ACIT, Circle - 9, Kolkata V. M/s. EMEC Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1887/KOL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 54764 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2008
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K ROY
• Assessee Lawyers: ARVIND AGARWAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEN CH A, KOLKATA () BEFORE , ,, , , SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER. /AND . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . , '# SHRI C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ $ $ $ / ITA NO.1887/KOL/2008 %& '(/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 (*+ / APPELLANT ) A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-9, KOLKATA. - % - - VERSUS - . (-.*+/ RESPONDENT ) M/SEMEC PRIVATE LTD., KOLKATA (PAN:AABCE 0128 K) *+ / 0 '/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S.K.ROY -.*+ / 0 '/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL 1%2 / !# /DATE OF HEARING : 28.10.2011. 3' / !# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.12.2011. '4 / ORDER ( (( ( . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . ) )) ), , , , '# PER SHRI C.D.RAO, AM THE ABOVE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 24.07.2008 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-VIII, KOLKATA PERTAINING TO A.YR.200 3-04. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE READ AS UNDER :- 1. THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW. 2. LD. C.I.T(APPEAL) HAS STATED THAT NO ALLOWANCE O R DEDUCTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR ANY YEAR IN RESPECT OF LOSS, EXPENDITURE OR TRADING LIA BILITY IN THE PRESENT CASE BUT ON GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE AY 1992- 93 U/S. 143(3) DATED 23.03.1995 , NOWHERE IN THE ORDER IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT INTE REST ON BANK LOAN WAS NOT ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION THAT MEANS IT IS IMPLIED THAT INTEREST HA S BEEN ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. THUS, ASSESSEE FULFILLS THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR APPLI CABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 41(1) OF THE ACT I.E. DEDUCTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE T AX PAYER IN RESPECT OF LOSS, EXPENDITURE, OR TRADING LIABILITY INCURRED BY THE S SESSEE. 2 3. IN THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T(A) IT HAS BEEN STATED APPELLANT COMPANY DID NOT DERIVE ANY BENEFIT OF THE BANK INTEREST WAIVED FOR IN ANY OF T HE EARLIER YEARS VIZ. AY 1991- 92,199293 & 199394 BUT IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT IN THE AY 1993-94 IF INTEREST ON BANK LOAN WAS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME THE N ASSESSEE WILL BE HAVING INCOME IN THAT PARTICULAR YEAR THAT MEANS ASSESSEE HAS DER IVE BENEFIT, HENCE, SEC 41(1) OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE. 4. IN THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T(A) IT HAS BEEN ALSO OB SERVED THAT INSTEAD OF DIRECTING NOT TO ADD RS. 29,31,698/ LD. C.I.T(A) HAS DIRECTED NO T TO ADD RS. 23,52,984/, WITHOUT CITING ANY REASON FOR THE SAME. IF LD C.I.T(A) FEEL S THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DERIVED ANY BENEFIT IN ANY OF THE AFORESAID THREE AY THEN WHY L D.C.I.T(A) HAS NOT ORDERED NOT TO ADD RS. 29, 31,698/-. 5. IN THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T(A) IT HAS BEEN DIRECTE D TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO CARRY FORWARD THE BUSINESS LOSS FOR THE AY 19992000 AT R S. 99,471/ AS DETERMINED IN THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2006 BUT I THINK LD. C.I.T HA S PASSED THIS ORDER WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED RETURN ON 30.12.1999 I.E. AFTER DUE DATE THEN HOW COME ASSESS EE CAN BE ALLOWED TO CARRY FORWARD THE BUSINESS LOSS EVEN IF THE RETURN IS FIL ED AFTER DUE DATE. 3. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. HENCE NO ADJU DICATION IS REQUIRED. 4. GROUND NO. 2 TO 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELATE TO THE ISSUE U/S 41(1) OF THE IT ACT. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT WHILE DOI NG THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143 OF THE IT ACT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED ASSESSEES REQUEST TO TAKE BANK INTEREST OF RS.29,31,698/- FROM THE NET INCOME OF R S.7,70,585/- AROSE OUT OF SETTLEMENT OF BANK LOAN ON THE GROUND OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 5.1. ON FURTHER APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND ANY MERIT ON THE ABOVE ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO IN DISMIS SING ASSESSEES REQUEST. 5.2. ON APPEAL TO THIS TRIBUNAL, ASSESSEE HAS PREFE RRED AN ADDITIONAL ISSUE WHICH IS AS UNDER :- BECAUSE THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE LAW THE AMOUNT OF REMISSION OF INTEREST BY THE BANK AND WRITTEN BA CK AS LIABILITY NO LONGER REQUIRED IS NOT TAXABLE. 5.3. AFTER ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND THIS TRI BUNAL HAS DIRECTED ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 3 AS THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ANOTHER ANGLE OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED UNDER TH E GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ACCORDINGLY TO BE DECIDED, THIS IS A FI T ISSUE TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION , BY STRICTLY FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL J USTICE AND PASS NECESSARY CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS AS PER LAW. 5.4. WHILE PASSING THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER U/S 254 OF THE IT ACT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AGAIN REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVI NG AS UNDER :- IN COURSE OF HEARING FOLLOWING GROUND WERE RAISED B Y THE A/R: 7.1 A/R CLAIMED THAT SECTION 41(1) IS NOT APPLICABL E FOR THE BANKS REMISSION OF INTEREST OF 3 YEARS FOR THE FOLLOWING LEGAL PROPOSI TIONS: - A. AS ALL 3 YEARS LOSS RETURNS WERE FILED OUT OF T IME ALLOWED U/S. 139(3), HENCE ARE NON-EST. SEC 139(4) DOES APPLY TO LOSS RETURN. B. NO ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND AS NO BANK INTER EST HAS BEEN ACTUALLY ALLOWED IN AN ASSESSMENT, AS INTIMATION U/S. 143(1)(A) DOES NO T AMOUNT TO ASSESSMENT. C. AS NO LOSS WAS ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD IN ANY ASSESSMENT, AND AS THE RETURNS WERE NON-EST, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DERIVED ANY BENE FIT OR ADVANTAGE IN RESPECT OF BANK INTEREST FOR THE THREE YEARS, HENCE SEC. 41(1) IS N OT APPLICABLE. 7.2 THE SALIENT ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THE DISCUSSIO N ARE AS UNDER:- 7.2. 1 AS PER SECTION 41(1) (A) STATE THAT WHERE AN ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR ANY YEAR IN RESPECT OF L OSS, EXPENDITURE, OR TRADING LIABILITY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBSEQUENTLY DURING A NY PREVIOUS YEAR THE FIRST MENTIONED PERSON HAS OBTAINED, WHETHER IN CASH OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER, ANY AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRADING LIABILITY BY WAY OF REMISSION OR CESSATION THEREOF . FROM THE GIVEN PROVISION IT WAS CLEARED THAT SECTION 41(1) IS APPLICABLE IF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED: - A. IN ANY OF THE EARLIER YEARS A DEDUCTION WAS ALLO WED TO THE TAXPAYER IN RESPECT OF LOSS, EXPENDITURE, OR TRADING LIABILITY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. B. DURING THE CURRENT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE TAXPAYER 1. HAS OBTAINED A REFUND OF SUCH TRADING LIABILITY AND 2. HAS OBTAINED ANY AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITUR E OR SOME BENEFIT IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRADING LIABILITY BY WAY OF REMISSION OR CESSATION IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED BOTH TH E AFORESAID CONDITIONS:- 1. IN ALL THE THREE YEARS ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN DEDUCT ION IN RESPECT OF BANK INTEREST. 2. SECOND CONDITION WAS ALSO FULFILLED BY THE ASSES SEE AS HE HAS OBTAINED BENEFIT BY WAY OF CESSATION OF BANK INTEREST. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE DISCUSSION ASSESSEE CONTENTIO N IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT HE HAS NOT DERIVED ANY BENEFIT IN THE EARLIER YEARS BEING LOSS RETURNS FILED. 7.2.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF THE ABOVE, EVEN IF WE GO THROUGH THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS NOT DERIVED ANY BENEFIT: 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT HE HAS FILED LOSS RETURN AFTER DUE DATE HENCE BUSINESS LOSS BECOME NIL IS NOT ACCEPTABLE DUE TO FOLLOWING REASONS: A. IN ALL THREE YEARS THE LOSSES WERE CARRIED FORWA RD EVEN THOUGH THE RETURNS WERE FILED AFTER DUE DATE AND THESE LOSSES WERE SET OFF AGAINS T INCOME OF THE SUCCEEDING YEARS. B. HAD THE ASSESSEE NOT CARRIED FORWARD THE LOSSES THEN INCOME FOR THE YEAR WHICH WAS SET OFF AGAINST THE CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES BECOME T AXABLE. IN THE AY 1995-96 AND 1996-97 ASSESSEE HAS INCOME OF RS. 2,49,886/- AND 1 ,95,836/- RESPECTIVELY, WHICH 4 WERE SET OFF AGAINST THE CARRIED FORWARD BUSINESS L OSSES OF THE AY 1991-92, 1992-93 & 1993-94. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS DERIVED BENEFIT IN RESPECT OF BANK INTEREST FOR THE THREE YEARS. 5.5. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT 4. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE-CORNPANY GOT A ONE TIME SETTLEMENT AND BY VIRTUE OF THE SAME, THE BANK INTEREST WAIVED BY CAN ARA BANK ON SETTLEMENT DURING THE YEAR TOTALING TO RS.29,31,698/- DEBITED TO THE PROF IT & LOSS A/C IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH WERE RELEVANT TO THE ASSTT. YEA R 1991-92, 1992-93 & 1993-94, WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION BY THE APPELLANT DURING TH E YEAR ON THE GROUND THAT THE REMISSION OF INTEREST BY THE BANK AND WRITTEN BACK AS LIABILITY NO LONGER REQUIRED IS NOT TAXABLE U/S 41(1) AS THE APPELLANT DID NOT DERIVE A NY BENEFIT OF THE SAME IN ANY OF THE EARLIER YEARS. BEFORE THE ACIT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES WHICH ARE AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 1 TO PAGE 17. 4.1 IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE ITO WITH DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE WHICH ARE AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 18 TO 43 THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DERIVE ANY BENEFIT IN RESPECT OF THE BANK INTEREST IN-QUESTION IN ANY OF THE EARLIER YEARS. I T WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE ACIT THAT THE RETURNS FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 1991- 1992-93&1993- 94 THE YEARS TO WHICH THE INTEREST WAIVED BY THE BANK RELATED TO, WERE FILED BEYOND TH E TIME ALLOWED U/S 139(3), AND NO CARRY FORWARD OF THE LOSSES OF THOSE YEARS WERE CLA IMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. A CHART REFLECTING THE POSITION IN RESPECT O F THE SAID THREE YEARS IS AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 24 AND A CHART OF SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENTS PAGE 15. 4.2 ALTHOUGH ALL THE THREE RETURNS WERE PROCESSED U /S 143(1)(A) FOR GRANTING OF REFUND BUT IN ALL THOSE INTIMATIONS IT HAS CLEARLY BEEN WR ITTEN THAT THE LOSSES WILL NOT BE CARRY FORWARD. IN THIS REGARD, REFERENCE IS DRAWN TO PAGE 25. 4.3 IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE ACIT THAT SEC. 41(1 ) IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE BANK REMISSION OF INTEREST OF THREE YEARS ON THE FOLLOWI NG LEGAL PROPOSITIONS: (A) AS ALL THREE YEARS LOSS RETURNS WERE FILED OUT OF TIME ALLOWED U/S 139(3) HENCE THE RETURNS ARE NON-EST. THE PROVISION OF SEC. 139(4) D OES APPLY TO LOSS RETURNS. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN B.B. DANGA NAVAR VS. I.T.O, REPORTED IN 65 ITR 370 (SC) AT 377 AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MP INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD VS. CIT REPORTED IN 222 I TR PAGE 328 AT PAGE 332 AND 333 ARE CITED, THE DECISIONS OF THE SAME ARE MENTIONED IN PAPER BOOK PAGES 2 & 3. (B) AS NO ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND AS NO BANK INTEREST HAS ACTUALLY BEEN ALLOWED IN ANY ASSESSMENT AS INTIMATED U/S 143(1)(A ) DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ASSESSMENT, NO BENEFIT WAS DERIVED. THE VARIOUS DECISIONS WERE RELIED UPON WHICH ARE AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 3 TO PAGE 5. (C) AS NO LOSS WAS ALLOWED TO BE CARRY FORWARD IN A NY ASSESSMENT AND THE RETURNS WERE NON-EST, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DERIVED ANY BENEFIT O R ADVANTAGE IN RESPECT OF THE BANK INTEREST FOR THE THREE YEARS I.E. ASSTT. YEARS 1991 -92, 1992-93 & 1993-94 IN ANY ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, HENCE SEC. 41(1 ) IS NOT APPLICABLE. VARIOUS DECISIONS WERE RELIED UPON WHICH ARE AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 5. (D) WHETHER THE INTEREST WAS ACTUALLY ALLOWED IN TH E RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 41(1), ONUS LIES ON THE DEPARTM ENT. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN STEEL AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD . REPORTED IN 96 ITR 438 AT 442 IS RELIED UPON. (E) INTERPRETATION OF LAW SHOULD BE MADE REASONABLE AND IN CONSONANCE WITH JUSTICE AND WHERE TWO CONSTRUCTIONS/ VIEWS POSSIBLE ONE FAV OURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE 5 ADOPTED. VARIOUS JUDGMENT ARE RELIED UPON WHICH ARE AT PAGES 6 & 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. (F) DEEMED PROVISION INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF SEC . 41(1) ARE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AND THE VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS ARE ALSO RELIED UPON WHI CH ARE AT PAGES 7 & 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK. (G) IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED TO THE ACIT VIDE LETT ERS DATED 29TH DECEMBER 2007, 4TH JANUARY 2008 AND 29TH APRIL 2008 WHICH ARE AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 9 TO 15 THAT THE APPELLANT-COMPANY HAD NOT DERIVED ANY BENEFIT OF TH E LOSSES OF THE SET OFF OF THE SAID THREE YEARS OF THE BANK INTEREST AS DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C IN THOSE YEARS AND NO CARRY FORWARD OF LOSS WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E OR ALLOWED BY THE A. 0. FOR WHICH A CHART WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE HIM WHICH IS AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 15. 4.5 UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED AS PAPER BOOK, THE AMOUNT OF RS.29,31,698/-SHOULD BE ALLOWED. . 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD.DR APPEARING ON B EHALF OF THE REVENUE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AO AND FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT WHEN ONCE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE INTEREST DUE TO THE BANK IN THE RESPECTIVE PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS FOR THREE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS THIS INDICATES THAT ASSESSEE HAS DERIVED THE BENEFIT DUE OF THE SAID INTEREST EXPENDITURE. WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS DERIVED THE BENEFIT FROM THE TAX AUTHORITIES OR NOT IS NOT THE RELEVANT ISSUE. THEREFORE, HE RE QUESTED TO UPHELD THE ACTION OF AO BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH IT IS A FACT THAT ASSESSEE HA S DEBITED THE INTEREST IN ALL THE PRECEDING THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE FACT IS T HAT ASSESSEE IS RUNNING IN LOSSES AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GETTING THE CARRY FORWARDING OF THE LOSSES SINCE IN ALL THE THREE YEARS ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURNS BELATEDLY. THE REFORE HE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REQUESTED TO UPHELD THE SAME. 8. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CARE FUL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN O NCE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE INTEREST IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ASSESSEE HA S ALREADY TAKEN THE BENEFIT OF THE INTEREST IN ITS ACCOUNTS WHETHER HE HAS TAKEN THE B ENEFIT OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IT IS NOT THE RELEVANT ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION. IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT(A) WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WE ARE ACTING TO THE CONTRARY TO THE PROVISION OF THE IT 6 ACT. SINCE IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITT ED THAT HE HAS FILED THE RETURNS OF LOSSES BELATEDLY AND NOT ENTITLED FOR CARRY FORWARD ING OF THE LOSSES THEN WHEN WE ALLOW THE INTEREST COMPONENT WHICH WAS PART OF THE LOSSES WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TO SET OFF BECAUSE THE SAID LOSS RETURN HA S BEEN FILED BELATEDLY BY ASSESSEE THEN THIS WILL BE CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TH E LD. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEW OF AO AND UPHELD THE SAME BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT GROUND NOS. 2 TO 4 OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED. 10. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION WHILE PASSING THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER U/S 143(3)/254 OF THE I.T. ACT THE AO IS NOT EMPOWERED TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE INITIALLY COMMITTED ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE U/S143(3) OF THE IT ACT DATED 17.03.2006. 11. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO.5 OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. 5 6 789 46 :; < 9= ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29.12.2011 SD/- SD/- , , , , MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . , , , , '# '# '# '# , C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( (( (!# !# !# !#) )) ) DATE: 29.12.2011. R.G.(.P.S.) 7 '4 / -7 >'7'6- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S.EMEC PRIVATE LTD., 1, SATYA DOCTOR ROAD, KIDDER PORE, KOLKATA- 700023. 2 THE A.C.I.T.CIRCLE-9, KOLKATA 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A)-VIII, KOLKATA. 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA .7 -/ TRUE COPY, '4%1/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES