M/s Mahavir Vinimay Pvt Ltd, Kolkata V. C.I.T Kol - I,kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1046/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4716 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Period of limitation; Retrospective amendment; Time period of passing order; Reason to believe; Revenue expenditure; Reassessment proceedings; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 147; 68; 148; 263

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.1046/KOL/2013&1047/KOL/2014 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES : D : KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, AM & SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, J M ITA NO.1046/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 M/S.MAHAVIR VINIMAY PVT.LTD., FLAT NO.2E, 2 ND FLOOR, 12-B, MANDIVELLA GARDEN, WALLACE APARTMENT, KOLKATA-700019. REP BY SHRI S.M.SURANA, ADVOCATE PAN : AAFCM 3833 R VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-I, AAYAKARBHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA 700 069. REP BY SHRI NIRAJ KUMAR, CIT(DR) ITA NO.1047/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 M/S.CHARIOT AGENCY PVT.LTD., NARAYANPUR, NORTH 24-PARGANAS, P.O.RAJARHAT, GOPALPUR, KOLKATA- 700136. REP BY SHRI S.M.SURANA,ADVOCATE PAN : AADCC 5568 P VS. I.T.O., WARD-6(1), KOLKATA. AAYAKARBHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA 700 069. REP BY SHRI NIRAJ KUMAR, CIT(DR) (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) DATE OF HEARING : 25.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 1 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 6 . ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM THROUGH THESE APPEALS, DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ASSAIL T HE CORRECTNESS OF SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME-TAX (C IT) U/S 263 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO CALLED THE ACT) I N RELATION TO THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS. SINCE ALL THESE APPEALS ARE BASED ON LARGELY SIMILAR FACTS AND COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISP OSE THEM OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NOS.1046/KOL/2013&1047/KOL/2014 2 2. THE LD. DR STATED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN T HESE APPEALS IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY NUMEROUS ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE SQUARELY COVERED AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE BY SEVERAL ORDERS PASSED BY THIS BENCH INCLUDING SUBHLAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (INFRA) . 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF ALL THE CASES IN THIS BATCH ARE SIMILAR INASMUCH AS RETURNS WERE FILED BY SUCH COMPANIES WITH MEAGRE IN COME; INTIMATIONS WERE ISSUED U/S 143(1); THEREAFTER NOTICES U/S 148 WERE ISSUED EITHER AT THE INSTANCE OF SUCH COMPANIES DIVULGING A PALTRY ESCAPEMENT OF INC OME OR OTHERWISE ; ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 AFTER MAKING NOMINAL ADDITIONS AND THE AOS, DURING THE COURSE OF SUCH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, MADE SOME FORMAL ENQUIRIES ABOUT SHARES ISSUED BY S UCH COMPANIES AT HUGE PREMIUM BY ISSUING NOTICES U/S 133(6) TO SOME OF TH E SHAREHOLDERS AND GETTING SATISFIED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION. THE JU RISDICTIONAL CITS HAVE PASSED ORDERS U/S 263 IN ALL SUCH CASES, WHICH HAVE BEEN A SSAILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS RELE VANT TO MENTION THAT WE HAVE DISPOSED OF MORE THAN 500 CASES INVOLVING SAME ISSU E THROUGH CERTAIN ORDERS WITH THE MAIN ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED IN A GROUP OF CAS ES LED BY SUBHLAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (ITA NO.1104/KOL/2014) DATED 30.7.2015 FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. 5. WE FIND AS HAS ALSO BEEN ADMITTED BY THE LD. DR AND THE LEARNED AR THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE DECIDED EARLIER. IN OUR AFORESAID ORDER IN SUBHLAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., VS. CIT (ITA NO. 1104/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2009-10), WE HAVE DRAWN THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS: - ITA NOS.1046/KOL/2013&1047/KOL/2014 3 A. CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE AO OF TH E ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO EXAMINE OR MAKE ANY ADDITION O N ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF SHARE CAPITAL WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM BEFORE AME NDMENT TO SECTION 68 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. A.Y. 2013-14 AND HENCE THE CIT BY MEANS OF IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 COULD NOT HAVE DIRECTED THE AO TO DO SO, IS UNSUSTAINABLE. B. FAILURE OF THE AO TO GIVE A LOGICAL CONCLUSION TO THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY HIM GIVES POWER TO THE CIT TO REVISE SUCH ASSESS MENT ORDER, BY HOLDING THAT :- I) THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO IN SUCH CASES CA NT BE CONSTRUED AS A PROPER ENQUIRY; II) CIT U/S 263 CAN SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECT THE AO TO CONDUCT A THOROUGH ENQUIRY, NOTWITHSTANDING THE JUR ISDICTION OF THE AO IN MAKING ENQUIRIES ON THE ISSUES OR MATTERS AS HE CONSIDERS FIT IN TERMS OF SECTION 142(1) AND 143(2) OF THE ACT, WHIC H IS RELEVANT ONLY UP TO THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT ; III) INADEQUATE INQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES IS AS GOOD AS NO ENQUIRY AND AS SUCH, THE CIT WAS EMPOWERED TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ; IV) THE ORDER OF THE CIT IS NOT BASED ON IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND FURTHER IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES, HE WAS NOT OB LIGED TO POSITIVELY INDICATE THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER O N MERITS ON THE QUESTION OF ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL AT A HUGE PREMIU M ; AND ITA NOS.1046/KOL/2013&1047/KOL/2014 4 V) THE AO IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES CANT BE SAID TO HAVE TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW AS THE REVISION IS SOUGHT TO BE DONE ON THE PREMISE THAT THE AO DID NOT MAKE ENQUIRY THEREBY RENDERING THE A SSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE ON THAT SCORE ITSELF. C. IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ALL SUCH CASES, THE NOTICES U/S 263 WERE PROPERLY SERVED THROUGH AFFIXTURE OR OTHE RWISE. FURTHER THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 263 STRI CTLY AS PER THE TERMS OF SECTION 282 OF THE ACT. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT ENSHRI NED IN THE PROVISION IS TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, WHI CH HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH IN ALL SUCH CASES. D. LIMITATION PERIOD FOR PASSING ORDER IS TO BE COUNT ED FROM THE DATE OF PASSING THE ORDER U/S 147 READ WITH SEC. 143(3) AND NOT THE DATE OF INTIMATION ISSUED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS NOT AN ORDER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 263. IN ALL THE CASES, THE ORDERS HAVE BEE N PASSED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT. E. THE CIT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE AO WHO PASSED ORDER U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3), HAS THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTI ON TO PASS THE ORDER U/S 263 AND NOT OTHER CIT. F. ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF A COMPANY CAN BE MADE U/S 68 IN ITS FIRST YEAR OF INCORPORATION. G. AFTER AMALGAMATION, NO ORDER CAN BE PASSED U/S 263 IN THE NAME OF THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY. BUT, WHERE THE INTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE IS TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE BY EITHER FILING RETURNS, AFTER AMALGAMATION, IN THE OLD NAME OR OTHERWISE, THEN THE ORDER PASSED IN THE OLD NAME IS VALID. ITA NOS.1046/KOL/2013&1047/KOL/2014 5 H. ORDER PASSED U/S 263 ON A NON-WORKING DAY DOES NOT BECOME INVALID, WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE PARTICIPATION OF THE ASSESSEE WERE COMPLETED ON AN EARLIER WORKING DAY. I. ORDER U/S 263 CANNOT BE DECLARED AS A NULLITY FOR THE NOTICE HAVING NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE CIT, WHEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS OTHERWISE GIVEN BY THE CIT. J. REFUSAL BY THE REVENUE TO ACCEPT THE WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS OF THE ASSESSEE SENT AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING CANNOT RENDER THE ORDER VOID AB INITIO . AT ANY RATE, IT IS AN IRREGULARITY. K. SEARCH PROCEEDINGS DO NOT DEBAR THE CIT FROM REVI SING ORDER U/S PASSED U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 6. IT IS NOTICED THAT ALL OR SOME OF THE ABOVE CO NCLUSIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THE APPEALS IN THIS BATCH. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DIS CUSSION AND FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN SUBHLAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) , WE UPHOLD ALL THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES SOUGHT T O RAISE ISSUE WHICH WAS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO THAT WAS REV ISED BY THE CIT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT, WAS AN ORDER PASSE D U/S.147 OF THE ACT. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 OF THE ACT WERE REOPENED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWING EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH ISSUE OF SHARES. THE AO DID COULD NOT HAVE GONE INTO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE S HARE CAPITAL RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR WAS GENUINE OR NO T AND SUCH EXAMINATION WAS BEYOND HIS POWERS U/S.147 OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENTLY THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE CIT U/S.263 OF THE ACT DIRECTING THE AO TO GO I NTO THIS QUESTION WAS IMPROPER AND ON THIS GROUND THE ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT HAS TO BE QUASHED. ITA NOS.1046/KOL/2013&1047/KOL/2014 6 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE CASE OF SUBHLAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT.LTD.(SUPRA) AND THIS TRIBUNAL HELD AS FOLLOWS: 27.G. THE LARGER QUESTION, THUS, IS WHETHER THE ISS UE OF SHARE CAPITAL BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR WAS SUBJECT MATTE R OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS? IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE THAT IN THE REASON S RECORDED FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 OF THE ACT, THE ISSUE OF EXAMIN ATION OF SHARE CAPITAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR WAS NOT THE R EASON FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. IT WAS RESTRICTED ONLY TO SHARE ISSUE E XPENSES WHETHER CAPITAL OR REVENUE EXPENDITURE OR SOME OTHER MINOR DISALLOWANC ES IN OTHER CASES. NEVERTHELESS IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN ALL THE CASES, THE AOS VENTURED TO ISSUE NOTICES U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO SOME OF THE SHAREHOLDERS FOR EXAMINING AS TO WHETHER THE INGREDIENTS OF SEC. 68 WERE SATIS FIED. AS TO WHETHER SUCH ENQUIRY WAS ADEQUATE OR NOT, IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE. THE FACT REMAINS THAT BY ISSUING NOTICES U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT, THE AOS TRIED TO EX AMINE THE QUESTION OF GENUINENESS OF SHARE CAPITAL IN PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 . IT THUS FOLLOWS THAT BY HOLDING THAT THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL AT PREMIUM WAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE AOS, THE LD. CIT REVISED THE ORDERS U/S 147 AND NOT THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. 27.H. WE ALSO FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEA RNED DR THAT WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 147 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.1989, THE AO ACQUIRES JURISDICTION NOT ONLY TO ASSESS OR RE- ASSESS INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148, BUT ALSO SUCH OTHER ISSUES THAT COME TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEE DINGS U/S 147, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE REASONS FOR SUCH ISSUE HAVE NOT BEEN INCLU DED IN THE REASONS RECORDED U/S 148(2). CLAUSE 57 OF THE FINANCE (NO. 2) BILL, 2009 INSERTING EXPLANATION 3 IN SECTION 147 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 1989 PRO VIDES AS UNDER : - 'FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT UNDE R THIS SECTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND SUCH ISSUE COMES T O HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SECTION, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE REASONS FOR SUCH ISSUE HAV E NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE REASONS RECORDED UNDER SUB-SECTION 2 OF SECTION 148'. 