DCIT,CIR-4, KOLKATA, Kolkata V. M/s Joonktollee Tea & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 170/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4552 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P J BHIDE
• Keywords: Business income; Earning of tax free income; Right to appeal; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.170 TO 172/KOL/14 & CO NOS.20 & 21/KOL/14 M/S. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD. 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C, KOLKATA (BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, J.M. &DR.A.L.SAINI, A.M .) ITA NOS. 170 TO 172/KOL/2014: ASSTT. YEARS : 200 7-08 TO 2009-10 D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA 700 069 VS M/S. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD., 21, STRAND ROAD, KOLKATA 700 001 PAN: AAACJ 6577G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NOS.20 & 21/KOL/2014 : ASSTT. YEARS : 2007-08 & 2008-09 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.170 & 171/KOL/2014 ) M/S. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD., 21, STRAND ROAD, KOLKATA 700 001 VS D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA 700 069 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : NONE ASSESSEEBY : SHRI P. J. BHIDE, FCA DATE OF HEARING : 09.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19-08-2016 ORDER PER DR. A.L.SAINI, A.M .: THE CAPTIONED THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE PE RTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KOLKAT A IN APPEALS NO.233/ CIT(A)-IV/2009-10, NO. 164/CIT(A)-IV/2010-11 AND NO .151/CIT(A)-IV/2011-12 RESPECTIVELY, WHICH IN TURN ARISE OUT OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT, `THE ACT`). ITA NOS.170 TO 172/KOL/14 & CO NOS.20 & 21/KOL/14 M/S. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD. 2 THE CAPTIONED TWO CROSS OBJECTIONS CITED ABOVE, FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND 2008-09 IN C.O. NOS.20/ KOL/14 AND CO. NO.21/KOL/14, RESPECTIVELY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-IV, KOLKATA, WHICH IN TURN ARISE OUT OF ORDE RS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. SINCE THESE THREE APPEALS AND TWO CROSS OBJECTIONS RELATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE AND INVOLVE COMMON ISSUES, THEREFORE, THEY HAVE BEEN CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, EVEN THOUGH NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO IT ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. HENCE, WE PRO CEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE, WITHOUT PRESENCE OF THE DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE. 2. GROUND NO.1 TAKEN BY THE REVENUE, WHICH IS COMMON I N ALL THREE APPEALS, RELATE TO CESS ON GREEN LEAF - WHETHER IT IS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE OR NOT. THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE STATED IN BRIEF. THE AS SESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND INTER ALIA , ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTION OF GREEN LEAF TEA. GRE EN LEAF IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WHICH IS TAXABLE UNDER THE STATE AGRICULTURE INCOME TAX.AS PER RULE 8 ONLY 40% OF THE COMPOSITE INCOME IS TAXA BLE UNDER CENTRAL INCOME TAX. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED EXPE NDITURE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C. UNDER THE HEAD GREEN LEAF CESS AND CLAIMED T HE SAME @ 100% AS EXPENDITURE AGAINST MANUFACTURING OF TEA. THE LD. A O FURTHER HELD IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT CESS IS PAYABLE ONLY UPTO THE PLUCKING STAGE OF GREEN LEAF. EVEN IF AN ASSESSEE WHO HAS THE ACTIVITY OF CULTIVA TION ALONE BUT NO TEA FACTORY, HAS ITA NOS.170 TO 172/KOL/14 & CO NOS.20 & 21/KOL/14 M/S. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD. 3 TO PAY CESS ON GREEN LEAF, THOUGH ITS INCOME IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THEREFORE, IT IS 100% AGRICULTURAL EXPENSE. HENCE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTED. BESIDES THIS, A SLP HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMEN T, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THE ABOVE DECISION ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY, THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE IS DISALLOWED AND EXPENSES ON GREEN LEAF CESS IS ADDED BACK. THEREFOR E, HOLDING THE SAME, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE GREEN LEAF CESS FOR ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10. 2.1. AGGRIEVED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO, THE AS SESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) IV, KOLKATA. THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) VIDE PAGE 3 PAGE 4 OF HIS ORDER WHERE IN HE HELD THAT ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM FOR CESS P AID TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT ON THE QUANTITY OF GREEN LEAF PLUCKED AND CONSUMED IN MANUFACTURE OF TEA, INCOME FROM WHICH IS DETERMINED IN TERMS OF RULE 8 OF THE INCOME-TAX RULE, 1962. THIS GROUND HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE AP PELLANT. FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-VS- AFT INDUSTRIES LTD., REPORTED IN 270 ITR 167 AND ALSO T HE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31 .04.2010 IN APPEAL NOS.532 & 533, THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED CESS ON GREEN LEAF BY THE AO. THIS CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO ON THE REASON THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED AN SLP AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AND THE SAME IS PENDING IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT BE GROUND FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE APPELLANTS CLAIM. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THE APPELLANTS CLAIM IS ALLOWED AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF CESS DERIVED BY THE APPELLANT FOR CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURING OF TEA. NOT BEING SATISFIED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NOS.170 TO 172/KOL/14 & CO NOS.20 & 21/KOL/14 M/S. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD. 4 2.2. WE NOTICED THE STAND OF THE REVENUE WHICH HAS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT CESS IS PAYABLE ONLY UPTO THE PLUCKING STAGE OF GREEN LEAF. GREEN LEAF IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITI ES WHICH IS TAXABLE UNDER THE STATE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF CENTR AL INCOME TAX. EVEN IF AN ASSESSEE WHO HAS THE ACTIVITY OF CULTIVATION ALONE BUT NO TEA FACTORY, HAS TO PAY CESS ON GREEN LEAF, THOUGH THE INCOME IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THEREFORE, IT IS 100% AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES. HENCE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTED. THE LD. AOMENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT A SPECIAL LEAVE PETIT ION ON THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND IT IS PENDING BEFORE TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THE ABOVE DECISION ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, IN ORD ER TO MAINTAIN JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISALLOWE D AND EXPENSES ON GREEN LEAF CESS IS ADDED BACK. 2.3. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY SUBMITT ED THAT THIS GROUND HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-VS- AFT INDUSTRIES LTD. 270 ITR 167 AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31 ST APRIL, 2010 IN APPEAL NOS.532 & 533, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED CESS ON GREEN LEAF BY THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-AFT INDUSTRIES LTD. ( SUPRA ), WHERE THE AMOUNT PAID AS CESS WAS HELD AS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION IN COMPUTIN G THE COMPOSITE INCOME UNDER RULE 8 OF I.T. RULES. THIS ISSUE IS THEREFORE, DECI DED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) WHO HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF PAYMENT OF CESS ON GREEN LEAVES IN COM PUTING THE COMPOSITE INCOME FROM TEA BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 8 OF T HE INCOME TAX RULES. THE FACT THAT THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS PENDING BEFORE T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ITA NOS.170 TO 172/KOL/14 & CO NOS.20 & 21/KOL/14 M/S. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD. 5 AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH C OURT IN RESPECT OF AFT INDUSTRIES LTD. VS- CIT ( SUPRA ) WILL NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT SINCE THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS NEITHER SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE HONB LE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT NOR GRANTED ANY STAY. THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT CASE UN DER CONSIDERATION , THE CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO ON THE REASON THAT THE D EPARTMENT HAS FILED A SLP AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH C OURT AND THE SAME IS PENDING IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. SUCH PENDENCY OF THE SLP WOULD NOT BE THE GROUND FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. 2.4. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE NOTICED THAT THERE IS MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, AS THE P ROPOSITIONS CANVASSED BY HIM ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT- VS- AFT INDUSTRIES LTD. ( SUPRA ) AND THE FACTS CITED BY HIM. AS THE AO DID NOT ALLOW THIS CLAIM MERELY BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED A SLP AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-VS- AFT INDUSTREIS LTD. ( SUPRA ) AND THE SAME IS PENDING IN THE SUPREME COURT. SU CH PENDENCY OF THE SLP SHOULD NOT BE THE GROUND FOR DISALLOWANCE OF TH E ASSESSEES CLAIM. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. 2.5. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.1 IN ITA NO.170/KOL/2 014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, GROUND NO.1 IN ITA NO.171/KOL/2014 FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND GROUND NO.1 IN ITA NO.172/KOL/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-10,BY THE REVENUE,ARE DISMISSED. 3. GROUND NO.2 OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1 70/KOL/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 READS AS UNDER: THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTINGTHAT THE INTEREST SUBSIDY OF RS.28,24,072/ - WAS INCOME DERIVED ITA NOS.170 TO 172/KOL/14 & CO NOS.20 & 21/KOL/14 M/S. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD. 6 FROM MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTION OF TEA INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF I NCOME, IGNORING THE FACT THAT SINCE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE REVISED RETURN, IN COME SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN COULD NOT BE REVISED AS DECIDED BY THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA . 3.1. FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE STATED IN BRIEF. WE NO TICED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) MADE BY THE AO DOES NOT SPEAK ANYTHINGON THIS PARTICULAR GROUND. THIS FRESH ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE REVENUE CONTESTED THAT THE SUBSIDY OF R S.28,24,072/- IS TAXABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD AS A PART OF BUSI NESS INCOME. BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE SAID SUBSIDY IS LI NKED WITH CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURING OF TEA THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE AS INCO ME FROM CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURING OF TEA AND NOT FROM INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE RELEVANT PARA 6.1 AND 6.2 AT PAGE 5 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) RE AD AS FOLLOWS: 6.1 THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT STATED THAT THE APPEL LANT, DURING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO PREVIOUS YEAR, RECEIVED SUBSIDY OF RS.28,24,072/- FROM THE GOVERNMENT. THE APPELLANT HAD PAID BANK IN TEREST ON THE MONEYS BORROWED AND UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CUL TIVATION AND MANUFACTURE OF TEA IN EXCESS OF 10%. IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXCESS, THE APPELLANT, CLAIMED AND RECEIVED SUBSIDY OF RS.28,24 ,072/-. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY RECEIVED, IS TAXABLE AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT DEDUCTION IN RE SPECT OF SUCH INTEREST HAS BEEN ALLOWED ONLY IN COMPUTING APPELLA NT'S INCOME FROM CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURE OF TEA AND THEREFORE, S UCH SUBSIDY SHOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR THE APPELLANT'S INCOME OF TEA BUSINESS. THE APPELLANT S UBMITS THAT THE ASSESSINQ OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE ASSESSED THE AMOU NT OF THE SAID SUBSIDY AS APPELLANT'S INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 6.2 I FIND THAT THE CLAIM IS LOGICAL AND THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ASSE SS THE SUBSIDY INCOME AS INCOME FROM CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURE O F TEA AND NOT FROM INCOME OF OTHER SOURCES AND SHOULD NOT BE TAXE D @ 100% . ITA NOS.170 TO 172/KOL/14 & CO NOS.20 & 21/KOL/14 M/S. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD. 7 3.2. WE NOTICED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDE R SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE SAID FRESH ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LD.CIT (A).THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THA T THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY RECEIVED, IS TAXABLE AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DEDUCTION IN RES PECT OF SUCH INTEREST HAS BEEN ALLOWED ONLY IN COMPUTING ASSESSEE'S INCOME FROM CU LTIVATION AND MANUFACTURE OF TEA. THEREFORE, HAVING ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE`S SUBM ISSIONS THE, LDCIT(A) DIRECTED TO THE AO TO TREAT THE SUBSIDY AS BUSINESS INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE. 3.3. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID BANK INTEREST ON THE MONEY BORROWED AND UTILISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURING OF TEA IN EXCESS OF 10% AND IN RESPEC T OF SUCH EXCESS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AND RECEIVED SUBSIDY OF RS.28,24,072/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE OF THE AMOUNT ON SUBSIDY RECEIVED, IS TAXABLE AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF SUCH INTEREST HAS BEEN ALLO WED ONLY IN COMPUTING ASSESSEES INCOME FROM CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURE OF TEA AND THEREFORE, SUCH SUBSIDY SHOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO FOR THE ASSESSEES INCOME OF TEA BUSINESS. THE LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SU BSIDY UNDER CONSIDERATION IS A OPERATIVE EXPENSES/ DIRECT EXPENSE OF THE BUSINESS, THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION ONLY. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ALWAYS OPEN FOR THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE NEW GROUND WHICH WAS NOT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE OF THE JUDGEMENT IN CIT-VS- SAM GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD. DELIVERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AT DELHI IN INCOME TAX APPEAL 214/2013, THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE SAID JUDG MENT ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: ITA NOS.170 TO 172/KOL/14 & CO NOS.20 & 21/KOL/14 M/S. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD. 8 7. REFERENCE WAS ALSO MADE TO AN EARLIER DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. CLT, [1991] 1 87 ITR 688 (SC), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- 'AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALL THE POWERS WHICH TH E ORIGINAL AUTHORITY MAY HAVE IN DECIDING THE QUESTION BEFORE IT SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS, IF ANY, PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTORY PROVISI ON, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS VESTED WITH ALL THE PLENARY POWERS WHI CH THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY MAY HAVE IN THE MATTER. THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO JUSTIFY CURTAILMENT OF THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN ENTERTAINING AN ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN SEEKING MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY T HE INCOME TAX OFFICER. THIS COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THERE MAY BE SEVERAL FACTORS JUSTIFYING THE RAISING OF A NEW PLEA IN AN APPEAL A ND EACH CASE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON ITS OWN FACTS. THE APPELLATE ASSIS TANT COMMISSIONER MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE GROUND RAISED WAS BONA F IDE AND THAT THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RAISED EARLIER FOR GOOD RE ASONS. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHOULD EXERCISE HI S DISCRETION IN PERMITTING OR NOT PERMITTING THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE AN ADDITIONAL GROUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND REASON. THE SAME OBSERVATIONS WOULD APPLY TO APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO.' 8. DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. (SUP RA) WAS DISTINGUISHED IN JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LTD. (SUPRA) IN THE FOLLOW ING WORDS:- 'IN GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) WHEREIN DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY WAY OF A LETTER BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, WAS DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISIO N UNDER THE ACT TO MAKE AMENDMENT IN THE RETURN WITHOUT FILING A REVIS ED RETURN. APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT, AS THE DECISION WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HIGH COURT, WAS DISMISSED MAKING CLEAR THAT THE DECISION WAS LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ENTERTAIN CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHERWISE THAN BY A REVISED RETURN, AND D ID NOT IMPINGE ON THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL.' 9. IN CIT VS. NATRAJ STATIONERY PRODUCTS (P) LTD., (2009) 312 ITR 222 RELIANCE PLACED ON GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA) BY T HE REVENUE WAS REJECTED, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY 'NEW CLAIM' BUT HA D ASKED FOR RE- COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-1 B. THE SAID DECISION MAY NOT ITA NOS.170 TO 172/KOL/14 & CO NOS.20 & 21/KOL/14 M/S. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD. 9 BE SQUARELY APPLICABLE BUT THE COURTS HAVE TAKEN A PRAGMATIC VIEW AND NOT THE TECHNICAL VIEW AS WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE DETERM INED IS THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. IN THIS SENSE, ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT ADVERSARIAL IN NATURE. 3.4. FROM THE ABOVE CITED FACTS AND CIRCUMSATNCES, WE NOTICED MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, AS THE P ROPOSITIONS CANVASSED BY HIM ARE SUPPORTED BY THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-VS- SAM GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD. ( SUPRA ) AND THE FACTS NARRATED BY HIM. THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DEALING WITH APPEALS IS EX PRESSED IN THE WIDEST POSSIBLE TERMS. THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BE FORE THE TAXING AUTHORITIES IS TO ASSESS CORRECTLY THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSE E IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO RESTRICT THE POWER OF THE TRI BUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 ONLY TO DECIDE THE GROUNDS WHICH ARISE FROM THE ORDER OF TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). BOTH THE ASSESSES AS WELL AS THE DEPARTM ENT HAVE A RIGHT TO FILE AN APPEAL/ CROSS OBJECTION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREF ORE, BASED ON THE ABOVE CITED REASONING, WE DO NOT INTEND TO INTERFERE IN THE FIN DINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 3.5 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 4. IN ITA NO.171/KOL/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 008-09, THE GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER: THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DISALLOWANCES U/S 14A OF RS.58, 15,187/- WAS NOT WARRANTED AS THE NEXUS BETWEEN EXPENSES AND EXCEPT INCOME WAS NOT ESTABLISHED, IGNORING THE FACT THAT APPLICABILITY O F RULE 8D WAS W.E.F. A. Y. 2008-09 I.E. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN CONSIDERA TION. 4.1. THE FACTS OF THE SAID ISSUE ARE STATED IN BRIE F. THE LD. AO VIDE PAGE NO.5 OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 14A AT ITA NOS.170 TO 172/KOL/14 & CO NOS.20 & 21/KOL/14 M/S. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD. 10 RS.58,15,187/-. THE AO HELD THAT THE COMPANY MUST H AVE INCURRED SOME EXPENDITURE FOR HOLDING INVESTMENT AND FOR EARNING PURELY AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ON ESTIMATE A SUM OF RS. 1.0 LAC. IS DISALLOWED UNDER RULE 8D(2) (I). THE AO ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED INTEREST EXPENSES PR OPORTIONATELY TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME AND THE SAME SHOULD BE DISALLOWED. THE WORKI NG OF THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D(2)(II) AND RULE 8D(2)(III) IS REPRODUCED BE LOW: 1) GROSS INTEREST (A) RS.2,38,99,779 2) AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS OF [34405685 + 457629892] (B) RS. 24,6 0,17,789 3) AVERAGE VALUE OF ASSETS OF [988792720 + 322164371] (C) RS.1,81,0 9,57,091 A X B = 23899779 X 246017789 = RS.44,85,098 C 1810957091 0.5% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENTS = RS.12,30,089 I.E. B AS ABOVE AMOUNT DISALLOWABLE U/S 14A= RS.58,15,187 4.2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE AO, OBSERVING THE FOLLOWINGS: 5.2. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS W ELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT. WHILE MAKI NG DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D THE ONLY REASONING GIVEN BY THE A.O. AT PAG E NO.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY MUST HAVE INCUR RED SOME EXPENDITURE FOR HOLDING INVESTMENT AND FOR EARNING PURELY AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME. NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. TO ESTABLISH LINK AGES AND NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXEMPTED EARNED AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED. S UCH A FINDING IS ESSENTIAL IF THE A.O. INTENDS TO INVOKE SEC. 14A RE AD WITH RULE 8D. SEVERAL CASE LAWS HAVE HELD THAT INVOCATION OF SEC. 14A REA D WITH RULE 8D IS NOT AUTOMATIC. I ALSO FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED ANY SATISFACTION WITH REGARD TO THE PROVIS ION OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. CONSEQUENTLY IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF BALARAMPURCHINNI MILLS LTD., REFERRED TO BY THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A CANNOT BE I NVOKED. THE A.R. OF THE ITA NOS.170 TO 172/KOL/14 & CO NOS.20 & 21/KOL/14 M/S. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD. 11 APPELLANT HAS ALSO BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE APPEL LANT COMPANY HAD SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS IN ITS SHARE CAPITAL AND RESER VE AND SURPLUS TO FINANCE ITS INVESTMENTS. IN FACT FROM THE BALANCE SHEET IT IS CLEAR THAT MOST OF THE INVESTMENT HAS COME TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE APPELLA NT AS A RESULT OF MERGER/AMALGAMATION SCHEME. THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOT B ROUGHT ON RECORD ANY DIVERSION OF INTEREST BEARING CAPITAL TOWARDS INVES TMENT IN SHARES. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT DISAL LOWANCE OF RS. 58,15,187/- BY INVOKING RULE 8D IS NOT LEGALLY TENA BLE AND SHOULD BE DELETED. AGGRIEVED, FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (A), THE RE VENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.3 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NOTICED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED IN EARLIER PARA AND THE SAME IS NOT BEING REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 4.4 FIRST OF ALL, AS WE NOTICED THAT THE CALCULATIO N OF AVERAGE VALUE OF THE ASSETS IS WRONG.IT SHOULD BE RS.65,54,78,545 { OF [98879 2720 + 322164371]} INSTEAD OF RS.1,81,09,57,091/-. THIS MISTAKE HAS IMPACT ON THE ENTIRE CALCULATION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D.THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSES SEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHILE MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D, ONLY REASON GIVE N BY THE AO IS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MUST HAVE INCURRED SOME EXPENSES F OR HOLDING INVESTMENT AND FOR EARNING PURELY AGRICULTURE INCOME. THE AO FAILE D TO ESTABLISH LINKAGE AND NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXEMPT INCOME AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A FINDING IS ESSENTIAL IF THE AO INTENDS TO IN VOKE SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. THE LD. AR ALSO STATED THAT THE AO HAS NOT RECO RDED ANY SATISFACTION WITH REGARD TO PROVISION TO SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8 D. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF BALARAMPURCHINI MILLS LTD. (SUPRA), THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A CANNOT B E INVOKED. THE LD. AR ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS IN ITS SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVE TO FINANCE ITS INVESTMENTS. IN FACT, FR OM THE BALANCE-SHEET IT IS CLEAR THAT ITA NOS.170 TO 172/KOL/14 & CO NOS.20 & 21/KOL/14 M/S. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD. 12 MOST OF THE INVESTMENT HAS COME TO THE COMPANY AS A RESULT OF MERGER SCHEME AND OWN FUNDS. 4.5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE NOTICED MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, AS THE PROPOSITIONS CANVASSED BY HIM ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF BALARAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD (SUPRA), AND THE FACTS NARRATED BY HIM. AS THE ASSE SSEE HAD SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS TO FINANCE ITS INVESTMENT AND THE AO FAILED TO ESTABLI SH THE LINKAGE AND THE NEXUS BETWEEN EXEMPT INCOME AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. APART FROM THIS, THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED ANY SATISFACTION WITH REGARD TO PROVISION OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO UNDER RULE 8D (2)(II) RS.44,85,098/- SHOULD BE D ELETED. SO FAR THE ADDITION BY THE LD. AO UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) AT RS.12,30,089/- IS CONCERNED, IT IS TOWARDS GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES WHICH NORMALLY A COMPANY INCURS WHILE MAKING INVESTMENT DECISION. IN THE INVESTMENT DECIS IONS, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANIES ARE INVOLVED AND THE FINANCE DEPARTME NT IS ALSO INVOLVED THEREFORE, THERE SHOULD BE SOME EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, THERE ARE CERTAINLY SOME EXPENSES WHICH THE COMPANY MIGHT HAVE INCURRED TO EARN THE E XEMPT INCOME. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. AO UNDER RULE 8D (2) ( I) RS. 100,000/- AND UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) AT RS.12,30,089/- IS CONFIRMED BY U S AND THE ADDITION MADE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) AMOUNTING TO RS.44,85,098/- IS DELET ED. 4.6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E ON THIS ISSUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. IN C.O. NO.20/KOL/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.170 /KOL/2014 AND C.O. NO.21/KOL/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.171/KOL/2014, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: ITA NOS.170 TO 172/KOL/14 & CO NOS.20 & 21/KOL/14 M/S. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD. 13 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPELLANTS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/ S 80IC OF THE ACT . 5.1. FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE STATED IN BRIEF. FIRST OF ALL, AS WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE AO IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER, FOR A.Y.2007-08. BUT FOR A.Y.2008-09 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCU SSED THIS ISSUE IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN LAST PARA, OBSERVING THE FOLLO WINGS: THE ASSESSEE`S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IC OF THE ACT IS REJECTED FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE`S CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-2005 AND 2005-2006 UNDER ITA NO.110 & 401/KOL/2010 . AGGRIEVED FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) IV, KOLKATA. THE LD. CI T(A) VIDE PARA 7 OF HIS ORDER HAS REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, OBSERVING THE FO LLOWINGS: 7. GROUND NO.5 IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED THE APPELLANTS CLAIM U/S 80-IC OF THE ACT. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE APPELLANTS CLAIM FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07. SUCH DISALLOWANCE S HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED. I, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPELLANTS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 8 0IC OF THE ACT. 5.2. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THIS ISSUE BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS IS TO ASSESS CORRECT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE INCOME TAX ACT, A ND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE MAY RAISE NEW ISSUE BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES.TH E LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE CASE LAWS IN THE CASE OF CIT-VS- SAM GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD. BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AT DELHI IN INCOME TAX APPEAL 21 4/2013. ITA NOS.170 TO 172/KOL/14 & CO NOS.20 & 21/KOL/14 M/S. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD. 14 5.3. WE NOTICED THAT THERE IS MERIT IN THE SUBMISSI ON OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE AS HE EXPLAINED THAT IT IS OPEN FOR THE AS SESSEE TO RAISE A NEW ISSUE BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES WHICH WAS NOT RAISED BY H IM BEFORE THE LD. AO. AFTER ALL, THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE T AXING AUTHORITIES IS TO ASSESS CORRECTLY THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE CASE LAWS IN THE CASE O F CIT-VS- SAM GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD. BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AT DELHI IN INCOME T AX APPEAL 214/2013, THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE SAID JUDGMENT ARE REPRODUCED B ELOW: 7. REFERENCE WAS ALSO MADE TO AN EARLIER DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. CIT, [1991] 1 87 ITR 688 (SC), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- 'AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALL THE POWERS WHICH TH E ORIGINAL AUTHORITY MAY HAVE IN DECIDING THE QUESTION BEFORE IT SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS, IF ANY, PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTORY PROVISI ON, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS VESTED WITH ALL THE PLENARY POWERS WHI CH THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY MAY HAVE IN THE MATTER. THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO JUSTIFY CURTAILMENT OF THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN ENTERTAINING AN ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASS ESSED IN SEEKING MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY T HE INCOME TAX OFFICER. THIS COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THERE MAY BE SEVERAL FACTORS JUSTIFYING THE RAISING OF A NEW PLEA IN AN APPEAL A ND EACH CASE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON ITS OWN FACTS. THE APPELLATE ASSIS TANT COMMISSIONER MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE GROUND RAISED WAS BONA F IDE AND THAT THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RAISED EARLIER FOR GOOD RE ASONS. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHOULD EXERCISE HI S DISCRETION IN PERMITTING OR NOT PERMITTING THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE AN ADDITIONAL GROUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND REASON. THE SAME OBSERVATIONS WOULD APPLY TO APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO.' 8. DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. (SUP RA) WAS DISTINGUISHED IN JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LTD. (SUPRA) IN THE FOLLOW ING WORDS:- 'IN GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) WHEREIN DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY WAY OF A LETTER BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, WAS DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISIO N UNDER THE ACT TO ITA NOS.170 TO 172/KOL/14 & CO NOS.20 & 21/KOL/14 M/S. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD. 15 MAKE AMENDMENT IN THE RETURN WITHOUT FILING A REVIS ED RETURN. APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT, AS THE DECISION WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HIGH COURT, WAS DISMISSED MAKING CLEAR THAT THE DECISION WAS LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ENTERTAIN CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHERWISE THAN BY A REVISED RETURN, AND D ID NOT IMPINGE ON THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL.' 9. IN CIT VS. NATRAJ STATIONERY PRODUCTS (P) LTD., (2009) 312 ITR 222 RELIANCE PLACED ON GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA) BY T HE REVENUE WAS REJECTED, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY 'NEW CLAIM' BUT HA D ASKED FOR RE- COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-1B. THE S AID DECISION MAY NOT BE SQUARELY APPLICABLE BUT THE COURTS HAVE TAKEN A PRA GMATIC VIEW AND NOT THE TECHNICAL VIEW AS WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE DETERMINED IS THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. IN THIS SE NSE, ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT ADVERSARIAL IN NATURE. 5.4 THEREFORE, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO RE-CONSIDER THE SAME, AFTER DUE EXAMINATION AS P ER THE DISCUSSION (SUPRA). IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5.5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN I TA NOS.170/KOL/2014 & 172/KOL/2014 ARE DISMISSED AND APPEAL IN ITA NO.171 /KOL/2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED WHEREAS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19-08-2016 SD/- SD/- (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (DR. A.L.SAINI) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 19/8/2016 TALUKDAR (SR.PS) ITA NOS.170 TO 172/KOL/14 & CO NOS.20 & 21/KOL/14 M/S. JOONKTOLLEE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD. 16 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. REVENUE 2 ASSESSEE 3. THE CIT-I, 4. THE CIT (A)-I, 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES