Sri Anil Kumar Jain, Kolkata V. DCIT, CC-XX, KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 1111/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5029 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-08-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD S S ALAM
• Assessee Lawyers: M C RATHI
• Keywords: Fair market value; Condonation of delay
• Section: 14A; 194C

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1111/KOL/2015-SRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN-A.Y.2009-1 0 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BE NCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM ] I.T.A NO.1111/KOL/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-1 0 SRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN -VS.- D.C.I.T., CENT RAL CIRCLE-XX, KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN:ACFPJ0712R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI M.C.RATHI, FCA FOR THE RESPONDENT : MD.S.S.ALAM, JCIT, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 01.03.2016. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 6.4.2016 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2014 OF CIT(A)-CENTRAL-III, KOLKATA, RELATING TO AY 2009-10 . 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF ABOUT 252 DAYS IN FILING TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS BEEN STATED IN AN AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION FILED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS DUE T O THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO GO TO HIS NATIVE PLACE AT AJMER IN RAJASTHAN TO TAKE C ARE OF HIS AGED AILING FATHER. THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 10.10 .2014. IN THE NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE 09.12.2014. THE APPEAL HAS HOWEVER BEEN FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON 18.08.2015 RESULTING IN DELAY OF 252 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. 3. I HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE REA SONS STATED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORD THAT ASSESSEES FATHER SHRI SHANTILAL JA IN WAS AGED 81 YEARS AS ON MAY, 2014 AND HAD UNDERGONE REPLACEMENT OF LEFT KNEE IN A HOS PITAL AT AHMEDABAD. IT APPEARS THAT THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE HAD TO TAKE CARE OF HI S FATHER AT AJMER, RAJASTHAN AND THEREFORE COULD NOT KEEP TRACK OF THE AFFAIRS AT KO LKATA. CONSIDERING THE REASONS GIVEN ITA NO.1111/KOL/2015-SRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN-A.Y.2009-1 0 2 IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY I AM SA TISFIED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS DUE TO A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND THEREFORE THE DELAY IN FILING THIS APPEAL IS CONDONED. 4. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGAR D TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,400/- WHICH WAS RENTS PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y.2009-10. IT WAS THE P LEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A TENANT OF THE PREMISES AT 23A, KALAKAR STREET , KOLKATA. THE BUILDING WAS IN A DILAPIDATED CONDITION AND NEEDED REPAIRS. TO PRESSU RISE THE LANDLORD TO CARRY OUT THE REPAIRS THE TENANTS IN THE AFORESAID PREMISES STOPP ED PAYING RENTS. THE RENT IN QUESTION WAS PAID ONLY AFTER THE BUILDING AND BATHROOMS WERE RENOVATED. THE ASSESSEE THUS CLAIMS THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PAY THE REN T CRYSTALLISED ONLY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THEREFORE THOUGH THE RENT PERTAINS TO PERI OD PRIOR TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR THE SAME HAD TO BE CONSIDERED AS A LIABILITY WHICH IS A CCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. AO AS WEL L AS CIT(A) HAD NOT ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THEREFORE RENT HAD TO BE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION ONLY FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. CIT(A) ALSO WA S OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENT OF RENT AND THAT THE DISPUTE WAS ONLY WITH REGARD TO THE AMENITIES IN THE RENTED PREMISES AND THEREFORE THE RENT CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION WHICH DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR . 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT EVEN IN THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IF THERE IS A DISPUTE WITH REG ARD TO LIABILITY, THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN IT CRYSTALLISES CAN BE CLAIMED AS DED UCTION, I.E., IN THE YEAR WHEN THE DISPUTE IS SETTLED. I HOWEVER FIND THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW AS TO WHEN THE DISPUTE WAS SETTLED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE A ND THE LANDLORD. I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND REMAND THE ISSUE TO T HE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION WITH A LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE TO SH OW THAT LIABILITY CRYSTALLISED ONLY ITA NO.1111/KOL/2015-SRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN-A.Y.2009-1 0 3 DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR CONSEQUENT TO THE SETTLEME NT OF DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE LANDLORD. 6. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGAR D TO THE ADDITION OF A SUM OF RS.1,27,207/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTIO N OF TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. MRIDULA ART HOUSE BY I NVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT). THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT M/S. MRIDULA ART HOUSE HAD SUPPLIED ADVERTISING AND PUBL ISHING MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS NOT A CASE OF PAYMENTS FOR CARRYING OUT A WORK UNDER A CONTRACT REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C OF TH E ACT. THE AO AS WELL AS CIT(A) FOUND FROM THE BILLS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SU PPORT OF THE AFORESAID EXPENSES THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TOWARDS LABOUR CHARGES AND T HEREFORE IT WAS THE PAYMENTS FOR CARRYING OUT THE WORK UNDER A CONTRACT AND THEREFOR E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT WERE ATTRACTED. SINCE THE TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA ) OF THE ACT. 7. I HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT BILLS OF M/S. MRIDUL A ART HOUSE WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 27 TO 46 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. THE DE SCRIPTION IN ALL THE BILLS IS THAT THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION WAS ONLY TOWARDS LABOUR CHARGES . AT PAGE 24 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK M/S. MRIDULA ART HOUSE HAS GIVEN A CERTI FICATE THAT THEY HAD SUPPLIED ADVERTISEMENT MATERIALS CONSISTING OF CLOTH AND OTH ER ACCESSORIES INCLUDING LABOUR CHARGES AND THAT REFERENCE IN THE BILLS GIVEN BY TH EM HAS BEEN MADE ONLY TO LABOUR CHARGES INSTEAD OF COST OF ADVERTISEMENT MATERIAL INCLUDING LABOUR CHARGES. BASED ON THIS EVIDENCE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION IN QUESTION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DELETED. IT WAS ALSO SU BMITTED THAT M/S. MRIDULA ART HOUSES INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS BELOW THE LIMITS FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO TAX LIABILITY AND THEREFORE PROVISION OF SEC TION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE. ITA NO.1111/KOL/2015-SRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN-A.Y.2009-1 0 4 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E. EVEN ASSUMING THAT IT WAS A CASE OF PAYMENT FOR SUPPLY OF CLOTH AND ADVERTISEME NT MATERIALS INCLUDING LABOUR CHARGES, THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE DEDUCTED TAX A T SOURCE ON THE PAYMENTS MADE AND SINCE THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESS EE TO DO SO, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED. GROUND NO.2 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESS ED AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 10. GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGA RD TO THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSED A SUM OF RS.1,17,150/- TO M/S. JAIN GAZETT E ON WHICH TAX AT SOURCE WAS NOT DEDUCTED. IT WAS THE PAYMENT MADE FOR PUBLICATION O F ADVERTISEMENT. SINCE THE TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION OF THE AFORESAID SUM BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGHOUT HAS BEEN THAT IT WAS UNDER THE BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT WAS NOT ATTRACTED TO THE AFORESAID PAYMENT AND HENCE TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT I N THE LIGHT OF THE SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISIONS SUCH A PLEA OF BONA FIDE BELIEF OF NON A PPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT CANNOT BE A GROUND NOT TO M AKE ADDITION U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NO.5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REG ARD TO THE ADDITION MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE ACT. IT IS A PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE IN SHARES WHICH YIELDED EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME. IN THIS REGAR D THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT BEFORE ME THAT IT HAD ITS OWN CAPITAL OF RS.24,99,7 87/- AND THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES WAS OF A PALTRY SUM OF RS.3,55,940/-. I FIND FROM T HE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THIS ASPECT OF AVAILABILITY OF OWN FUNDS HAS N OT BEEN CONSIDERED. I THEREFORE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO N AND REMAND THE SAME TO THE AO FOR ITA NO.1111/KOL/2015-SRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN-A.Y.2009-1 0 5 FRESH CONSIDERATION WITH A LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT NO INTEREST EXPENDITURE OUGHT TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER R ULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE IT RULES. 12. GROUND NO.6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGA RD TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.96,545/- MADE BY AO U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT ON COMMISSION PAID TO M/S. ANIL KUMAR ABHISHEK KUMAR (HUF) & ABHISHEK KUMAR JAIN. I T IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT BOTH THE AFORESAID PARTIES TO WHOM COMMISSION WAS PAID W ERE RELATED PARTIES AND THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT ARE APPLI CABLE TO THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE AFORESAID PARTY. AO DISALLOWED 40% OF THE COMMISSIO N PAYMENTS MADE TO THE AFORESAID PARTIES BY OBSERVING THAT PAYMENT TO THAT EXTENT WAS NOT REQUIRED CONSIDERING THE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESS EE. 13. I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF AO AND FIND THAT TH E AO HAS NOT GONE INTO THE QUESTION AS TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SERVICE S FOR WHICH PAYMENTS OF COMMISSION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CONDITION PRECEDENT F OR MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT IS THAT THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE COMPARED WITH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SERVICES FOR WHIC H THE PAYMENT IS MADE AND TO THE EXTENT PAYMENT TO A RELATED PARTY IS AN EXCESS OF T HE FAIR MARKET VALUE, THE AO HAS POWER TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TO THAT EXTE NT. AO HAS NOT INDULGED IN SUCH EXERCISE AND HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ARBITRA RILY WITHOUT ANY BASIS. I, THEREFORE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY AO AND SUSTAINED BY CIT (A) AND ALLOW GROUND NO.6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 14. GROUND NO.7 RAISED BY THE ASESSEE IS WITH REGAR D TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.50,000/-ON THE GROUND THAT BORROW ED FUNDS ON WHICH INTEREST WAS PAID AND CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE INCO ME FROM BUSINESS HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE SISTER CONCERN WITHOUT CHARGING ANY INTEREST . THEREFORE INTEREST EXPENSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT T O THE EXTENT OF RS.50,000/-, AS THE INTEREST PAID IS NOT FOR FUNDS BORROWED FOR THE PUR POSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1111/KOL/2015-SRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN-A.Y.2009-1 0 6 15. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED DR ON THIS ISSUE. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD ITS OWN FUND FROM WHICH INTEREST FREE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN TO THE SISTER CONCERN HAD NOT BEEN EXAMINED EITHER BY AO OR CIT(A). I, THEREF ORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE AO FOR FR ESH CONSIDERATION WITH A LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH HIS CASE THAT HE HAD SUFF ICIENT OWN CAPITAL OUT OF WHICH INTEREST FREE LOANS WERE GIVEN TO THE SISTER CONCER N. 16. GROUND NO.8 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGA RD TO DISALLOWANCE OF A SUM OF RS.72,000/- WHICH WAS THE COMMISSION PAID BY THE AS SESSEE TO SHRI NIKHIL JAIN. THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID A SUM OF RS.1,92,690/- TO SHRI NI KHIL JAIN TOWARDS COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE. IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME SHRI NIKHIL JAIN DISCLOSED A SUM OF RS.72,000/- TOWARDS SALARY AND RS.1,20,690/- AS COMMISSION. AO THEREFORE DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.72,000/- FOR THE REASON THAT SHRI NIKHIL JAIN WA S NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DISCLOSURE BY SHRI NIKHIL JAIN IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME WAS ERRONEOUS AND THE ENTIRE PAYMENT WAS TOW ARDS COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE. ON THIS ISSUE I FIND THAT NEITHER AO NO R CIT(A)HAS CALLED UPON SHRI NIKHIL JAIN TO CONFIRM AS TO WHETHER THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS. 1,92,690/- WAS COMMISSION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. I, THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION WITH A LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI NIKHIL JAIN ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS.1,92,690/- WAS COMMISSION OR PART OF IT WAS SALA RY;. 17. GROUND NO.9 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGA RD TO THE ADDITION MADE TO THE TOTAL INOMCE OF RS.3,00,000/- AS VALUE OF RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR OF M/S. MUNMUM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AS A D IRECTOR OF M/S. MUNMUM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD THE ASSESSEE WAS OCCUPYING A FL AT BELONGING TO THE SAID COMPANY FREE OF COST. MAJORITY OF THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY WERE HELD BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. SANTOSH JAIN. SHRI A.JAIN, SON OF THE ASSESSEE AND MS.MUNMUM JAIN DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PROPERTY WAS LOCATED AT HARISH MU KHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA-25. AO ITA NO.1111/KOL/2015-SRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN-A.Y.2009-1 0 7 WANTED TO ASSESS THE PERQUISITE VALUE OF THE RENT F REE ACCOMMODATION AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE INSPECTOR DEPUTED IN ASC ERTAINING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION REPORTED THAT RENTAL VALUE WAS RS.25,000/- PER MONTH. AO ACCORDINGLY ADDED A SUM OF RS.3,00,000/- TO THE TOT AL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PERQUISITE VALUE OF RENT FREE ACCOMMODAT ION. 18. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT UNDE R RULE 3(1) OF THE IT ACT 1962 THE VALUE OF THE PERQUISITE HAS TO BE ESTIMATED BASED O N THE SALARY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN RECEIPT OF THE SA LARY FROM THE COMPANY NO PERQUISITE CAN BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. CIT(A ) HOWEVER REJECTED THIS CONTENTION AND HELD THAT THE INCOME IN QUESTION CAN BE ASSESSE D UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED SALARY FROM THE COMPANY CANNOT BE THE BASIS NOT TO ADD A SUM OF RS. 3,000,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 19. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 20. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHO REITERATED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE AS PUT FORTH B EFORE CIT(A). I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAD THE BENEFIT OF USE OF A CCOMMODATION OF THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE COMPANY WITHOUT PAYING ANY RENT. TO TH AT EXTENT THE ASSESSEE WAS DEFINITELY BENEFITTED. THE QUANTIFICATION OF SUCH B ENEFIT AS ESTIMATED BY THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE . IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY CIT(A) DOES N OT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. GORUND NO.9 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1111/KOL/2015-SRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN-A.Y.2009-1 0 8 21. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 6.4.2016. SD/- [ N.V.VASUDEVAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 6.4.2016. [RG PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.ANIL KUMAR JAIN, 23A, KALAKAR STREET, 1 ST FLOOR, KOLKATA-700007. 2. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XX, KOLKATA. 3. CIT(A)-CENTRAL-III, KOLKATA 4. CIT-CENTR AL-III,KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER A SSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES