DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s Brahmaputra Carbon Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1806/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1555 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARINDAM BHATTACHARJEE
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 37

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.1806/KOL/2016 BRAHMAPUTRA CARBON LTD.., AY- 2010-11 , D , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH: KOL KATA ( ) BEFORE . , /AND . . , ) [BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM & SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM] I.T.A. NO. 1806/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA. VS. M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CARBON LTD., (PAN: AAACH7120D) APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 25.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.02.2018 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI ARINDAM BHATTACHARJEE, ADDL. CIT, SR. DR FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT(A)-8, KOLKATA DATED 13.06.2016 FOR AY 2010-11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT SUBSIDIES DO NOT QUALIFY FOR BEING ELIGIBLE FOR THE PURPOSES OF BEING ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IC. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME THROUGH E-FILING ON 30.09.2010 SHOWING NIL INCOME BY VIRTUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF ITS PROFITS U/S. 80IC(2)(B)(III) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). THE AO MADE THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT BY DENYI NG THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IC IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: 2 ITA NO.1806/KOL/2016 BRAHMAPUTRA CARBON LTD.., AY- 2010-11 SL. NO. ITEM AMOUNT (RS.) (I) (II) INTEREST SUBSIDY EXCISE DUTY REFUND TOTAL : RS. 4,83,368/- RS. 3,36,66,635/- RS. 3,41,50,003/- ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL OF ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IC OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INTERE ST SUBSIDY AND EXCISE DUTY REFUND TOTALING TO RS.3,41,50,003/- AS PER THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MEGHALAYA STEEL LTD. (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7622 OF 2014 DATED 09.03.2014). AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE B ROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE SOLE ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGH TLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MEGHALAYA STEEL LTD. (SUPRA) AND GAVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTE THAT THE ISSUES ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. DI GBOI CARBON (P) LTD. IN ITA NO. 1621/KOL/2016 FOR AY 2010-11 DATED 02.02.2018, WHER EIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: 3. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE SOLE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE FOR AY 2012-13 ORDER DATED 08.12.2017 WHEREIN THE ISSUE UNDER CHALLENGE HAS BE EN CONSIDERED AND THE ISSUES ARE NO LONGER RES INTEGRA SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MEGHALAYA STEEL LTD. (SUPRA) AND GAVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTE THAT THE ISSUES ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE IN ITS OWN CASE FOR AY 2012-13 ORDER DATED 08.12.2017 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS U NDER: 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL IT WAS BRO UGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL NO.7622 OF 2014 JUDG MENT DATED 09.03.2016 (SINCE REPORTED IN 383 ITR 158(SC) HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MEGHALAYA STEELS LTD 332 ITR 91 (GAU ) WHEREIN THE QUESTION WHETHER DEDUCTION U/S. 80IC(2)(A)(III) OF THE ACT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO VARIOUS KINDS OF SUBSIDIES LIKE TRANSPORT SUBSIDY, POWER SUBSIDY, IN TEREST SUBSIDY AND SUBSIDY IN THE FORM OF REFUND OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY WAS CONSIDERE D AND IT WAS HELD THAT SUCH DEDUCTION ON THE AFORESAID SUBSIDIES SHOULD BE ALLO WED. IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT CBDT HAS ISSUED CIRCULAR NO.39/2016 DAT ED 29.11.2016 WHEREBY THEY HAVE AFTER TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE, INSTRUCTED THE OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT TH AT SUBSIDIES OF TRANSPORT, POWER AND INTEREST GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS ARE RECEIPTS WHICH ARE REIMBURSED FOR COST OF PRODUCTION RELATING TO MANUF ACTURE OR SALE OF THE PRODUCTS AND THEREFORE HAVE A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS. THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE OFFICER S IN THE FIELD TO ALLOW DEDUCTION 3 ITA NO.1806/KOL/2016 BRAHMAPUTRA CARBON LTD.., AY- 2010-11 U/S 80IC OF THE ACT ON SUCH RECEIPTS ALSO. THE SAID CIRCULAR ALSO MENTIONS THAT APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THE ABOVE ISSUE SHOULD NOT BE PRESSED. 7. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN ELABORATELY DEA LT WITH BY THE HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MEGHALAYA STEELS L TD VIDE ORDER DATED 29.05.2013 WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAD CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED T HE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA CASE AND IT IS P ERTINENT TO GO INTO THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURTS DECISIO N IN RESPECT OF EACH CATEGORY OF SUBSIDY WHICH IS IN DISPUTE BEFORE US:- 3.INTEREST SUBSIDY : 112. THE FACTS ARE, THEREFORE, NOT IN DISPUTE O N THIS ASPECT. THE DISPUTE IS : WHETHER THE INTERES T SUBSIDY IS PAYABLE ON NON-OPERATIONAL OR OPERATIONA L SUBSIDY? IF THE OBJECT OF THE RELEVANT SCHEME IS BORNE IN MIND, IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT INTEREST SU BSIDY, HAVING AIMED AT REDUCING THE INTEREST PAYABLE ON WORKING CAPITAL BY AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTA KING, HELPS DIRECTLY IN REDUCING THE COST OF MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES AND ESTABLIS H THEREBY DIRECT AND FIRST DEGREE NEXUS BETWEEN THE INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDEN TS, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE INTEREST SUBSIDY, ON THE OTHER, RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENTS AND , IN CONSEQUENCE THEREOF, SINCE INTEREST SUBSIDY RESULTS INTO PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM, OR DER IVED BY, AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, THERE IS NO REASON AS TO WHY SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS, EARNED BY AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ON THE STRENGTH OF SUCH A SUBSIDY, NAMELY, INTEREST SUBSIDY, BE NOT AL LOWED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING CONCERNED. 8. THE HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HAD DISTINGUISHED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN LIBERTY INDIA CASE AS FOLLOWS:- 124. LOGICALLY EXTENDED, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE RE WAS NO RELATIONSHIP OR NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPORT INCENTIVE, ON THE ONE HAND, AND MANUFACT URING/PRODUCTION, ON THE OTHER. DEPB ENTITLEMENT WAS BASED ON THE ARTIFICE OF DEEMED IMP ORT CONTENT OF EXPORT PRODUCT AND WAS NOT EVEN BASED ON ACTUAL IMPORT CONTENT OF THE EXPO RT PRODUCT; WHEREAS, IN THE CASES AT HAND, THE TRANSPORT SUBSIDY WAS MADE AVAILABLE ON T HE RAW MATERIAL ACTUALLY CONSUMED IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND FINISHED GOODS, WHICH WERE ACTUALLY PRODUCED AND TAKEN TO THE EXISTING MARKET FOR SALE AND, SIMILARLY, POWER SUBSIDY, INTEREST SUBSIDY, AND INSURANCE SUBSIDY ARE, AS ALREADY INDICATED ABOVE, MADE AVAIL ABLE ON THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF THE POWER BILL, INTEREST AND INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID BY THE AS SESSEE-RESPONDENTS CONCERNED THE INFERENCE, SO DRAWN, GETS REINFORCED FROM THE FACT THAT DEPB ENTITLEMENT WAS FREELY TRANSFERABLE AND SALEABLE RESULTING IN PROFIT OR LO SS. 125. THAT THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA CASE (SUPRA) I S NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASES AT HAND IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE OBJECT BEHIND D EPB WAS TO NEUTRALIZE THE INCIDENCE OF CUSTOMS DUTY PAYMENT ON THE IMPORT DUTY OF THE EXPO RT PRODUCT AND, HENCE, THE DEPB SCHEME WAS NOT AIMED AT NEUTRALIZING THE COST OF PR ODUCTION; RATHER, AS OBSERVED BY THE SUPREME COURT, IT WAS AN INCENTIVE FOR EXPORT AND E NTITLEMENT AROSE, WHEN EXPORT WAS MADE AND NOT OTHERWISE. 127. MOST IMPORTANTLY, POINTED OUT THE SUPREME COU RT, IN LIBERTY INDIA CASE (SUPRA), THAT THE RULES DO NOT ENVISAGE A REFUND OF AN AMOUNT A RITHMETICALLY EQUAL TO EXEMPTION DUTY OR CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY ACTUALLY PAID BY AN INDIVIDU AL IMPORTER/MANUFACTURER. THIS IS THE STRIKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBSIDIES ON TRANSPORTA TION COST, POWER, INTEREST AND INSURANCE, IN THE CASES AT HAND, ON THE ONE HAND, AND DUTY DRA WBACK SCHEME, ON THE OTHER, INASMUCH AS THE SUBSIDIES, SO PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSES CONCE RNED, ARE ARITHMETICALLY EQUIVALENT TO THE COST OF RAW MATERIALS ACTUALLY USED IN THE MANUFACT URING PROCESS AND THE FINISHED GOODS, WHICH IS ACTUALLY TAKEN TO THE EXISTING MARKET FOR SALE WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE NORTH-EASTERN REGION AND, SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEES CONCERNED HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE POWER SUBSIDY, 4 ITA NO.1806/KOL/2016 BRAHMAPUTRA CARBON LTD.., AY- 2010-11 ARISING OUT OF POWER BILLS PAID, OR INTEREST SUBSID Y OR INSURANCE SUBSIDY, EQUIVALENT TO THE AMOUNT PAID ON INTEREST AND INSURANCE RESPECTIVELY. THESE ASPECTS OF DEPB AND DUTY DRAWBACK SCHEME GIVE RISE TO THE INFERENCE THAT THE DECISION, IN LIBERTY INDIA (SUPRA), WAS RENDERED, IN THE LIGHT OF ITS OWN FACTS, AND NOT FO R UNIVERSAL APPLICATION. THIS INFERENCE GETS STRENGTHENED FROM THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE I N LIBERTY INDIA CASE (SUPRA) : THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHAT IS DUTY DRAWBACK? SEC TION 75 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 AND SECTION 37 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 EMPOWER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO PROVIDE FOR REPAYMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DUTY PAID BY AN ASS ESSEE. THE REFUND IS OF THE AVERAGE AMOUNT OF DUTY PAID ON MATERIALS OF ANY PARTICULAR CLASS OR DESCRIPTION OF GOODS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF EXPORT GOODS OF SPECIFIED CLASS. THE RULES DO NOT ENVISAGE A REFUND OF AN AMOUNT ARITHMETICALLY EQUAL TO CUSTOMS DUTY OR CENT RAL EXCISE DUTY ACTUALLY PAID BY AN INDIVIDUAL IMPORTER-CUM-MANUFACTURER. SUB-SECTION ( 2) OF SECTION 75 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT REQUIRES THE AMOUNT OF DRAWBACK TO BE DETERMINED ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES PREVALENT IN A PARTICULAR TRADE AND A LSO BASED ON THE FACTS SITUATION RELEVANT IN RESPECT OF EACH OF VARIOUS CLASSES OF GOODS IMPO RTED. BASICALLY, THE SOURCE OF DUTY DRAWBACK RECEIPT LIES IN SECTION 75 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT AND SECTION 37 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 128. IN SHORT, THUS, THE DEPB AND DUTY DRAWBACK SCH EME WERE NOT, AS ALREADY INDICATED ABOVE, RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERT AKING PER SE FOR ITS MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCTION. ENTITLEMENT FOR DEPB OR DUTY DRAWBACK S CHEME AROSE, WHEN THE UNDERTAKING DECIDED TO EXPORT AFTER MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCTION AND THIS INCENTIVE WAS RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE EXPORT OF GOODS OF A SPECIFIED CLASS. CONSEQUEN TLY, IF THERE WAS NO EXPORT, THERE WAS NO INCENTIVE FROM DEPB OR DUTY DRAWBACK. THIS APART, D EPB OR DUTY DRAWBACK SCHEME DID NOT PROVIDE REFUND OF EXEMPTION FROM CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY ACTUALLY PAID. 129. THUS, THE RELATIONSHIP UNDER THE DEPB OR DUTY DRAWBACK SCHEME, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCTION, ON THE OTHER , WAS NOT PROXIMATE AND DIRECT. THE ENTITLEMENT WAS BASED ON THE ARTIFICE OF AVERAGE AMOUNT OF DUTY PAID. IN THE CASE OF TRANSPORT SUBSIDY, POWER SUBSIDY AND INSURANCE SUBSIDY, THE RELATION BETWEEN SUBSIDY REC EIVED, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE PROFITS EARNED OR THE GAINS MADE, BY AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, STAND , AS ALREADY OBSERVED AT PARAGRAPH 127, WELL ESTABLISHED. 131. LIBERTY INDIA CASE (SUPRA), IT MAY BE NOTED, I S, THUS, AN EXPOSITION OF LAW ON THE SCHEMES OF DEP B AND DUTY DRAWBACK SCHEME, WHICH RELATE TO EXPORT OF GOODS BY AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING; WHEREAS THE SCHEME OF TRANSPORT SUBSIDY, INTEREST SUBSIDY, POWE R SUBSIDY AND INSURANCE SUBSIDY, IS INEXTRICABLY AN D DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THE REDUCTION OF COST OF PR ODUCTION AND MANUFACTURING OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ENTITLING THEREBY THE ELIGIBLE INDUSTRI AL UNDERTAKINGS TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OR 80IC, AS THE CASE MAY BE. 132. THE DECISION, IN LIBERTY INDIA CASE (SUPRA), I S, THEREFORE, NOT, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, RELEVANT TO THE SCHEMES OF SUBSIDIES AT HAND. 9. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE AFORESAID VIEW OF THE HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ON IDENTICAL ISSUE ON THE VERY SAME SUBSIDY AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE ABOVE ASPECTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) WHICH IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND CBDT CIRCULAR REFERRED TO ABOVE, DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFEREN CE. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPE AL BY THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE IS DISMISSED. EXCISE DUTY REFUND 18. IN SO FAR AS THE SECOND QUESTION IS CONCERNED, THE CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON THE BASIS OF AN EXEMPTION NOTIFICATI ONS ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT O F 5 ITA NO.1806/KOL/2016 BRAHMAPUTRA CARBON LTD.., AY- 2010-11 REVENUE) BEING NOTIFICATION NO. 32 OF 1999 AND NOTI FICATION NO. 33 OF 1999 BOTH DATED JULY 8, 1999. IN TERMS OF THESE NOTIFICATIONS, A MANUFACTURER IS REQ UIRED TO FIRST PAY THE CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY AND THEREAFTER CLAIMED A REFUND ON FULFILMENT OF CERTAI N CONDITIONS. IN THE NEXT MONTH, AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIM, THE CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY SO DEPOSITED IS REFUNDED TO THE ASSESSEE IF THE CONDITIONS LAID DOW N IN THE NOTIFICATIONS ARE FULFILLED. IN THE PRESENT CAS E, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITL ED TO THE CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND. 19. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS IN ITS CIRCULAR DATED DECEMBER 19, 2002 CLARIFIED THAT THE REFUND IS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS PAYMENT OF E XCISE DUTY BUT IS BASICALLY DESIGNED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE EXEMPTION AND TO OPERATIONALISE THE EXEMPTION G IVEN BY THE NOTIFICATIONS. IN THAT SENSE, THE CENTR AL EXCISE DUTY REFUND DOES NOT APPEAR TO BEAR THE CHAR ACTER OF INCOME SINCE WHAT IS REFUNDED TO THE ASSESSEE IS THE AMOUNT PAID UNDER THE MODALITIES PR OVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE FOR GIVING EFFECT TO THE EXEMPTION NOTIFICATIONS. THERE IS ALS O NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECOVERE D OR PASSED ON THE EXCISE DUTY ELEMENT TO ITS CUSTOMERS. 20. EVEN ASSUMING THE REFUND DOES AMOUNT TO INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS A PROFIT OR GAI N DIRECTLY DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS INDUSTRIA L ACTIVITY. THE PAYMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY HAS A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND SI MILARLY, THE REFUND OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY ALSO HAS A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. THE ISSUE OF PAYMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY WOULD NOT ARISE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY . THERE IS, THEREFORE, AN INEXTRICABLE LINK BETWEEN THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY, THE PAYMENT OF CENTRAL EXCI SE DUTY AND ITS REFUND. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE AR E OF THE OPINION THAT QUESTION NO. 2 MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. SINCE THE ISSUE RAISED ARE SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AFORESAID DECISION OF TRIBUNAL, AND SINCE THE ORDER OF LD. CI T(A) IS BY RELYING ON THE APEX COURT DECISION, DOES NOT CALL FOR INTERFERENCE FROM OUR PART, WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.02.201 8 SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (ABY. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 14TH FEBRUARY, 2018 JD.(SR.P.S.) 6 ITA NO.1806/KOL/2016 BRAHMAPUTRA CARBON LTD.., AY- 2010-11 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA. 2 RESPONDENT M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CARBON LTD., 37A, B ENTINCK STREET, ROOM NO. 301`, 3 RD FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 069. 3. THE CIT(A) KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT KOLKATA DR, ITAT, KOLKATA. / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SR. PVT. SECRETARY