DCIT, CIR-10(2), KOLKATA, Kolkata V. M/s V2 Retail Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1517/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4199 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD USMAN
• Assessee Lawyers: R P AGARWAL SR SRI K K CHHA
• Keywords: Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Question of law; Capital receipt
• Section: 43B; 115JB

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO 1517/KOL/2015 ASSESS MENT YEAR: 2011-2012 & C.O . NO. 123-KOL-2017 (IN I TA NO. 1517-KOL-2015) ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1517/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,................. ............APPELLANT CIRCLE-10(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 3 RD FLOOR, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 -VS.- M/S. V2 RETAIL LIMITED,............................ .......................RESPONDENT PLOT NO.08, POCKET NO. 02, RANGPURI EXTENSION, MAHIPALPUR, NEW DELHI-110 037 [PAN: AABCV 5632 P] & C.O. NO. 123/KOL/2017 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 1517/KOL/2015) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 M/S. V2 RETAIL LIMITED,............................ .......................CROSS OBJECTOR PLOT NO.08, POCKET NO. 02, RANGPURI EXTENSION, MAHIPALPUR, NEW DELHI-110 037 [PAN: AABCV 5632 P] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,................. ............RESPONDENT CIRCLE-10(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 3 RD FLOOR, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 APPEARANCES BY: MD. USMAN. CIT, D.R. , FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI R.P. AGARWAL SR. COUNSEL, SRI K.K. CHHAPARIA, FCA & SHRI NIRAV SHETH, ACA, FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : SEPTEMBER 25, 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 31, 2018 I.T.A. NO 1517/KOL/2015 ASSESS MENT YEAR: 2011-2012 & C.O . NO. 123-KOL-2017 (IN I TA NO. 1517-KOL-2015) ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 2 OF 8 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) :- THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, KOLKATA DAT ED 01.10.2015 AND THE SAME IS BEING DISPOSED OF ALONG WITH THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING C.O. NO. 123/KOL/2017 . 2. THE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE RELATES TO THE DELETION BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OF THE ADDITION OF RS.605.23 CRORES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL RESE RVE WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY UNDER SECTI ON 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THE SAME IS RAISED BY WAY OF GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 4, WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACT BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 605,23,24,263/- BEING THE SUM CREDITED TO CAPITAL RESERVE TO BOOK PROFIT COMPUTED U/S. 115JB OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREPARED ITS PROFIT AND LOSS A CCOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF PARTS II AND III O F SCHEDULE VI OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVI SIONS OF SEC. 115JB(2) OF THE ACT. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACT THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME AS PER THE NORMAL PROVISION OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE TREATED THE ENTIRE SURPLUS CAPITAL RECEIPT OF RS.605,23,24,263/- AS PART OF ITS TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME BUT NOT CONSIDERED IT FOR COMPUTING ITS BOOK PROFIT. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACT THAT THE AO WAS IN HIS RIGHT TO RECAST THE P&L ACCOUNT F OR ARRIVING AT THE BOOK PROFIT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPL IED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 115JB OF THE ACT. I.T.A. NO 1517/KOL/2015 ASSESS MENT YEAR: 2011-2012 & C.O . NO. 123-KOL-2017 (IN I TA NO. 1517-KOL-2015) ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 3 OF 8 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY, W HICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN CLOTH AND PLASTIC GOODS ON RETAIL BASIS. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION W AS FILED BY IT ON 28.09.2011 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.18,03,12,031/-. D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS CREDITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,05, 23,24,263/- DIRECTLY TO CAPITAL RESERVE UNDER THE HEAD RESERVES & SURPL US IN THE BALANCE- SHEET. IN THIS REGARD, HE NOTED THAT THE FOLLOWING NOTES TO THE ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS:- 'BUSINESS RESTRUCTURING: THE COMPANY HAS RESTRUCTURED ITS BUSINESS DURING TH E YEAR BY WAY OF SALE OF ITS WHOLESALE AND RETAIL BUSINESSES TO TPG WHOLESALE PRIVATE LIMITED AND AIRPLAZA RETAIL HOLDI NGS PVT. LTD. (REFERRED TO AS ACQUIRING COMPANIES) RESPECTIV ELY. THE MASTER RESTRUCTURING AGREEMENT AND OTHER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO BY THE COMPANY WITH TH E ACQUIRING COMPANIES AND ITS LENDERS TO EFFECT THE S AID RESTRUCTURING AND COR PROPOSAL OF THE COMPANY. AS A RESULT OF THE SAID AGREEMENT THE LIABILITIES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.823.20 CRORES AND ASSETS OF RS.393.78 CRORES WEE TAKEN OVE R BY THE ACQUIRING COMPANIES AGAINST A CONSIDERATION OF RS.7 0 CRORES. THE SLUMP SALE TRANSACTION RESULTED IN A CAPITAL RE SERVE OF RS. 499.42 CRORES. AS A PART OF THE SAID RESTRUCTURING SOME UNSECURED LENDERS OF THE COMPANY ALSO WAIVED OFF THEIR CLAIMS TO THE EXT ENT OF RS.105.81 CRORES WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN TRANSFERRED TO CAPITAL RESERVE ACCOUNT . THE ENTIRE INCOME/SURPLUS ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF BUSINESS AND WAIVER OF LOAN THUS WAS TRE ATED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND CREDITED TO THE CAPITAL RESERVE DIRECTLY WITHOU T ROUTING IT THROUGH THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, THIS TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS WRONG A ND IT WAS REQUIRED TO ROUTE THE SAID AMOUNT THROUGH PROFIT & LOSS ACCO UNT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF PART-II AND PART-III OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS REQUIRED T O BE ADDED WHILE I.T.A. NO 1517/KOL/2015 ASSESS MENT YEAR: 2011-2012 & C.O . NO. 123-KOL-2017 (IN I TA NO. 1517-KOL-2015) ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 4 OF 8 COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY U NDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY AN ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE UND ER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. 4. THE ADDITION/ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL RESERVE WHILE COMPUTING ITS BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEA L FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION/ADJUSTMENT MAINLY FOR THE FOLLOWI NG REASONS GIVEN IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE APOLLO TYRE S LTD V CIT (SUPRA) AND MALAYALA MANORAMA CO LTD VS CIT (SUPRA) CLEARLY HELD THAT THE AO HAS NO POWER TO RE CAST THE AUDITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE APEX COURT 'S JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN RECENTLY APPLIED BY SOME COURTS IN VARIOUS RULINGS AS BELOW: IN THE CASE OF FOREVER DIAMONDS (P) LTD. VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -I, (MUMBAI) (SUPRA) - (ORDER PASSED ON 23-01-2013) IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'THE ISSUE RAISED HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF APOLLO TYRES LTD. V CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273/122 TAXMAN 562 THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT SECTION 115J PROVISIONS OF WHICH WERE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF SECTION 115JB, WAS INTRODUCED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT WITH A DEEMING PROVISION WHICH MADE COMPANIES LIABLE TO PAY TAX AT LEAST AT 30 PER CENT OF BOOK PROFIT SHOWN IN ITS OWN ACCOUNTS. FOR THE SAID PURPOSE, SECTION 115J MADE INCOME REFLECTED IN THE COMPANY'S BOOK OF ACCOUNT, THE DEEMED INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSING THE TAX. THE SUPREME COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE USE OF THE WORDS 'IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART-II AND PART-III OF SCHEDULE VI OF THE COMPANIES ACT' WAS M ADE I.T.A. NO 1517/KOL/2015 ASSESS MENT YEAR: 2011-2012 & C.O . NO. 123-KOL-2017 (IN I TA NO. 1517-KOL-2015) ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 5 OF 8 FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF EMPOWERING THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO RELY UPON THE AUTHENTIC STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY AND WHILE SO LOOKING INTO T HE ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TO ACCEPT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ACCOUNTS. IT WAS SO HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS ONLY THE POWER TO EXAMINE WHETHER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE CERTIFIED BY AUTHORITIES UNDER THE COMP ANIES ACT AS HAVING BEEN PROPERLY MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT. THE ASSES SING OFFICER, THEREAFTER, HAS LIMITED POWER OF MAKING ADJUSTMENTS AS PROVIDED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 1 15J. IT IS, THUS CLEAR THAT ONCE ACCOUNTS ARE PREPARED U NDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT TINKER WI TH THE ACCOUNTS AND MAKE ANY CHANGES WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT EXCEPT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS AS PROVIDED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115JB. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ON SALE OF ASSET NOT DISCLOSED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT PREPARED U NDER THE COMPANIES ACT CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE SUSTAINED. THEREFORE, ORDER OF COMMISSIONER IS SET ASIDE AND T HE ADDITION MADE IS DELETED. THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT HAS BEEN RECENTLY AFFIRMED B Y THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DATED AUGUST 12, 2015 WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ISSUE STANDS SETTLED BY THE DECI SION OF THE APEX COURT IN APOLLO TYRES LTD V. CIT [255 ITR 273 (SC)), AND IN ADBHUT TRADING CO. (E) LTD.[2012] 338 ITR 94(BOM), THE QUESTION AS PROPOSED DOES NOT GIVE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. IN THE CASE OF ADBHUT TRADING CO. (P.) LTD. [2012J 338 ITR 94 (BOM.), THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE ACCOUNTS ARE CERTIFIED BY AUTHORITIES UNDER COMPANIES ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT CONTEND THAT ACCOUNTS ARE NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS AND RELY ING ON THE APEX COURT JUDGMENTS IN THE CASE OF APOLLO TYRE S LTD VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND MALAYALA MANORAMA CO LTD VS. CI T (SUPRA) ON THE PERTINENT ISSUE AT HAND, I AM OF THE VIEW I.T.A. NO 1517/KOL/2015 ASSESS MENT YEAR: 2011-2012 & C.O . NO. 123-KOL-2017 (IN I TA NO. 1517-KOL-2015) ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 6 OF 8 THAT THE A.O. HAS ERRED IN RECASTING THE 'PROFIT' A S PER AUDITED ACCOUNTS AS LAID DOWN AT THE AGM OF THE COM PANY. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE AO IS DIRECTED NOT TO CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL RESERVE OF RS.605,23,24.263/- WHI LE CALCULATING BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF APOLLO TYRES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO RECAST THE AUDITED PROFIT & LOSS AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY AND HE CANNOT TINKER WITH SUCH ACCOUNTS, WH ICH ARE DULY CERTIFIED BY THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE COMPANIES AC T AND MAKE ANY CHANGES WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT EXCEPT MAKING A DJUSTMENTS AS PROVIDED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115JB AND THIS P OSITION WELL SETTLED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND FOLLOWED BY THE DIFFE RENT HIGH COURTS HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED EVEN BY THE LD. D.R. HE, HOWEVER, HAS RELIED ON CLAUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 115JB TO CONTEND THAT THE AMOUNTS CARRIED TO ANY RESERVES, BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED [O THER THAN A RESERVE SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 33AC] ARE REQUIRED TO BE AD DED WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB AND THE ADJUSTM ENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF THE AMOUNT IN QUEST ION CARRIED DIRECTLY BY THE ASSESSEE TO CAPITAL RESERVE WAS PERMISSIBLE AS PER CLAUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 115JB. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE S AID PROVISION AND DELETED THE ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R BY FOLLOWING BLINDLY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF APOLLO TYRES (SUPRA). HOWEVER, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE AMOUNTS CARRIED TO ANY RESERVES, BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED IS PERMISSIBLE AS PER CLAUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 115JB ONLY IF SUCH AMOUN TS ARE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS CLEARLY PROVIDED IN EXPLAN ATION (1) TO SECTION 115JB AND SINCE THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION TRANSFERRED TO THE CAPITAL I.T.A. NO 1517/KOL/2015 ASSESS MENT YEAR: 2011-2012 & C.O . NO. 123-KOL-2017 (IN I TA NO. 1517-KOL-2015) ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 7 OF 8 RESERVES DIRECTLY BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS NOT D EBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS CLEARLY MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HIMSELF IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTI ON OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB WAS N OT PERMISSIBLE EVEN AS PER CLAUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 115 JB. EVEN THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISPUTE THIS POSITION, WHICH IS CL EARLY EVIDENT FROM THE CLEAR LANGUAGE USED IN EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 1 15JB. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THE CASE OF THE REVENUE ON THIS IS SUE AND UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETING TH E ADDITION/ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL RESERVE WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC TION 115JB OF THE ACT, WE DISMISS GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 4 OF THE REVENUES APPE AL. 6. AS REGARDS THE OTHER ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO . 5 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL RELATING TO THE DELETION BY THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) OF THE ADDITION OF RS.10,58,944/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND/EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE (ESI) PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BEYOND T HE DUE DATES PRESCRIBED IN THE RESPECTIVE STATUTE, THE LD. REPRE SENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES HAVE AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVER ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, INTER ALIA, BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAY SHREE LIMITED (ITA NO. 244/KOL/20 11 DATED 07.12.2011), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF ALOM EXTRUSION LIMITED THAT THE AMOUNT PAID ON ACCO UNT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETU RN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS PER THE AM ENDMENT MADE TO SECTION 43B BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2003. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID BINDING PRECEDENT, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF I.T.A. NO 1517/KOL/2015 ASSESS MENT YEAR: 2011-2012 & C.O . NO. 123-KOL-2017 (IN I TA NO. 1517-KOL-2015) ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 PAGE 8 OF 8 DISALLOWANCE OF BELATED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRI BUTION TO P.F/ESI AND DISMISS GROUND NO. 5 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT PERMISSION FROM THE BENCH TO WI THDRAW THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE LD. D.R. HAS NO OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD, THE PERMISSION AS SOUGHT ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE IS GRANTED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED AS WITHDRAWN. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON OCTOBER 31, 2 018. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) KOLKATA, THE 31 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018 COPIES TO : (1) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 3 RD FLOOR, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 (2) M/S. V2 RETAIL LIMITED, PLOT NO.08, POCKET NO. 02, RANGPURI EXTENSION, MAHIPALPUR, NEW DELHI-110 037 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, KOLKA TA, (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.