M/s Adhunik Metaliks Ltd, Kolkata V. ACIT,Circle-1(1), Kol, Kolkata

CO 95/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2818 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIRAJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TULSYAN
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Search and seizure; Earning of tax free income; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 142(1); 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM IT(SS)A NOS.04 TO 07/KOL/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-2010 TO 2012-2013) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLI, 3 RD FLOOR, KOLKATA-700107 VS. M/S ADHUNIK METALIKS LTD., 14, NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700001 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO.: AABCN 5676 P ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) AND CROSS OBJECTION NOS.94 & 95/KOL/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-2010 & 2010-2011) M/S ADHUNIK METALIKS LTD., 14, NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700001 VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLI, 3 RD FLOOR, KOLKATA-700107 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO.: AABCN 5676 P ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : SHRI NIRAJ KUMAR, CIT-DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.K.TULSYAN, FCA / DATE OF HEARING : 20/02/2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23/02/2017 / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM: THESE CAPTIONED FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE P ERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2012-2013 AND TWO CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 -10 & 2010-11, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-20, KOLKATA, WHICH IN TURN ARISE OUT OF ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER SECTION 153A/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 196 1, (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), DATED 31.03.2014. 2. SINCE THESE FOUR APPEALS AND TWO CROSS OBJECTION S FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE RESPECTIVELY, RELATE TO SAME A SSESSE, DIFFERENT IT(SS)A NO.04-07/16 & CO NOS.94&95/16 ADHUNIK METALIKS LTD. 2 ASSESSMENT YEARS AND COMMON ISSUES INVOLVED, THEREF ORE THESE HAVE BEEN CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. THE FACTS MENTIONED IN REVENUE`S APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO.04/KOL/2016 ARE TAKE N INTO CONSIDERATION FOR DECIDING ALL THE APPEALS, THAT IS, TAKEN BY US AS A LEAD CASE. 3. IN REGARD TO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE, WE FO UND THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 15 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS BY THE REVEN UE. IN THIS REGARD, AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. CONSIDERING THE REASONABLE CAUSE, WE CONDONE THE DE LAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS AND APPEALS ARE BEING HEARD ON MERI TS. 4. BRIEF FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE APPEALS OF THE R EVENUE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S.132 OF THE ACT, WA S CONDUCTED ON 19.09.2011 BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, JAMSHEDPUR, J HARKHAND AT THE RESIDENCE AS WELL AS VARIOUS BUSINESS PREMISES IN J HARKHAND, KOLKATA & OTHER PLACES IN RESPECT OF ADHUNIK GROUP AND OTHERS . IN THE PROCESS, SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S.132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED, AMONG OTHERS, AT THE OFFICE PREMISES OF M/S ADHUNIK METAL IKS LIMITED, 14 NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD KOLKATA-700001. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S .153A DATED 18.12.2012 WAS ISSUED AND DULY SERVED. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE NOTICE, RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR W AS FILED ON 24.04.2013 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS.72,22,45,140/ -. NO ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) HAS BEEN MADE. THEREAFTER, NOTICES U/S.1 43(2) AND 142(1) WERE ISSUED AND DULY SERVED. DURING THE RELEVANT YE AR THE ASSESSEE HAD IT(SS)A NO.04-07/16 & CO NOS.94&95/16 ADHUNIK METALIKS LTD. 3 INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING OF STEEL AND TRADING OF I RON & STEEL PRODUCTS ETC. HE PRODUCED RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF T HE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE HIM BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y HAS NOT EARNED ANY DIVIDEND IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.60,18,792/- UNDER SECT ION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES. 5. NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. AO, TH E ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS SO MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 5. APPEAL ON GROUND NO 2 IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANC E OF RS.60,18,792/- U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THIS AMOUNT CITING THE CIRCUL AR NO.5 OF 2014 DATED 11-02-2014. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING T HE AR HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THE ORDER OF THE JURISDICTIONAL K OLKATA TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO LTD VS DCIT (2013) 144 ITD 141 (KOLKATA) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT 'FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPTED & DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME, THE ONLY INVESTMENT WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO THE EXEMPTED INCOME SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERAT ION'. THE AR HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ORDER OF THE KOLKATA T RIBUNAL HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE JURISDICTIONAL KOLKATA HIGH COURT VID E ORDER DATED 23- 12-2013 IN ITA NO.16L/2013. 6. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS CLEARLY MENTI ONED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT EARNED ANY DIVIDEND INCOME IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE INVOKING CBDT CIRCULAR NO.5 OF 2014. THE AR HAS SUB MITTED THAT AS PER THE RULING OF THE JURISDICTIONAL KOLKATA TRIBUN AL AS WELL AS THAT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO LTD (SUPRA), AS NO INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPTED AND DOES NO T FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED DURING THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR THEREFORE THERE IS NO OCCASION TO MAKE A DISAL LOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D IN THIS CASE. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE CASE LAWS BROUGHT ON RECOR D BY THE AR ON THIS ISSUE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING. I FI ND THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE JURISDICTIONAL KOLKATA BENCH OF ITA T AS WELL AS BY THE HON'BLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT ORDER IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO (SUPRA). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E RATIO DECIDED IT(SS)A NO.04-07/16 & CO NOS.94&95/16 ADHUNIK METALIKS LTD. 4 BY THE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF ITAT AS WELL AS THE JURISDICTIONAL KOLKATA HIGH COURT ON THIS ISSUE, ASSESSEE'S APPEAL ON GROUND NO. 2 IS ALLOWED.' ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS OF RS .60,18,792/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, RS.80,17,280/- FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 AND RS.84,32,032/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2012-2013, RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN PART RELIEF OF RS.71, 73,780/- OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,03, 28,580/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012. BECAUSE IN A.Y. 2011-12 THE ASSESSE HAD RECEIVED EXEMPTED INCOME (DIVIDEND) AT RS.18,00,00, 000/- THEREFORE, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE RELATES TO EXEMPT ED INCOME AT RS.1,03,28,580/- 6. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEALS BEFORE US AND HAS TAKEN COMMON GROUNDS IN A LL THE APPEALS, AS UNDER :- THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE FACT, THA T CBDT'S CIRCULAR NO.5 OF 2014 CLEARLY STATES THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 1 4A WOULD STILL BE ATTRACTED EVEN IN CASES WHERE EXEMPT INCOME HAS NOT BEEN NECESSARILY EARNED DURING THE YEAR. THE CIRCULAR STATES THAT IF THUS, LEGISLATIVE INTEN T IS TO ALLOW ONLY THAT EXPENDITURE WHICH IS RELATABLE TO EARNING OF INCOME AND IT THEREFORE FOLLOWS THAT THE EXPENSES WHICH RELATABLE TO EARNI NG OF EXEMPT INCOME HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE, IRRE SPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER ANY SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR OR NOT'. 7. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS PRIMARILY RELIED ON T HE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND STATED THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A IS ATTRACTED EVEN IN CASES WHERE EXEMPT INCOME HAS NOT BEEN NECESSARI LY EARNED DURING IT(SS)A NO.04-07/16 & CO NOS.94&95/16 ADHUNIK METALIKS LTD. 5 THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT EARNED ANY D IVIDEND IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT, EVEN THEN THERE WOU LD BE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE CIRCULAR NO.5/2014 ISSUED ON DATED 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 WHICH STATES THAT IN CASE WHERE CORRESPONDING EXEMPTED INCOME HAS NOT BEEN EARNED D URING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 IS ATTRACTED. THE AO HAS MADE THE DIS ALLOWANCE U/S 14A AS PER THE SAID CIRCULAR. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS RIGHTL Y DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS UN DER CONSIDERATION. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS S UBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED RS.1781,11,00,000/- AS ON 31.03.2009 AND NO DIVIDEND WAS EARNED FROM INVESTMENT MADE, WH ICH REVEALS FROM THE BALANCE SHEET ITSELF. HE FURTHER STATED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE IN SHARES & SECURITIES AS OWN FUND WAS USED FOR THE SAME. OUT OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENTS IN SHARES OF RS. 1781,11,00,000/- AS ON 31.03.2009, NO INVESTMENTS HAVE YIELDED ANY DIVIDEND INCOME. AS SUCH, THE AVERAGE V ALUE OF INVESTMENTS THAT YIELDED THE EXEMPTED INCOME IS NIL. HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D (2) (III) @ 0.5% AVERAGE OF THE VALUE OF TH E INVESTMENT WOULD ALSO BE ZERO. IN ADDITION TO THIS, LD AR FOR THE ASSESSE HAS RELI ED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: IT(SS)A NO.04-07/16 & CO NOS.94&95/16 ADHUNIK METALIKS LTD. 6 I) CHEMINVEST LTD., [2015] 61 TAXMANN.COM 118(DELHI -HC) : 21. THERE IS MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF MR. VOHRA THAT THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY'S CASE ( SUPRA) WAS RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 57(III) OF THE ACT, WHERE THE EXPRESSION USED IS 'F OR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING SUCH INCOME'. SECTION 14A OF THE ACT ON THE OTHER HAND CONTAINS THE EXPRESSION 'IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME.' THE DECISI ON IN RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY'S CASE (SUPRA) CANNOT BE USED IN THE R EVERSE TO CONTEND THAT EVEN IF NO INCOME HAS BEEN RECEIVED, T HE EXPENDITURE INCURRED CAN BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 22. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE ITAT HAS REFERRED TO TH E DECISION IN MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD'S. CASE (SUPRA) AND REMAND ED THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE AFRESH. THE ISSUE IN MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD'S. CASE (SUPRA) WAS WHETHE R THE EXPENDITURE (INCLUDING INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS) IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF OPERATING COMPANIES FOR ACQ UIRING AND RETAINING A CONTROLLING INTEREST THEREIN WAS DISALL OWABLE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. IN THE SAID CASE ADMITTEDLY THERE WAS DIVIDEND EARNED ON SUCH INVESTMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS NOT A CASE, AS THE PRESENT, WHERE NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS EA RNED IN THE YEAR IN QUESTION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAID DECISION W AS NOT RELEVANT AND DID NOT APPLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ISSUE PROJE CTED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 23. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS ENUMERATED HEREINBEFOR E THE COURT ANSWERS THE QUESTION FRAMED BY HOLDING THAT THE EXP RESSION 'DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME' IN SECTION 14A O F THE ENVISAGES THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ACTUAL RECEIPT OF INCOME, W HICH IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME, DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWING ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE SAID INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, SECTION 14A WILL N OT APPLY IF NO EXEMPT INCOME IS RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. 24. CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ITAT IS SE T ASIDE AND THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE ABOVE TERMS. THIS COUR T SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD TO HAVE EXPRESSED ANY OPINION ON THE ISS UE OF WHETHER FOR THE AY IN QUESTION THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE INC URRED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 36 (1)(III) OF THE ACT. II) M/S COMPACT FINSTOCK PVT. LTD., ITA NO.1141/KOL /2015, ORDER DATED 06.01.2016: 4. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ALTHOUGH THE LD. D.R. HAS IT(SS)A NO.04-07/16 & CO NOS.94&95/16 ADHUNIK METALIKS LTD. 7 RELIED ON THE SAME CBDT'S CIRCULAR, WHICH WAS RELIE D UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE A DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECT ION 14A, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE POSITION OF LAW AS SETTLED IN THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IS THAT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTIO N 14A CAN BE MADE IN THE YEAR WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME. IN ONE OF SUCH DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE CA SE OF CHEMINVEST LIMITED -VS.- CIT (ITA NO . 749 OF 2014 DATED 02.09.2015), HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT SECTION 14A ENVISAGES THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ACTUAL RECEIPT OF INCOME WHICH IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME AND THE SAID SECTION WILL NOT APPLY WHERE NO EXEMPT INCOME IS RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DU RING THE RELEVANT YEAR. IT IS ALSO WELL SETTLED THAT THE CIR CULARS ISSUED BY THE CBDT ARE BINDING ON THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND NOT ON THE COURTS. I, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER UNDER SECTION 14A AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 9. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PURSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS MERIT O N THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE, AS THE PROPOSITIONS CANVASSED BY THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY HIM (SUPRA). AS THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THERE SHOULD B E AN ACTUAL RECEIPT OF INCOME WHICH IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME AND THE SAID SECTION WILL NOT APPLY WHERE NO EXEMPT INCOME IS RECEIVED OR RECEIVA BLE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. IT IS ALSO WELL SETTLED THAT THE CIR CULARS ISSUED BY THE CBDT ARE BINDING ON THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND NOT ON T HE COURTS. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND FACTS NARRATED BY HIM, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTER FERE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2 010-11 AND 2012-13. REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WHERE THE ASS ESSE HAS RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME AT RS.18,00,00,000/- AND AO HAS DIS ALLOWED THE IT(SS)A NO.04-07/16 & CO NOS.94&95/16 ADHUNIK METALIKS LTD. 8 EXPENDITURE U/S 14A AT RS.1,03,28,580/-, BUT THE LD CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY RS. 71,73,780/- BY FOLLOWING THE JU DGMENT OF HON`BLE JURISDICTIONAL KOLKATA TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO LTD. VS. DCIT (2013),144 ITD 141. AS PER THIS JUDGMENT, ONLY INVE STMENT WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO THE EXEMPTED INCOME SHOULD BE TAKEN I NTO CONSIDERATION. THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT WHICH GIVES RISE TO EXEMPTED INCOME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D (2) (III) WHICH COMES AT RS. 31,54,800/- ( RS.63,09,60,000 X 0..5%). THIS WAY, L D CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION PARTLY BY RS. 71,73,780/- OUT OF THE T OTAL ADDITION OF RS.1,03,28,580/-, AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE LD CIT(A) IS A REASONED ORDER AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENC E. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT (A) IN RESPE CT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ALSO. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ( FOR A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, AND 2012-13), ARE DISMISSED. 11. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFOR E US THAT THE ASSESSE WANTS TO WITHDRAW THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY HIM . LD DR FOR THE REVENUE EVEN DID NOT OBJECT FOR THIS. CONSIDERING T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE DISMISS THE CROSS OBJECT IONS ( CO.NOS.94 & 95/KOL/2016) FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WITHDRAWN. IT(SS)A NO.04-07/16 & CO NOS.94&95/16 ADHUNIK METALIKS LTD. 9 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSE ARE ALSO DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23/02/ 2017. S D/ - (A.T.VARKEY) S D/ - (DR. A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA ; ! DATED 23/02/2017 ' $%&/PRAKASH MISHRA , 0 . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) % & , / ITAT, 1. / THE APPELLANT- 2. / THE RESPONDENT.- 3. 1 ( ) / THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 4. 1 / CIT 5. 234 0056 , 56 , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 478 / GUARD FILE. 2 0 //TRUE COPY//