ITO, WD-8(2), KOLKATA, Kolkata V. M/s The Bond Company Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1410/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8552 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KUMAR CIT LD
• Assessee Lawyers: P R KOTHARI FCA LD
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Rule of consistency; Earning of tax free income; Condonation of delay; Rule 8D
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 143(1)

Judgement Text

ITA NO . 1410/KOL/2015 M/S. THE BOND COMPANY LTD 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C , KOLKATA (BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA , J.M. & DR.A.L.SAINI, A.M.) ITA NO. 1410 /KOL/201 5 ASSTT. YEAR : 20 08 - 09 I.T.O. WARD 8 ( 2 ), KOLKATA VS M/S. THE BOND COMPANY LTD PAN: AAACT9317Q DEPTT. (R ESPONDENT ) DEPTT. BY : SHRI SAURABH KUMAR, ADDL. CIT, LD.DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.R. KOTHARI, FCA, LD.AR DATE OF HEARING : 1 6 - 01 - 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10 - 0 4 - 2019 ORDER PER DR. A.L.SAIN I, A.M .: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE , PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08 - 09 , IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - 4 , KOLKATA IN APPEAL /ITA NO . 581 / CIT(A) - 4/WARD - 11(1)/KOL/14 - 15 , DATED 26 - 08 - 2015 , WHICH IN TURN ARISE S OUT OF AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT ), DATED 30 - 12 - 2010 . 2. THE GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE R EVENUE ARE AS FOLLOWS: - 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING RS.6,51,373/ - AS STCG INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME AS DETERMINED BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETIN G THE SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND CONF INING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 14A R. W. RULE 8D(2)(II) TO 5% OF THE TOTAL INTEREST PAID ON AD HOC BASIS DISREGARDING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF INCOME TA X RULES, 1962. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE SOU - MOTO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,47,03,166/ - U/S14A OF THE IT ACT WHICH AMOUNTED TO DETERMINING THE ASSESSED INCOME BELOW THE RETURNED INCOME. ITA NO . 1410/KOL/2015 M/S. THE BOND COMPANY LTD 2 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,90,60,525/ - DISREGARDING THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, ITSELF ACCEPTED THE INTEREST EXPENSE OF RS. 2,90,60,525/ - UNDER RULES 8D(2)(II). 5. THAT THE ASSESSEE PRAYS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THIS APPEAL FOR THE REASONS SUBMITTED SEPARATELY. 6. THAT, THE ASSESSEE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AMEND, ALTER OR ADD TO ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. GROUND N O. 1 RAISED BY THE R EVENUE RELATES TO TREATMENT OF RS.6,51,373/ - AS STCG INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME DETERMINED BY THE AO. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 24 - 09 - 08 , DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 0 7 - 0 7 - 20 09 . LATER, T HE RETURN OF INCOME WAS SELECTED FOR COMPULSORY SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U NDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT . DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, IT WAS NOTICED BY AO THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (EXEMPTED INCO M E) AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS FROM N UMEROUS SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS OF UNITS OF MUTUAL FUNDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS AS KED TO JUSTIFY AS TO WHY THE PROFIT ON SALE OF UNITS BE TREATED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT AS BUSINESS PROFIT. IN RESPONSE , THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BEEN HOLDING A NUMBER OF SHARES AND SECURITIES AS A 'CAPITA L ASSET' WITH A LONG - TERM INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE, CLASSIFYING THE SAME AS SUCH IN PREPARING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THE PAST. THESE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN DISTINCTLY KEPT SEPARATE FROM 'CURRENT INVESTMENT' HELD AS 'STOCK IN TRADE' OR 'INVENTORY'. SOMETIMES IT SO HAPPENS THAT THE SHARES AND SECURITIES HELD AS A 'CAPITAL ASSETS' OR LONG TERM 'INVESTMENTS' ARE NEEDED TO BE LIQUIDATED A LOT EARLIER THAN PLANNED, IN ORDER TO APPROPRIATELY RESPOND TO THE CHANGING MARKET CON DITIONS/ RESTRICT LOSSES. IN SUCH SITUATIONS , SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAKE PLACE WHICH ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM TRADING INCOME. IT MAY NOT BE OUT OF PLACE HERE TO MENTION THAT IT IS THE PREROGATIVE OF ASSESSEE TO TREAT EVERY PARTICULAR SHARE OR SECUR ITY IN THE MANN ER IT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER, EIT HER AS A LONG TERM INVESTMENT OR AS AN ITEM OF TRADING INVENT ORY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED ITA NO . 1410/KOL/2015 M/S. THE BOND COMPANY LTD 3 OUT THAT MAJORITY O F THE CAPITAL GAINS HAS ARISEN OUT OF R EDEMPTION OF THE UNITS OF MUTUAL FUNDS, WHICH ARE, AS A MATTER O F FACT, NOT TRANSFERABLE/NON - NEGOTIABLE I NSTRUMENTS, NOT CAPABLE OF BEING TRADED . THE ABOVE FACTS AMPLY SUBSTANTIATE ASSESSEE'S PLEA THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS WHERE THE FREQUENCY AND INTENSITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE TOO HIGH AND ANY GAIN OR LOSS ARISING TH EREFROM SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E HELD THAT THE PROFITS ARISING OUT OF SA L E OF SHARES TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,51,373 / - IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN. 5 . AGGRIEVED BY THE STAND SO TAKEN BY THE AO, THE ASSESSE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO . AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6 . WE HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE DETAILED PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE US. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE L D. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING EXEMPT INCOME IN THE FORM OF DIVIDEND OF RS.4 , 37 , 35 , 086 / - WHICH HAS BEEN EARNED FROM INVESTMENTS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE . FROM THE HUGE DIVIDEND INCOME EARN ED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ONE OF THE GUIDING FACTORS FOR DETERMINATION WHETHER AN ASSESSEE IS A TRADER OR AN INVESTOR . I T SHOWS THAT THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT OF BEING AN INVESTOR. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING THE SHARE S AS WELL AS MUTUAL FUNDS UNDER THE HEAD OF INVESTMENTS FROM WHERE THE INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS HAS BEEN EARNED. THE TREATMENT OF HOLDING OF THE SH A RES/MUTUAL FUNDS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ONE OF THE GUIDING FACTORS FOR DETERMINAT ION OF GENERATION OF INCOME AS TO WHETHER IT IS BUSINESS INCOME OR INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING SEPARATE ACCOUNTS FOR INVESTMENTS AND FOR STOCK IN TRADE. THE ASSESSEE 'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED HAS ALWAYS DISCLOSE D FU NDS DEPLOYED IN SHARES UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENTS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM VARIATIONS MADE IN INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO WAS DISCLOSED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. THIS FACT ITA NO . 1410/KOL/2015 M/S. THE BOND COMPANY LTD 4 WAS NARRATED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NEVER DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED FOR EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED THE METHOD AND BASIS FOR RECORDING TRANSACTION IN INVESTMENT IN ACCOUNTING SHARES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CONSISTENTLY AND IN ALL PAST ASSESSMENTS , INCOME DERIVED FROM INVESTMENT IN SHARE S WAS ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS EITHER AS SHORT TERM OR LONG TERM DEPENDING UPON THE PERIOD OF HOLDING. 7. WE NOTE THAT T HE ASSESSEE AT THE APPELLATE STAGE FILED COMPLETE DETAILS OF ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTS FOR AY 2001 - 02 TO 2006 - 07 WHICH CLEAR LY REVEALS THAT THE VARIATION IN INVESTMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. ONCE , THIS IS AN ESTABLISHED POSITION THAT THE ASSESSE E MAINTAINED THE DISTINCTION IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BETWEEN ITS INVESTMENTS AND STOCK IN TRADE AND ALSO MAIN TAINED DISTINCTION OF SHORT TERM INVESTMENT AS WELL AS LONG TERM INVESTMENT AND SUCH INVESTMENTS WERE ACCEPTED BY REVENUE IN EARLIER YEARS ALL ALONG, NOW THEY CANNOT TAKE U - TURN AND CHANGE THE HEAD OF INCOME WITHOUT ANY BASIS. NO DOUBT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS BUT THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY SHOULD ALWAYS APPLY WHEN THERE IS NO MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF AN ASSESSEE'S CASE. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE TREATMEN T PROVIDED BY THE AO FOR HOLDING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS TO BE THAT OF BUSINESS IN NATURE , IS ERRONEOUS AND IS THEREFORE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) , AS THE DEPARTME NT/REVENUE ITSELF IS ACCEPTING , IN PAST , THE ASSESSEES TREATMENT OF SHOWING INVESTMENT AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL. WE NOTE THAT I T IS A WELL SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT FACTUAL MATTERS WHICH PERMEATE THROUGH MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, IF THE REVENUE HAS A CCEPTED A PARTICULAR'S VIEW OR PROPOSITION IN THE PAST, IT IS NOT OPEN FOR THE REVENUE TO TAKE A ENTIRELY CONTRARY OR DIFFERENT STAND IN A LATER YEAR ON THE SAME ISSUE, INVOLVING IDENTICAL FACTS UNLESS AND UNTIL A COGENT CASE IS MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE IN FACTS. FOR THAT WE RELY ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN RADHASOAMISATSANG VS. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'WE ARE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT, STRICTLY SPEAKING, RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. AGAIN, EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING A UNIT, WHAT IS ITA NO . 1410/KOL/2015 M/S. THE BOND COMPANY LTD 5 DECIDED IN ONE YEAR MAY NOT APPLY IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR BUT WHERE A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT PERMEATING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT ONE WAY OR THE O THER AND PARTIES HAVE ALLOWED THAT POSITION TO BE SUSTAINED BY NOT CHALLENGING THE ORDER, IT WOULD NOT BE AT ALL APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE POSITION TO BE CHANGED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR. ON THESE REASONING, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL CHANGE JUSTIFYING THE REVENUE TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE MATTER - AND, IF THERE WAS NO CHANGE, IT WAS IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE WE DO NOT THINK THE QUESTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN REOPENED AND CONTRARY TO WHAT HAD BEEN DECIDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LNCOME - TAX IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS, A DIFFERENT AND CONTRADICTORY STAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN.' WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ABOVE CITED PRECEDENT S ON PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER CONSIDERATION. THAT BEING SO, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE IS HEREBY UPHELD. GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NOS. 2 TO 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELATE TO DELETION OF ADDITIONS MADE BY AO UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT / R.W.R 8D( 2)(II) OF THE I.T. RULES . 9 . BRIEF FACTS OF QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT ON PERUSA L OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, AND BALANCE SHEET , THE AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOM E OF RS. 2,85,84,197/ - WHICH IS EXEMPT TO TAX UNDER THE INCOME TAX A CT WHEREAS OTHER INCOMES ACCOUNTED FOR IS ONLY A SMALL PORTION OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO EARNING OF EXEMPTED DIVIDEND INCOME BE NOT DISALLOWED AS PROVIDED U/S 14A OF THE I . T . ACT AND RUL E 8D . IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION. HOWEVER, THE AO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE I.T.RULES: I) EXPENDITURE DIRECTLY RELATING TO EXEMPT I NCOM E DEPOSITORY SERVICE CHARGES RS. 2,810/ - II) PART OF INTEREST EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO EXEMPT INCOME[A X B / C] A) INTEREST EXPENSES RS.3,55,59,831/ - B) AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT ON WHICH C AN YIELD EX EMPT (DIVIDEND) INCOME AS AT 01.04.2007 RS.71,29,80,634/ - AS AT 31.3.2008 RS. 71,85,10,240/ - AVERAGE RS.71,57,45,437/ - ITA NO . 1410/KOL/2015 M/S. THE BOND COMPANY LTD 6 C) AVERAGE OF TOTAL ASSETS AS AT 01.04. 2007 RS.1,01,38,18,642/ - AS AT 31.3.2008 RS. 73,78,21,228/ - AVERAGE RS. 87,58,19,935/ - THEREFORE, A X B /C = RS. 2,90,60,525/ - III) 0.5% OF AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT ON WHICH CA N YIELD EXEMPT (DIVIDEND INCOME) = RS. 4,02,187/ - THE ASSESSE HAS CLAIMED TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS.5,31,133/ - IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE REQUIRED FOR EXISTENCE OF THE AS SESSE E RS.4,02,187/ - IS DISALLOWED UNDER THIS PROVISION. HENCE, AMOUNT DISALLOWABLE AS PER RULE 8D(2) FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE I.T ACT, 1961 WILL BE AGGREGATE OF (I), (II) AND (III) ABOVE. THEREFORE, DISALLOWABLE AMOUNT U/S. 14A RE AD WITH RULE 8D RS. 2,94,65,522/ - THEREFORE, AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,94,,65,522/ - UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE I.T.RULES , 1962 . 10 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS PARTLY DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION . AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11 . WE HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE DETAILED PAPER BO OK FILED BY THE ASSESSE E. B EFORE US , LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT HE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD SUFFICIENT OW N FUNDS FOR SUCH INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND SECURITIES . THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 14A R.W.R. 8D (2) (II) DOES NOT ARISE. APART FROM THIS, WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY DIRECTED THE AO TO CONSIDER THE DIVIDEND BEARING SECURITIES TO COMP UTE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) & (III) OF THE RULES. FOR THAT, WE RELY ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO LTD. VS. DCIT 144 ITD 141 (KOL - TRIB) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ONLY THE INVESTMENTS WHICH ITA NO . 1410/KOL/2015 M/S. THE BOND COMPANY LTD 7 YIELD S DIVIDEND DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR THAT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE ADOPTING THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RULE 8D(2)(II) & (III) OF THE I.T. RULES. THE AFORESAID VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS SINCE BEEN AFFIRMED AS CORRECT BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN G.A.NO.3581 OF 2013 IN THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO LTD. (SUPRA). CONSIDERING THIS FACTUAL POSITION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). T HAT BEING SO, WE DECLINE TO INTERF ERE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) . H IS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE IS HEREBY UPHELD AND THE GROUND NOS. 2 TO 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 12 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 - 0 4 - 2019 SD/ - SD/ - ( S.S.GODARA ) (DR. A.L.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED: 10 - 0 4 - 2019 *PRADIP (SR.PS) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE / DEPARTMENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8 ( 2 ), AAYKAR BHAWAN, 5 TH FLOOR, P - 7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA - 700 069 2 THE RESPONDENT/ ASSESSEE : M/S. THE BOND COMPANY L IMITED 31 CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA - 700 016. 3. THE CIT - , 4. THE CIT(A) - , 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES