Sarat Chandra Sahoo, Bhubaneswar V. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar

ITA 130/CTK/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81453 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K AJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: P R MOHANTY
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 133A; 153A; 27; 132; 139

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO S . 130 / CTK ./20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 & ITA NOS. 131 - 137/CTK/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003 - 2004 TO 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI S .V. MEHROTRA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) , AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. NO. 130/ CTK / 20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 2010 SARAT CHANDRA SAHOO,.. ........................ ........... .. .APP ELL ANT PLOT NO. 2296/2297, JAYADEV VIHAR, BHUBANESWAR [PAN : A YGPS 2612 C ] - VS. - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , .... . RESPONDENT CIRCLE - 2( 2 ), BHUBANESWAR & I.T.A. NO S . 13 1 TO 137 /CTK / 20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 3 - 200 4 TO 200 9 - 20 10 BIDHU BHUSAN TRIPATHY ,....................................... .APP ELL ANT VIM - 217, SAUKASGREE VIHAR, BHUBANESWAR [PAN : A DTPT 5422 B ] - VS. - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,.....RESPONDENT CIRCLE - 2(2), BHUBANESWAR APPEARA NCES BY: SHRI P.R. MOHANTY , A .R. , FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI K. AJAY KUMAR , CIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 1 5 , 2 01 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 17 , 201 4 O R D E R AS PER BENCH : ITA 130/CTK/2013 IS A N APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE SHRI SARAT CHANDRA SAHOO AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II , BHUBANESWAR I N APPEAL NO. 79 / 11 - 12 DATED 18 . 1 2 .20 12 FOR I.T.A. NO S . 130 / CTK ./20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 & ITA NOS. 131 - 137/CTK/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003 - 2004 TO 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 2 OF 8 THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAA O F THE ACT . 2. ITA 131 TO 137/CTK/2013 ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHRI BIDHU BHUSAN TRIPATHY AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, BHUBANESWAR IN APPEALS NO. 80 TO 86/11 - 12 DATED 18.12.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 0 4 2009 - 10 AGAINST THE PARTIAL CONFIRMATION OF PENALTIES UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AND PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT. 3 . SHRI P.R. MOHANTY , ADVOCATE , REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE S AND SHRI K. AJAY KUMAR , CIT ( D.R. ) , REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE . 4 . ITA NOS. 131 TO 136/CTK/2013 AT THE TIME OF HEARING, I T WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THESE ARE PENALTIES LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE PENALTIE S LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE REDUCED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS A SURVEY ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID SURVEY WAS CONVERTED INTO A SEARCH. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, STATE MENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) HAD BEEN RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SAID STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO AN EXTENT OF RS.85,00,000/ - SPREAD OVER TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 TO 2009 - 10. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO EXPLAINED THE MAN NER IN WHICH THE INCOME HAD BEEN DERIVED AND ON THE BASIS OF THE DISCLOSURE IN THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) HAD PAID THE TAXES TOGETHER WITH INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ADMITTEDLY THESE FACTS REMAINED UNDISPUTED AND THE SAME IS ALS O RECORDED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BY THE LD. A.R. THAT CONSEQUENTLY RETURNS HAD BEEN FILED AND TAXES HAD BEEN PAID. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE I.T.A. NO S . 130 / CTK ./20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 & ITA NOS. 131 - 137/CTK/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003 - 2004 TO 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 3 OF 8 ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ON THE BASIS OF SO ME SEIZED DOCUMENTS EXTRAPOLATED THE ASSESSEES TURNOVER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND HAD ALSO MADE AN ADDITION REPRESENTING AN ESTIMATED PROFIT ON THE EXTRAPOLATED TURNOVER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED THIS ADDITION ALSO. I T WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT WHEN FILING THE RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INCLUDED THE INTEREST ON THE FIXED DEPOSITS WHICH HAD BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION REPRESENTING T HE BANK INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEES MINOR CHILDREN HAD ALSO NOT BEEN OFFERED AND THE SAME WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSMENTS AS MADE WERE ACCEPTED AND THE TAXES PAID AND NO APPEAL WAS PREFERRED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT FOR ANY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT CONSEQUENTLY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) HAD BEEN INITIATED TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD SPECIFICALLY REPLIED THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTI TLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD DELETED THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF THE ESTIMATED TURNOVER AND THE ESTIMATED RATE OF PROFIT FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 TO 2008 - 09. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 5A WOULD APPLY AND AS THIS WAS A SEARCH CASE THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT GET ANY IMMUNITY FROM THE LEVY OF PENALTY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING MADE THE DISCLOSURE UNDER SECTION 132(4) AND HAVING COMPLIED WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) AND HAVING GIVEN EXPLANATION IN REGARD TO THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE, PENALTY UNDER SECTIO N 271(1)(C) WAS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 5. IN REPLY, LD. CIT (D.R.) VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS THIS I.T.A. NO S . 130 / CTK ./20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 & ITA NOS. 131 - 137/CTK/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003 - 2004 TO 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 4 OF 8 WAS A SEARCH CASE, PROVISIONS OF EX PLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) WOUL D APPLY AND PENALTY WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE AS HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THIS WAS A CASE OF SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A CONDUCTED ON 13.08.2008. IN THE SURVEY, VARIOUS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS WERE FOUND. CONSEQUENTLY THE SURVEY WAS CONVERTED INTO A SEARCH. NOW THE QUESTION THAT WOULD ARISE IS AS THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME AS THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE SEARCH OR WAS THE UNDI SCLOSED INCOME FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY ITSELF, WHICH WAS CONVERTED INTO A SEARCH. A PERUSAL OF THE WORDINGS OF EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) SHOWS THAT THE WORDINGS USED ARE IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER. THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SURVEY ITSELF DISCLOSED EVERYTHING. THAT SURVEY ITSELF DISCLOSED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING BOOKS. THE SURVEY ITSELF SO FOUND T HE FIXED DEPOSITS, ETC. IT WAS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEIZURE AND FURTHER INVESTIGATION THAT THE SURVEY WAS CONVERTED INTO A SEARCH. THE SEARCH DID NOT COME OUT WITH ANYTHING FRESH. CONSEQUENTLY EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABL E IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HEREIN. IT WOULD BE THE REGULAR PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH WOULD BE APPLICABLE. TRUE THE SEARCH RESULTED IN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A BEING ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE RETURN BEING FILED BUT THAT IS ONLY PROCEDURAL AND IN ANY CASE THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ON THE VALIDITY THEREON IS NOT IN APPEAL. ONCE A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A IS ISSUED, THEN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE A RETURN FURNISHED UNDE R SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS HITHERTO NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A WOULD BECOME THE FIRST RETURN. THIS IS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A ITSELF. ONCE THIS IS A I.T.A. NO S . 130 / CTK ./20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 & ITA NOS. 131 - 137/CTK/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003 - 2004 TO 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 5 OF 8 SITUATI ON THEN NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED IN RESPECT OF THE RETURNED INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A. CONSEQUENTLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 TO 2008 - 09 THE PENALTY LEVIE D IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED IN RESPECT OF THE RETURNED INCOME AS THERE IS N O CONCEALMENT PROVED , AND WE DO SO. 7. COMING TO THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALREADY DELETE D THE PENALTY LEVIED IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION BASED ON THE ESTIMATED TURNOVER AND ESTIMATED RATE OF PROFIT. THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL AGAINST THIS DELETION. THE BALANCE OF THE ADDITION REPRESENTS THE INTEREST ON THE FIXED DEPOSITS AND THE INTEREST INC OME ON THE S.B. ACCOUNT AS ALSO THE INTEREST INCOME OF THE MINOR CHILDREN, WHICH HAS BEEN CLUBBED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 64 OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM F OR THE CANCELLATION OF PENALTY IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST INCOME AS ALSO THE INTEREST INCOME I N RESPECT OF THE MINOR CHILDREN ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 64 OF THE ACT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THOUGH WE MAY MENTION HERE THAT STATUTORY DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST INCOME ADDED HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT. STILL ADDITION HAVING BEEN MADE AND THE ASSESSEE BEING UNABLE TO JUSTIFY THE REASON FOR CANCELLATION OF THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST INCOME AS ALSO THE INCOME ARISING FROM THE MINOR CHILDREN ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 64 OF THE ACT , T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE LEVY OF PENALTY TO THE IN TEREST INCOME NOT DECLARED, INCOME ARISING FROM THE MINOR CHILDREN AS ALSO THE INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS. THE PENALTY LEVIED IN RESPECT OF THE RETURNED INCOME STANDS DELETED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 131 TO 136/CTK/2 013 STAND PARTLY ALLOWED. I.T.A. NO S . 130 / CTK ./20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 & ITA NOS. 131 - 137/CTK/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003 - 2004 TO 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 6 OF 8 8. IN RESPECT OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA 137/CTK/2013 CONFIRMING LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAA, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING GIVEN THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) ADMITTING THE UND ISCLOSED INCOME AND SPECIFYING THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME WAS DERIVED AND HA D ALSO SUBSTANTIATED THE SAID MANNER AND TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID TOGETHER WITH INTEREST ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, NO PENALTY WAS LEVIABLE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 27 1AAA(2) OF THE ACT. 9. IN REPLY, LD. CIT(D.R.) VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS). 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009 - 10 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA(4), EXPLANATION (I)(B). A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOWS THAT HE IS NOT DISPUTING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 27 1AAA(2) OF THE ACT. THE SUB - SECTION REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT INCLUDE EXPLANATION. SECTION 271AAA(4) REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY SAYS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 274 & 275 BEING IN RESPECT OF THE PROCEDURE AND LIMITATI ON APPLIES. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THIS IS A MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WE GO DOWN TO THE EXPLANATION UNDER SECTION 271AAA THE SAID EXPLANATION (A)(I)(B) REFERRED TO IS THE MEANING OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THIS ALSO DOES NOT COME TO RESCUE OF PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271AAA. THE FACT ALSO REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SPECIFIED AS TO WHICH SUB - CLAUSE OF SECTION 271AAA(2) HAS BEEN VIOLATED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SHOWS THAT IN PA RA 2.1, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED I.T.A. NO S . 130 / CTK ./20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 & ITA NOS. 131 - 137/CTK/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003 - 2004 TO 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 7 OF 8 UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND HAS EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SAID INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED AND SUBSTANTIATED THE SAME IN PARA 3. HE HAS ALSO SPECIFICALLY RECORDED THAT THE TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN RESPECT OF ALL THESE RECORDINGS BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THE REVENUE HAS NOT DISLODGED TH E S E FINDING ALSO. CONSEQUENTLY WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA(2) OF THE ACT APPLY TO THE ASSESSEES CASE AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA(1) WOULD NOT APPLY IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. CONSEQUENTLY THE PENALTY AS LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND A S PARTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) STANDS CANCELLED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IN ITA NO. 137/CTK/2013 STANDS ALLOWED. 12. ITA NO. 130/CTK/2013 AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE L D. A.R. THAT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID APPEAL, THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF SHRI BIDHU BHUSAN TRIPATH Y. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF BIDHU BHUSAN TRIPATHY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IN ITA 137/CTK/2013 WOULD APPLY TO THE ASSESSEES CASE ALSO. 13. IN REPLY, LD. CIT(D.R.) VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT (APPEALS). 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE PRESENT CASE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THIS IS A CASE OF SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . T HIS IS NOT A CASE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SHRI BIDHU BHUSAN TRIPATHY AND NOT IN THE CASE I.T.A. NO S . 130 / CTK ./20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 & ITA NOS. 131 - 137/CTK/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003 - 2004 TO 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 8 OF 8 OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS BEING SO, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 271AAA DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE IN SO FAR AS THE PRIMARY CONDIT ION FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAA IS THE INITIATION OF A SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE NO SEARCH HAVING BEEN DONE OR INITIATED. THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAA CANNOT BE LEVIED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PENALTY AS L EVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS REDUCED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) STANDS DELETED. I N THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 130/CTK/2013 IS ALLOWED. THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 131 TO 136/CTK/2013 ARE P ARTLY ALLOWED. THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 137/CTK/2014 IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH OCTOBER , 2014. SD/ - SD/ - S .V. MEHROTRA GEORGE MATHAN ( ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( JUDICIA L MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 17 TH D AY OF OCTO BER , 201 4 COPIES TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE DEPARTMENT (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK LAHA/SR. P.S.