL/2014 (A/O ITA NO.1259/KOL/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S BISSESWARLALL MANNALAL & SONS, 12, PRETORIA STREET, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-01 V/S . ACIT, CICLE-34, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, POORVA, 7 TH FLOOR, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-107 . CO-OBJECTOR .. / RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI P.J. BHIDE, CA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI DAVID Z.CHAWNGTHU, ADDL. CIT-DR !'# /DATE OF HEARING 26-07-2017 $% # /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06-09-2-17 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION (CO ) BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. BOTH ARE DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF ITA NO.1259 & CO.80/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT CIR-34, KOL. VS. M/S BISSES WARLALL MNNALAL & SONS PAGE 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XX, KOLKATA DA TED 18.02.2014. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY JCIT, RANGE, 34 KOLKATA U/ S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 18.03.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. SHRI DAVID Z. CHAWNGTHU, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE AND SHRI P.J. BHIDE, LD. AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. FIRST WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1259/KO L/2014 . 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE PER ITS APPEAL AS UNDE R:- 1. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE W.R.T DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A OF RS.9,67,162/- 2. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE W.R.T . THE TREATMENT OF TRANSACTIONS OF SHARES OF RS.10,53,820/- AS BUSINES S INCOME. 3. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE AS REGARDING TREATMENT OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS.19,06,570/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURC E. 4. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE REG ARDING UTILIZATION OF FUND DEPOSITED IN NABARD FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 33 AB(4). 5. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE REG ARDING TREATMENT OF SALE OF TEA WASTE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO MADE ANY ADDIT ION, ALTERATION, MODIFICATION OF GROUNDS AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. 3. FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR 9,67,162/- UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A R.W.S. RULE 8D OF THE IT R ULES, 1962. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PART NERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITIES OF CULTIVATION, MANUFACTURING AND SA LE OF TEA UNDER THE BRAND NAME OF M/S BISSESWARLAL MANALAL & SONS (BM & S FOR SHORT). THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE YEAR INTER ALIA HAS EARNED NON-TAXABLE I NCOME AS DETAILED UNDER:- DIVIDEND RS. 59,95,155 TEA BOARD SUBSIDY RS. 18,60,000 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS RS.3,09,53,798 ITA NO.1259 & CO.80/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT CIR-34, KOL. VS. M/S BISSES WARLALL MNNALAL & SONS PAGE 3 TOTAL RS.3,88,08,953 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF THE E XPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO AFORESAID NON-TAXABLE INCOME. THE ASSES SEE WAS ALSO NOT MAINTAINING SEPARATE ACCOUNTS FOR TAXABLE AS WELL A S NON-TAXABLE INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWAN CE IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THUS THE AO CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE EXPLANATION OF THE EXPENSES. HOWEV ER, ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR THE DISALL OWANCE OF THE EXPENSES IN RELATION TO NON-TAXABLE INCOME. THUS, AO INVOKED TH E PROVISION OF RULE 8D OF IT RULES, 1962 AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE AS UNDER:- DIRECT EXPENSE NIL INTEREST EXPENSE RS.7,51,813 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE RS.2,15,349 RS.9,67,162 THE AO DISALLOWED THE ABOVE STATED EXPENSES AND ADD ED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE AO SH OULD HAVE TAKEN ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE W HICH HAVE YIELDED DIVIDEND INCOME DURING THE YEAR. BESIDES THE ABOVE, ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AO FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES HAS CONS IDERED ALL THE INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 28,75,969.00 WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. IT IS BECAUSE THE FOLLOWING INTEREST EXPENSE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL INTEREST EXPENSE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE:- I) INTEREST TO PARTNERS FOR 18,86,920/- WHICH IS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION SECTION 40(B)(IV); II) INTEREST EXPENSE OF THE CAR LOAN FOR 4,339/-, 58,007/- AND 54,696/- RESPECTIVELY; III) INTEREST EXPENSE OF 7,15,128/- WHICH WAS DIRECTLY INCURRED ON THE INTEREST INCOME OF 18,89,941/- AND THE SAME WAS OFFERED TO TAX. ITA NO.1259 & CO.80/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT CIR-34, KOL. VS. M/S BISSES WARLALL MNNALAL & SONS PAGE 4 THUS, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSE SHOULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER C ONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS GRANTED RELIEF IN PART BY OBSER VING AS UNDER:- 6- GROUND NO. (I) RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9, 67,162/-- U/S 14A OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE FACT OF THE CASE IS THAT THE APPELLANT EARNED EXEMPT INCOME, THEREFORE, THE AO INVOKED RULE 8D AN D MADE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS WHICH HAD Y IELDED DIVIDENDS AND NOT THE ENTIRE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS WHILE CALCU LATING DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D CLAUSE (II). THEY HAD GIVEN WORKING O F INVESTMENTS AS WELL AS CALCULATION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT (SUPRA), I FIND MERIT IN THEIR ARGUMENT, THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO TAKE FIGURES OF DISALLOWANCE AT RS.2,28,917/- AND T HE BALANCE DISALLOWANCE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED, THEREBY, TH E APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US . 6. BEFORE US BOTH PARTIES RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AU THORITIES BELOW AS FAVOURABLE TO THEM. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AO HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSE INCURRED IN RELATION TO NON TAXABLE INCOME UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A R.W.S 8D OF THE IT RULES, 1962. THE AO WHILE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE INVESTMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES. NOW, TH E PROPOSITION IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D SHOULD BE MADE AFTER CONSIDERING ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE YIELDED DIVIDEND INCOME DURING THE YEAR. IN HOLDING SO, WE DRAW SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM TH E JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL & HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO LTD. V. DY. CIT [2013] 35 TAXMANN.COM 404/144 ITD 141 (KOL.-TRIB.) , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE VALUE OF ONLY THOSE SH ARES ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IN COMPUTATION AS PER RULE 8D, WHICH HAV E YIELDED DIVIDEND INCOME. THE SAID DECISION RENDERED BY THE COORDINAT E BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL ITA NO.1259 & CO.80/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT CIR-34, KOL. VS. M/S BISSES WARLALL MNNALAL & SONS PAGE 5 IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO LTD. ( SUPRA ) HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 19.04.2014 IN ITAT NO. 220 OF 2013. SINCE THIS ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO LTD. ( SUPRA ), WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D BY TAKING INTO CONSIDER ATION ONLY THOSE SHARES, WHICH HAVE YIELDED DIVIDEND INCOME IN THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HENCE THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE'S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS T HAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO ASSESSEE FOR 10,53,820/- BY TREATING THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME. 9. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED & SOLD T HE SHARES OF JINDAL STEEL & POWER CO. LIMITED. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED 5 000 SHARES DURING 27 TH MAY TO 4 TH AUG 2009 FOR RS.1,23,03,654/- ONLY. THE ASSESSEE S UBSEQUENTLY PURCHASED 8,000 SHARES DURING 26 TH AUG TO 7 TH SEPTEMBER 2009. THE AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE WAS DETERMINED FOR 13,000 SHARES OF M/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER AT AN AGREED COST OF 2922.72 PER SHARE. THEREAFTER M/S JINDAL STEEL & PO WER ISSUED BONUS SHARES IN RATIO OF 5 BONUS SHARE PER S HARE HELD BY ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED TOTAL 65,000/- BONUS SHARES. THEREFORE THE TOTAL SHARES HELD BY ASSESSEE ARE 78,000 AS ON 24.09.2009 WHICH WERE HELD BY IT IN DEMAT FORM. AFTER THE ALLOTMENT OF BONUS SHARES THE AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE WAS DETERMINED FOR 78,000 SHARES OF M/S JINDAL STEE L & POWER AT AN AGREED COST OF 487.11 PER SHARE. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR DATED 11.11.20009 SOLD 5,000 SHARES @ 697.88 PER SHARES AND REALIZED A SUM OF 34,89,419/-ONLY. THUS, THE PROFIT WAS DETERMINED BY THE AO AS UNDER:- SALE CONSIDERATION OF 5000 SHARES RS.34,89,419.00 COST OF ACQUISITION (5000 X RS.487.12) RS. 24,3 5,599 BUSINESS INCOME RS. 10,53,820 ITA NO.1259 & CO.80/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT CIR-34, KOL. VS. M/S BISSES WARLALL MNNALAL & SONS PAGE 6 THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF PROFIT WAS TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 10. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT SHARES WE RE HELD BY ASSESSEE AS INVESTMENT AND THIS FACT WAS DULY ACCEPTED BY AO IN EARLIER YEAR. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BONUS SHARE WAS RECEIVED BY IT AT NIL VALUE. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE 5000 SHARES WH ICH WERE ACQUIRED AT THE COST OF 1,23,03,654/-ONLY ON THE BASIS OF FIFO METHOD. AS S UCH, ASSESSEE HAS SUFFERED A LOSS OF 88,14,235/- AS DETAILED UNDER:- SALE PRICE OF THE SHARES 34,89,419 LESS COST OF ACQUISITION 12304654 LOSS INCURRED OF 88,14,235/- LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 7- GROUND NO. (II) RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.10,53 ,820/-. THE FACT OF THE CASE IS THAT THE AO FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT SOLD 1 0000 SHARES OF JINDAL STEEL & POWER DURING THE PERIOD, THE APPELLANT HAD RE-PURCHASED THE SHARES OF THE SAID COMPANY, THE TOTAL 13000 SHARES WERE PURCHASED ON WHICH 65000 BONUS SHARES WERE ALLOTTED. THE AVERAGE VALUE OF TOTAL SHARES OF 78000 [(13000 (SHARES) + 65000 (BONUS)] W AS ARRIVED AT RS.487.12 OF EACH SHARE. THE AO TOOK COST OF ACQUIS ITION OF 5000 SHARES SOLD ON 11.11.2009 AT RS.24,35,599/- BY WHIC H INCOME OF RS.10,53,820/- WAS CALCULATED AND TREATED AS BUSINE SS INCOME. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THEY HELD THE SHARES BY WAY OF INVESTMENT ONLY. ACCRETION THERETO, BY ISSUE OF BON US SHARES, WAS ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT. THE COST OF BONUS SHARE W AS NIL. THEY SOLD THE ORIGINAL SHARES WHICH WAS ACQUIRED AT A COST OF RS.1,23,03,654/- AND REALIZED RS.34,89,419/- ONLY AND THEREBY, THEY SUFFERED SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.88,14,235/-. THE COST OF SHARES WAS TAKEN FOLLOWING FIFO METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. THE APPELLANT ALSO RELIE D UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. MADAN GOPAL RADHE LAL REPORTED IN 73 ITR 652 IN WHICH IT IS HELD THAT THE BONUS SHARES GIVEN WAS LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS CAPI TAL. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, F IND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SHARES WERE HELD AS INVESTMENT AND NOT AS STOCK IN TRADE AND THE COST OF SHARES WERE T AKEN FOLLOWING FIFO METHOD OF ACCOUNTING, HENCE, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. ITA NO.1259 & CO.80/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT CIR-34, KOL. VS. M/S BISSES WARLALL MNNALAL & SONS PAGE 7 11. BEFORE US LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRE D IN TREATING THE SHARES HELD BY IT AS INVESTMENT RATHER IT IS REPRESENTED A S STOCK-IN-TRADE. THEREFORE, ON THE SALE OF STOCK-IN-TRADE SURPLUS SHOULD BE TRE ATED AS BUSINESS INCOME OF ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY THE AVERAGE PRICE SHOULD BE TAK EN FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE PROFIT. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORD ER OF AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT ALL THE SHARES WERE HELD IN THE DMAT FORM AND THEREFORE NO DISTINCTIVE NOS. OF SHARES WAS ALLOTTED TO THESE SHARES. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSE SSEE WAS FOLLOWING FIFO METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. THEREFORE, THE SHARES WHICH W ERE ACQUIRED EARLIER WOULD BE TREATED AS SOLD EARLIER. LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AO TREATED THE SHARES HELD BY ASSESSEE AS STOCK-IN-TRADE THOUGH ASSESSEE CLAIM ED THAT THESE HAVE BEEN SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS. THIS FACT WAS ALSO NOT DISPUTED BY REVENUE IN EARLIER YEARS. CONSIDERI NG THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT INVESTMENT IN SHARES SHOULD BE TREATED AS INVESTMENT. IN HOLDING SO, WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. MODAN GOPAL RADHE LAL REPORTED IN 73 ITR 652 (SC) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE CO URT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- IT WAS ASSUMED THAT THE COMPANIES HAD ISSUED BONUS SHARES IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER CONFERRED UPON THEM BY THE ARTICLES OF AS SOCIATION, AND NO ARGUMENT HAD BEEN RAISED IN THAT BEHALF. A COMPANY WHEN AUTHORISED BY ITS ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION MAY CONVERT ITS ACCUMULATED PROFIT INTO CAPITAL AND THEN UTILIZE SUCH PROFIT BY ISSUING ADDITIONAL SHARES BY WAY OF BONUS TO THE SHAREHOLDERS. UNDER THE 1922 ACT, AT THE RELEVANT T IME, ISSUE OF SUCH BONUS SHARES BY CAPITALISATION OF THE ACCUMULATED PROFIT WAS NOT TREATED AS DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDEND. BONUS SHARES WOULD NORMALLY BE DEEMED TO BE DISTRIB UTED BY THE COMPANY AS CAPITAL AND THE SHAREHOLDER RECEIVES THE SHARES AS CAPITAL. THE BONUS SHARES ARE ACCRETIONS TO THE SHARES IN RESPECT OF WHICH TH EY ARE ISSUED, BUT ON THAT ACCOUNT THOSE SHARES DO NOT BECOME STOCK-IN-TRADE O F THE BUSINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDER. A TRADER MAY ACQUIRE A COMMODITY IN WH ICH HE IS DEALING FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES, AND HOLD IT APART FROM THE STOCK-IN-T RADE OF HIS BUSINESS. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT EVERY ACQUISITION BY A DEALE R IN A PARTICULAR COMMODITY IS ACQUISITION FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS BUSINESS; IN EACH CASE THE QUESTION IS ONE ITA NO.1259 & CO.80/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT CIR-34, KOL. VS. M/S BISSES WARLALL MNNALAL & SONS PAGE 8 OF INTENTION TO BE GATHERED FROM THE EVIDENCE OF CO NDUCT AND DEALINGS BY THE ACQUIRER WITH THE COMMODITY. BONUS SHARES HAVING BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES IN RESPECT OF THEIR STOCK-IN-TRADE DID NOT, THEREFORE, BECOME PART OF T HEIR STOCK-IN-TRADE, MERELY BECAUSE THEY WERE ACCRETIONS TO THE STOCK-IN-TRADE. THE BONUS SHARES WERE RECEIVED AS CAPITAL; THEY COULD BE CONVERTED BY THE ASSESSEES INTO THEIR STOCK- IN-TRADE OR RETAINED AS THEIR CAPITAL ASSET. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE BO NUS SHARES WERE RECEIVED IN THE COURSE AND AS PART OF THEIR BUSINESS IN SHAR ES AND WERE ON THAT ACCOUNT TAXABLE. IT WAS SOMEWHAT UNFORTUNATE THAT THE TRIBU NAL HAD NOT SET OUT IN DETAIL THE FACTS FOUND BY IT AND THE INFERENCE DRAW N THEREFROM. EVEN IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT NO ATTEMPT HAD BEEN MADE TO SET OUT THE FACTS ON WHICH THE CONCLUSION WAS BASED. THE MERE CIRCUMSTAN CES THAT IN THE COPIES OF THE BALANCE-SHEETS TENDERED BY THE ASSESSEES THE BONUS SHARES DID NOT FIND A PLACE HAD, NO IMPORTANCE, AND THE CREDIT ENT RIES IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT ON THE LAST DATES OF THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTING YEAR S IN THE FOUR YEARS IN QUESTION ALSO DID NOT SUPPORT AN INFERENCE IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEES. NOW THE SECOND QUESTION COMES BEFORE US HOW TO DETE RMINE THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF SHARES WHICH WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THAT IT IS FOLLOWING FIFO METHOD AND ACCORDINGLY THE SHARES WHICH WERE P URCHASED AT A COST OF 1,23,03,654/- WERE SOLD BY ASSESSEE. TO THIS POINT OF ARGUMENT LD. DR HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING ARRIVED BY THE LD. CIT(A). UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DI SMISSED. 13. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME. 14. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION RE CEIVED GROSS RECEIPT OF INTEREST INCOME FOR 19,06,570/- ONLY. AGAINST, THIS INCOME, ASSESSEE HA S CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSE OF 7,15,128/- AND THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE. THE CLAIM OF ASSESSE E WAS THAT IT HAS BORROWED FUND FROM CERTAIN PARTIES ON WHICH INTERES T OF 7,15,128/- WAS INCURRED AS COST. THE SAME AMOUNT OF BORROWED FUN D WAS ADVANCED TO ITA NO.1259 & CO.80/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT CIR-34, KOL. VS. M/S BISSES WARLALL MNNALAL & SONS PAGE 9 CERTAIN PARTIES ON WHICH THE INTEREST INCOME WAS EA RNED FOR 19,06,570/- ONLY. AS PER THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN INTEREST INCOME AND INTEREST EXPENSE. THEREFORE NET AMOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX. HOWEVER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE INTEREST EXPENSE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO ITS TEA BUSINESS. THE IN TEREST EXPENSE HAS NO RELATION WITH THE INTEREST INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, AO TREATED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF INTEREST OF 19,06,570/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 15. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE BORRO WED FUND ON WHICH INTEREST COST OF 7,15,128/- WAS INCURRED WERE DIRECTLY UTILIZED FOR THE EARNING OF INTEREST INCOME OF 18,89,941/- ONLY. THEREFORE THE INTEREST EXPENSES SHOULD BE ADJUSTED AGAINST INTEREST INCOME. LD. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE B Y AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 8- GROUND NO. (III) RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 7,15,128/-. THE FACT OF THE CASE IS THAT THE AO FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT RE CEIVED GROSS INTEREST OF RS.19,06,570/- ON WHICH EXPENDITURE OF RS.7,15,1 28/- WAS CLAIMED. HOWEVER, HE FOUND THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS RELATED TO TEA BUSINESS AND NOT EARNING OF INTEREST INCOME. THE APPELLANT SUBMI TTED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME INCLUDES INTEREST RECEIVED FROM THREE PERSON S OF RS.18,89,941/- AND THE EXPENSES INCLUDES INTEREST PAID ON UNSECURE D LOANS TO EIGHT PERSONS AMOUNTING TO R.7,15,128/-. AFTER GOING THRO UGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT THERE IS DIR ECT NEXUS BETWEEN PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND INTEREST RECEIPTS, THEREBY, THE INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.7,15,128- WERE INCURRED TO EARN INTEREST INCO ME. THE AO COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE UNSECURED LOANS ON WHICH INTEREST WAS PAID WERE NOT UTILIZED FOR GI VING LOANS/ADVANCES ON WHICH INTEREST INCOME WAS EARNED. UNDER SUCH CIR CUMSTANCES, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPEND ITURE WHICH WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING INTEREST INCOME. THEREBY, APPE AL ON THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 16. BEFORE US BOTH PARTIES RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A UTHORITIES BELOW AS FAVOURABLE TO THEM. 17. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT AO PRESUMED ITA NO.1259 & CO.80/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT CIR-34, KOL. VS. M/S BISSES WARLALL MNNALAL & SONS PAGE 10 THAT THE LOAN ON WHICH INTEREST EXPENSE WAS INCURRE D FOR 7,15,128/- WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. BUT THE AO HA S NOT BROUGHT ANY IOTA OF EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT THE INTEREST COST WAS INCU RRED IN CONNECTION WITH BUSINESS INCOME. LD. DR BEFORE US HAS ALSO NOT BROU GHT ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A). IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOV E REASONING, WE HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT AND IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THU S THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 18. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO ASSESSEE FOR UTILIZATION OF FUND DEPOSITED IN NABARD U/S. 33AB(4) OF THE ACT. 19. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS MADE INVESTMEN T IN NABARD IN A SCHEME APPROVED BY TEA BOARD UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 33AB(4) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN THE MONEY FROM THE NABARD DURING THE YEAR. THE DETAILS OF THE DEPOSITS AS WEL L AS WITHDRAWAL AND ITS UTILIZATION ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- DEPOSIT WITHDRAWAL UTILIZATION DATE AMOUNT DATE AMOUNT PURPOSE 26.5.10 45,00,000 JULY 2009 20,05,000 RE-PAYMENT OF TEA BOARD PLANTATION LOAN (ACQUIRED DURING THE YEAR 2004 AND 2005) 02.06.10 8,00,000 25.09.09 TO 31.07.09 9,93,026 SCORPIO/VLX/2WD/BU-III (JEEP TYPE VEHICLE) 11.06.10 48,00,000 21.07.09 TO 17.08.09 3,43,250 ONE SPECIAL PURPOSE CUTTER GRINDER MODEL CU-99 30.09.09 TO 31.03.10 31,45,355.77 LABOUR QUARTER (25 NOS), 525 SQ.FT. 3 ROOM, KITCHEN, BATHROOM AND TOILET 30.09.09 TO 31.03.10 3,29,877.78 STAFF QUARTER 1 NO. 22.02.10 TO 31.03.10 4,05,632.37 BRIDGE 3 NOS. (ALL 3 IN R K DIVISION) 29.09.09 TO 31.03.10 19,70,062.44 EXTENSION PLANTING 7.06 HECTOR TOTAL 1,01,00,000 91,92,204.36 THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE PRO VISION OF SECTION 33AB OF THE ACT IS TO PROVIDE INCENTIVE FOR THE TEA ESTATE AND OTHER EXPENDITURE ITA NO.1259 & CO.80/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT CIR-34, KOL. VS. M/S BISSES WARLALL MNNALAL & SONS PAGE 11 THEREFORE WILL NOT BE ALLOWABLE. ACCORDINGLY THE AO OBSERVED THAT FOLLOWING EXPENSES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE : WITHDRAWAL UTILIZATION DATE AMOUNT PURPOSE 25.09.09 TO 31.07.09 9,93,026 SCORPIO/VLX/2WD/BU-III (JEEP TYPE VEHICLE) 30.09.09 TO 31.03.10 31,45,355.77 LABOUR QUARTER (25 NOS), 525 SQ.FT. 3 ROOM, KITCHEN, BATHROOM AND TOILET 30.09.09 TO 31.03.10 3,29,877.78 STAFF QUARTER 1 NO. 22.02.10 TO 31.03.10 4,05,632.37 BRIDGE 3 NOS. (ALL 3 IN R K DIVISION) 48,73,891.00 THUS THE AO TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 48,73,891.00 AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 20. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE A MOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEA DEVELOPMENT SCHEME AND THEREFOR E ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 33AB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT FROM THE NABARD CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN UNTIL AND UNLESS NABARD IS SATISFIED WITH THE SCHEME OF TEA B OARD. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE DELETE D THE ADDITION MADE BY AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 10- GROUND NO. (VI) RELATES TO CONTENTION OF THE AP PELLANT AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS.48,73,891/-. THE FACT OF THE CAS E IS THAT THE AO FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN NAB ARD IN TERMS OF DEPOSIT SCHEME OF TEA BOARD FOR TEA PLANTATION IN T ERMS OF SECTION 33AB(1) OF THE IT ACT. IT HAS RECLAIMED THE AMOUNT FROM THE SAID FUNDS AND UTILIZED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE. HOWEVER, HE FOUND THAT THE AMOUNTS OF RS.48,73,891/- WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURP OSE AS MENTIONED US.33AB(4) OF THE IT ACT, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT SO UTILIZED WAS DEEMED TO BE THE PROFIT AND GAIN OFF THE BUSINESS AND ACCO RDINGLY FOUND TO BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT UNDERSTOOD THE SCHEME OF SECTION 33AB AT ITA NO.1259 & CO.80/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT CIR-34, KOL. VS. M/S BISSES WARLALL MNNALAL & SONS PAGE 12 ALL. SUB-SECTION 4 OF SECTION 33AB HAD BEEN REPRODU CED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE PROV ISIONS STEREO ARE VERY CLEAR. THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN BY THE APPELLANT F ROM DEPOSIT ACCOUNT WITH NABARD AND UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN CLAUSES (A), (B), (C) AND (D) OF SUB-SECTION 4 ALONE, HAD TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME OF THE WITHDRAWEE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD WITHDRAWN THE FUNDS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.48,73,891/- AND UTILIZED THE SAME FOR PURCHASE OF SCORPIO VEHICLE, CONSTRUCTION OF LABOUR QUARTERS, STAFF QUARTERS AND 3 NOS. BRIDGES. A COPY OF THE TEA DEVELOPMENT SCHEME WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. THESE WITHDR AWALS VERY CLEARLY SHOW THEIR UTILIZATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF LABOUR QUARTERS, STAFF QUARTERS AND BRIDGES WHICH WERE COVERED BY THE PURP OSE OF SCHEME. IN FACT, NABARD WOULD NOT ALLOW ANY WITHDRAWAL UNLESS IT WAS SATISFIED THAT THE WITHDRAWAL HAD BEEN UTILIZED BY THE APPELL ANT FOR THE PURPOSE MENTIONED IN THE SCHEME ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TOTALLY MIS- UNDERSTOOD THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 33AB. THE DECI SION RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, REPORTED IN 35 ITR 537 IS NO T AT ALL APPLICABLE AND IRRELEVANT. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED AND AGAINST ALL CANNONS OF LAW. AFTER G OING THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE FUNDS WITHDRAWN FROM THE DEPOSIT S WERE NOT UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE AS MENTIONED U/S. 33AB(4) OF THE IT ACT, THEREFORE, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO MAKE THE SUCH ADDITION. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 21. BEFORE US BOTH PARTIES RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A UTHORITIES BELOW AS FAVOURABLE TO THEM. 22. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE BENEFIT OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 33AB WAS DENIED BY AO ON THE GROUND THAT TH E AMOUNT WITHDRAWN HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME OF TEA BOARD. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN A S PER THE PROVISION OF THE SCHEME AND ACCORDINGLY GRANTED RELIEF TO ASSESS EE. AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENT, LD. DR HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON R ECORD CONTRARY TO THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 23. LAST ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN GROUND NO.5 IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE SALE PROCEED OF TEA WASTE FOR 5,69,804/- AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS THOUGH THE AO TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCE. ITA NO.1259 & CO.80/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT CIR-34, KOL. VS. M/S BISSES WARLALL MNNALAL & SONS PAGE 13 THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS MA DE THE SALE OF 5,69,804/- OUT OF TEA WASTE WHICH WAS OFFERED AS BU SINESS INCOME. HOWEVER, THE AO TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE . 24. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT TEA WASTE IS A BY-PRODUCT AND ARISING OUT OF CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURING OF TE A. THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE TREATED AS PART OF TEA BUSINESS ONLY. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE DIRECTED THE AO TO TREAT THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 25. BEFORE US BOTH PARTIES RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A UTHORITIES BELOW AS FAVOURABLE TO THEM. 26. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIN D THAT THE TEA WASTE IS NOTHING BUT A BY-PRODUCT OF TEA MANUFACTURING ACTIV ITIES. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, SAME SHOULD BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME OF ASSESSEE AS IT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF TEA BUSINESS. THEREFORE W E FIND THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 27. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. COMING TO ASSESSEES CO NO.80/KOL/2014 . 28. GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE PER ITS CO ARE AS U NDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), KOLKATA, AFTER ADMITTING T HE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, SUBMITTED IN THE COURSE OF HEARING AND EXP LAINED VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSION , ERRED IN NOT DECIDING UPON THE SAME WHILE PASSING APPELLATE ORDER DATED 18.92.2014. I) THAT HE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN ASSESSING TH E APPELLANTS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES THE INTEREST SUBSIDY OF R S.11,54,016/- , RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 40% ON THE BASIS THAT INTEREST EXP ENDITURE PERTAINS TO APPELLANTS BUSINESS OF CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURE OF TEA. ITA NO.1259 & CO.80/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 ACIT CIR-34, KOL. VS. M/S BISSES WARLALL MNNALAL & SONS PAGE 14 II) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS13,69,660/- O N ACCOUNT OF PURPORTED BOGUS CREDITORS. 29. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HA S RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHICH WAS ALSO ADMITTED B Y LD. CIT(A). BUT ON PERUSAL OF APPELLATE ORDER, WE FIND THAT BOTH THE A BOVE GROUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY WE RESTORE THE GROUND S RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN CO BEFORE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW. HENCE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 29. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE, THE CO OF A SSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED AND THAT OF REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED, ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 06/ 09/2017 SD/- SD/- (') (#) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S )!*+- 06 / 09 /201 7 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /ASSESSEE-M/S BISSESWARLOLL MANALAL & SONS 12, PRET ORIA ST,5 TH , FLOOR, KOLKATA-01 2. /REVENUE- ACIT,CIRCLE-34, AAYAKAR POORVA, 7 TH FLOOR, 110, SHANTIPALLY KOLKATA-107 3.*3*4 5 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 5- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5.89:''!4 , 4 , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6.:<=>? / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO 4 ,