ITO, Ward - 11(4), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Systematix Securities Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1565/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 156523514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY MUKHERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: SOUMITRA CHOW DHURY
• Keywords: Business income; Speculation loss; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.: 1565 & 1566/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :1998-99 & 2000-01 PAGE 1 TO 8 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA CORAM : SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. NOS.: 1565 & 1566/KOL./ 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-1999 & 2000-2001 INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ .............APPELLANT WARD-11(4), KOLKATA, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 6 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 069 -VS.- M/S. SYSTEMATIX SECURITY LIMITED,.................. ..............RESPONDENT 156, LENIN SARANI, 227, KAMALALAYA CENTRE, KOLKATA-700 013 [PAN : AAGCS 4205 C] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SANJAY MUKHERJEE, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI SOUMITRA CHOWDHURY, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : DECEMBER 10, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : DECEMBER 19, 2013 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEROGE : 1. IN THESE APPEALS, REVENUE ASSAILS AN ORDER DATED 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS)-XII, KOLKATA FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 & 2000-01. COM MON GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- (1) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY E XCLUDING THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CATEGORY OF EXPLANATION TO SEC. 7 3 WHEN THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF DECLARED THE NATURE OF BUSINESS WAS TRADIN G ETC. NOT GRANTING LOAN & ADVANCE. (2) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY A LLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO SET OFF THE SHARE TRADING LOSS AGAINST OTHER BUS INESS INCOME WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURTS DECISION IN CA SE OF EAST3ERN AVIATION & INDUSTRIES LTD. [208 ITR 1023 (CAL.)] WH EREIN IT WAS HELD I.T.A. NO.: 1565 & 1566/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :1998-99 & 2000-01 PAGE 1 TO 8 2 THAT LOSS MEANS NEGATIVE INCOME & QUANTUM OF BOTH P ROFIT AND LOSS SHOULD BE COMPARED TO DETERMINE THE PRINCIPLE BUSIN ESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE B USINESS OF TRADING OF SHARES AND GRANTING OF LOANS AND ADVANCES, HAD F ILED RETURNS DECLARING LOSS OF RS.4,91,427/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 A ND LOSS OF RS.7,05,380/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 1998-99, THE RETURN FILED WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY ISSUING NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON 29.03.2005. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, THOUGH THE RETURN FILED WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY, IT SEEMS THAT THER E WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE ON NOTICES ISSUED ON VARIO US DATES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE THOUGH IT FILED AN APPEAL FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO, WH O CONFIRMED THE BEST OF JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT FOR THAT YEAR. THEREAFTER AS SESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, FOR THAT YEAR AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERING AFRESH, SINCE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED WAS EX-PARTE. 3. DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 1998-99 AND FRESH PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE TRIBUNALS DI RECTION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE LOSS CLAIMED BY IT ON ACCOUNT OF TR ADING IN SHARES SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS SPECULATION LOSS IN VIEW OF EX PLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT. IN REPLY ASSESSEE STATED THAT ITS PRIN CIPAL BUSINESS WAS GRANTING OF LOANS AND ADVANCES AND NOT TRADING IN S HARES. AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE TOTAL FUND AVAILABLE ON 31.03.1998 WAS RS.2,54,72,498/-, WHEREAS DEPLOYMENT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES WAS RS.3,3 1,43,025/-, HOLDING IN SHARES AND STOCK WAS ONLY RS.12,75,535/-. SIMILA R ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 ALSO. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT IMPRESSED. ACCORDING TO HIM, IN THE RETURN FORM, ASSESSEE I.T.A. NO.: 1565 & 1566/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :1998-99 & 2000-01 PAGE 1 TO 8 3 HAD DECLARED THE NATURE OF ITS BUSINESS AS INVESTME NT AND TRADING OF SECURITIES. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE HAD INVESTMENT WORTH RS.3,43,05,000/- AS ON 31.03.1998 AND RS.3,10,35,00 0/- AS ON 31.03.2000. IN ANY CASE, AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DEPLOYMEN T OF FUNDS BY ITSELF COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE SOLE CRITERIA FOR DE TERMINING BY THE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF AN ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS TREATED ITS INCOME FROM INTEREST AS BUSINESS INCOME ONLY. AS PER THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR THE YEAR AS ON 31.03.1998 ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED A T OTAL LOSS OF RS.45,46,977/- ON TRADING OF SHARES, WHICH, INTER A LIA, INCLUDED PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF EXPENDITURE RS.8,79,362/- WH EREAS INCOME FROM INTEREST CAME TO RS.23,37,150/- ONLY, AFTER EXCLUDI NG PROPORTIONATE EXPENSES OF RS.7,37,095/-. SIMILARLY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, ASSESSEE HAD SUFFERED A SHARE TRADING LOSS OF RS.42 ,71,935/- INCLUDING PRO-RATA EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,16,310/- AGAINST INTER EST INCOME OF RS.36,44,103/- EXCLUDING PRO-RATA EXPENDITURE OF RS .5,80,829/-. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF EASTERN AVIATION AND INDUSTRIES LTD. VS.- CIT [208 ITR 102 3], ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT LOSS WAS NOTHING BUT NEGATI VE INCOME AND BOTH POSITIVE INCOME AND NEGATIVE INCOME WERE REQUIRED T O BE RECKONED, FOR FINDING OUT THE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE. ASS ESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 WAS ATTRAC TED, SINCE LOSS SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TRADING OF SHARES WAS O F A HIGHER QUANTUM THAN INTEREST RECEIPT. HE, THEREFORE, DENIED THE AD JUSTMENT OF THIS LOSS WITH THE OTHER REGULAR BUSINESS INCOME AND ACCORDIN GLY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT FOR BOTH THE YEARS. 4. ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR BOTH THE YEARS. ITS ARGUMENT WAS THAT THERE WAS AN ATTEMPTED REOPENING FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 ALSO FOR SAME REASON, VIZ . APPLICATION OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73. HOWEVER, FOR THE SAID AS SESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 12.12.2006 ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT IT CAME WITHIN THE EXCEPTION MENTIONED EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 AND, I.T.A. NO.: 1565 & 1566/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :1998-99 & 2000-01 PAGE 1 TO 8 4 THEREFORE, THE LOSS IN TRADING OF SHARES COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS SPECULATION LOSS. FURTHER AS PER THE ASSESSEE FOR V ARIOUS FINANCIAL YEARS STARTING FROM FINANCIAL YEARS 1996-97 TO 2001-02, D EPLOYMENT FOR FUNDS ON LOANS AND ADVANCES WERE SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THA N THOSE IN SHARES. RELYING ON ITS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT ITS PRINCIPAL BUSINESS WAS GRANTING LOANS AND ADVANCES. ASSESSEE ALSO SOUGHT TO DISTINGUISH THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF EASTERN AVIATION AND INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) BY STATING THAT MAIN BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE WAS DEALING I N SHARES. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS NOT DEALING IN SHARES AS ITS PRINC IPAL BUSINESS, AND ITS PRINCIPAL BUSINESS WAS GRANTING OF LOANS AND ADVANC ES. LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS APPRECIATIVE OF THESE CONTENTIONS. ACCORDING TO HIM, SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS.- VENTATESWAR INV. & FINANCE (P) LTD. [277 ITR (AT) 20] HAD HELD THAT TOTAL CIRCUMSTANCES WERE TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING THE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF AN ASSESSEE. AS PER LD. CIT(APPEALS) DECISIVE FACTOR WAS THE NATURE OF ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESEE AND NOT THE ACTUAL INCOME FROM A PARTICULAR BUSINES S. HE WAS, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HIT BY SEC TION 73 AND WAS SAVED BY THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN THE EXPLANATION TO SEC TION 73 OF THE ACT. HE, THEREFORE, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 5. NOW BEFORE US, LD. D.R. STRONGLY ASSAILING THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), SUBMITTED THAT LOSS SUFFERED BY THE A SSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING IN SHARES WAS HIGHER THAN ITS INTEREST INCO ME FOR BOTH THE YEARS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE DECISION OF HONBL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF EASTERN AVIATION AND INDUSTRIE S LTD. (SUPRA) SQUARELY APPLIED. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD APPLIED EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 AFTER GIVING SPECIFIC FIN DING THAT ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL BUSINESS WAS NOT GRANTING OF LOANS AND AD VANCES. THIS BEING SO AS PER THE LD. DR, CIT(APPEALS) FELL IN ERROR IN RE LYING ON THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VENKA TESWAR INV. & FINANCE (P) LTD. (SUPRA) AND GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. LD. D.R. ALSO RELIED ON I.T.A. NO.: 1565 & 1566/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :1998-99 & 2000-01 PAGE 1 TO 8 5 THE DECISION OF HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MELVILLE FINVEST LTD. [89 ITD 528]. AS PER LD. DR, TOTAL LOA N GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 1998-99 & 2000-0 1 WAS LESS THAN 50% OF ITS CAPITAL. THE LOANS WERE GIVEN TO A PARTICUL AR GROUP OF COMPANIES NAMELY INANI GROUP IN BOTH THE YEARS. INVESTMENTS I N SHARES MADE BY THE COMPANY WERE ALSO IN INANI GROUP. AS PER LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS TOTALLY CONTROLLED BY INANI GROUP. THE PURPOSE OF GIVING SUCH LOAN WAS ONLY TO EARN INTEREST WHICH FELL UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AS PER THE LD. D.R., THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS GRANTING OF LOANS. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADHYAPRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- INTERMETAL TRADE LIMITED [285 ITR 536 (MP)]. AS PER LD. D.R. THE ASSESSEE WAS INDULGING IN TAX AVOIDING MECHANISM. DUE TO THI S, ASSESSEE WAS AVOIDING PAYMENT OF TAX DESPITE HAVING A CAPITAL OF RS.7.04 CRORES. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO LD. DR, LD. CIT(APPEALS) FE LL IN ERROR IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SPECULATION LOSS. 6. PER CONTRA, LD. A.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AD DROPPED THE REOPENING ATTEMPTED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. RELYING ON PAPER BOOK PAGE 2, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE REASON FOR R EOPENING FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 WAS ALSO VERY SAME. ASSES SEE HAD IN REPLY TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 99-2000 MADE A DETAILED SUBMISSION ON 05.12.2006, WHICH HAS BEEN P LACED AT PAGES 3 TO 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ACCORDING TO HIM, IT WAS AFTER C ONSIDERING SUCH REPLY THAT ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE THAT ITS SHARE TRADING LOSS WAS NOT SPECULATION LOSS BUT ONLY A NO RMAL BUSINESS LOSS VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 12.12.2006. AS PER LD. AR THERE WAS NO REASON WHY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK A DIFFERENT VIEW FOR THE IMP UGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN ANY CASE, ASSESSEE WAS DOING THE BUSINESS OF GRANTING LOANS AND WAS SAVED BY THE EXCEPTION GIVEN IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT. I.T.A. NO.: 1565 & 1566/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :1998-99 & 2000-01 PAGE 1 TO 8 6 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY LD. A.R. WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONSIDE RED THE LOSS FROM SHARE TRADING TRANSACTIONS TO BE SPECULATION LOSS PRIMARI LY FOR THE REASON THAT SUCH LOSS WAS FAR MORE THAN THE INCOME FROM INTERES T. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE LOSS SUFFERED WAS RS.42,71,93 5/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND RS.45,46,977/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT THIS LOSS FRO M SHARE TRADING BY INCLUDING PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,16,310/ - AND RS.8,79,362/- RESPECTIVELY. HOW THE PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT WHEN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED A SINGLE ESTABLISHMENT HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT OUT AT ALL. THIS EXERCISE ITSELF WAS ARBITRARY. HE HAS THEN COMPARED SUCH LOSS WITH INTEREST INCOME. INTEREST INCOME CONSIDER ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR SUCH COMPARISON WAS RS.36,44,103/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND RS.23,37,150/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 -99. WHILE ARRIVING AT THESE TWO AMOUNTS HE HAD DEDUCTED RS.5,80,829/- AND RS.7,37,095/- RESPECTIVELY AS PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE. HERE AGA IN, HOW THIS PRO-RATA EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT AND HOW THE INTEGRA TED BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ARTIFICIALLY SPLIT FOR PRO-RATING THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. TO TOP THIS, WE FIND FRO M PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 17, WHICH IS A COPY OF AUDITED PROFIT & LOSS A/C. O F THE ASSESSEE FOR YEAR ENDED 31.03.1998, THAT ITS OTHER INCOME WAS RS.30, 70,465/-. SIMILARLY FROM PAPER BOOK PAGE 28, WHICH IS A COPY OF TRADING RESULTS FOR YEAR ENDED 31.03.2000, ITS OTHER INCOME WAS RS.42,24,93 2/-. THE QUANTUM OF OTHER INCOME WAS NOT CONSISTENTLY LOWER THAN ITS S HARE TRADING LOSS. AT THIS JUNCTURE THE ANALYSIS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) FOR VARIOUS YEARS BECOME RELEVANT. THIS ANALYSIS IS REPRODUCED HEREUN DER :- PARTICULARS 31.03.199 7 31.03.199 8 31.03.199 9 31.03.200 0 31.3.200 1 31.03.200 2 SHARE CAPITAL 45183418 50000000 50000000 50000000 5000000 0 50000000 RESERVE & SURPLUS 21250000 20472498 20472498 20472498 2047249 20472498 I.T.A. NO.: 1565 & 1566/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :1998-99 & 2000-01 PAGE 1 TO 8 7 8 TOTAL 66433418 70472498 70472498 70472498 7047249 8 70472498 DEPLOYMEN T OF FUNDS SHARE INVESTMENT 29187000 34305000 29505000 31035000 2646000 0 28905400 STOCK OF SHARES 103650 1275535 3830035 399410 494125 192993 LOANS & ADVANCES 37156758 33143025 37341591 35047781 3811506 4 35126083 TOTAL 66447408 68723560 70676626 66482191 6506918 9 64224476 PARTICU LARS 31.03.1 997 31.03.1 998 31.03.1 999 31.03.2 000 31.03.2 001 31.03.2 002 31.03.2 003 31.03.2 004 LOSS ON SHARE TRANSAC TION 354935 0 366383 5 195525 0 375562 5 176841 3 23983 106141 - OTHER INCOME 290871 3 307046 5 294688 4 422493 2 295953 5 278060 7 194851 4 194934 9 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE TABLE THAT FOR LARGER NU MBER OF YEARS, ASSESSEE HAD OTHER INCOME HIGHER THAN LOSS ON SHARE TRANSACT IONS. ALMOST FOR ALL THE YEARS, DEPLOYMENT IN LOANS AND ADVANCES WAS HIG HER THAN THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES. SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VENKATESWAR INV. & FINANCE (P) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS CLE ARLY HELD THAT THE DECISIVE FACTOR WAS NOT THE ACTUAL INCOME BUT THE N ATURE OF ACTIVITIES OF ASSESSEE. REVENUE HAS NOT REBUTTED THE CLAIM OF ASS ESSEE THAT ITS MAIN OBJECT AS PER THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION WAS GRA NTING OF LOANS. A SIMILAR REOPENING PROCEEDINGS DONE FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 1999-2000 STOOD DROPPED ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GRANTING OF LOANS AND ADVANCES. THEREF ORE, CLEARLY ASSESSEE WAS SAVED BY THE EXCEPTION GIVEN IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73. PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTING OF LOANS AND ADVANCES. IN SUCH A SITUATION, LOSS ON TRADING OF SHARES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS I.T.A. NO.: 1565 & 1566/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :1998-99 & 2000-01 PAGE 1 TO 8 8 SPECULATION LOSS. LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THIS VIEW. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN HIS ORDER. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR BOTH T HE YEARS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR SINGH ABRAHAM P. GEORGE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACC OUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 19 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013 COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT(APPEALS) (4) CIT (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.