27.I. NOTES ON CLAUSES APPENDED TO THE FINANCE (NO. 2) BILL ALSO STATE THAT CLAUSE 57 OF THE BILL SEEKS TO AMEND SECTION 147 RELATING TO INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT. IT IS PROPOSED TO INSERT EXPLANATION 3 TO THE SAID SECTION SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT UNDER THI S SECTION, THE ASSESSING ITA NOS.1046/KOL/2013&1047/KOL/2014 7 OFFICER MAY ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND SUCH ISSUE COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSE QUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDING UNDER THIS SECTION, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE REASONS FOR SUCH ISSUE HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE REASONS RECORDED UNDE R SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 148 . THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE EFFECTIVE RETROSPECT IVELY FROM 1ST APRIL, 1989. FURTHER, THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVIS IONS OF THE FINANCE BILL MENTIONS THAT IT IS A CLARIFICATORY AMENDMENT, AS U NDER : - 'THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 PROVIDES, I NTER ALIA, THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY IN COME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME AFTER RECORDING REASONS FOR REOPENING T HE ASSESSMENT. FURTHER, HE MAY ALSO ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH OTHER INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SU BSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION. SOME COUR TS HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ITA NO.1104/KOL/2014 (M/S SUBHALAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD.) & 18 OTHER APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES RESTRICT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ONLY TO ISSUES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE REASONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. HE IS NOT EMPOWERED TO TOUCH UPON ANY OTHER ISSUES FOR WHICH NO REASONS HA VE BEEN RECORDED. THE ABOVE INTERPRETATION IS CONTRARY TO THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT. WITH A VIEW TO FURTHER CLARIFYING THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT, IT IS PR OPOSED TO INSERT AN EXPLANATION IN SECTION 147 TO PROVIDE THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER MAY ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE WHICH CO MES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER THI S SECTION, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE REASON FOR SUCH ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE REASONS RECORDED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTI ON148.' 27.J. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID STATUTORY AMENDMENT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SCOPE OF REASSESSMENT IS NO MORE CONFINED TO THE ISSUES REFE RRED TO IN NOTICE U/S 148, BUT ALSO EXTENDS TO OTHER ISSUES WHICH COME TO THE NOTI CE OF THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INDICATING THE ESCAPEME NT OF INCOME. NO DOUBT THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL AT PREMIUM WAS NOT SUBJECT M ATTER OF NOTICE U/S 148, NEVERTHELESS THE AO PROCEEDED TO EXAMINE THIS ASPEC T, THEREBY BRINGING IT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE ORDER U/S 147. 9. IN THE CASE OF CHARIOT AGENCIES, THE AO EXAMINE D THE RECEIPT OF SHARE CAPITAL BY ISSUING NOTICES AND HAS EVEN GIVEN A FINDING THA T THE SHARE CAPITAL IS PROPERLY EXPLAINED. IN THE CASE OF M/S.MAHAVIR VINIMAY PVT. LTD., THE ISSUE IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONSIDERED BY THE AO WAS WHETHER EXPENS ES IN CONNECTION WITH SHARE ISSUE WERE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND HAD TO BE DISALL OWED. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE AO HAD EXAMINED THE RECEIPT OF SHARE CAPITAL BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS ITA NOS.1046/KOL/2013&1047/KOL/2014 8 YEAR AND WAS THEREFORE DUTY BOUND TO EXAMINE THE QU ESTION OF APPLICABILITY OF SEC.68 TO THE SHARE CAPITAL RECEIVED DURING THE PRE VIOUS YEAR. THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. W ITH REGARD TO NON SERVICE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE ACT, IMPROPER SERV ICE OF NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE ACT AT OLD ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IMPROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE BY AFFIXTURE AT WRONG OLD ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE ASPECTS HAV E ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH AND EXAMINED IN THE ORDER REFERRED TO IN THE EARLIER PA RT OF THIS ORDER. THERE IS THEREFORE NO MERIT IN ANY OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED . THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.06.20 16. SD/- SD/- [P.M.JAGTAP] [N.V. VASUDEVAN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 01.06.2016. RG.PS COPY FORWARDED TO: APPELLANT RESPONDENT CIT CIT (A) DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, KOLKATA ITA NOS.1046/KOL/2013&1047/KOL/2014 9