DCIT, Circle - 6, Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Ginni Investment & Services Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1295/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5629 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C NAYAK
• Keywords: Business expenditure
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : KOLKATA () BEFORE . . . . . . . . , , , , !, '# '# '# '# /AND . .. . . .. . , $ ! ) [BEFORE HONBLE SRI D. K. TYAGI, JM & HONBLE SRI C . D. RAO, AM] #% #% #% #% / I.T.A NOS. 1295 & 1296 /KOL/2010 &'( )* &'( )* &'( )* &'( )*/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07&2007-08 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, -VS- M/S. GINN I INVESTMENT & SERVICES LTD., CIRCLE-7, KOLKATA. (PA NO. AABCG 0023 D) (,- / APPELLANT ) (.,-/ RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT : SRI P. C. NAYAK FOR THE RESPONDENT SRI RAJEEVA KUMAR / / ORDER PER D. K. TYAGI, JM ( . . . . . . . . , , , , ! ) BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVEN UE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A), KOLKATA BOTH DATED 05.03.2010 FO R ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08. SINCE BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN HEARD TOG ETHER, WE DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE . 2.. BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN TIME BARRED BY ONE D AY. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDERING THE CONDONATION PETITIO NS, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF ONE DAY IN FILING THE APPEALS AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN TA KEN UP FOR HEARING ON MERITS. 3. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO. 1295/KOL/2010. THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL AS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , LD. CIT(A)-VI HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF MANAGEMENT FEES OF RS.13,3 05/- UNDER PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SCHEME AND DEMAT TRANSACTION FEES OF RS.3,979/-. 2. THE CIT(A)-VI, HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF RS.5,488/- BEING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A)-VI, HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF LEASE RENT PAID OF RS. 6 L ACS TO ARRIVE AT THE RENTAL INCOME. 4. GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF MANAGEMENT FEES OF RS.13,305/- UNDER PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SCHEME AND DEMAT TRANSAC TION FEES OF RS.3,979/-. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ARE THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE 2 TAX AUDIT REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INTER ALIA , IDENTIFIED CERTAIN ITEMS, WHICH WERE NOT ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION UNDER THE BUSINESS HEAD VI Z., MANAGEMENT FEES PAID TO KOTAK SECURITIES FOR RS.13,305/- UNDER PORT FOLIO MANAGEM ENT FEES AND DEMAT TRANSACTION FEES OF RS.3,979/- WERE NOT ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPEN DITURE, SINCE THE EARNING HAS BEEN DISCLOSED UNDER CAPITAL GAINS HEAD. IN APPEAL, TH E LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT SINCE THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN THE DUE COURSE OF BUSIN ESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE MANAGEMENT FEES PAID TO KOTAK SECURITI ES OF RS.13,305/- AND ALSO DEMAT AND TRANSACTIONS CHARGES OF RS.3,979/- AND ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 4.1. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. DR R ELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE MANAGEMENT FEE PAID TO KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS.1 3,305/- AND DEMAT AND TRANSACTION CHARGES OF RS.3,979/- AS NOT BUSINESS EXPENDITURE S INCE THE EARNING HAS BEEN DISCLOSED UNDER CAPITAL GAINS HEAD. HE, THEREFORE, URGED BEF ORE THE BENCH TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. 4.2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE WHILE REITERATING HIS SAME SUBMISSIONS AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE MANAGEMENT FEE WAS IN CLUDED IN PROFESSIONAL AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES DEBITED TO P & L ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO OFFERED TO TAX, PROFIT ON ACCOUNT OF PORT FOLIO MANAGEMENT SCHEME AMOUNTIN G TO RS.5,28,520/- WHICH INCLUDES THE MUTUAL FUND TRANSACTIONS PROFIT OF RS. 1,38,824/-. HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE MANAGEMENT FEES PAID TO KOTAK SECURITIES AND ALSO DEMAT AND TRANSACTIONS CHARGES . HE, THEREFORE, URGED BEFORE THE BENCH TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN TH IS REGARD. 4.3. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFU LLY PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE HAS HELD AS UNDER : I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLA NT AND ALSO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISAL LOWED THE MANAGEMENT FEE PAID TO KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. AMOUNTING RS.13,305/- AS NOT BUSINESS EXPENDITURE, SINCE THE EARNING HAS BEEN DISCLOSED UNDER CAPITAL GAINS HEAD . THE MANAGEMENT FEE WAS INCLUDED IN PROFESSIONAL AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES DE BITED TO P&L ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSE OFFERED TO TAX, PROFIT ON ACCOUNT OF PORT FOLIO MA NAGEMENT SCHEME AMOUNTING TO 3 RS.5,28,520/- WHICH INCLUDES THE MUTUAL FUND TRANSA CTIONS PROFIT OF RS.1,38,824/-. SINCE THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN THE DUE COUR SE OF BUSINESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE MANAGEMENT FEES PAID TO KO TAK SECURITIES AND ALSO DEMAT AND TRANSACTIONS CHARGES OF RS.3,979/-. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. SINCE THIS FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT BE C ONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US BY PRODUCING ANY COGENT MATERI AL/EVIDENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHEL D. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 5. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF RS.5,488/- BEING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TREATED THE EXPENSES AS INADMISSIBLE BY OBSERVING THAT THE SAID AMOUNT H AS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE AUDIT REPORT AS PRIOR PERIOD ITEMS INCLUDED UNDER REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE HEAD. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5.1. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. DR R ELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5.2. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFU LLY PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT WHILE DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON FOR DISALLOWING THE EXPEND ITURE UNDER THE HEAD REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE ALLOWING THE ASS ESEES GROUND OF APPEAL ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE EARLIER YEARS EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE. THE MAINTENANCE IS A CONTINUOUS PROCESS AND CERTAIN REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE WORK TH AT MAY HAVE BEEN EXECUTED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR WERE BILLED AND THE SAME WAS SETTLED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HENCE, THE LIABILITY FOR PAYMENT OF SUCH AMOUNT ARO SE IN THE CURRENT YEAR AND WAS SETTLED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HENCE, THIS IS AN EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS TO BE ALLOWED U/S. 37(1) AS CURRENT EXPENSES. SINCE THE FINDING O F THE LD. CIT(A) REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED BEFORE US, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THEREFOR E, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4 6. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF LEASE RENT PAID OF RS.6 LACS TO ARRIVE AT THE RENTAL INCOME. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS GROUND AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE AS UNDER : NOW LET US DISCUSS THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY. IN TERMS OF SEC. 27(IIIB) READ WITH SEC. 269UA(F), THE INCOME IS ALL OWED TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, IN SPITE OF KNOW ING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE ACTUAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, IN COMPU TATION OF HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME IT REDUCED THE LEASE RENT IT PAID TO THE ACT UAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, FROM THE GROSS RENTALS RECEIVED. THERE IS NO SUCH SCOPE OF ADJUSTMENT AFTER ABOLITION OF 24(1)(IV) AND 24(1)(V) AND INTRODUCTION OF STATU TORY ALLOWANCE U/S. 24(A). THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THIS VIEW BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 AND GOT A FAVOURABLE RELIEF WHEN THE CIT DECIDED NOT TO CONTEST THE ISSUE BEFORE ITAT DUE TO SMALLNESS OF REVENUE INVOLVEMENT IN THE ISSUE. BUT, HE HAD INFORMED THAT THE ISSUE IS AN ISSUE OF LEGAL POINT AND, THEREFORE, MERE NON FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS ACCEPTANCE OF T HE VIEW OF THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, SAME TREATMENT OF THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITU RE IS AGAIN REPEATED IN THIS YEARS ASSESSMENT. THUS, DISCLOSED ANNUAL VALUE IS INCREASED BY THE LEASE RENTALS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.6,00,000/-. STATUTORY D EDUCTION IS HOWEVER, INCREASED PROPORTIONATELY. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO ALLOW THE LEASE RENT AMOUNT TO RS.6 LACS PAID BY THE ASSESEE TO ARRIVE AT THE N ET INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6.1. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. DR R ELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND URGED BEFORE THE BENCH TO CONFIRM HIS A CTION. 6.2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE WHILE REITERATING HIS SAME SUBMISSIONS AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF LEASE RENT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE LESSOR. ACCORDING TO THE REGIS TERED LEASE DEED, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY A SUM OF RS.6 LACS TO THE LESSOR EVERY YEAR AS GROUND RENT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE NET INCOME FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY WILL BE THE GROS S AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE TENANT AS REDUCED BY THE PAYMENT TO BE MAD E TO THE LESSOR. IN DETERMINING THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(B) WHICH IMPLIES THAT THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL RENT RECEIV ED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE OWNER IS THE BASIS OF DETERMINING ANNUAL VALUE. IN THE INSTAN T CASE, THE OWNER IS RECEIVING NET RENT ARRIVED AT AFTER DEDUCTING THE RENT PAID TO THE LES SOR. ACCORDING TO THE PROVISION OF SEC. 23 THE ANNUAL VALUE SHALL BE THE NET RENT MINUS THE MUNICIPAL TAX PAID. THE ASSESEE HAS 5 TAKEN PROPERTY ON REGISTERED LEASE DEED IN 1977 FOR 14 YEAR I.E. ROOF RIGHT AND BASED ON THE SAID REGISTERED LEASE DEED CONSTRUCTED TWO FLOO RS ON THE ROOF AT ITS OWN COST. THE SAID REGISTERED DEED WAS RENEWED FOR 21 YEARS IN 19 86 AND BASED ON THE SAID REGISTERED DEED ASSESSEE ENJOY THE SAID PROPERTY WITH RIGHT TO LET OUT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON THE SAME ISSUE THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESS EE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 AND THE REVENUE ACCEPTED HIS ORDER AND NO APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS PREFERRED. HE, THEREFORE, URGED BEFORE THE BENCH TO CONFIRM TH E ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. .3. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSI NG THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT WHILE ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES GROUND OF APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD AS UNDER : AS SEEN FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT , THE ASSESEE HAS TO PAY A SUM OF RS.6,00,000/- TO THE LESSOR EVERY YEAR AS GR OUND RENT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE NET INCOME FROM THE HOUSE PROPER TY WILL BE THE GROSS AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE TENANT AS REDU CED BY THE PAYMENT TO BE MADE TO THE LESSOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON FOR NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE LEASE RENT PAID BY THE APPELLANT. MY PREDECESSOR IN APPEAL NO. 289/CIT(A)-VI/07-08/CIR-6 HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE I AGREE WITH MY PREDE CESSORS OPINION AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE LEASE RENT AMOUN T TO RS.6,00,000/- PAID BY THE APPELLANT TO ARRIVE AT THE NET INCOME FROM HOUSE PR OPERTY. SINCE THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) REMAINED UNCON TROVERTED BEFORE US BY PRODUCING ANY COGENT MATERIAL/EVIDENCE BEING BROUGH T ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE, WE DO 6 NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 7. IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE REVEN UE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , LD. CIT(A)-VI, HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON LOSS ON SHARE TRANSACTION OF RS.21,221/- U/S. 94(7) BEING DIVIDEND STRIPPING. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A)-VI, HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF LEASE RENT PAID OF RS. 6 L ACS TO ARRIVE AT THE RENTAL INCOME. 7.1. GROUND NO. 1 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITI ON ON LOSS ON SHARE TRANSACTION OF RS.21,221/- U/S. 94(7) OF THE I. T. ACT. FACTS OF THE CASE AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF SHARES A LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.21,221/- WAS NOT ALLOWAB LE AND WAS IGNORED WHILE COMPUTING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS DIVIDEND STRIPPING. HOWEVER, IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7.2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. DR R ELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PRAYED BEFORE THE BENCH TO CONFIRM HIS ACTION. 7.3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE WHILE REITERATING HIS SAME SUBMISSIONS AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHARES A S PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT INDICATE ANY MATERIAL DATA TO CONCLUDE THA T LOSS ON SHORT TERM SHARE TRANSACTION WAS CLAIMED IN EXCESS OF DIVIDEND EARNED AS PER PRO VISION OF SEC. 94(7) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT PROVIDED ANY DATA IN HIS ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS FINDING. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FINDING MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTARY BASIS AND HENCE THE SAME DISALLOWANCE W AS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HE LASTLY URGED BEFORE THE BENCH TO CONFIRM HIS ACTION. 7.4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD AS UNDER : I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLA NT AND THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HI S ORDER AT PARA 1 STATED THAT 7 ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF SHARES IT WAS NOT ICE THAT A LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.21,221/- IS NOT ALLOWABLE AND SHALL BE IGNORED W HILE COMPUTING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS DIVIDEND STRIPPING. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHARES AS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NO T INDICATE ANY MATERIAL DATA TO CONCLUDE THAT LOSS ON SHORT TERMS SHARE TRANSACT ION WAS CLAIMED IN EXCESS OF DIVIDEND EARNED AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 94(VII) OF THE ACT. WHILE COMING TO THE CONCLUSION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUG HT ANY MATERIAL FACT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS FINDINGS IN VIEW OF THIS, THE A DDITION MADE IS TO BE DELETED. BEFORE US THIS FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) REMAINED U NCONTROVERTED AND SINCE THERE IS NO CONTROVERTING MATERIAL BEING BROUGHT ON RECORD BY T HE REVENUE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS, THEREFORE, DISM ISSED. 8. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF LEASE RENT PAID OF RS.6 LACS TO ARRIVE AT THE RENTAL INCOME. THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDE D BY US IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE VIDE PARA 6.3 OF THIS ORDER. H ENCE, SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS NOT REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE THIS GROUND. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVEN UE ARE DISMISSED. 10. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.9.2 010 SD/- SD/- . . , $ ! . . , ! (C. D. RAO) (D. K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( $ $ $ $) )) ) DATED :17TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 01 &'23 &4 JD.(SR.P.S.) / 5 .&& 6)7- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . ,- / APPELLANT DCIT, CIRCLE-7, KOLKATA. 2 .,- / RESPONDENT , M/S. GINNI INVESTMENT & SERVICES LTD., 7, HARE ST REET, KOLKATA-1... 3 . &/' / THE CIT, 4 . &/' ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 5 . >& .&' / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA .&/ TRUE COPY , /'?/ BY ORDER , @ #3 / DEPUTY REGISTRAR .