Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Ltd., Kolkata V. THE CIT -3, KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 1248/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4627 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G MALLIKARJUNA
• Assessee Lawyers: KAUSHAL KUMAR SURANA
• Keywords: Revision of order; Question of law; Right to appeal
• Section: 143(3); 10AA; 147; 263; 10; 154

Judgement Text

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.1248/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S. SHREE GANESH JEWELLERY HOUSE LTD PAN: AAGCS 7343P V/S . THE CIT, KOLKATA-3 KOLKATA /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI KAUSHAL KUMAR SURANA, CA, /BY RESPONDENT SHRI G. MALLIKARJUNA, CIT, DR /DATE OF HEARING 12-07-2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24-08-2016 /O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATIN G TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2010-11IS AGAINST PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE M. NO. CIT-3/KOL/26 3/2014-15/6520-22 DATED 26.03.2015. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-VIII, KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 22.03.2013. SHRI KAUSHAL KUMAR SURANA, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND SHRI G. MALLIKARJUNA, LD. DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. ITA NO. 1248/KOL /2015 SHREE GANESH JEWELLERY HOUSE LTD PAGE 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD AR OF ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION THAT THE APPE AL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION FOR 124 DAYS ON THE GROUND THAT MR. ASIT ROUT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD LEFT THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ON 15.05.2015 AND SUBSEQUENTLY M/S SURANA AGARWAL & CO . APPOINTED AS NEW CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND FOR WHICH THE DELAY HAS BEEN OCCURR ED. LD. DR HAS NOT RAISED ANY IF THE DELAY OF CONDONATION IS CONSIDERED. HENCE, WE C ONDONE THE DAY AND TO PROCEED HEARING OF THE APPEAL 3. SOLITARY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD. C IT ERRED IN HOLDING THE ORDER OF THE AO AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER EST OF REVENUE. 4. FACTS IN BRIEF IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND EXPORTING OF GOLD AND OTHER JEWELLERY ITEMS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DATED 30.09.2010 DECLARING TOTAL I NCOME OF RS.13,19,45,577/- WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED AT RS. 14,59,73,772/ -. THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPRISES INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND HOUSE P ROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 22-03-2013 ASSES SED INCOME U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AT RS. 22,51,17,051/- BY MAKING CERTAIN DI SALLOWANCE AND ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, DUR ING THE YEAR CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10AA OF THE ACT FROM ITS BUSINESS INC OME IN RESPECT OF THE FACTORIES LOCATED IN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE (SEZ FOR SHORT) AREA. THEREAFTER, LD.CIT PASSED IMPUGNED ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT OPINED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT IS ER RONEOUS IN SO FAR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE BY OBSERVING THAT THE A SSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS EARNED INTEREST INCOME FROM ITS TWO [UNIT-I & UNIT II] LOCATED IN SEZ MANIKANCHAN, SALTLAKE, KOLKATA AMOUN TING TO RS. 34,76,85,253/- AND RS. 4,44,09,616/- RESPECTIVELY WHICH HAS NO DIR ECT NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS ITA NO. 1248/KOL /2015 SHREE GANESH JEWELLERY HOUSE LTD PAGE 3 UNDERTAKING AND THEREFORE THESE INTEREST INCOME WER E REQUIRED TO BE EXCLUDED FOR THE COMPUTATION OF EXEMPTION U/S 10AA OF THE AC T. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY LD. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT THAT THE AO HAS NOT RAIS ED THE ISSUE OF INTEREST INCOME IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 10AA O F THE ACT. THUS, THE LD.CIT ISSUED NOTICE ON 22-03-2013 U/S. 263 TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO SUCH NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IMPORT OF GOLD AND EXPORT OF JEWELLERIES FROM ITS S EZ UNITS. IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO OPEN LETTER OF CREDIT FOR THE IMPORT OF THE GOLD FOR THAT THEY HAVE MADE FIXED DEPOSITS AND PLEDGED WITH THE BANK AS MARGIN MONEY. AT THE SAME TIME, ASSESSEE BORROWED MONEY FROM THE BANK AGAINST THE BILL PURCHASE OF BILLS FOR THE GOODS EXPORTED. THEREFOR E, THE BORROWED MONEY WAS PARTLY USED FOR MAKING THE FD AS EVIDENT FROM THE B ALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY THE INTEREST INCOM E WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN T HE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS. THE INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDS INTEREST INCO ME. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT DISREGARDED THE CLAIM OF ASSES SEE BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ITS EXEMPTION U/S. 10A A OF THE ACT ON ITS INTEREST INCOME AS THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE BORR OWED FUND WAS USED IN MAKING FD IN ORDER TO AVAIL THE LETTER OF CREDIT FA CILITY. THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN FD IS NOTHING BUT INVESTMENT IN BUSINESS. THE LE TTER OF CREDIT CAN BE TAKEN FROM BANK ON PERSONAL GUARANTEE OF A DIRECTOR, ON P LEDGING/HYPOTHECATION OF STOCKS, MORTGAGING THE FIXED ASSETS OF THE COMPANY WITH THE BANK. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE MADE FDRS WITH THE INTENTION OF EARNI NG INTEREST INCOME. THE INTEREST INCOME DO NOT ANY LINK WITH THE BUSINESS O F MANUFACTURING AND EXPORTING OF JEWELLERY ITEMS. THUS, THE INTEREST IN COME AS EARNED FROM THE FIXED DEPOSITS IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10AA OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE, WHICH NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED I N DE-NOVO ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD.CIT DIRECTED THE AO FOR THE SAM E. ITA NO. 1248/KOL /2015 SHREE GANESH JEWELLERY HOUSE LTD PAGE 4 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT, NOW THE AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAP ER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1-122 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSE D U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ,CC-I, KOLK ATA VIDE ORDER DATED 12-09- 2014. THEREFORE, THE SAME ORDER CANNOT BE REVISED U /S. 263 OF THE ACT. THE COPY OF THE LD. CIT(A) ORDER IS PLACED ON PAGE 15 TO 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE WHETHER THE INTEREST INCOME WAS ELIGIBLE FOR THE EXEMPTION U/S 10AA OF THE ACT WAS NOT THERE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WITH RE GARD TO THE ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES BETWEEN THE UNITS ENTITLED FOR THE EXEMPTI ON U/S 10AA OF THE ACT AND THE UNITS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10AA OF TH E ACT. THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS PARTIALLY MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A). THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS NOT MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THE SPECIFIC ISSUE RAISED BY THE LD. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR VEHEMENT LY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FOREGOING D ISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT HELD THE ORDER OF THE AO AS ERRONEOUS & PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF INTEREST INCOME WHETHER IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10 AA OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR BEFORE US PLEADED THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO HAS BEEN MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. NOW THE ISSUE BEFORE US ARI SES WHETHER THE ORDER OF AO HAS BEEN REALLY MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A) IN THE AFORESAID FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES. FROM THE FACTS, WE FIND THAT THE AO WHILE ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION U/S 10AA OF THE ACT OBJECTED THAT THE CER TAIN EXPENSES AND INTEREST ITA NO. 1248/KOL /2015 SHREE GANESH JEWELLERY HOUSE LTD PAGE 5 INCOME ON FD CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN WRON GLY APPORTIONED TO THE DIFFERENT UNITS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THIS ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE SAME AND FILED REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME WHICH WAS REJEC TED BY THE AO IN TERMS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOETZ E (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323(SC). THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF AS SESSEE SUBMISSION BEFORE THE AO IS REPRODUCED BELOW : 7. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION REGARDING THE APPORTI ONMENT EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT INTEREST INCOME FROM FIXED DEPOSIT IS ALSO TO BE APPORTIONED AMONG DIFFERENT UNITS AS THE FD W AS PLEDGED AS LIEN FOR OBTAINING LOAN. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMEN T ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 7.2 THE MERE FACT THAT THE DEPOSIT MADE WAS FOR PU RPOSE OF OBTAINING LOAN OR LETTERS OF CREDIT WHICH LETTERS OF CREDIT W ERE, IN TURN, USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNIT DID NOT ESTABLI SH A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST AND THE ELIGIBLE UNIT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF APPORTIONMENT OF INTEREST INCOM E FROM FIXED DEPOSIT INTO VARIOUS UNITS AND CLAIM THEREOF U/S. 10AA IS H EREBY REJECTED. ACCORDINGLY THE MATTER WAS TRAVELLED TO LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING ISSUE. 2.THAT THE AO WAS WRONG IN REDUCING THE CLAIM OF DE DUCTION U/S 10AA OF THE I TAX ACT, 1961, ON THE BASIS OF ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES AND INCOME DEEMED FIT BY HIM. THE EXPENSES AND INCOME USED TO BE ALLOCATED IN THE SAME RATIO AMONG THE ELIGIBLE UNITS. THE SAID ALLOC ATION AND CONSEQUENT CALCULATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 10AA IS NOT IN ACCORDA NCE WITH THE FACT OF THE CASE AND ALSO NOT ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS O F LAW. HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10AA OF THE ACT AMOU NTING TO RS.11,37,26,600/- ,MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. ON THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MAINTAINED SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR ITS HEAD OFFICE AND E ACH UNIT. IT WAS ON THE ITA NO. 1248/KOL /2015 SHREE GANESH JEWELLERY HOUSE LTD PAGE 6 BASIS OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THAT HE AS COMPANY H AS DRAWN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF ITS HEAD OFFICE AND EACH UNIT. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE DULY AUDITED. THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE HEAD OF FICE AND EACH UNIT CLEARLY REFLECTS AS ON 31-03-2010 THE AMOUNT OF LOA N OUTSTANDING AND ALSO THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN FIXED DEPOSITS MAD E AGAINST THE MARGIN TO AVAIL CREDIT FACILITY. IN THIS FACTUAL BACKGROUN D, IT CANNOT BE ARGUED THAT THE AMOUNT OF SECURED/UNSECURED LOAN OR INVEST MENT IN FIXED DEPOSITS AS SHOWN IN A PARTICULAR BALANCE SHEET IS NOT ON AC TUAL BASIS BUT ON AD- HOC BASIS. SIMILARLY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE IN TEREST EXPENDITURE DEBITED OR THE INTEREST INCOME CREDITED TO A PARTIC ULAR PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS NOT ON ACTUAL BASIS. WHATEVER E THE AMO UNT OF LOAN AND FIXED DEPOSIT APPEARING IN RELATION TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE HEAD OFFICE OR A UNIT, THE SAME IS REFLECTED IN THE RESP ECTIVE BALANCE SHEET AND SIMILARLY THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE OR INTEREST INCO ME S REFLECTED IN THE RESPECTIVE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. FROM THE ABOVE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF INCOME ON FD HAS BEEN DULY DEALT IN THE ORDER OF AO AND SUBSEQUE NTLY BY LD. CIT(A). THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALLOC ATION OF THE INTEREST INCOME ON FD & INTEREST EXPENSES. THIS OBSERVATION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, SHOWS THAT THE AO HAS ADMITTED THA T THE INTEREST INCOME ON FD HAS DIRECT LINK WITH THE BUSINESS AND ACCORDINGLY T HE SAME IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10AA OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT LOOKS TO THE ISSUE FR OM DIFFERENT ANGLE AND THEREFORE HOLDING THE ORDER OF THE AO ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IF THAT IS ALLOWED THEN THERE CAN BE SEVER AL DIMENSIONS TO VIEW THE ISSUE WHICH HAS BEEN OVERLOOKED BY THE AO AT THE TI ME OF ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY AO AFTER APPLICATION OF MIND CAN BE REGARDED AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE BECAUSE THE LD. CIT WILL LOOK THE ISSUE AT DIFFERENT ANGLE. UND ER THE AFORESAID FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES THE HONBLE ITAT KOLKATA HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF LOK NATH PD GUPTA VS. DCIT 60 TAXMANN.COM 306. ITA NO. 1248/KOL /2015 SHREE GANESH JEWELLERY HOUSE LTD PAGE 7 1) CIT V. SHALIMAR HOUSING & FINANCE LTD. (2010) 320 I TR 157 (MP), THE HEAD NOTE REVISIONMERGER WITH APPELLATE ORDERISSUES DEALT W ITH BY CIT(A)TRIBUNAL HAS ADVERTED TO THE FACTUAL POSITIO N IN A DETAILED MANNER AND FOUND THAT THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN TAK EN UP BY THE CIT WHILE EXERCISING JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263 HAVE ALR EADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE CIT(A) IN THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERTHUS, THE ORDER CANNOT BE REGARDED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F THE REVENUE AND THE CIT COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263SINCE THE ENTIRE CASE HINGES ON FACTS AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS PROPERLY DEALT WITH IT, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES 2) GENERAL BEOPAR CO (P) LTD. V. CIT (1987) 31 TAXMANN 108 (CAL) THE HEAD NOTE- REVISIONMERGER WITH APPELLATE ORDEREXTENT THEREOF WHERE AN APPEAL IS PREFERRED AGAINST AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PAS SED BY ITO, AND AN ORDER IS PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER MERGES WITH APPELLATE ORDER IN ALL RESPECTS INCLUDING MATT ERS WHICH ARE MERELY AFFIRMED BY APPELLATE AUTHORITYCIT, THEREFORE, HAS NO JURISDICTION TO REVISE SUCH ORDERSFURTHER, ONCE REASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS ARE INITIATED BY ISSUING NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE THE ORIGINAL ORDE R OF ASSESSMENT LOSES ITS FINALITY AND AT THIS STAGE IT IS NO LONGER OPEN FOR REVISION BY CITQUESTION OF SETTING ASIDE OF CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES OF EARLI ER YEARS WAS CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT AND, THEREFORE, WAS A MATTER WHICH W AS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY THOUGH NOT TOUCHED UPON BY A PPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT APART, AFTER RECTIFICATION UNDER S. 154 BY ITO , REASSESSMENT NOTICE UNDER S. 147 HAD ALSO BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEEI N THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING HIS REVISIO NAL JURISDICTION 3) J.K. SYNTHETICS LTD. V. ACIT (1976) 105 ITR (344) ( ALL) THE HEAD NOTE- APPEAL(AAC)POWERS OF AACAPPELLATE AUTHORITY CAN L OOK INTO AND ADJUDICATE UPON FINDINGS WHICH MAY HAVE GONE IN FAV OUR OF ASSESSEE AND WHICH MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CHALLENGEDSIMPLY BECAUSE D EPARTMENT DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FILE AN APPEAL, IT CANNOT BE SAID T HAT FINDINGS AGAINST REVENUE ARE NOT CAPABLE OF BEING CHALLENGEDTHE ENTIRE SUBJ ECT-MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IS WITHIN JURISDICTION OF AACTHER EFORE, ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER WILL MERGE IN APPELLATE ORDER IRRESPECTIVE OF POINTS URGED OR DECIDED BY APPELLATE AUTHORITY 9. ACCORDINGLY, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, WE FIND THA T THE ISSUE OF INTEREST HAS BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERGE D WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A). SO THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY AO IS NEITH ER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THEREFORE W E FIND THE IMPUGNED REVISION ITA NO. 1248/KOL /2015 SHREE GANESH JEWELLERY HOUSE LTD PAGE 8 ORDER UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, AND WE, THEREFORE, QUAS H THE SAME. THE ISSUE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 /08/2016 SD/- SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /DATE 24/08/2016 / KOLKATA, *PP/SPS/*DKP / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT M/S SHREE GANESH JEWELLERY HOUSE LTD 413 VARDHAN MARKET, 25A, CAMAC STREET, KOLKATA-16. 2. / RESPONDENT- THE CIT, KOLKATA-3, AAYKAR BHAWAN P- & CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-69. 3. !' $ / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. $ - / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. %&' ((!' , !' , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. ')* / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ / !' ,