DCIT, Circle-12, Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/S. Selvel Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1887/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1540 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G MALLIKARJUNA
• Assessee Lawyers: T K BANERJEE
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 260A; 37(1); 194C; 37; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI WASE EM AHMED, AM] I.T.A NO. 1887/KOL/20 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-1 2 D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12, -VS.- M/S. SELVEL A DVERTISING PVT. LTD. KOLKATA KOLKATA [PAN : AAECS 8398 C] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI G.MAL LIKARJUNA, CIT(DR) FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI T.K.BANERJEE, A R DATE OF HEARING : 04.092017. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.09.2017. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2014 OF C.I.T(A)- XII, KOLKATA RELATING TO A.Y.2011-12. 2. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS F OLLOWS :- 1. 'THAT IS THE FACTS AND IN LAW OF THE CASE THE LD . CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AT A RATE OF 100% ON HOARDINGS STRUCTU RE.' 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY. IT CARRIES ON BUS INESS OF OUT-DOOR ADVERTISING, I.E., IT ERECTS AND DISPLAYS ADVERTISEMENT HOARDINGS IN PLAC ES WHERE PUBLIC CAN SEE THOSE ADVERTISEMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED 100% DEPREC IATION ON HOARDINGS. THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED HOARDINGS AS TEMPORARY STRUCTUR E. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE HOARDINGS HAD TO BE CONSIDERED AS PLANT AND MACHINE RY BECAUSE THE HOARDINGS HAD A CEMENT/IRON BASE ON WHICH AN IRON STRUCTURE IS FABR ICATED. ON SUCH IRON STRUCTURE WOODEN/PLASTIC/FLEX/GLOW SIGN BOARDS ARE ERECTED WH ICH DISPLAY ADVERTISEMENT. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE IRON HOARDING HAS LIFE TIME FOR A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD AND IT IS 2 ITA NO.1887/KOL/2014 M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 2 ONLY THE WOODEN/PLASTIC/GLOW SIGN BOARD THAT GETS D AMAGED BY RAIN OR SUN SHINE. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE MAJOR PART OF THE HOARDING IS A PERMANENT STRUCTURE AND NOT A TEMPORARY STRUCTURE. THE AO ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION @100% ON HOARDINGS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE H OARDINGS WERE PURELY TEMPORARY STRUCTURE SUCH AS WOODEN STRUCTURES AND ALLOWED DEP RECIATION AT 15% TREATING THEM AS PLANT AND MACHINERY. 4. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE CIT(A) DIRECTED TH E AO TO ALLOW 100% DEPRECIATION ON HOARDINGS AND IN DOING SO THE CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE D ECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE FOR A.Y.2005-06 IN ITA N O.820/KOL/2008 ORDER DATED 11.12.2009 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO 100% DEPRECIATION ON HOARDINGS. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE REVENUE HAS RAISED GROUND NO.1 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT WAS AGREED BY THE PA RTIES BEFORE US THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD BEEN DECIDED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2009-10 AND 2010-11 IN ITA NO.1094/KOL/2012 AND ITA NO.2115/KOL/2013 VIDE ORDE R DATED 01.01.2015. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIB UNAL : 27. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE IN ITA NO.1094/KOL/2012 AND ITA NO.2115/KOL/2013 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLO WANCE OF DEPRECIATION @ 100% ON HOARDINGS TREATED AS TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AS AGA INST THE TREATMENT GIVEN BY AO AS PLANT AND MACHINERY ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AT 15% . THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN BOTH THE YEAR ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL I.E. AY 2009 -10 AND 2010-11, HENCE WE WILL TAKE UP THE FACTS FROM AY 2009-10. 28. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANC E OF DEPRECIATION FOR THE REASON THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 05-06. FOR THS CIT(A) OBSERVED IN PARA 4 AS UNDER: 3 ITA NO.1887/KOL/2014 M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 3 'GROUND NOS 1 10 5 OF THE APPEAL ARE RELATED 10 THE ADDITION MADE BY DENYING 100% DEPRECIATION ON HOARDING STRUCTURES. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE AND THE SUBMISSIO N MADE BY THE A.R. IN FACT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY MY PREDECESS OR THE LD. CIT (A) FOR A.Y. 2005-06 APPEAL. NO. 518/XII/DCLT-12/07-08) DAT ED 26.02.2008. THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE FOR AY 2005-06 (ITA 820/KOL/2008 DT. 1 1.1 2. 2009 WHEN THE DEPARTMENT HAD GONE IN APPEAL. SINCE THIS ISSUE IS COVERED, 1 DON'T FIND ANY REASO N TO INTERFERE IN IT. THEREFORE, ADDITION MADE ON THIS GROUND IS DELETED. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOW COVERED BY THE DECIS ION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN AY 2005- 06 IN ITA NO.820/KO1L2008 OF REVENUE'S APPEAL ': WH EREIN 100% DEPRECIATION ON HOARDING STRUCTURE WAS CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD TEMPO RARY ERECTIONS AND TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED I 1.12.2009 VIDE PARA 13 DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION AND HELD AS UNDER: - '13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS POINT AND RESTORE T HAT OF THE AO. HOWEVER, WE DIRECT THE AO TO WORK OUT THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE TEMPORARY STRUCTURE FROM THE COST OF THE TEMPORARY STRUCTURE , THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WILL BE RE DUCED AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT WOULD BE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE UNDER THE HEAD ' TEMPORARY STRUCTURE' UPON WHICH THE AO WILL ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION IN TH E SUCCEEDING YEAR AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE DIR ECTION, GROUND NO. 2 OF THE DEPARTMENT'S APPEAL FOR A. Y 2005-06 IS ALLOWED. ' IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE A SSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION ON HOARDINGS. WHICH ARE TEMPORARY STRU CTURES, AND CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE SAME. THIS COMMON ISSUE OF BOTH THE APP EALS OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE T RIBUNAL ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AND ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS WE DISMISS GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 8. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS FOLLOWS :- 2. 'THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW LD. CIT(A) ERRED BY ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY T HE ASSESSEE U/ S 80IA AMOUNTING RS. 1,33,40,998/- EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSE E IS NOT FULFILLING THE CONDITION OF 80LA.' 4 ITA NO.1887/KOL/2014 M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 4 9. THIS GROUND RELATES TO THE CLAIM OF ASSESSE E FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT). UNDER SEC.80IA(4) OF TH E ACT, A DEDUCTION OF INCOME DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING AND INFRAST RUCTURAL FACILITY WHILE COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ASSESSE E DERIVED INCOME FROM DISPLAY OF ADVERTISEMENT ON ROAD AND FOOT BRIDGES. IT DEVELOP ED THESE FACILITIES AND WAS PERMITTED TO DISPLAY ADVERTISEMENT HOARDINGS AS CONSIDERATION FOR COSTS IT INCURRED IN DEVELOPING INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES. THE ASSESSEE OPERATED A ND MAINTAINED THE ROADS AND FOOT BRIDGES. THE INCOME DERIVED FROM DISPLAY OF ADVERT ISEMENT HOARDINGS IS REFERRED TO AS REVENUE DERIVED FROM MAINTAINING ROADSIDE AMENITIES . ACCORDING TO THE AO PROFITS DERIVED FROM DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING ROADSIDE AMENITIES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF P ROVIDING INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITY AND HE THEREFORE DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR D EDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. 10. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE CIT(A) DIRECTED TH E AO TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XI I/KOL DATED 23.04.2013 IN APPEAL NO.209/12-13 FOR A.Y.2010-11 WHEREIN CIT(A) HELD TH AT INCOME DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FROM THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING INFRAST RUCTURAL FACILITY. 11. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE REVENUE HAS RAISED GROUND NO.2 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 12. AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT WAS AGREED BY THE PARTIES THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 IN ITA NO.610/KOL/2009 ORDER DATED 30.09.2009 AND THIS DECISION OF ITAT WA S FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y.2006-07 TO 2010-11 IN ITA NOS. 657 TO 659/KOL/2 011, 1094/KOL/2012 AND 2115/KOL/2013 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 01.0.12015. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID ORDER HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 5 ITA NO.1887/KOL/2014 M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 5 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE C LAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80L.A OF THE ACT AND IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME FILED A CERTIFICATE FROM CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IN FORM NO.10CCB IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON PROFIT DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES SUCH AS TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND FOOT OVER BRIDGES, BUT THE AO A FTER EXAMINING IN DETAIL DISALLOWED THE CLAIM BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 'ON PERUSAL OF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED SHOWS THAT T HE A/R DID NOT ADDUCE ANY COGENT EXPLANATION TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSEE'S CL AIM THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT: OPERATION & MAINTEN ANCE OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AS CONTEMPLATED IN S 80IA(4 ) IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2005-06,117), PREDECESSOR ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE REASONS FOR CONCLUDING THAT INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM OR CONSTRUCTION OF FOOT OVERBRIDGE IN LIEU OF OBTAINING ADVERTISEMENT/ DISPLAY RIGHTS DID NOT AMOUNT TO DEVELOPMENT: OPERATION & MAINTENANCE OF R OAD OR BRIDGES AS ENVISAGED IN S. 801A(4). TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM IS A FACILITY WHICH ASSISTS IN REGULATING VEHICULAR & PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ON THE ROAD BUT BY ITSELF INSTALLATION OF SUCH SYSTEM DOES NOT AMOUNT TO DEVE LOPMENT OF ROADS, APPLYING THE FUNCTIONAL TEST ONE CAN SAY THAT INSTA LLATION. OPERATION & MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM DOES NOT CONST ITUTE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY SUCH AS ROAD CAN FUNCTION SANS ELECTRIC TRAFFIC SIGNALING SYSTEM ALSO. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE DEVELOPER OF THE ROAD TO INSTALL SIGNALING SYSTEM B ECAUSE ROADS CAN BE USED AS INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY EVEN WITHOUT SOPHI STICATED ELECTRONIC SYSTEM. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, IT WAS NOT ALL INV OLVED IN CONSTRUCTION OR DEVELOPMENT OF ROADS BUT IT INSTALLED TRAFFIC SIGNA LING SYSTEM ON THE PREEXISTING ROAD NETWORK & THEREFORE ASSESSEE 'S BU SINESS CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT. OPERATION & MAIN TENANCE OF ROADS AS ENVISAGED IN S. 801A(4). ' 4. AGGRIEVED. ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT( A), WHO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, W HICH WAS INITIAL YEAR. WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE D PARA 5 OF ITS ORDER BY QUASHING THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY CIT-IV. KOLKA TA U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IN ITA NO, 610/KOL/2009 FOR AY 2004-05 VIDE DATED 30.09.20 09, WHICH READS AS UNDER: '5 AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSING TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL, WE FIND THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 1 42( 1) ON 13.12.2006, WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 16 TO 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH SPECIFIC 6 ITA NO.1887/KOL/2014 M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 6 QUERY IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 801 A WAS RAISED. WHICH READS AS UNDER: '(XXVI) WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 8 0IA, PLEASE FURNISH THE FOLLOWING DETAILS. (A) NATURE OF INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES MAINTAINED CL EARLY MENTIONING THE DETAILS (NO. .. SIZE ETC.) OF STRUCTURES ALL WHICH ADVERTISEMENT ARE DISPLAYED. (B) A CHART SHOWING THE DURATION OF EACH ADVERTISEM ENT AND THE RELEVANT INCOME FRONT 'PUBLICITY CHARGES .. (C) PLEASE STATE WHETHER COMMON HEAD OFFICE EXPENSE S HAVE BEEN APPORTIONED TO THESE INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES IF YES, PLEASE FURNISH THE HEAD WISE DETAILS GIVING THE BASIS OF APPORTIONMENT. IF NOT, THE REAS ONS THEREOF. ,. IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SU BMITTED THE DETAILS REGARDING THE NATURE OF INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES MAINTAINED WHICH INCLUDED ROAD AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND FOOT BRIDGE VIDE ITS LETTER 20.11.2006 (AVAILABLE AT PAGES 47 AND 48 OF THE PAPER BOOK) PARA 12 OF THIS LETTER READS AS UNDER. '12. NATURE OF INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES MAINTAINE D- (I) ROAD AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNALS LOCATED AT DIFFERENT PARTS OF KOLKATA CITY AS MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULES OF THE AGREEMENTS DATED 03.10.1944, 12.11.1995 AND 03.12.1997 ALREADY FILED ALONG WITH THE RET URN. TH E ADVERTISEMENTS ARE DISPLAYED ON STRUCTURES OF THE SAID AUTOMATIC TRAFF IC SIGNALS ON THE ROAD (II) TWO NUMBERS FOOT OVER BRIDGES AT RANCHI AS PER DETAILS GIVEN IN THE AGREEMENT DATED 30.08.2001 ALREADY FILED WITH THE RETURN THE ADVERTISEMENTS ORE DISPLAYED ON THE STRUCTURES OF THE SAID BRIDGES. THE DETAILS OF THE INCOME OF THE PUBLICITY CHARGES RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF THE ROAD AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND FOOTOVER BRIDGES ARE GIVEN UNDER PARAGRAPH NO. 19 AND 21 AND IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ATTACHED TO FORM NO. 10CCB (AUDIT REPORT U/S. 801A(7) ] AS FILED WITH THE RETURN. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 27. 11.2006 FURT HER SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF NATURE OF INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES MAINTAINED I.E . NO. LOCATION AND SIZE OF THESE FACILITIES IN RESPONSE TO ITEM NO. (XXVI-A) OF AO' S LETTER DATED 13. 