ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar V. Aditya Lap Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar

ITA 162/CTK/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96867 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUVENDU DUTTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K AGRAWALLA
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK ( BEFORE SHRI P. M. JAGTAP , A.M. AND SHRI P. S. CHAUDHURY, J .M . ) ITA NO.162 /CTK /201 3 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ACIT, C IRCLE - 2(1), BBSR - VS - ADITYA LAP TECH D EVELOPERS PVT. LTD . (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN : AAFCA 5588F C.O. NO.28 /CTK /2013 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.162 /CTK/201 3) ADITYA LAP TECH D EVELOPERS PVT. LTD - VS - ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), BBSR (CROSS OBJECTOR ) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SUVENDU DUTTA, D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. K. AGRAWAL LA, A.R. : O R D E R : PER SHRI P.M.JAGTAP , AM THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) - II, BHUBANESWAR DATED 19.1 2 .2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND THE SAME IS BEING DISPOSED OF ALONG WITH THE CROSS OBJECTION FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE BEING C.O. NO.28 /CTK/2013. 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE RELATES TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE HEAD OF INCOME UNDER WHICH RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HOSPITAL BUILDING IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED WITH THE MAIN OBJECT OF PROVIDING MEDICAL SERVICES BY ESTABLISHING THE HOSPITALS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT HA D RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME/ LICENS E FEES OF RS.60,59,701/ - FOR ITS HOSPIT AL BUILDING AND AFTER CLAIMING VARIOUS EXPENSES AGAINST THE SAID INCOME, NET 2 INCOME WAS OFFERED BY IT AS BUSINESS INCOME IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION ON 28.09.2008 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,61,038 / - . DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ONLY LEASED OUT ITS HOSPITAL BUILDING TO M/S. QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD. AND RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME. HE OBSERVED THAT EVEN IF THE INITIAL INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS TO RUN ITS OWN HOSPITAL, IT DID NOT GO AHEAD WITH THE SAME AND LEASED OUT ITS HOSPITAL BUILDING TO M/S. QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD. HE HELD THAT THERE WAS THUS NEITHER ANY INVOLVEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RUNNING OF THE HOSPITAL NOR THERE WAS ANY RISK T O WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS EXPOSED. ACCORDINGLY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT - VS - KANAIYALAL NIMANI 120 ITR 892 (CAL), HE HEL D THAT THE RENTAL INCOME /LICENS E FEES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS HOSPIT AL BUILDING WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. FOR THIS CONCLUSION, HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT - VS - CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD. 136 TAXMAN 202 (MAD.), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 22 APPLIES NOT ONLY TO DWELLING HO USES BUT ALSO TO BUILDING USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES . ACCORDINGLY, LICENS E FEES/ RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HOSPITAL BUILDING WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY , AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF MUNICIPAL TAXES PAID, INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED CAPITAL AND STANDARD DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24(I). THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS OTHER EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS & GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION THUS WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO. 4. THE ORDER OF THE AO TREATING THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY IT FOR THE HOSPITAL BUILDING AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE R ENTAL INCOME/ LICENS E FEES RECEIVED FOR THE HOSPITAL BUILDING CONSTITUTED ITS BUSINESS INCOME ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS/ 3 OBSERVATIONS RECORDED IN PARAGRAPH NO.4 (INCLUDING PARAGRAPH NOS. 4.1 TO 4.5) AND PARAGRAPH NO.5 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. 4. IN THIS CASE, IT IS UNCONTROVERTED THAT THE APPELLANT DR. ADITYA TRIPA THY IS HIMSELF A TRAINED LAPAROSCOPIC SURGEON AND SPECIALIZED IN LAPAROSCOPIC TECHNOLOGIES. WITH THE INTENTION OF ESTABLISHING A SUPER SPECIALIZED HOSPITAL OF LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY, HE HAD APPROACHED M/S.I DCO, A STATE GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING FOR OBTAINING A LAND ON LEASE. VIDE A REGISTERED LEASE DEED DTD.17.07.2003, M/S.I DCO LEASED OUT THE REVENUE PLOT NO.329/1929(P) IN MOUZA - CHANDRASEKHRPUR HAVING AN AREA OF AC. 1.000 TO DR. TRIPATHY IN HIS CAPACITY OF THE MD OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY 'FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A HOSPITAL AND LAPAROSCOPY TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY'. THE SAID LEASE WAS FOR A PERIOD OF 90 YEARS. 4.1. THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS OF THE HOSPITAL BUILDING WERE DULY APPROVED BY IDCO VIDE ITS LETTER DTD.28.08. 2004. DR. TRIPATHY, AS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS SANCTIONED A LOAN OF RS.1.4 CRORES FOR 10 YEARS UNDER THE 'APNA OFFICE (CHIKITSALAYA) SCHEME' BY LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD. VIDE SANCTION LETTER DTD.08.12.2004. 4.2. M/S. BANK OF INDIA, CHANDAKA INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX BRANCH, BHUBANES WAR SANCTIONED A FURTHER TERM LOAN OF RS.2.75 CRORES TO THE APPELLANT ON HYPOTHECATION OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENTS, FURNITURE, FIXTURE, DG SET AND RECEIVABLES IN ADDITION TO LAND AND BUILDING OF THE HOSPITAL VIDE THEIR SANCTION LETTER DTD. 17.07.2006. 4.3. THE APPELLANT HAD CONSTRUCTED THE HOSPITAL AND LABORATORY BUILDING ON THE LAND ALLOTTED BY IDCO AND USED THE BORROWED FUNDS AS ABOVE AND THE INTENTION WAS ALWAYS CLEAR THAT IT WAS TO BE RUN AS A HOSPITAL AND THE PROFITS ARISING THEREFROM WOULD BE UTILISED TO REPAY THE BORROWED FUNDS. 4.4. THE APPELLANT RAN SHORT OF RESOURCES FOR FULL OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE BUILDING. WHEN HE HAD BEEN APPROACHED BY ANOTHER HOSPITAL COMPANY M/S. QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD., HYDERABAD, WHO HAD EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO TAKE THE AFORESAID HOSPITAL BUILDING FOR 15 YEARS ON LEASE COMMENCING FROM 01.04.2007 ON A LEAVE AND LICENSE ARRANGEMENT HE HAD AGREED ON THE PROPOSAL. IN THE AGREEMENT (PARA - 2 OF PAGE - 3) IT IS CLEARLY WRITTEN THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD CONSTRUCTED A HOSPITAL B UILDING OF 33000 SQ . FT. WITH ALL INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES FOR LOCATING 60 BEDDED HOSPITAL WHICH WAS LICENSED TO THE LICENSEE COMPANY M/S. QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD. AND THE LICENSOR HAD AGREED TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA OF 30000 SQ . FT TO BE LICENSED TO LICENSEE. IT WAS ALSO AGREED THAT THE LICENSEE WOULD RETAIN THE NAME OF THE 4 MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY BY NAMING THE HOSPITAL AS 'ADITYA CARE HOSPITAL'. 4.5. IN ADDITION TO THE HOSPITAL BUILDING ALONG WITH INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES FOR LOCATING 60 BEDDED HOSPITAL, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD ALSO ALLOWED THE LICENSEE TO MAKE USE OF 'ALL PERMISSION, APPROVALS, LICENSES, NO OBJECTIONS, CLEARANCE, AUTHORIZATIONS, ETC. TO RUN THE HOSPITAL BUSINESS,' WHICH OBVIOUSLY HAD A MONETISED VALUE WHICH REMAINED EMBEDDED IN THE MONTHLY LICENSE FEE FIXED. 5. AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF AFORESAID FACTS, IT CAN NEVE R BE SAID THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD AN INTENTION TO CONSTRUCT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY ONLY TO BE LET OUT ON RENT TO ANOTHER PARTY. RIGHT FROM THE OUT - SET, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAD A CLEAR INTENTION OF SETTING - UP A LAPAROSCOPIC TECHNICAL HOSPITAL TO BE HEADED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR WHO WAS DU LY QUALIFIED FOR THE SAME. M/S.I DCO HAD PROCESSED THE PROPOSAL AND FOUND IT TO BE GENUINE IN ORDER TO ALLOT THE INDUSTRIAL LAND. SIMILARLY, FINANCIERS HAD EXAMINED THE BUSINESS PROPOSAL AND HAD FOUND IT BANKABLE. THEY HAD EXAMINED THE DETAILED SCHEME OF SETTING UP OF THE HOSPITAL, LIKELY GENERATION OF PROFIT AND THE REPAYMENT SCHEDULES. IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE LICENSE AGREEMENT THAT THE HOSPITAL WAS BEING SET UP WHICH ULTIMATELY HAD BEEN LICENSED OUT TO ANOTHER PARTY TO BE USED AS HOSPITAL ONLY. FROM THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS VERY CLEAR TO ME THAT THIS CASE IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE CASES OF CIT VS KANAIYALAL NIMANI & CIT VS. CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD. DISCUSSED BY THE AO. I FIND THE FACTS OF THE CASE SQUARELY SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOE L BUILDERS(2011) 331 ITR 344 (ALL AHABAD - LUCKNOW BENCH), WHE RE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HAD ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY WITH THE INTENTION TO EARN PROFIT UNDER COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND HAD CONSTRUCTED THE BUILDING IN QUESTION EXCLUSIVELY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. THE HON'BLE COURT HAD HELD THERE THAT THE INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE CONSTRUCTING THE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX SEEMS TO BE A BUSINESS INVESTMENT AND RENTAL INCOME EARNED FROM THE BUILDING WAS AS A NATURAL SEQUENCE AND HAD TO BE TAXED AS BUSINESS INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I DIRECT THE AO TO TREAT THE LICENSE F EES RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND TO ALLOW ALL ALLOWABLE EXPENSES AS PER LAW. 4.1 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5 5. THE LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUES STAN D THAT THE RENTAL INCOME/ LICENS E FEES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE HOSPITAL BUILDING OWNED BY HIM IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. HE CONTENDED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ENTIRE HOSPITAL I NCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES WAS GIVEN ON LEASE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE SAME MAINLY COMPRISED OF THE BUILDING PORTION AND THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE MAINLY IN THE FORM OF RENT FOR SUCH BUILDING WAS RIGHTLY BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON TH E OTHER HAND, STRONGLY RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CASE AND SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE OF GIVING ANY BUILDING ON RENT S IMPL ICITOR BUT IT WAS A CASE OF GIVING THE SPECIALIZED BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOSPITAL BY WAY OF COMPLEX COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) AF TER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HE ALSO CITED THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. I) CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD. VS - CIT 373 ITR 673 (SC) II) CIT - VS - GOEL BUILDDERS 331 ITR 344 (ALL) AND III) CIT - VS - VELANKANI INFORMATI ON SYSTEMS (P) LTD. 218 TAXMAN 88 (KAR) 7 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALS O PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ADMITTEDLY INCORPORATED WITH THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF SETTING UP OF H OSPITAL FOR PROVIDING MEDICAL SERVICES AND AS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A), ON APPRECIATION OF THE RELEVANT FACTS, THE HOSPITAL GIVEN ON LICENSE WAS ACTUALLY SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE SAID PURPOSE. THIS POSITION WAS ACCEPTED EVEN BY THE AO IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN HE OBSERVED THAT THE HOSPITAL PREMISES LEASED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD. WAS INITIALLY INTENDED TO BE USED FOR ITS OWN BUSINESS. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE HOSPITAL GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON L ICENSE WAS THE 6 SUPER - SPECIALISED HOSPITAL HAVING ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDED THEREIN THAT ARE REQUIRED TO OPERATE A 60 - BEDDED HOSPITAL. IT APPEARS THAT THE AO HOWEVER COULD NOT APPRECIATE THE SPECIALIZED NATURE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITS O BJECT TO ACQUIRE THE SAME AS WELL AS TO LET IT OUT AND BROUGHT TO TAX THE RENTAL INCOME/ LICENSE FEES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY RELYING MAINLY ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHENNA I PROPERTIES (SUPRA) , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 22 APPLIES NOT ONLY TO DWELLING HO USES BUT ALSO TO BUILDING USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS BEEN OVER - RULED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD. (SUPRA) 373 ITR 673 (SC) BY HOLDING THAT WHILE DECIDING WHETHER THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM LETTING OUT OF PROPERTY IS BUSINESS INCOME OR INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, THE DECIDING FACTOR IS NOT THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND OR LEASES BUT THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE NATURE OF THE OPERATIONS IN RELATION TO THEM. IT WAS HELD THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY MUST ALSO BE KEPT IN VIEW TO INTERPRET THE ACTIVITIES. I N THE CASE OF GOEL BUILDERS ( SUPRA ) CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT THAT THE HOUSE PROPERTY AS ENVISAGED IN SECTIONS 22 TO 27 DOES NOT INCLUDE A PROPERTY OR BUILDING CONSTRUCTED OR PURCHASE D UNDER THE PLANNED BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND TO ASSESS THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, IT SHALL BE NECESSARY TO FIND OUT FROM THE RECORD THE AIM AND OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF BUILDING OWNER WHILE ACQUIRING OR CONSTRUCTING OR PURCHASING THE SAME. IN THE CASE CASE, THE PLOT PURCHASED AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WAS FOR COMMERCIAL USE AND NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED THE BUILDING AS HOUSE PROPERTY FOR OWN USE. IN THESE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SAID CASE, IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE CONSTRUCTING THE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX WAS A BUSINESS INVESTMENT AND HENCE THE RENTAL INCOME EARNED FROM THE BUILDING CONSTITUTED HIS BUSI NESS INCOME. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS - VELANKANI INFORMATION 7 SYSTEMS (P) LTD. ( SUPRA ), RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING COMPREHENSIVE FACILITIES TO I.T, I NDUSTRIES INCLUDING LETTING OUT OF SPECIALIZED BUILDINGS AND OFFICE PREMISES THAT WERE BUILT TO CATER TO SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS OF I.T. INDUSTRY AND IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THAT THE MAIN I NTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO EXPLOIT IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY WAY OF COMPLEX COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND THE INCOME EARNED FROM SUCH ACTIVITY WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS BUSINESS INCOME. 7.1 KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS DISCUSSED ABOV E AND HAVING REGARD TO THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RENTAL INCOME/ LICENSE FEES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR ITS HOSPITAL BUILDING IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS & GAINS IN BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AS RI GHTLY HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 8 . IN HIS CROSS - OBJECTION , THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHER EBY HE TREATED THE RENTAL INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME . AS W E HAVE UPHELD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSI NG OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, T HE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. T HE SAME IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 9 . IN THE RESULT , THE AP PEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUN CED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH OCTOBER, 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( P.S.CHAUDHURY ) ( P.M.JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED : 30 /10/2015 TALUKDAR,SR.PS 8 COPY TO : 1. ADITYA LAP TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. , PLOT NO.243, SAHID NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR - 751 007 2. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), BHUBANESWAR 3. CIT(A) BHUBANESWAR 4. CIT BHUBANESWAR 5. D. R., ITAT, BHUBANESWAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., CUTTACK