DCIT, Circle-48, Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/S. 3 Guys, Howrah

ITA 1670/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1453 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VARKEY JUDIC IA L M EMBER
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJENDRA PRASAD RESPONDE
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 147; 154

Judgement Text

, B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI ABY.T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1670 / KOL / 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 DCIT, CIRCLE-48, 3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-001 V/S . M/S 3 GUYS. J.C. CHAKRABAORTY ROAD, KUILLYA, HOWRAH-711 302 [ PAN NO.AAAFZ 2045 E ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD, ADDL. CIT-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI MIRAJ D. SHAH, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING 03-08-2017 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15-09-2017 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXX, KOLKATA DATED 30.05.2014. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY DCIT, CIRCLE-48, KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORD ER DATED 30.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE PER ITS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,50,6 0,116/- IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, BY ACCEPTING TH E INSTALLATION WORKS ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE WHICH WAS NOT SUBMITTE D BEFORE THE AO EITHER AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE OR AT THE REMAND PRO CEEDINGS STAGE. ITA NO.1670/KOL/2014 A.Y.2008-09 DCIT, CIR-48 KOL. VS. M/S 3 GUYS PAGE 2 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,50,6 0,116/- AS THE CIT(A) NEITHER PROPERLY MATCHED THE RETURNED TURNOVER WITH INSTALLATION WORKS ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATES NOR GAVE THE AO AN OPPORTUN ITY TO TALLY THE RETURNED TURNOVER WITH INSTALLATION WORKS ACCEPTANC E CERTIFICATE. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,50,6 0,116/- WITHOUT ESTABLISHING FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN REGULARLY EMPLOYED ACCOUNTING POLICY IN RAISING INVOICES FOR INSTALLAT ION WORKS DONE. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ALLOWANCE OF TDS AMO UNTING TO RS.26,36,220/- IN VIOLATION OF RULE 37BA(3) OF THE INCOME TAX RULE, 1962. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-XX, KOLKATA IS CONT RARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AN D/OR AMEND, MODIFY, SUBSTITUTE, ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DUR ING THE COURSE OF HEARING. SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE AND SHRI MIRAJ D. SHAH LD. ADVOCA TE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. 2. GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 ARE INTER-RELATED AND THEREFOR E BEING TAKEN UP TOGETHER. THE ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IS THAT LD. C IT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER FOR 4,50,60,116/-. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PART NERSHIP FIRM AND ENGAGED IN TELECOMMUNICATION WORKS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS TURNOVER IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS A/C AS DETAILED UNDER:- NOKIA SIEMENS NETWORKS (P) LTD RS.9,04,21,679/- OTHER RS. 33,49,943/- TOTAL RS.9,37,71,622/- HOWEVER, AO ON PERUSAL OF THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURC E (TDS) CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S NOKIA SIEMENS NETWORKS (P) LTD. (NSNP FOR SHORT) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXECUTED THE CONTRACTS FOR 14,23,09,064/- ONLY. THUS, THE DIFFERENCE OF 5,18,87,385/- (14,23,09,064 9,,04,21,679/-) WAS O BSERVED BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, AN EXPLANATION WAS SOUGHT F ROM THE ASSESSEE. IN COMPLIANCE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RE IS A MISTAKE ON THE PART ITA NO.1670/KOL/2014 A.Y.2008-09 DCIT, CIR-48 KOL. VS. M/S 3 GUYS PAGE 3 OF NSNP FOR DEDUCTING THE TAX ON HIGHER AMOUNT AND THE ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THE FORM OF TDS CREDIT IS A WINDFALL IN THE HANDS O F ASSESSEE. 4. FROM THE ABOVE REPLY AO ASSUMED THAT THE DIFFERE NCE IN THE INCOME OF 5,18,87,385/- HAS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E YEAR AND ACCORDINGLY AO MADE THE ADDITION OF THE AFORESAID SUM TO THE TO TAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE, REMAND REPO RT AND THE CORRESPONDENCE OF NSNP LD. OBSERVED THE FOLLOWING F ACTS WHICH ARE ELABORATED AS UNDER:- I) TWO TDS CERTIFICATES WERE ISSUED BY NSNP AS DET AILED UNDER:- S.NO. NAME OF PARTY AMOUNT OF INCOME AMOUNT OF TDS 1. NSNP 5,88,61,623 66,69,044 2. NSNP 8,26,53,675 91,91,815 II) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PAYMENT FROM NSNP IN RESPECT OF TDS CERTIFICATE OF 66,71,455/-. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF TDS CERTIFICATE ALONE WAS TO BE TREATED AS THE INCO ME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. III) TO VERIFY THE VERACITY OF THE CLAIM OF REMAND REPORT WAS SOUGHT FOR FROM THE AO WHO AFTER A SERIOUS REMINDER HAS JUST S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, LD. C IT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE NSNP HAS MADE DETAILED REPLY WHICH WAS RUNNING INTO 100 OF PAGES AND 20 SETS OF PAPER BOOK WERE ALSO FILED BUT THE A O FAILED TO MAKE ANY FINDING FROM THE AFORESAID DETAILS. THEREFORE, THE NECESSARY PAPERS, LEDGER, REMAND REPORT FOLDER AND ASSESSMENT FOLDER WERE CALLED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR HIS OWN EXAMINATION. IV) THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED NSNP FOR 7,97,48,817/- DURING THE YEAR ALONG WITH TDS AMOUNT. FURTHER, ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TDS AMOUNT OF 81,30,301/- SHOWING THE NET AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FOR 7,09,03,670/-. V) IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS REVENUE OF 5,00,50,670/- ONLY INCLUDING THE REVENUE FROM NSNP FOR 4,12,31,324/- ONLY THOUGH THE TDS WAS DEDUCTED FOR ITA NO.1670/KOL/2014 A.Y.2008-09 DCIT, CIR-48 KOL. VS. M/S 3 GUYS PAGE 4 1,381/- ONLY. THUS, THERE WAS NO MATCH BETWEEN GROS S REVENUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS AMOUNT OF TDS SHOWN BY TH E ASSESSEE BUT THE REVENUE ACCEPTED THE GROSS INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WAS CARRI ED OUT FOR THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 U/S 147 OF THE ACT. BUT THE AO ACCEPTED THE PROPOSITION FOR THE GROSS REVEN UE AS WELL AS TDS AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION, THE AO HAS TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW AND HELD THAT ASSESSE E HAS SUPPRESSED ITS GROSS REVENUE. VI) THE AO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF ,1,52,31,504/- AND 10 LAKH PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THOUGH THE TDS WAS ISSUED FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03 .2006. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED THAT TDS CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY NSNP IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND CREDIT WAS ALSO GIVEN IN THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR. BUT THE CORRESPONDENCE INCOME WAS TAXED IN THE SUBSEQUE NT FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. 2006-07. VII) THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO GIVEN A CHART DEPICTING THE TDS DEDUCTED BY THE PARTY VIS--VIS GROSS REVENUE SHOWN BY THE ASSE SSEE. THIS CERTIFICATE PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-0 3, 2003-04, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. VIII) THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE BREAK-UP OF I NCOME OFFERED TO TAX IN RESPECT OF TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY NSNP FOR 5,88,87,385/- IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AS DETAILED UNDER:- AMT.(RS) AY 2008-09 1,79,53,417.00 AY 2009-10 3,21,53,913.00 AY 2010-11 3,62,000.00 AY 2011-12 1,11,165.00 POS NOT FOUND/NEVER BEEN EXECUTED 30 ,24,546.00 REMAINING JOBS IN PO NOT PERFORMED 52, 56,631.00 TOTAL 5,88,61,673.00 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, LD. CIT(A) PARTLY GRANTED REL IEF TO ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- ITA NO.1670/KOL/2014 A.Y.2008-09 DCIT, CIR-48 KOL. VS. M/S 3 GUYS PAGE 5 13.1.4 TO SUM UP, THE AO HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR IN SOLELY RELYING ON TDS CERTIFICATE OF CURRENT AY 08-09 IGNORING OTHER FACTS RELEVANT T O THE ACCRUAL OF INCOME. TDS CERTIFICATE ALONE DOES NOT EVIDENCE THE AMOUNT OF I NCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. SIMILARLY, THE AO HAS COM MITTED AN ERROR IN CONCLUDING THAT THE AR OF THE APPELLANT ACCEPTED THAT THE SUM OF RS.5,18,87,385/- HAD ACCRUED AS INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03. 2008. IN THE ORDER SHEET DATED 28.12.2010, THE EXTRACTS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN INCLUDE D IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THERE IS NO RECORDING OF THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE ART HA THE INCOME AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATE DATED 10.06.2008 HAD ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E YEAR ENDED 31.03.2008. THE NOTHING ONLY TALKS OF CREDIT OF TDS WHICH HAS BEEN TREATED AS WINDFALL INCOME. EXAMINATION OF RELEVANT FACTS INDICATES THAT THE TD S AMOUNT WAS DEDUCTED BY M/S NOKIA SIEMENS NETWORK PVT. LTD. FROM OTHER PAYMENTS AND DEPOSITED TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THUS TDS AMOUNT DEPOSITED DOES NOT R EPRESENTED ANY INCOME TO THE APPELLANT. IT WAS A MERE OUT-GO FROM DUES PAYAB LE TO THE APPELLANT AND SO IT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT TO EQUATE TDS AMOUNT TO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, AS THERE IS NO INCOME TERMING THAT AS WINDFALL IS DOUB LY WRONG. THIS ONLY INDICATES THAT THE AR REPRESENTING THE CASE COULD NOT APPRECIATE T HE RELEVANT FACTS. SIGNING THE ORDER SHEET BY THE AR ESPECIALLY WHEN THE FACTS ARE SO DIFFERENT DOES NOT MAKE THE SUMS OR THE TDS AMOUNTS AS WINDFALL INCOME. AS REGA RDS MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING THE AO HAS FAILED TO EVEN EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THAT SYSTEM GIVES RISE TO CHARGEABILITY TO TAX OF ADDITIONAL SUM OF RS.5,18,8 7,385/-. THE AO SEEMS TO HAVE USED THE TERM MERCANTILE SYSTEM WITHOUT APPLYING HI S MIND TO THE RELEVANT ISSUES AND HAS THUS ERRED IN HOLDING SO. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS IN TDS CERTIFICATE DID NOT AC CRUE TO THE APPELLANT IN TERMS OF THE WORKS CONTRACT/AGREEMENT AND ACCOUNTING STANDAR D 9 WHICH IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE AS SOME OF THE WORKS WERE NOT EXECUTED OR THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE INSTALLATION WAS AWAITED. THUS ON ALL THE COUNTS FORWARDED AS RE ASONS FOR MAKING ADDITION BY THE A.O. THE A.O. SEEMS TO HAVE GONE WRONG AND HIS DECI SION THEREFORE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THUS THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.5.18 CRORES CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS THESE AMOUNTS ARE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN OFFERED AS TURNOVE R IN THE FOLLOWING FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 OR OTHER YEARS. AS A RESULT, THE ADDITION M ADE IS DELETED, SUBJECT TO THE ESTIMATION OF THE INCOME CONTAINED IN THE GROSS AM OUNTS MENTIONED IN THE TDS CERTIFICATES OR OFFERED TURNOVER AS DISCUSSED OR ES TIMATED HEREINAFTER. 13.1.5 ESTIMATING OF INCOME: THOUGH ADDITION OF RS. 5,18,87,385/- CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IT APPEARS AFTER THE EXAMINATION OF RELEV ANT DETAILS THAT THE INCOME OF THE A.Y.08-09 AS OFFERED IN THE RETURN IS NOT CORRECT A S THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO EVALUATE THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS IN RESPECT OF INSTALL ATION WORKS EXECUTED IN THE CURRENT F.Y.07-08 BUT FOR WHICH INVOICING WAS DONE IN THE F OLLOWING F.Y.08-09 AS DETAILED LATER. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FOLLOW TH E MATCHING PRINCIPLE, WHICH REQUIRES THAT TO COMPUTE INCOME ONLY THOSE EXPENSES HAVE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE REVENUE WHICH ARE INCURRED FOR EARNING THE SAID REV ENUE. IT IS SEEN THAT RS.3,21,53,913/- WORTH OF INSTALLATIONS WERE CARRIE D OUT FOR WHICH BILLING OR INVOICING WERE DONE IN A.Y.09-10 BUT A GOOD PART OF THAT WORK WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE F.Y.07-08 RELEVANT FOR CURRENT A.Y.08-09. TO CARRY OUT THE WO RK DIRECT EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHICH WERE NOT BALANCED OUT FROM THE REVENUE OFFERE D AND TO THAT EXTENT THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE CURRENT A.Y.08-09 I S LOWER. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSING THE INCOME OF A.Y.08-09 THE VALUATION OF WORK- IN-PROGRESS OF THE INSTALLATIONS WHICH WERE CARRIED OUT IN F.Y.07-08 B UT INVOICING FOR WHICH WAS DONE IN F.Y.08-09, HAS TO BE WORKED OUT. IT APPEARS THAT THE DATE OF RAISING OF INVOICES AND THE COMPLETION OF RELEVANT INSTALLATION WORKS ARE SPREAD OVER A FEW MONTHS. TH E DELAY SEEMS TO HAVE ARISEN BECAUSE OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND NOKIA WHEREIN THE APPELLANT IS ITA NO.1670/KOL/2014 A.Y.2008-09 DCIT, CIR-48 KOL. VS. M/S 3 GUYS PAGE 6 REQUIRED TO RAISE INVOICE ONLY ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE SERVICE BY NOKIA. A LARGE NUMBER OF SITES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED IN F.Y. 2007-08 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 COMPLETION FOR WHICH HAS BEEN CONVEYED TO N OKIA DURING THE F.Y. 2007-08 ITSELF. BUT THE INVOICING OF THIS INSTALLATION WORK S HAVE BEEN POSTPONED TO F.Y. 2008- 09, FOR REASON THAT THE APPELLANT AWAITED FOR THE I NSPECTION AND ISSUANCE OF ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE OR FOR CONFIRMATION FROM NOK IA FOR RAISING THE BILLS. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MAINTAINED, IT APPEARS, THE DETAI LED ACCOUNTS OF VARIOUS INSTALLATIONS SPECIALLY REGARDING THE EXPENSES OF V ARIOUS SITES WHICH HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND ARE AWAITING INSPECTION OR FOR WHICH INVOICES HAVE NOT BEEN RAISED EVEN THOUGH THE INSTALLATION MIGHT HAVE BEEN COMPLE TED TO THE COMPLETE SATISFACTION OF BOTH NOKIA AND THE APPELLANT. THE EXPENSES INCUR RED APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS AS AND WHEN IT HAS BEEN INCUR RED. IN SOME CASES THE INVOICING DELAY IS OF EVEN ABOUT 5 MONTHS. ESTIMATION OF WORK -IN-PROGRESS AGAINST INSTALLATION COMPLETED BUT AWAITING ACCEPTANCE IS A MUST TO ESTI MATE REASONABLE PROFIT EARNED BY THE APPELLANT. THERE ARE NO DETAILS MADE AVAILABLE BY THE APPELLANT ON EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE INSTALLATIONS WHERE THE APPELLANT IS WAITING FOR ACCEPTANCE OF NOKIA. DISCUSSION WITH TECHNICAL PERSONNEL OF THE APPELLAN T LEADS TO THE OBSERVATION THAT IN SOME CASES, INSPECTION RESULTS IN RE-WORKING OR REC TIFICATION OF SOME OF THE WORK ALREADY DONE AND SIMILARLY, INSPECTION ITSELF INVOL VES COSTS BECAUSE PERSONNEL HAVE TO BE SENT TO THE SITES WHERE JOINT INSPECTION IS C ARRIED OUT. KEEPING THIS IN MIND THAT INSPECTION HAS TO BE DONE IN ALL CASES AND IN SOME CASES FOLLOW-UP ACTION IN THE FORM OF RECTIFICATION OR MODIFICATION IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE, THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS TO BE ASSOCIATED TO INSTALLATIONS FOR WHICH INVOICING HAS BEEN DONE IN F.Y. 2008-09 BUT FOR WHICH WORK WAS DONE IN F.Y. 2007-08 CAN BE DONE AS UNDER: THE AUDITED P & L A/C SHOWS THE DIRECT COST FOR INS TALLATIONS BOOKED IN THE FY 2007- 08 LABOUR CHARGES AND SITE EXPENSES ARE RESPECTIVEL Y RS.1,39,47,734/- AND RS.2,79,09,342/-. THESE TWO ADD UP TO RS.4,18,57,07 6/- OF DIRECT EXPENSES FOR ALL THE INSTALLATIONS CARRIED OUT IN FY 207-08. TO APPORTIO N A PART OF SUCH EXPENSES TOWARDS INSTALLATIONS AWAITING INSPECTION OR ACCEPTANCE THE FOLLOWING FORMULA MAY BE ADOPTED. TEAM INSTALLATION INSIPECTION RECTIFICTION STRENGTH (INITIAL) /REWORK (1) (2) (3) (4) TECHNICIAL 3 2 2 ENGINEER 1 1 1 RIGGER 1 0 0 A TOTAL 5 3 3 B NO OF DAYS 2 1 1 C=A*B MAN DAYS 10 3 3 COST/WAGE/SALARY RATE TEHNICIAL 8,000.00 8,000.00 8,000.00 ENGINEER 13,000.00 13,000.00 13,000.00 RIGGER 6,000.00 6,000.00 TEHNICIAL 24,000.00 16,000.00 16,000.00 ENGINEER 13,000.00 13,000.00 13,000 .00 RIGGER 6,000.00 00 43,000.00 29,000.00 29,000.00 NO OF DAYS 2 1 1 86,000.00 29,000.00 29,000. 00 ITA NO.1670/KOL/2014 A.Y.2008-09 DCIT, CIR-48 KOL. VS. M/S 3 GUYS PAGE 7 RATIO 86 29 29 CONVERTED 100 33.7 33.7 TAKING COST OR SITE AS X COST SITE ON AN AVERAGE X 0.337 X 0.337X I) INSPECTION IS CARRIED FOR ALL INSTALLATION. REWO RKS/RECTIFICATIONS IN MOST OF THE SITES, IT IS OBSERVED, ARE COMPLETED ON THE DATE OF INSPECTIO N ITSELF BUT IN ABOUT 25% OF THE CASES, IT IS CLAIMED THAT REWORK OR RECTIFICATION R EQUIRES ANOTHER DAY OF WORK, WHICH RESULTS IN ADDITIONAL COSTS. II) FACTORING-IN THE RECTIFICATION OR REWORK COSTS IN ABOUT X+.337X+.25*.337X 25% OF THE SITES, THE TOTAL COSTS OF THE SITES I NVOICED IS III) SIMILARLY FOR SITES IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO INV OICES HAVE BEEN RAISED, THE COST WILL BE ONLY OF INSTALLATION COST OF X IV) THE REVENUE OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST NO KIA (AFTER CONSIDERING 147 PROCEEDING FOR AY 2007-08) IS 8.12 CRORE [9-0.88 CR .]