12.2006 AND DETAILS OF PUBLICITY CHARGES FRONT INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES SHOWING NO. LOCATION, , BILL DATE, PERIOD AND AMOUNT OF PUBLICITY CHARGES I N RESPONSE TO ITEM NO. (XXVI-B) OF THE SAME LETTER OF THE A.O. THE DETAILS ARE AVAILAB LE 01 PAGES 21 TO 27 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 20 .12.2006 ALSO SUBMITTED THE 7 ITA NO.1887/KOL/2014 M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 7 DETAILS REGARDING THE APPORTIONMENT OF ALL THE EXPE NSES TO THE INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGES 28 AND 29 O F THE PAPER BOOK. THE APPORTIONMENT OF ALL THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE P&L ACCOUNT WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM ITEM NO.(XXI) OF FORM NO. 10CCB OF THE AUDIT REPORT U/S 80IA(7) OF THE ACT. THIS REPORT IS ALSO PART OF THE PAPER BOOK FROM PAGES 6 10 15. IT IS CLEAR FROM THIS THAT THERE WAS APPLICATION OF MIND ON TH E PART OF AO BEFORE HE ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT. IN RESPECT OF AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND PEDESTRIAN FEE BRIDGE THIS VIEW OF THE A.O IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES O F VANTAGE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD ITA NO.1054 & 1055/KOI/2008 AND SELVEL MEDIA SERVIC ES PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 1065/KOL/2008, WHEREIN BUS SHELTERS AND FOOT BRIDGE S WERE CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTIO N U/S. 801A OF THE ACT. THUS , IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AO HAS TAKEN A POSSIBL E VIEW ON THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT IF THE AO HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW AND THE LD. CIT HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION ON THE SAME FACTS P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE.. SINCE THE LD. CIT HAS DONE THE SAME. THE ORDER PASSED HI HINT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND HENCE. IS HEREBY QUASHED. AGGRIEVED. REVENUE CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE TRI BUNAL. 5. LD. CIT. DR. SHRI VARINDER MEHTA RELIED ON THE D ECISION OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SKYLINE ADVERTISI NG PVT. LTD. (2015) 45 TAXRNAN.COM 532 (KAR). WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE BENEFIT U/S. 801A OF THE ACT CAN BE EXTENDED ONLY TO THOSE ASSESSEES WHO HAVE DEVELO PED INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AS DEFINED U/S. 801A(4) OF THE ACT. HON'BLE HIGH COURT DISCUSSED THE FACT OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEVELOPED ROAD OR A TOLL ROAD. BRIDGE. HIGHWAY OR A RAIL SYSTEM. HOWEVER. IT HAD DEVELOPED THE EXISTING ROAD MEDIAN. ERECTED BUS SHELTERS AND LIGHT POLES FOR ITS ADVERTISEMENT BUSINESS. WHI CH. IN ANY CASE CANNOT BE TREATED AS INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT. ACCORDINGLY. HON'BLE HIGH COURT DECIDED THE QUESTION OF JAW IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE AND AGAINS T ASSESSEE. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI J. P. KHAITAN FILED COPY OF JUDGMENT OF HON 'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ITAT NO.49 OF 2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, GA NO.894 OF 2010 DATED 22 .04.2010 WHEREBY QUASHING OF REVISION ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT BY T RIBUNAL WAS UPHELD AS UNDER: THE COURT :- THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.9.2 010 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH. KOLKATA FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05. 8 ITA NO.1887/KOL/2014 M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 8 THE APPELLANT PROPOSED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QU ESTIONS OF LAW :- I) 'WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE INCOME- TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS CORRECT IN QUASHING THE R EVISION ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE GA NO.894 OF 2010 INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961, PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS WILE, IN FACT. THE QUESTION IS ONE OF LAW AND NOT FACT AND INCORRECT APPRECIATION OF LAW BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AMENABLE TO CORRECTION THROUGH THE INSTR UMENTALITY OF REVISION ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT?' II) 'WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN FOOT BRIDGE WOULD CONSTITUTE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY DEFINED ILL CLAUSE (A) OF EXPLANATION BELOW SUB-SEC TION (4) OF SECTION 80- 1A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ? SINCE. WE ARE INCLINED TO TAKE THE VIEW THAT THE TR IBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PEDES TRIAN FOOT BRIDGE WOULD CONSTITUTE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AS CONTEMPLATED IN CLAUSE (A) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SUB SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80-IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ANSWER QUESTION NO. 1. SECTION 80-IA PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL I NCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INCLUDES ANY PROFIT AND GAINS DERIVED BY ALL UNDERT AKING OR AN FROM ANY BUSINESS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (4) (SUCH BUSIN ESS BEING HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS'), THERE SHALL . IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, BE ALLO WED. IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. A DEDUCTION OF AN AMO UNT EQUAL TO HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM SUCH BUSINESS FOR TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF SUB-SECTION (4) READS AS UN DER.: '(4) THIS SECTION APPLIES TO- (I) ANY ENTERPRISE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS [ OF ( I ) DEVELOPING OR (II) OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OR (III) DEVELOPING. OPER ATING AND MAINTAINING] ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY WHICH FULFILLS ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. NAMELY.: (A) TO (C) . 9 ITA NO.1887/KOL/2014 M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 9 EXPLANATION DEFINES INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AS UNDE R:- '(A) ROAD INCLUDING TOLL ROAD, A BRIDGE OR A RAIL S YSTEM:' THE TRIBUNAL TOOK THE VIEW THAT INSTALLATION OF AUT OMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN FOOTBRIDGE WOULD BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF ROAD INCLUDING A BRIDGE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY FAULT WITH THE INTERPRET ATION PLACED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON CLAUSE (A) OF EXPLANATION TO SUB-SECTIO N (4) OF SECTION 80-IA OF THE INCOME-LAX ACT, 1961. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE PROPOSED QUESTION NO.1 IS ACADEMIC AND. THEREFORE WE ARE INCLINED TO ENTERTAIN THIS APPEAL IN RESPECT O F QUESTION NO.1 THE APPEAL IS. THEREFORE. SUMMARILY DISMISSED .. ON THIS, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT T HE FIRST AY FOR ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80LA OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE WAS AY 2004-05 AND THIS HAS BECOME FINAL AFTER THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCU TTA HIGH COURT CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ITAT IN QUASHING REVISION ORDER PASSED BY CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 10. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 8 0LA OF THE ACT AND THE RELEVANT SUB SECTIONS (2) GIVES MANDATE TO THE ASSESSEE THAT DEDUCTION AS SPECIFIED IN SUB- SECTION (1) MAY AT THE OPTION OF THE ASSESSEE BE CL AIMED BY HIM FOR ANY TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS OUT OF FIFTEEN YEARS B EGINNING FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING OR THE ENTERPRISE DEVELOPS OR BEGIN S TO OPERATE ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. SUB-SECTION (5) SAYS ABOUT INITIAL ASSESS MENT YEAR AND THEREAFTER IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION BY PUTTING A CEILING OF TEN YEARS. THE PERIOD WILL BE COUNTED FR OM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE ENTERPRISE OR THE UNDERTAKING WILL BE ALLOW ED TO CHOOSE THE INITIAL YEAR FROM WHICH IT WANTS TO AVAIL DEDUCTION FOR FURTHER YEARS. THE CONCESSION HAS TO BE AVAILED WITHIN A SPAN OF 12 YEARS BEGINNING WITH TH E YEAR OF OPERATION. THIS MEANS THAT AN ENTERPRISE OR UNDERTAKING WHICH CHOOSES THE FOURTH YEAR OF OPERATION AS THE INITIAL YEA/WILL GET DEDUCTION STARTING FROM THAT Y EAR. THE REVENUE CAN SEE THE PRE- REQUISITE CONDITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION TO A N ENTERPRISE OR AN UNDERTAKING IN THE VERY FIRST YEAR THE INITIAL YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. IN THE PRESENT EASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80LA OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 I.E. THAT WAS THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT Y EAR AND IN THAT YEAR THE MATTER REGARDING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION HAS BECOME FINAL F OR THE REASON THAT HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAS CONFIRMED THE ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION AND REVENUE HAS NOT CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT . WHEREAS THE REVENUE HAS 10 ITA NO.1887/KOL/2014 M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 10 REFERRED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF SKYLINE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD .. SUPRA. BUT THAT CANNOT BE C ONSIDERED AS PRECEDENT BECAUSE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN A VIEW IN FAVOU R OF ASSESSEE AND THAT ALSO IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE. THAT MEANS THE INITIAL AY I.E. 2004-05. ONCE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT TO PRE-REQUISITE CONDITIONS FO R ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION HAS BEEN SATISFIED. THE SAME CANNOT BE QUESTIONED IN FU TURE YEARS UNLESS AND UNTIL THE REVENUE DISTURBS THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. HON'B LE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD. (NO.2), SUPRA H AS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG. SUPRA AND OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PAUL BROTHERS. SUPRA AND ALSO SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICAL INDUSTR IES LTD .. SUPRA. SIMILAR ARE THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF SISTER CONCERNS OF THE ASS ESSEE I.E. SELVEL TRANSIT ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. IN TERM OF THE ABOVE. WE CONFIRM THE ORDE R OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THIS COMMON ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEALS. 13. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE UPHELD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY T HE REVENUE. 14. GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS F OLLOWS :- 3. 'THAT IS THE FACTS AND IN LAW OF THE CASE THE L D. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TDS PAYMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR HOARDING ADVER TISEMENT CHARGES U/ S 194C INSTEAD OF 194I. 15. THE ASSESSEE PAYS HOARDING ADVERTISEMENT CH ARGES TO ADVERTISEMENT AGENCIES. THE ADVERTISEMENT AGENCIES ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE SPA CE FOR DISPLAY OF ASSESSEES ADVERTISEMENT. THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED TAX ON THE PAY MENTS MADE TO ADVERTISING AGENCIES TREATING THE PAYMENT AS PAYMENT TO A CONTRACTOR WIT HIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. THE CASE OF THE AO IS THAT THE PAYMENT MAD E TO THE AGENCY WAS IN THE NATURE OF RENT AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE U/S 194I OF THE ACT. THE RATE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194 C OF THE ACT IS LESS THAN THE TAX DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE U/S 194I OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE AO THERE WAS A SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX. THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE ADVERTISE MENT AGENCIES WERE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING INCOME FROM BUSINESS. SI NCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT THE APPROPRIATE RATE, THE AO INVOKED THE PRO VISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT 11 ITA NO.1887/KOL/2014 M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 11 AND DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT MADE TO ADVERTISEMENT AG ENCIES CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE IN COMPUTING INCOME FROM BUSINESS ON T HE GROUND THAT SUCH PAYMENT WAS MADE WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AT THE APPR OPRIATE RATE AND ADDED A SUM OF RS.11,41,40,674/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE WHICH IS A PAYMENT MADE TO THE ADVERTISING AGENCIES. 16. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) DELETE D THE ADDITION MADE BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS :- IT IS ALSO BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE THAT SIMILAR DISAL LOWANCE OF SITE HIRE CHARGES PAID TO TRADERS (ADVERTISING AGENCIES) WAS MADE BY THE A DDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-12, KOLKATA FOR THE A.Y.2009-10 & BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR.12 KOLKATA FOR THE A.Y.2010-11 ON ID ENTICAL GROUNDS AND THE SAME DISALLOWANCES WERE FULLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) XII-KOLKATA VIDE HIS ORDERS FOR THE AY 2009-10 IN APPEAL NO.459/CIT(A)XII/12/2011-1 2) DATED 19-04-2012 AND FOR A.Y. 2010-11 IN APPEAL NO.209/CIT(A)-XII/CIR-12 /2012-13) DATED 23-04- 2013. I ALSO FIND NOTHING NEW IN FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES ON THIS ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL CASE BEFORE ME FOR THE RELEVANT AY 2011-12. MOREOVER, IT IS AN ESTABLISHED POSITION IN LAW THAT AN INCIDENT OF MERE LOWER DEDU CTION OF TDS DOE NOT MAKE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION & FINDING S, AFTER PERUSING THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION & FINDINGS OF MY PREDECESSOR ON THE ISSUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 IN THE APPELLANT S OWN CASE REFERRED ABOVE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAK ING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,41,40,674/- ON ACCOUNT OF HIGHER CHARGES P AID TO TRADERS/ADVERTISING AGENCIES DURING THE YEAR AND HENCE ADDITION MADE ON THIS GROUND IS DELETED AND THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED. 17. AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT WAS AGREED BY THE PARTIES BEFORE US THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE HONBLE ITAT ON I DENTICAL ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2009-10 AND 2010-11 IN TA NO.1094/KOL/ .2012 AND 2115/KOL/2013 ORDER DATED 01.01.2015. THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 31.WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUG H FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE FIRST CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS SINCE AY 2003-04 AND ASSESSEE IS PAYING THESE PAYME NTS TO CO-TRADERS AND CLAIMING THE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE IS DEDUCTING TD S QUA THESE PAYMENTS U/S. 12 ITA NO.1887/KOL/2014 M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 12 194C OF THE ACT AND THE AO MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S. 1 43(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04. 2004-05 AND 2005 -06 BEFORE SURVEY AND SUBSEQUENT TO SURVEY ALSO IN AY 2006-07. 2007-08 AN D 2008-09 THE POSITION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS IT IS. ALL THE ASSESSMENTS WE RE COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. NO DISALLOWANCE OF THESE EXPENSES WAS MADE ALL THROUGH. BUT IN THIS YEAR AND IN SUBSEQUENT AY 2010-11 THIS DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE . LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FIRST OF ALL ARGUED FOR THE CONSISTENCY AS WELL AS ON MERITS THAT THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THIS AS A CONTRACTUAL PAYMENT AND THER E IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. HENCE. THE DISALLOWANCE BE DELETED. ON THE OTHER HAND. LD. SI'. DR ACCEPTED THE ARGUMENT OF LD. COUNSEL QUA THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ONCE THIS IS THE POSITION, WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE 'S COUNSEL AS REGARDS TO CONSISTENCY THAT ONCE ON SIMILAR FACTS THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE PAYMENTS AS CONTRACTUAL PAYMENTS NOW THEY CANNOT DEVIATE. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH AT LENGTH IN PARA 10 ABOVE AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PROP OSITION. WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ALLOWING THE EXPENSES. 32. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO MADE ARGU MENT THAT ON SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS. NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE BY INVOKING THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE CALCU TTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S. K. TEKRIWAL (2014) 361 ITR 432 (CAL). WHEREI N IT IS HELD THAT THE NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE DUE TO SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS. 33. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE TWO PROPOSITIONS. WE CONFI RM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ALLOWING THE EXPENSES. THIS COMMON ISSUE OF REVENUE' S APPEA LS IS DISMISSED. 18. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HON BLE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN GROUND NO .3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 19. GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS FOLLOWS :- 4. 'THAT IS THE FACTS AND IN LAW OF THE CASE THE L D. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING INTEREST ON DELAY PAYMENT OF TDS AS ALLOWABLE EXPEN DITURE U/ S. 37 OF IT ACT.' 20. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID A SUM OF RS.7,82,561/- AS INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF TAX THAT WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. THE AFORESAID SUM WAS CLAIMED S DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING INCOME FROM BUSINESS. UND ER SECTION 40(A)(II) OF THE ACT ANY SUM PAID ON ACCOUNT OF ANY TAX LEVIED ON THE PR OFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN COM PUTING INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE 13 ITA NO.1887/KOL/2014 M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 13 HEAD PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT WAS AKIN TO TAX LEVIED AND PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE A LLOWED AS DEDUCTION. 21. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE INTEREST EXPENS ES WAS ALLOWABLE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. 22. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE REVENUE HAS RAISED GROUND NO.4 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 23. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 24. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION CANNOT BE EQUATED TO A SUM PAID ON ACCOUNT OF TAX LEVIED ON PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND THEREFORE COULD NOT H AVE BEEN DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(II) OF THE ACT. IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT OTHERWISE THE P AYMENT OF INTEREST WAS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON THE BUSI NESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. WE THE REFORE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 25. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13.09.2017. SD/- SD/- [WASEEM AHMED] [ N.V.VASU DEVAN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICI AL MEMBER DATED : 13.09.2017. [RG PS] 14 ITA NO.1887/KOL/2014 M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 14 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD., 10/1B, DIAMON D HARBOUR ROAD, KOLKATA-700027. 2. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12, KOLKATA. 3. C.I.T.(A)- XII, KOLKATA. 4. C.I.T.- IV, KOLK ATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O., ITAT KOLKATA BENCHE S