I.T.O Wd - 52(2),Kol., Kolkata V. M/s Progressive Construction, Kolkata

ITA 1797/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78427 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: P K ROY
• Section: 143(3); 194C

Judgement Text

, A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , . . . . ! ! ! ! /AND ' #!' ' #!' ' #!' ' #!' , ) [BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, AM & SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] !$ / I.T.A NO.1797/KOL/2012 #% &'/ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-52(2), KOLKATA. VS. M/S. P ROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION (PAN: AAHEP1513C) ()* /APPELLANT ) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 30.07.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.07.2014 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI A. K. DAS, JCIT, SR. DR FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI P. K. ROY, ADVOCATE / ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM : THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A)-XXXIII, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 198/CIT(A)-XXXIII/ITO.WD-52(2),KOL/08-09 DATED 21.09.2012. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO, WARD-52(2), KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 VIDE HIS OR DER DATED 29.12.2008. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S. 194C OF THE ACT FOR PAYMENT OF LABOUR CHARGES APPLYING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ANOTHER ASPECT IN THIS ISSUE IS THAT WHETHER THERE IS A CON TRACT OR NOT, AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT WILL APPLY OR NOT. FOR THIS, REVENUE HA S RAISED FOLLOWING FOUR GROUNDS: (I) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REDUCING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,34,018/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF LABOUR CHARGES TO RS. 1,02,333/-. II) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT T HE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE LABOUR SARDARS IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND MERELY MENTIONING THE NAMES OF A FEW UNIDENTIFIED WORKERS ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE VOUCHER S DOES NOT CONVERT A LABOUR CONTRACT INTO A SIMPLE PAYMENT OF WAGES FOR DISTRIBUTION TO A RING LEADER. (III) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT ORAL CONTRACTS AS STATED BY SECTION 194C ARE TO BE INFERRED FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BY THEIR VERY NATURE CANNOT BE PRESENTED WITH ANY CONCRETE OR MATERIALS EVIDENCE. (IV) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN APPRECIATING THAT THE TAXING STATUES HAVE TO BE INTERPRETED, NOT ONLY IN A STRICT AND ISOLATED MANNER, BUT READ AS A WHOLE TO PROMOTE HARMONY 2 ITA NO.1797/K/2012 PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION AY 2006-07 BETWEEN THE VARIOUS SECTIONS, TO ACHIEVE THE LEGSL ATIVE INTENT, WHICH IN THE CASE OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE OF THE TDS PROVIS IONS AS A TOOL OF TAX COLLECTION. . 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE LABOUR PAYMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.13,34,018/- WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TDS TO VARIOUS LABOURS. THE AO INVOKED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND MADE DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR PAYMENTS AS THE ASS ESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS U/S. 194C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION BEFORE THE CIT( A) WAS THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT, VISHAKAPATNAM BE NCH IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS VS. ACIT (2012) 136 ITD 23 (SB), WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED ONLY ON THE AMOU NT REMAINING OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND CANNOT BE INVOKED TO DISALLOW THE EXPENDIT URE WHICH HAS BEEN ACTUALLY PAID DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE CIT(A) ALSO CONSIDERED ANOTHER ASPECT, WHETHER THERE EXISTS ANY CONTRACT OR NOT BECAUSE THE PAYMENTS ARE THROUGH LABOUR SARDARS . THE CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE ON BOTH THE ASPECTS. 4. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRA NSPORTS, SUPRA OF VISHAKAPATNAM SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IS NOW NO MORE A GOO D LAW AND ISSUE IS NOW COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS. CRESCENT EXPORT SYNDICATE IN ITAT NO. 20 O F 2013 IN GA 190 OF 2013 DATED 3 RD APRIL, 2013, WHEREIN THE DISALLOWANCE WILL APPLY T O ALL THE PAYMENTS WHETHER PAID OR PAYABLE. SECONDLY, AS REGARDS TO WHETHER THERE IS A CONTRACT OR NO CONTRACT, THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S . MGB TRANSPORT IN ITA NO.2280/K/2010 FOR AY 2007-08 DATED 15.03.2013, WHEREIN IT HAS BEE N HELD AS UNDER: 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUG H FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS SEE N THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID DUMPER HIRE CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.36,37,815/- TO TEN DIFFERENT PARTIES. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, NO TDS HAS BEEN DED UCTED ON THESE PAYMENTS, THOUGH THESE WERE CONTRACTUAL/SUB-CONTRAC TUAL PAYMENT IN NATURE UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, SINCE THERE IS DEFAULT IN NOT DEDUCTING TDS, THE PA YMENTS MADE ATTRACT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHY TDS WAS NOT DEDU CTED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE DISALLOWANCE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSES SEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(APPEALS). CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE DISAL LOWANCE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT, A BENCH, KOLKATA IN THE CAS E OF M/S. SAMANWAYA IN ITA NO. 484/KOL./2008 DATED 23.04.2009 BY STATIN G THAT THERE WAS NO CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DUMPER OWNERS AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT . WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISI ON OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. J. RAMA V S.- CIT (2010) 236 CTR (KAR.) 105, WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT LAW DOES N OT STIPULATE THE 3 ITA NO.1797/K/2012 PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION AY 2006-07 EXISTENCE OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT AS A CONDITION PREC EDENT FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENT OF TDS. HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT CONCLUDED AS UNDER :- IN ORDER TO PROVIDE VEHICLES TO A CUSTOMER AS PER AGREEMENT, ASSESSEE USED TO HIRE VEHICLES FROM OTHERS AND HIRI NG OF VEHICLES BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE NATURE OF TRANSPORT CONTRACT AND HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) WAS JUSTIFIED WHEN NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM PAYMENTS MADE TO THOSE PERS ONS. FURTHER, FOLLOWING SMT. J. RAMAS CASE OF HONBLE K ARNATAKA HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WE HAVE TAKEN A DECISION DATED 17.02.2012 OF ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH IN ITA NO. 199/KOL/2010 IN THE CASE OF DCIT, CIRCLE-9 VS.- KAMAL MUKHERJEE & CO. (SHIPPING) (P.) LTD., WHEREIN IT IS HELD AS UNDER :- (FROM HEAD NOTES) .UNDOUBTEDLY, THESE DECISIONS DO INDICATE THAT TH ERE IS A WORKMAN EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DOCK WORKERS AND THE STEVEDORES LIKE ASSESSEE WHEN THEY EMPLOY THOSE WORKERS, BUT BE THA T AS IT MAY, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS TO THE CDLB FOR SUPPLY OF LABOUR, EVEN WHEN THIS LABOUR MAY BE TREATED AS EMP LOYED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 194C ARE CLEARLY ATTRACTED. IN SUCH A SITUATION, I.E. WHEN LABOUR HI RED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH CDLB IS CONSIDERED TO BE IN ASSESSEES EMPL OYMENT, THE PAYMENTS MADE TO CDLB CANNOT BE TREATED AS PAYMENTS FOR ANY WORK, BUT NEVERTHELESS THESE PAYMENTS COULD STILL BE COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C BECAUSE THESE ARE PAYMENTS MADE FOR SU PPLY OF LABOUR WHICH ARE SPECIFICALLY COVERED BY SECTION 194C(1). CDLB I S AN AGENT OF THE STEVEDORES LIKE THE ASSESSEE IN THE SENSE THAT THE LABOUR IS RECRUITED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH CDLB, BUT WHEN THIS FACT DOES NOT AFFECT THE NATURE OF PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE CDLB WHICH IS ADM ITTEDLY IN THE NATURE OF PAYMENT FOR SUPPLY OF LABOUR. THE REASONING ADOP TED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THOUGH SOMEWHAT IMPRESSIVE AT FIRST GLANCE, IS FALLACIOUS. THERE IS NO CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSH IP BETWEEN WORKERS ASSIGNED BY THE CDLB HAVING EMPLOYER WORKMAN RELATI ONSHIP WITH THE ASSESSEE, AND THE PAYMENTS BEING MADE BY THE ASSESS EE TO CDLB BEING NOT IN THE NATURE OF PAYMENT FOR SUPPLY OF LABOUR. 4. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE EXACTLY ID ENTICAL, WHAT WAS BEFORE US IN KAMAL MUKHJERJEE & CO. (SHIPPING) (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) AND ALSO THAT IN THE CASE OF SMT. J. RAMA OF HONBLE KA RNATAKA HIGH COURT (SUPRA), RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT EVEN ORAL CONTRACT IS SUFFICIENT AND ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE DUMPERS ON HIRE AND HE HAS PAID CHARGES FOR THE SAME. RESPE CTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND REVERSE THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). HOWEVER, AS REGA RD TO ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENTS MADE BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REGA RDING APPLICABILITY OF THE DECISION OF ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH, VISHAKHAPATNAM IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS VS. ADDL. CIT (VISAKH APATNAM) (SB) REPORTED IN (2012) 136 ITD 23 (SB), WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WILL BE RE STRICTED TO THE AMOUNT PAYABLE AT THE END OF YEAR AND NOT ON THE AMOUNT ALREADY PAID DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US STATED THAT THIS PAYMENT WAS MADE WITHIN THE DUE DATE AND NOTHING RE MAINS PAYABLE AND HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS VS. ADDL. CIT (VISAKHAPATNAM) (SB) REPORTED IN (201 2) 136 ITD 23 (SB), WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE TDS IS TO BE DEDUCTED ONLY IN RELATIO N TO PAYMENTS WHICH REMAINS PAYABLE AT 4 ITA NO.1797/K/2012 PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION AY 2006-07 THE END OF THE YEAR I.E. 31 ST MARCH OF THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. IT WAS POI NTED OUT TO LD. COUNSEL THAT THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS (SUPRA), IS STAYED B Y HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN I.T.T.A.M.P. NO.908 OF 2012 IN I.T.T.A. NO .384 OF 2012 WHEREIN HONBLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED, INTERIM SUSPENSION. NOTICE. VIDE DATED 8 TH OCTOBER, 2012. 5. ON THIS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT EFFECT OF THE ORDER STAYING A PENDING APPEAL BEFORE ANY HIGH COURT DOES NOT AMOUN T TO ANY DECLARATION OF LAW BUT IS ONLY BINDING UPON THE PARTIES TO THAT PROCEEDINGS A ND SUCH INTERIM ORDER DOES NOT DESTROY THE BINDING EFFECT OF THE PRINCIPALS AS LAID DOWN I N THE ORDER AS A PRECEDENT BECAUSE THE INTERIM ORDER HAD NO OCCASION TO LAY DOWN ANY PROPO SITION OF LAW. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE CASE LAW OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PIJUSH KANTI CHOWDHURY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS (2007) 2 C ALLT 577 DATED 14 TH MAY, 2007 WHEREIN, AT PARA 10 AND 13, IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UND ER: 10. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PART IES AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE AFORESAID PROVISION WE FIND THAT THE SUPREME CO URT BY THOSE INTERIM ORDERS HAS NO DOUBT STAYED THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER OF THE D IVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT BY DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO AND AT THE SAME TIME, EVEN RESTRAINED THE STATE FROM INDUCTING THIRD PARTIES ON THE LANDS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT-MATTERS BEFORE THE APEX COURT. SUCH INTERIM ORDER IS BINDIN G UPON THE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BUT THE LAW IS EQUALLY SETTLED THAT BY MERE PASSING OF AN INTERIM ORDER STAYING THE OPERATION OF A JUDGMENT WITH CERTAIN FU RTHER CONDITIONS, THE EXISTENCE OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IS NOT WIPED OUT AND AT THE SAME TIME, FOR SUCH INTERIM ORDERS INTER PARTIES, THE AUTHORITY OF A DECISION AS A PRE CEDENT IS NEVER UNDERMINED. UNLESS A DECISION IS SET ASIDE BY THE SUPERIOR COURT, THE SAID DECISION REMAINS BINDING AS A PRECEDENT THOUGH MAY NOT BE BINDING UPON THE PARTIE S TO THE PROCEEDINGS WHERE THE SUPERIOR COURT HAS GRANTED INTERIM ORDER. MOREOVER, ONCE A PROVISION HAS BEEN DECLARED ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, THE STATE CANNOT INVOKE THE SAID ULTRA VIRES PROCEEDING AGAINST THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTR Y SIMPLY BECAUSE AN INTERIM ORDER OF STAY OF OPERATION ORDER DECLARING THE PROVISION AS ULTRA VIRES HAS BEEN PASSED IN AN APPEAL AGAINST SUCH ORDER. THE OBJECT OF GRANTIN G INTERIM ORDER I TO SEE THAT THE RELIEF CLAIMED IN THE APPEAL MAY NOT BECOME INAPPRO PRIATE OR THE APPEAL DOES NOT BECOME INFRUCTUOUS FOR NOT GRANTING SUCH INTERIM OR DER; BUT BY MERE GRANT OF INTERIM STAY, THE EFFECT OF A BINDING PRECEDENT IS NOT DESTABILIZED. OVER AND ABOVE, THE INTERIM ORDERS OF THE STAY GRANTED BY THE SUPRE ME COURT CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE SAID COURT NEVER INTENDED THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT DECLARING A PART OF THE PROVISIONS OF VESTING AS UL TRA VIRES THE STATE WOULD NEVERTHELESS BE FREE TO PROCEED WITH THE PROCESS OF VESTING DURING THE PENDENCY O THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT AND THAT IS WH Y STATUS QUO AS REGARDS POSSESSION HAS BEEN MAINTAINED AND EVEN, THE STATE HAS BEEN RESTRAINED FROM CREATING ANY THIRD PARTY INTEREST IN THE LANDS IN Q UESTION. 13. THEREFORE, THE EFFECT OF THE ORDER OF STAY IN A PENDING APPEAL BEFORE THE APEX COURT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ANY DECLARATION OF LA W BUT IS ONLY BINDING UPON THE PARTIES TO THE SAID PROCEEDINGS AND AT THE SAME TIM E, SUCH INTERIM ORDER DOES NOT DESTROY THE BINDING EFFECT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE H IGH COURT AS A PRECEDENT BECAUSE WHILE GRANTING THE INTERIM ORDER, THE APEX COURT HA D NO OCCASION TO LAY DOWN ANY PROPOSITION OF LAW INCONSISTENT WITH THE ONE DECLAR ED BY THE HIGH COURT WHICH IS IMPUGNED. 6. EVEN, HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE SHREE CH AMUND MOPEDS LTD. VS. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION, MADRAS, AIR 1992 SC 1439, 1444 HAS ANALYSED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STAY OF OPERATION OF AN ORDER AND QUASHING OF AN ORDER AND HELD THAT STAY OF ORDER OF AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY / COURT BY A HIGHER COU RT MEANS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY / LOWER COURT STI LL CONTINUES TO EXIST IN LAW INSPITE OF THE 5 ITA NO.1797/K/2012 PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION AY 2006-07 STAY AND ITS EXISTENCE IS NOT DESTROYED. BUT WHERE THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE / LOWER COURT IS QUASHED AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK, IT MEAN S THAT THE APPEAL DISPOSED OF BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY/LOWER COURT W OULD BE RESTORED AND IT CAN BE SAID TO BE PENDING BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY/LOWER COURT. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, PARTICULARLY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PIJUSH KANTI CHOWDHURY (SUPRA) , AS ALSO IN OBEDIENCE TO DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SHREE CHAM UND MOPEDS LTD. (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS (SUPRA) STILL HOLDS GROUND A ND ACCORDINGLY, TDS PROVISIONS WILL APPLY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVOCATION OF THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, ONLY ON THE AMOUNTS REMAINED PAYABLE AT THE END OF FINAN CIAL YEAR AND NOT ON THE PAID AMOUNTS. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE ACCORDINGLY. APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . AS BOTH THE ISSUES ARE COVERED, WE REVERSE THE ORDE R OF CIT(A) BUT TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE WHETHER THE PAYMENTS ARE LE SS THAN RS.50,000/- IN THE CASE OF EACH LABOURERS IN AGGREGATE FOR THE YEAR , THIS NEEDS VE RIFICATION. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO. APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- , . . . . , ' #!' ' #!' ' #!' ' #!' , (P. K. BANSAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH JULY, 2014 -. #/0 #1 JD.(SR.P.S.) 2 +##3 43&5- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . )* / APPELLANT ITO, WARD-52(2), KOLKATA. 2 +,)* / RESPONDENT M/S. PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION, F-4, BA ISHNABGHATA, PATULI, GARIA, KOLKATA-700 084. 3 . # ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. # / CIT KOLKATA 3:#; +# / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA ,3 +#/ TRUE COPY,