Apeejay Surrendra, Kolkata V. DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 1493/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2199 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VARKEY J M
• Keywords: Gift; Depreciation; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Liquidation; Capital Gains
• Section: 250; 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM ITA NO.1493/KOL/2015 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 ) M/S. APEEJAY SURRENDRA CORPORATE SERVICES PVT. LTD., (NOW KNOWN AS APEEJAY TEA LTD.,) 15, PARK STREET, KOLKATA VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 8(1) AAYAKAR BHAWAN P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE KOLKATA 700 069 PAN/GIR NO.AAECA1925D (APPELLANT ) .. (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI MANISH TIWARI REVENUE BY SHRI SANKAR HALDAR DATE OF HEARING 01/04/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26/06/2019 / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M) : THIS APPEAL IN ITA NO.1493/KOL/2015 FOR A.Y.2007-0 8 ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)-11, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.ITA NO.485/CIT(A)-11/KOL/R-8/14-15 DATED 29/10/2015 (LD. CIT(A) IN SHORT) AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PA SSED U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S ACT) DATED ITA NO.1493/KOL/2015 M/S. APEEJAY SURRENDRA CORPORATE SERVICES LTD., 2 31/12/2009 BY THE LD. ADDL CIT, CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS LD. AO). 2. THE FIRST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD CITA WAS JUSTIFIED, IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD A O IN DISALLOWING THE LOSS OF RS 1,53,07,882/- ON SALE OF UNQUOTED SHARES OF A PEEJAY SHIPPING LTD AS A COLOURABLE DEVICE AND THEREBY IGNORING SUCH LO SS, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN CONSULTANCY SERVICES AND HAD FIL ED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASST YEAR 2007-08 ON 26.10.2007 DECL ARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 1,86,64,440/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED INCOME F ROM ROYALTY FROM ITS REGISTERED TRADEMARK APEEJAY SURENDRA AND FEES FO R CONSULTANCY SERVICES FROM THE APEEJAY GROUP CONCERNS AND HAD DECLARED INCOME FROM BUSINESS, CAPITAL GAINS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SORUC ES. THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT FROM THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT VARIOUS CONCERNS OF THE APEEJAY GROUP TRANSFERRED 9022500 SHARES OF APEEJAY FINANCE GROUP LTD (AFGL IN SHORT) TO M/S SOCIETY GENERAL, FRANCE. IN THE SAID TRANSF ER OF 9022500 SHARES, 2004000 SHARES BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. T HE TOTAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE SAID TRANSFER OF 9022500 SHAR ES WAS RS 39,09,93,750/- AND ACCORDINGLY THE SALE CONSIDERATI ON FOR THE TRANSFER OF 2004000 SHARES OF AFGL BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO M /S SOCIETY GENERAL, FRANCE WAS RS 8,68,44,165/-. THE ASSESSEE MADE THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS WHILE ARRIVING AT THE VALUE OF NET SAL E PRICE RECEIVED :- TOTAL VALUE OF SHARES SOLD - RS 8,68,44,165/- LESS: ADJUSTMENTS (749948.46*54.89*60%*2004000/9022500) - RS 54,85 ,885/- ITA NO.1493/KOL/2015 M/S. APEEJAY SURRENDRA CORPORATE SERVICES LTD., 3 (AS PER CLAUSE 8.3. OF THE SPA AND SUBSEQUENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DATED 19 TH APRIL 2007) ------------------------ RS 8,13,58,279/- LESS: WARRANTY (132000000 * 9022500/15037500* 2004000/9022500) RS 1,75,91,222/- ------------------------ NET SALE PRICE RECEIVED RS 6,37,67,057/- ------------------------ THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT REGARDING THE ADJUSTMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION BY AN AMOUNT OF RS 1,75,91,222/- , THE ASSESSEE CLA IMED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS 1,75,91,222/- REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT OF WARRANTY WHICH HAS BEEN SET APART AS PER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR MEET ING ANY CONTINGENT LIABILITY ARISING WITHIN 4 YEARS. THE LD AO OBSERV ED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 48 OF THE ACT, NO SUCH ADJUST MENT IS ALLOWABLE. ACCORDINGLY, HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ALLOWED D EDUCTION OF RS 1,75,91,222/- WHILE ARRIVING AT THE LONG TERM CAPIT AL GAIN. 3.1. THE LD AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADJUSTED WITH ITS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, AN AMOUNT OF RS 1,53,07,882/- CL AIMED TO BE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS ARISING OUT OF SALE OF 11 LAKH UNQUOTE D SHARES OF APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD, A GROUP COMPANY. THESE SHARES WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 FOR RS 5,50,00,0 00/- @ RS 50 PER SHARE WHICH WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.3.2007 T O ONE OF ITS SISTER CONCERNS @ RS 50 PER SHARE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AS SESSEE SOLD SHARES OF APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD TO ITS SISTER CONCERN , APEEJA Y SURENDRA TRUST AT BOOK VALUE EVEN AFTER THE LAPSE OF ALMOST 4 YEARS. WHILE ARRIVING AT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS , THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED THE INDEXED COST AT RS 7,03,07,882/- AND ACCORDINGLY LONG TERM CAPITAL LOS S OF RS 1,53,07,882/- ITA NO.1493/KOL/2015 M/S. APEEJAY SURRENDRA CORPORATE SERVICES LTD., 4 WAS COMPUTED ON A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS 5,50,00 ,000/-. IN OTHER WORDS, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS WAS ARRIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- SALE CONSIDERATION OF SHARES - RS 5,50,00,000/- LESS: INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF SHARES - RS 7 ,03,07,882/- ---------------------- LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS RS 1,53,07,882/- ----------------------- 3.2. THE LD AO SHOWCAUSED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN A S TO WHY THE SAID TRANSACTION IN SHARES OF APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD SHOUL D NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A COLOURABLE DEVICE TO REDUCE ITS TAX LIABILITY. T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A DETAILED REPLY ON 23.12.2009 . HOWEVER, THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE BY THE LD AO FOR THE FOL LOWING REASONS :- A) SHARES OF APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD WAS SOLD BY THE A SSESSEE TO ITS FAMILY TRUST. SO THE TRANSACTIONS ARE HELD TO BE ARRANGED BETWEEN TWO INTERESTED PARTIES. B) THE SHARE IN WHICH TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT IS NOT QUOTED AND ACCORDINGLY ITS SALE PRICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DETERMI NED ON THE BASIS OF ITS BREAK UP VALUE OF THE SHARES OF APEEJAY SHIPPING LT D. 3.3. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD AO PROCEEDED TO WORK OUT T HE BREAK UP VALUE OF THE SHARES OF APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD AS ON 31.3.2006 AND 31.3.2007 BASED ON THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEETS FOR THE RESPECTIVE PE RIODS AS UNDER:- 31.03.2007 (IN LACS) 31.03.2006 (IN LACS) SOURCES OF FUNDS SHARES HOLDERS FUNDS ITA NO.1493/KOL/2015 M/S. APEEJAY SURRENDRA CORPORATE SERVICES LTD., 5 SHARE CAPITAL (3,501,000 EQUITY SHARES OF RS.10/- EACH) RESERVE AND SURPLUS LOAN FUNDS SECURED LOANS UNSECURED LOANS 350.10 40,604.97 10,589.72 1,493.30 350.10 23,019.59 11,426.50 4.458.32 53,038.09 39,254.51 31.03.2007 (IN LACS) 31.03.2006 (IN LACS) APPLICATION OF FUNDS FIXED ASSETS GROSS BLOCK LESS: DEPRECIATION NET BLOCK INVESTMENTS 36,584.00 10,024.23 26,560.76 24,147.63 36,261.48 14,778.89 24,482.59 580.27 CURRENT ASSETS, LOANS AND ADVANCES INVENTORIES SUNDRY DEBTORS CASH AND BANK BALANCES LOANS AND ADVANCES 416.07 503.92 2,856.48 13,290.04 356.68 450.90 640.65 14,897.36 LESS: CURRENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS 17,066.51 14,736.81 16,345.59 2,153.94 NET CURRENT ASSET 2,329.70 14,191.65 53,038.09, 39,254.51 3.4. BASED ON THE ABOVE WORKINGS, THE LD AO ARRIVED AT THE BREAK UP VALUE PER SHARE AS ON 31.3.2007 AND 31.3.2006 AT RS 1169.81 PER SHARE AND RS 667.51 PER SHARE RESPECTIVELY. THE LD AO A CCORDINGLY OBSERVED THAT THE BREAK UP VALUE OF EACH SHARE OF APEEJAY SH IPPING LTD IS MORE THAN 100 TIMES OF ITS BOOK VALUE AND CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED BREAK UP VALUE OF SHARES OF APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD FOR ITA NO.1493/KOL/2015 M/S. APEEJAY SURRENDRA CORPORATE SERVICES LTD., 6 DETERMINING ITS SALE PRICE. NON-ADHERENCE TO BREAK UP VALUE PER SHARE SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT ITS TRANSACTION IN SHARES OF APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD AT BOOK VALUE IN ORDER TO CREATE AN AR TIFICIAL LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS SO THAT THE SAME MAY BE USED FOR REDUCING ITS TAX LIABILITY UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. ACCORDINGLY THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO A COLORABLE TRANSACTI ON AND DISALLOWED THE LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES OF APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD IN T HE SUM OF RS 1,53,07,882/- IN THE ASSESSMENT. 3.5. THE LD CITA PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CAES OF SMT HARJIT KAUR V S ACIT REPORTED IN 45 TAXMANN.COM 186 (P&H) AND TREATED THE SAID LONG TER M CAPITAL LOSS ON SALE OF 11 LAKH EQUITY SHARES OF APEEJAY SHIPPING L IMITED TO A GROUP CONCERN AS ARTIFICIAL BY WAY OF A COLORABLE TRANSAC TION. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND TH AT THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE SHARES AT RS 50 PER SHARE TO ITS GROUP CONCERN WHICH IS SAME AS THE PURCHASE PRICE OF SHAR ES OF APEEJAY SHIPPING LIMITED AND THAT IT HAD NOT SOLD AT A LOSS . HE ARGUED THAT THE LOSS AROSE ONLY DUE TO INDEXATION BENEFIT THAT IS S TATUTORILY AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. HE STATED THAT THE ENTIRE APE EJAY GROUP WAS UNDERGOING RESTRUCTURING, PURSUANT TO WHICH, THE SH ARES HELD BY ALL CONCERNS IN EACH OTHER CONCERNS WERE SOUGHT TO BE T RANSFERRED TO APEEJAY FAMILY TRUST AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE THOUGHT IT FIT TO TRANSFER THE SAME AT THE SAME VALUE AT IT BOUGHT THE SHARES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION IN THIS RE GARD. WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAD SOUGHT TO APPLY THE BREAK UP VALUE METH OD FOR ARRIVING AT ITA NO.1493/KOL/2015 M/S. APEEJAY SURRENDRA CORPORATE SERVICES LTD., 7 THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SHARES IN THE YEAR OF SALE WHICH WAS WORKED OUT AT RS 1170 PER SHARE. . WE FIND FROM THE PERUSAL O F THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS ON 31.3.2003, (I.E THE YEAR IN WHICH SHARES WERE PURCHASED) , THE BREAK UP VALUE PER SHARE WAS RS 250 , WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE BOUGHT THE SAME AT RS 50 PER SHARE. THE S AID PURCHASE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED TO BE GENUINE IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER OF SHARES IN FY 2002-03 AS WELL AS IN THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASER (I.E ASSESSEE HEREIN) AND NO MALIGN INTENTION WAS INFERR ED THEREON BY THE REVENUE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SAID SHARE S WERE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE FROM FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 AND THE SAME W ERE SOLD ONLY DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AND HENCE THERE IS NO DISPUT E THAT THE GAIN / LOSS RESULTING ON SUCH TRANSFER WOULD BE LONG TERM CAPIT AL GAIN / LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN R EASONABLE EXPLANATION THAT PURSUANT TO RESTRUCTURING IN THE WHOLE GROUP, THE SHARES WERE TRANSFERRED TO APEEJAY FAMILY TRUST AND THIS EXPLAN ATION HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE BY THE REVENUE. HENCE THE REVENU E CANNOT SUMMARILY IGNORE THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDER THE TRANSACTION AS MERE SHAM WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD T O PROVE THE SAME. HENCE THE CONCEPT OF COLORABLE DEVICE ADOPTED BY TH E REVENUE CANNOT BE ACCEPTE D IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E. WE FIND THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS WELL ANSWERED WHEN THE SHARES WERE ORIGINALLY BOUGHT AT RS 50 PER SHARE WHEN THE BREAK UP VALUE PER SHARE OF THE SAME WAS RS 250 PER SHARE. IT IS WELL SETTLE D BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER O F GIFT TAX VS SMT KUSUMBEN D MAHADEVIA REPORTED IN 122 ITR 38 (SC) WH EREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE BREAK UP VALUE COULD BE RESORTED IN EXCEPT IONAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN CASES WHERE A COMPANY IS RIPE FOR LIQUIDATION OR TH E SITUATION IS THAT THE FLUCTUATIONS OF PROFITS AND UNCERTAINITY OF CONDITI ONS ON THE DATE OF VALUATION PREVENT ANY REASONABLE ESTIMATION OF ITS PROFIT EARNING CAPACITY. ITA NO.1493/KOL/2015 M/S. APEEJAY SURRENDRA CORPORATE SERVICES LTD., 8 IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVE NUE THAT , IN THE CASE OF AN INVESTMENT COMPANY, THE ASSET BACKING WAS A RELE VANT CONSIDERATION AND THE BREAK UP METHOD COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT , IS BASED ON A WRONG READING OF THE OBSERVATION OF THIS COURT IN MAHADEO JALANS CASE (86 ITR 621) . HENCE WE HOLD THAT TH E REVENUE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE APPLIED THE BREAK UP VALUE METHOD FOR DETERMIN ING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SHARES SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN REASONABLE EXPLANATION WITH HIS TRUE INTE NTION EXPLAINING THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH SHARES WERE SOLD AT THE SAME PURC HASE PRICE OF RS 50 PER SHARE TO ITS FAMILY TRUST. CONSEQUENTLY, THE R EVENUES CONTENTIONS THAT THE TRANSACTION IS SHAM AND IS A COLORABLE DEV ICE, DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. WE HOLD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE TRANSAC TIONS HAD TAKEN PLACE WITH THE RELATED PARTIES, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSTR UED AS A COLORABLE DEVICE. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON THE F OLLOWING DECISIONS :- A) HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PITTY BROS. PRIVATE LTD REPORTED IN 120 ITR 709 (BOM) B) HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MEHTA (P) LTD REPORTED IN 220 CTR 148 (BOM) C) HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS G ILLETTE DIVERSIFIED OPERATIONS P LTD REPORTED IN 324 ITR 226 (DEL) D) CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF KOLKATA TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF ITO VS PKS HOLDINGS REPORTED IN (2016) 71 TAXMANN.COM 345 DATE D 1.6.2016 5.1. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS IN THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON HEREINABOVE, WE DIRECT THE LD AO TO GRANT SET OFF O F LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS 1,53,07,882/- WITH THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN S AND RECOMPUTED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROU ND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.1493/KOL/2015 M/S. APEEJAY SURRENDRA CORPORATE SERVICES LTD., 9 6. THE LAST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS A S TO WHETHER THE LD CITA WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SER VICE TAX OF RS 46,756/- IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6.1. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND T HAT THE LD AR STATED THAT THE SERVICE TAX RECEIVED IN THE SUM OF RS 46,7 56/- WAS DULY DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. MOREOVER, THIS SERVICE TAX WAS NEVER CLAIMED AS DED UCTION BY THE ASSESSEE AND WAS SHOWN AS LIABILITY IN THE BALANCE SHEET. BUT WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHOWRINGHE E SALES BUREAU REPORTED IN 87 ITR 542 (SC) HAD HELD THAT THE ALL INDIRECT TAXES COLLECTED THROUGH SALE OF GOODS OR SALE OF SERVICES WOULD FOR M PART OF TRADING RECEIPTS AND WOULD BE INCOME AT THE FIRST INSTANCE. LATER IF THE SAME IS DEPOSITED WITHIN THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT , THE SAME WOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. HENCE IT IS IRRELEV ANT WHETHER THE SERVICE TAX WAS ROUTED THROUGH PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OR W HETHER THE SAME WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN THE RETURN OR NOT. HOWEVER , IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO APPRECIATE THE FACT WHETHER THE SAID SERVICE TAX LIABILITY WAS DISCHARGED / ADJUSTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DAT E OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH FACT REQUIRES T O BE VERIFIED BY THE LD AO. HENCE WE DEEM IT FIT AND APPROPRIATE, IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIRPLAY, TO REMAND THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD AO FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFYING THE FACT OF SUBSEQUENT PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX OR ADJUSTMENT OF SERVICE TAX LIABILITY ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. IF THE SAME IS COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD B E DELETED. ITA NO.1493/KOL/2015 M/S. APEEJAY SURRENDRA CORPORATE SERVICES LTD., 10 ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. THE GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS GENER AL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26/06/20 19 SD/ - ( ABY T VARKEY ) SD/ - JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA; DATED 26/06/2019 KARUNA SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, KOLKATA 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// ITA NO.1493/KOL/2015 M/S. APEEJAY SURRENDRA CORPORATE SERVICES LTD., 11 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 11. DICTATION PAD IS ENCLOSED