DCIT, Circle-12, Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/S. India Glycols Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1628/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1452 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOULEAN HALGSHING
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1628 / KOL / 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 DCIT, CICLE-12, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 7 TH FLOOR, KOL-69 V/S . M/S INDIA GLYCOLS LTD., 3A, SHAKESPEARE SARANI, KOLKATA-71 [ PAN NO.AAACI 7246 P ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI GOULEAN HALGSHING, CIT-DR /BY RESPONDENT NONE /DATE OF HEARING 29-08-2017 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15-09-2017 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIX, KOLKATA D ATED 13.06.2014. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ACIT, RANGE-12, KOLKATA U/ S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 26.12.2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE- RESPONDENT WHEN ITS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, NOR ANY ADJOURNM ENT APPLICATION STANDS RECEIVED. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED BY TH E BENCH THAT THE DISPOSAL OF THE ISSUE UNDER REFERENCE IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT THE A PPEARANCE OF ASSESSEE OR BY LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1628/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2006-0 7 DCIT CIR-12 KOL. VS. M/S INDIA GLYCOLS L TDL. PAGE 2 3. GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE PER ITS APPEAL IS AS U NDER:- 1. THAT IS THE FACTS AND IN LAW OF THE CASE THE LD . CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IC AMOUNTI NG TO RS.8,52,227,373/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TI ME OF ASSESSMENT WHICH WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE IT RETURN OR REVISED R ETURN. 2. THAT IS THE FACTS AND IN LAW OF THE CASE THE LD . CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80IA. THE ASSE SSEE HAD SET OFF LOSS FROM ARISING FROM ONE UNIT AGAINST THE PROFIT FROM ANOTHER UNIT WHILE CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA. 4. FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IC OF THE ACT FOR 8,52,27,373/- THOUGH SAME WAS NOT CLAIMED EITHER IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME OR REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. 5. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A LIMI TED COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF GLYCOLS AND OTHER CHEMICALS. DU RING THE YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IC OF THE ACT FOR 8,52,27,373/- IN RESPECT OF ITS PLANT ESTABLISHED IN KASHIPUR IN THE STATE OF UTTAR ANCHAL. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED SUCH DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT BY WAY O F FILING A LETTER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WAS NOT CLAI MED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AS WELL AS IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, AO DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE U/S 80IC OF THE ACT AFTER HAVING RELIANCE IN THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED VS. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT ENTERTAI N THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OTHERWISE THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. HENCE, AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION OF 8,52,27,373/- U/S. 80IC OF THE ACT. 6. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD.CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT IT FAILED TO INCORPORATE THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IC OF THE ACT WHILE ENTERING THE DATA IN E FILING RETURN INADVERTENTLY. THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM ITS DEDUCTION WIT HOUT FILING THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME IN TERMS OF JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. CIT (1990) 187 ITR 688 (SC). MOREOVER THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED (SUPRA) HAS ITA NO.1628/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2006-0 7 DCIT CIR-12 KOL. VS. M/S INDIA GLYCOLS L TDL. PAGE 3 MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT AUTHORITY CAN ENTE RTAIN AND ALLOW THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMIS SION OF THE ASSESSEE LD. CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS U NDER:- 4.3 THE ISSUE IN THIS GROUND HAS BEEN ANALYSED AFTE R CONSIDERING BOTH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLAN T FOR COMING TO A DECISION. I FIND THAT THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM O F THE APPELLANT SINCE THE CLAIM U/S. 80CI WAS NEVER INCORPORATED IN THE ORIGI NAL RETURN OR EVEN AT THE TIME OF REVISED RETURN BEING FILED. IT WAS ONLY AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE THAT THE APPELLANT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO THAT THE OMISSION TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION WAS DUE TO INADVERTENCE. THE PERTINENT QU ESTION IN SUCH A SITUATION IS WHETHER THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT AT THE ASSESS MENT STAGE COULD BE ENTERTAINED OR NOT WHICH WAS NOT CLAIMED EARLIER. A S HAS BEEN CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS SUBMISSION THAT BASED ON THE V ARIOUS COURT DECISIONS AS NARRATED (SUPRA), THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CAN ENTER TAIN THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT EVEN IF A CLAIM IS NOT MADE BEFORE THE AO AND THAT IT CAN BE MADE BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THE JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES TO ENTERTAIN SUCH A CLAIM WHICH WAS NOT ADMITTED BY T HE AO HAS NOT BEEN NEGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THIS JUDGMENT I.E. THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. IN FACT THE SUPREME COURT MADE IT CLEAR THAT T HE ISSUE IN THE CASE WAS LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND THE JUDGMENT DOES NOT IMPINGE ON THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO ENTERTAIN AND ALLOW ADDITIONAL CLAIM. IN THE LIGHT OF THE COURT RULINGS AS NARRATED (SUPRA), IN MY OPINION THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT CAN BE ENTERTAIN ED EVEN AT THE APPELLATE STAGE SINCE IF THE APPELLANT HAD FULFILLED THE REQU IREMENTS AS CONTAINED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IC WITH ALL THE ATTENDANT I NGREDIENTS AS STIPULATED, THERE IS NO CAUSE FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT THE CLAIM WAS NOT MADE IN THE ORIGINAL OR REVISED RETURN OF I NCOME. IT IS NOT A CASE THAT THE APPELLANT NEVER UNDERTOOK THE BUSINESS UNDERTAK ING AS ENVISAGED IN THE SECTION 80IC. THE LIMITED ISSUE IN THIS GROUND AS T O WHETHER THE BELATED CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT CAN BE ENTERTAINED OR NOT HAS BEEN WELL DWELT UPON BY THE VARIOUS COURTS AS DISCUSSED (SUPRA). IN MY OPINION EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AS PER THE ACT IN ITS RETURN AND THE AO FINDS THAT SUCH A DEDUCTION OR DEDUCTIONS WERE LEGITIMATE LY ALLOWABLE, THE AO IS BOUND TO ALLOW SUCH DEDUCTION OR DEDUCTIONS WHILE M AKING THE ASSESSMENT. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRITHVI BROKER S & SHAREHOLDERS (P) LTD. ( THE TAX PAYER ) HAS HELD THAT THE TAXPAYER IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES WHICH WAS NOT CLAI MED IN THE ORIGINAL OR REVISED RETURN BUT WAS CLAIMED IN COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND THE COUR T DECISIONS, I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND THER EFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE APPELLANTS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IC OF THE ACT ACCORDINGLY IF THE APPELLANT HAS FULFILLED ALL THE CRITERIA AS ENVISAG ED IN THAT SECTION. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 7. BEFORE US LD DR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A O AND PRAYED BEFORE THE BENCH TO CONFIRM THE SAME. ITA NO.1628/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2006-0 7 DCIT CIR-12 KOL. VS. M/S INDIA GLYCOLS L TDL. PAGE 4 8. HAVING HEARD LD. DR AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BEF ORE US BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE US IS THAT ASS ESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IC OF THE ACT BY WAY OF FILING A L ETTER TO AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT AO REJECTED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT HE CANNOT ENTERTAIN THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AS THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO CLAIM THE SAME IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) O BSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT AUTHORITY ARE ENTITLED TO ADMIT THE CLAIM OF ASSESS EE WHICH WAS NOT MADE IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. NOW THE LIMITED ISSUE BEFORE US FOR OUR ADJUDICATIO N ARISES SO AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CAN MAKE A FRESH CLAIM DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. ON T HIS ISSUE, THE LAW IS FAIRLY SETTLED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- 4. THE DECISION IN QUESTION IS THAT THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, IS TO ENTERTAIN FO R THE FIRST TIME A POINT OF LAW PROVIDED THE FACT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ISSUE O F LAW CAN BE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE DECISION DOES NOT IN ANY WAY RELA TE TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTIO N OTHERWISE THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, W E DISMISS THE CIVIL APPEAL. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS CA SE IS LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND DOES NOT IMPINGE ON THE POWER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. FROM THE ABOVE PRECEDENT, WE FIND THAT HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT HAS PROHIBITED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENTERTAIN ANY CLAIM / DEDU CTION OF THE ASSESSEE OTHERWISE THAN CLAIMING IN THE RETURN / REVISED RET URN. HOWEVER, THIS RESTRICTION WAS NOT IMPOSED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF APPELLANT AUTHORITY. THUS, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANT AUTHOR ITY ARE VERY MUCH ENTITLED TO ADMIT THE FRESH CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NOT MADE IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. 8.1 WE ALSO FIND THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RAISE ADDITIONAL CLAIM WHICH WAS NOT MADE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME IN TERMS OF JU DGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME ITA NO.1628/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2006-0 7 DCIT CIR-12 KOL. VS. M/S INDIA GLYCOLS L TDL. PAGE 5 COURT IN THE CASE OF JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM OF ASSESSEE CAN BE ADMITT ED BY THE APPELLANT AUTHORITY THOUGH THE SAME WAS NOT MADE IN THE INCOM E TAX RETURN. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DEDUCTION WAS OMITTED TO BE CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS INCOME TAX RETURN FILED ELECTRONICALLY INADVERTENTL Y. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD SHOWING ANY INFIRMITY IN THE AMO UNT OF DEDUCTION CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF FILING A SEPARATE LETTER DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AB OVE DISCUSSIONS AND PRECEDENT WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF REVE NUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS T HAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT SETTING OFF THE LOSS OF A UNIT ELIGIBLE U/S. 80 IA OF THE ACT WITH ANOTHER UNIT ELIGIBLE U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT. 10. THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF TWO POWER PLANTS WHIC H WERE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. BOTH POWER PLANTS OF ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED PROFIT AS DETAILED UNDER:- 1. 80IA POWER PLANT-1 6,60,39,030/- 2. 80IA POWER PLANT-2 2,52,59,146/- (LOSS) 4,07,79,893/- THE AO WHILE ALLOWING DEDUCTION TO ASSESSEE U/S. 80 IA OF THE ACT HAS SET OFF THE LOSS OF POWER PLANT-2 WITH THE PROFIT OF POWER PLANT-1 AND ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION FOR THE AMOUNT OF PROFIT FOR 4,07,79,893/- U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. 11. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA IS TO BE ALLOWED UNITE-WISE WITHOUT DEDUCTING THE LOSS OF OT HER UNIT. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ITA T BENGALURU BENCH IN THE CASE OF JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD. VS. ACIT 26 TAXMANN.COM 317. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- ITA NO.1628/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2006-0 7 DCIT CIR-12 KOL. VS. M/S INDIA GLYCOLS L TDL. PAGE 6 5.4 GOING BY THE ABOVE RULING OF THE ITAT, THE FA CTS OF WHICH ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IA WITHOUT MAKING ANY A DJUSTMENT OF LOSS OF ONE UNIT WITH THE PROFIT OF ANOTHER UNIT AND ALL OW THE DEDUCTION ACCORDINGLY ON THE PROFIT DERIVED FROM ONE ELIGIBLE UNIT. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 12. BEFORE US LD. DR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AND PRAYED BEFORE THE BENCH TO CONFIRM THE SAME. 13. HAVING HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD. THE INSTANT ISSUE RELATES TO THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION CL AIMED BY ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ITS POWER PLANT-2 FOR 6,60,39,039/- WHICH WAS SET OFF AGAINST THE LOSS OF POWER PLANT- OF 2,52,59,146/- ONLY. THE AO WHILE GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF POWER PLANT OF T HE ASSESSEE HAS SET OFF THE LOSS OF ONE UNIT WITH THE PROFIT OF ANOTHER UNIT. H OWEVER, THE ORDER OF AO WAS REVERSED BY LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT IS TO BE ALLOWED ON UNIT-WISE BASIS AND WITHOUT SETTING O FF THE LOSS OF OTHER ELIGIBLE UNIT WITH THE PROFIT OF ANOTHER ELIGIBLE UNIT FOR D EDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. 13.1 AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE ORDER OF IT AT BENGALURU BENCH IN THE CASE OF JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD:- 13. COMING BACK TO THE FACTS OF OUR CASE WE OBSERVE TH AT THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS AT RS. 8,03,26,598 LAKHS AFTER ADJUSTING THE LOSSES SUFFERED BY IT IN THE ELIGIBLE AS WELL AS PROFITS O F THE NON-ELIGIBLE UNITS. THERE ARE NO BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OR UNABSORBED DEPRECI ATION. THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA WAS IN RESPECT OF ELI GIBLE UNIT 4.14 MW WIND ENERGY DIVISION AT RS. 4,72,28,143 AND THE DEDUCTIO N U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF OTHER UNITS AT RS.15,51,4 40. EVEN IF BOTH THE DEDUCTIONS ARE ADDED THE SUM TOTAL IS OBVIOUSLY LES S THAN THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN INTERPRETING THE RELEVANT PR OVISION WHEN HE HELD THAT THE LOSSES SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TWO ELIGIBLE UNITS BE REDUCED FROM THE INCOME OF THE OTHER ELIGIBLE UNIT BEFORE GRANTING T HE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE CASE OF S YNCO INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) LIE IN AN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT COMPARTMENT, WE HOLD THAT THE RATIO OF THAT CASE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR APPLICATION TO THE ASSESSE E' S CASE. ACCORDINGLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS OVERTURNED AND THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA ON THE PROFIT DERIVED BY IT FROM ELIG IBLE UNIT 4.14 MW WIND ENERGY UNIT AT RS.4,72,28,143. ITA NO.1628/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2006-0 7 DCIT CIR-12 KOL. VS. M/S INDIA GLYCOLS L TDL. PAGE 7 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE FIND NO REASON T O INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 15 /09/2017 SD/- SD/- ($%&) ( %&) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (%)*- 15 / 09 /201 7 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-DCIT, CIRCLE-12, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQ. AA YAKAR BHAWAN, 7 TH FL. KOL-69 2. /RESPONDENT-M/S INDIA GLYCOLS LTD. 3A, SHAKESPEARE SARANI, KOLKTA-71 3.)2)3 4 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 4- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5.789$$3 , 3 , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6.9;<=> / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ %, SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO 3 ,