. V) POTENTIAL REVENUE IN RESPECTS OF SITES UNINVOICE D (IN CRORES) = 2.247 0.70 [ANX-A]*3.21 VI) THUS THE RATIO OF THE SITES INVOICED AND THE SI TES UNINVOICED IS 1:.277(8.12 CR: 2.247 CR) VII) THUS THE FOLLOWING EQUATION MAY BE WRITTEN FOR COSTS OF SITES N(1.43225) X + (.277) NX = 41,857.076.00 1.69825NX = 1,857,076.00 NX = 24,647,181.51 NX *(.277) = 6,827,269.28 VIII) THE ABOVE IS THE COST ALLOCABLE TO THE SITES FOR WHICH INSTALLATION HAS BEEN DOE BUT INVOICE HAS NOT BEEN RAISED AND SO THIS CAN BE TAKEN AS WORK IN PROGRESS FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN THE AY 2008-09 IN RESPECT OF W HICH REVENUE HAS BEEN BOOKED IN AY 2009-10. IX) A) THE FIGURE OF 0.70 (OR 70%) IS RECEIVED FROM TH E SHEET OF TOTAL NO OF SITES COMPLETED IN F.Y 2007-08 AND F.Y 2008-09 IN RESPECT OF BILLS RAISED IN FY 2008-09 WITH RESPECT TO A.Y 2009-10. (REFER ANNEXUR E-A) B) TOTAL COST OF RS.4,18,57,076/- INCLUDES LABOUR C HARGES OF RS.1,39,47,735/- AND SITE EXPENSES OF RS.2,79,09,343/-. THE FORMULA GIVES RISE TO WIP OF RS.68,27,269/- WHI CH MAY BE ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED IN THE CURRENT YEAR. THE WIP FIGURE IS SUB JECT TO RECTIFICATION U/S. 154 OF ANY ERROR IN OBSERVATION OR OTHERWISE IN THE FORMULA AD OPTED ABOVE. THE APPELLANT OR AO IS FREE TO SEEK RECTIFICATION, IF REQUIRED. THIS ADDITION TOWARDS WIP OF RS.68,27,269.28 HAS TO BE ADJUSTED IN LATER YEARS. THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF MATCHING PRI NCIPLES WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE REVENUE AND COST HAVE TO BE MATCHED TO ESTIMATE REV ENUE INCOME. THE MATCHING PRINCIPLES THUS ALSO REQUIRE THAT THIS WIP SHOULD B E GIVEN CONSIDERATION IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR AND THIS WIP BECOMES COST FOR THE RE VENUE IN LATER YEARS. THUS, THIS IS DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED AS COST TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE REVENUE BOOKED IN THE FY 2008-09 IN RESPECT OF INSTALLATIONS WHICH WERE EXEC UTED IN FY 2007-08. AS A RESULT, ADDITION OUT OF RS.5,18,87,385/- IS CONFIRMED ONLY UPTO RS.68,27,269/- AND THE ITA NO.1670/KOL/2014 A.Y.2008-09 DCIT, CIR-48 KOL. VS. M/S 3 GUYS PAGE 8 BALANCE OF RS.4,50,60,116/- IS DELETED. THE GROUND [ORIGINAL NO.D (LAST SENTENCE)/REVISED NO.5] IS THUS PARTLY ALLOWED . THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 6. BEFORE US LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS G RANTED PARTLY RELIEF TO ASSESSEE AFTER ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WH ICH IS IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISION OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. HE VEHEM ENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT REMAND REPORT WAS DULY CALLED FOR BY LD. CIT(A) FROM THE AO BEFORE P ASSING THE ORDER. BESIDES, THE REMAND REPORT LD. CIT(A) ALSO VERIFIED THE ENQU IRY REPORT WHICH CONDUCTED FROM NSNP, LEDGER, REMAND FOLDER AND ASSESSMENT FOL DER. ALL THESE DOCUMENTS WERE DULY EXAMINED BY LD. CIT(A). HE RELI ED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FOREGOING DI SCUSSION, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THER E WAS MISMATCH BETWEEN GROSS REVENUE SHOWN IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE AND RECO RDED IN THE BOOKS BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) GRANTED PARTLY RELIEF TO ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS REGULAR MISMATCH BETWEEN THE GROSS R EVENUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY NSNP I N THE EARLIER YEARS. THE MAJOR REASON FOR THE DIFFERENCE WAS THAT THE CONTRA CTS UNDERTAKEN BY ASSESSEE WERE SPREADING FOR SEVERAL YEARS THOUGH NS NP HAS DEDUCTED TDS ON THE BASIS OF PURCHASE ORDERS I.E. WHEN THE CONTR ACT WAS AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THERE WA S AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND NSNP FOR INSTALLATION OF TELECOMMUNICA TION NETWORK TOWERS AS PER ARTICLE 7 OF THE AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEE CAN RA ISE THE INVOICE ONCE WORK IS COMPLETED BY IT AND ACCEPTED BY NSNP. IN THIS PR OCESS, SOMETIME IT USED TO TAKE CONSIDERABLE TIME FOR GETTING ACCEPTANCE CERTI FICATE FROM NSNP. THUS, IN MANY OCCASIONS, NSNP HAS DEDUCTED TDS ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE BILL WAS NOT RAISED BY ASSESSEE FOR THE WANT OF ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE. IN ITA NO.1670/KOL/2014 A.Y.2008-09 DCIT, CIR-48 KOL. VS. M/S 3 GUYS PAGE 9 THIS CONNECTION, NSNP HAS REPLIED TO AO VIDE LETTER DATED 03.05.2013 AND RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REPLY BY NSNP REPRODUCED BE LOW:- WE REFER TO THE CAPTIONED LETTER ISSUED BY YOUR OFF ICE (COPY ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE 1) RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON APRIL 23,20 13. IN THIS REGARD, WE, ON BEHALF OF AND UNDER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF OUR SUBJECT CLIENT, WISH TO SUBMIT AS FOLLOWS: NSN INDIA HAS ISSUED FORM 16A NO.2/NSNI AACL/2007-0 8 C SUBJECT TDS CERTIFICATE) TO MIS 3 GUYS WHEREIN CREDIT OF RS .6,669.044 ON PAYMENTS I ACCRUALS AMOUNTING TO RS.68.861.623 WAS SPECIFIED COPY OF FROM 16A IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE 2. A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 C ACT) WAS ISSUED BY OUR OFFICE DATED OCTOBER 10, 2012 ASKING NSN INDIA TO FURNISH REQUISITE INFORMATION AS MIS 3 GUYS HAD CLA IMED BEFORE YOUR OFFICE THAT NO PAYMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 58.861.623 AS SPECIFIED IN THE SUBJECT TDS CERTIFICATE WERE RECEIVED BY IT. IN RESPONSE TO THE AFORESAID NOTICE AND DURING THE COURSE OF OUR DISCU SSIONS WITH YOUR OFFICE. NSN INDIA HAD STATED THAT TAXES, AS SPECIFI ED IN THE SUBJECT TDS CERTIFICATE WERE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY NSN INDIA ON THE BASIS OF ACCRUALS MADE ON MARCH 31 2008 IN ACCORDANCE WITH G ENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES IN RESPECT OF SERVIC ES PROCURED FROM MIS 3 GUYS FOR WHICH NO INVOICES WERE RECEIVED. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT NSNP HAS DEDUCTED THE TDS IN A PARTICULAR YEAR AND ASSESSEE IN THAT PARTICULAR YEAR HAS NOT S HOWN INCOME IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING ACCOUNTING STAN DARD 9 FOR REVENUE RECOGNITION. ACCORDINGLY, IT USED TO RECOGNIZE REVE NUE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ONCE THE INSTALLATION WORK IS ACCEPTED BY THE CLIEN T. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TDS AMOUNT AND CORRESPONDENCE GR OSS REVENUE AROSE. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE LD. DR HAS NOT BROUGHT A NYTHING CONTRARY TO THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A). IN THIS VIEW, WE FIND THAT L D. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A DETAILED ORDER COVERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE ALSO FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K.Y. PILLIAH & SONS REPORTED IN 63 ITR 411 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDE R:- THE TRIBUNAL IS THE FINAL FACT-FINDING AUTHORITY A ND NORMALLY IT SHOULD RECORD ITS CONCLUSION ON EVERY DISPUTED QUESTION RA ISED BEFORE IT, SETTING OUT ITS REASONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONCLUSIO N. BUT, IN FAILING TO RECORD REASONS, WHEN THE TRIBUNAL FULLY AGREES WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY AAC AND HAS NO OTHER GROUND TO RECORD IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONCLUSION, IT DOES NOT ACT ILLEGALLY OR IRREGULARLY, MERELY BE CAUSE IT DOES NOT REPEAT THE GROUNDS OF THE AAC ON WHICH THE DECISION WAS GI VEN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE OR THE DEPARTMENT. ITA NO.1670/KOL/2014 A.Y.2008-09 DCIT, CIR-48 KOL. VS. M/S 3 GUYS PAGE 10 RESPECTIVELY FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY T HE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE CASE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE I N THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 8. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN GROUND NO.4 IS T HAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO GIVE THE CREDIT OF TDS AMOUNT F OR 26,36,220/- WHICH IS AGAINST THE PROVISION OF RULE 37BA(3) OF THE ACT. 9. THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS GIVEN THE CRE DIT OF TDS AMOUNT CORRESPONDING TO THE INCOME DECLARED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS INCOME TAX RETURN. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CREDIT OF TDS FOR AN AMOUN T OF 1,59,57,961/- ONLY. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ALL THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN TDS CERTIFICATES WERE NOT OFFERED TO TAX IN THE CURRENT YEAR. THEREFORE T DS CREDIT CANNOT BE GIVEN IN FULL AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 199 OF THE ACT . 10. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO GRANTED RELIEF TO ASSESSEE FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF T DS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- TDS OF RS.20,18,902/- CORRESPONDING TO RS.L,78,19,0 84/- WAS DEDUCTED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND WAS DEPOSITED ON 31.05.2 008. RULE 37BA(3) PROVIDES THAT THE TDS CREDIT HAS TO BE GIVEN FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE CORRESPONDING INCOME IS ASSESSABLE. RULE 37BA(4) PROVIDES THAT THE SAID CREDIT HAS TO BE GRANTED ON THE BASIS OF T HE INFORMATION [FORM 26AS] FURNISHED BY THE DEDUCTOR TO THE INCOME TAX AUTHORI TY AND ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME REGARDING THE C LAIM FOR THE CREDIT. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE APPELLANT WAS NOT IN TH E POSSESSION OF TDS CERTIFICATE WHEN FILING RETURN FOR THE SAID YEAR AN D THE TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTED OR PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT: ACCOUNT. THUS IN THE INS TANT CASE, THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO CLAIM THE CREDIT OF TAX IN THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2007-08 BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ABLE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF RULE 37BA FOR THE ABOVE REASON. BUT RULE 37BA(3) ALLOW THE CREDIT OF THE TD S ONLY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CORRESPONDING INCOME IS ASSESSABLE TO TAX I.E. IN A.Y.2007-08. THUS TWO PROVISIONS OF RULE 37BA(3) AND 37BA(4) ARE CONTRADI CTORY IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AS REGARDS THE TDS AND THE CORRESPONDING REVENUE OF RS.1,78,19,084/-. IT IS SEEN THAT TDS WAS DEDUCTED ON 31.03.200S AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS PAID TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ON 3 1.05.200S [AS PER FORM 16A DATED 10.06.2008]. IF THE RULE 37BA(3) IS LITER ALLY FOLLOWED IN THE PRESENT CASE THEN THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRED TO PAY INTERES T U/S.244A OF I.T. ACT FOR A PERIOD OF 14 MONTHS [ FROM 01.04.2007 TO 31.05.2008 ] BUT ON A TAX WHICH WAS NOT IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT DURING THE SAID PERIO D. THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAYABLE BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 14 MONTHS [01.04.2007 TO 31.05.2008] WOULD BE RS.1,41,323/- [7% OF TDS RS.20 ,18,902/-], EVEN THOUGH IN THE SAID PERIOD TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AND NOT PAI D TO THE GOVERNMENT. THE APPELLANT ALSO FAILED TO LODGE CLAIM IN TERMS OF RU LE 37BA( 4) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-0S AS TDS CERTIFICATES [FORM 16A] AND DED UCTORS' INFORMATION TO ITA NO.1670/KOL/2014 A.Y.2008-09 DCIT, CIR-48 KOL. VS. M/S 3 GUYS PAGE 11 I.T. AUTHORITY [FORM 26AS] CAME INTO EXISTENCE ONLY MUCH LATER. THUS IT IS HELD THAT THE CREDIT FOR TDS OF RS.20,18,902/- CORRESPON DING TO THE INCOME OF RS.1,78,19,084/- NOT BE ALLOWED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS THE CORRESPONDING RETURN OF THE APPELLANT AND THE INFOR MATION FURNISHED TO THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY IN 26AS DOES NOT SUPPORT THE V IEW THAT. THE CREDIT OF THE CORRESPONDING AMOUNT BE GIVEN IN A.Y.2007-08. BUT S INCE THE TAX OF RS.20,18,902/- HAS BEEN WITHHELD FROM THE APPELLANT 'S REVENUE AND DEPOSITED TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AS TAX ON BEHALF OF THE A PPELLANT IT IS THE DEMAND OF JUSTICE THAT THE SAID CREDIT BE ALLOWED IN THE C URRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 AS FORM 26AS AND FORM 16A SUPPORTS THE CLAIM IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPEL LANT MAKES CLAIM FOR THE CREDIT OF THE SAID TDS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. NOT ALLOWING THE CREDIT HERE IN A.Y.2008-09 WOULD GO AGAINST THE PROVISION OF SECTION 205 OF I.T. ACT WHICH PUTS BAR ON COLLECTION OF TAX FROM THE APPELL ANT TO THE EXTENT OF THE TAX OF RS.20,18,902/- DEDUCTED AND PAID FROM INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. AS A RESULT, TDS OF RS.20,18,902/- CORRESPONDING TO THE SAID SUM OF RS.1,78,19,084/- IS DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED AS CREDI T IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 13.1.6.3 IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT THAT RS.30,24,546/- OF REVENUE NOTED IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE 16A, DATED 10.06.200S CORRESPONDS TO PURCHASE ORDERS WHICH WERE NOT COMMUNICATED TO THE APPELLANT AND SO THERE WAS NO WORK CARRIED OUT. NO REVENUE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE AR ISEN OUT OF SUCH POS. HENCE, SETTING ASIDE A PART OF THE DUES TO THE APPE LLANT BY M/S. NOKIA SIEMENS NETWORK PVT. LTD. TOWARDS TDS DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE SAID NON-EXISTENT REVENUE IS NOT CORRECT. HOWEVER, SINCE THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED BY M/S. NOKIA SIEMENS NETWORK PVT. LTD TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT AND HAS BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE APPELLANT 'S RECEIVABLES AMOUNT, THIS CREDIT MUST BE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT, IT IS CLAIMED. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH 'C' IN THE C ASES OF SUPREME RENEWABLE ENERGY LTD .[(2010) 124 ITD 394 (CHENNAI)] THE A.O. IS DIRECTE D TO ALLOW THE CREDIT OF THE .TDS CORRESPONDING TO TH IS AMOUNT, I.E.RS.3,42,681. LIKEWISE, THE APPELLANT FURTHER CLAIMS THAT RS.52,5 6,631/- OUT OF THE AMOUNTS SHOWN AS CREDIT/PAYMENT IN TDS CERTIFICATE DATED 10 .06.2008 RELATES TO PO'S/SITES WHERE WORKS WERE NEVER EXECUTED AND NOKI A MIGHT HAVE CARRIED OUT THE SAID WORK THROUGH OTHER VENDORS OR THE SITE /WORK MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABANDONED BY NOKIA. IN ANY CASE AS NO WORK WAS EVER EXECUTED, IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE CORRESPONDING AMOUNT OF RS.52,56,631/- DOE S NOT REPRESENT ANY REVENUE THAT MAY ACCRUE TO THE APPELLANT IN THIS YE AR OR LATER YEARS. AS THE SUM HAS BEEN ADJUSTED BY NOKIA AGAINST PAYABLES TO THE APPELLANT, IT IS CLAIMED, THE TAX THUS PAID TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEN T AND TERMED AS TDS [RS.5,94,529/-] CORRESPONDING TO THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.52,56,631/- MUST BE ALLOWED AGAINST THE CREDITS TO BE GIVEN TOWARDS TAX PAID BY THE APPELLANT OF THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. CONSEQUENTLY FOLLOWING THE HO N'BLE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH'S DECISION (SUPRA), IT IS DIRECTED THAT THE C REDIT OF RS.5,94,529/- BE ALLOWED. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. ITA NO.1670/KOL/2014 A.Y.2008-09 DCIT, CIR-48 KOL. VS. M/S 3 GUYS PAGE 12 11. BEFORE US BOTH PARTIES RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A UTHORITIES BELOW AS FAVOURABLE TO THEM. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE INSTANT ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SUPREME RENEWABLE ENERGY LTD. (2010) 124 ITD 394 (CHENNAI) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD A S UNDER:- WHEN A PARTICULAR INCOME IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E AFTER DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND THE SAID TDS HAS BEEN DULY DEPOSITED WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE REQUISITE CERTIFI CATE TO THIS EFFECT, THEN ON PRODUCTION OF THE SAID CERTIFICATE THE ASSESSEE BEC OMES ENTITLED FOR THE CREDIT OF TDS EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DIRECTLY OFFERE D THE SAID INCOME FOR TAX AS THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED THE SAME WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CHENNAI BENC H IN THE CASE OF SUPREME RENEWABLE ENERGY LTD. (SUPRA) WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 15/ 09/2017 SD/- SD/- (ABY. T. VARKEY) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP #$%&- 15 / 09 /201 7 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-DCIT, CIR-48, 3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST), KOK ATA-001 2. /RESPONDENT-M/S 3 GUYS J.C. CHAKRABORTY ROAD, DUILL YA, HOWRAH-711302 3.%.%/ 0 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 0- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5.34566/ , / , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6.589:; / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ $, /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO / ,