D.C.I.T Cir - 7,Kolkata, Kolkata V. P.K.S Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1934/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4391 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rule of consistency
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 12A

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 1934 & 1935/K/2013 M/S. PKS LTD 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,A BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1934/KOL/2013 A.Y: 2008-09 D.C.I.T, CIR-7 VS. M/S. P.K.S LTD CIR-7, KOLKATA PAN : AABCP 4914C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO. 1935/KOL/2013 A.Y: 2008-09 D.C.I.T, CIR-7 VS. P.K.S LTD CIR-7, KOLKATA PAN : AABCP 4914C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SALLONG YADEN, ADDL.CIT, SR.D R SHRI B.B.PAYRA, ADVOCATE AND A.K.AL UNI,FCA DATE OF HEARING : 13-07- 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04-10-2016 O R D E R SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :- THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE REVENUE IN (A) ITA NO.1934/KOL/2013 IS FILED AGAINST ORDER DATED 15-03 -2013 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-V III, ITA NOS. 1934 & 1935/K/2013 M/S. PKS LTD 2 KOLKATA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHICH IN T URN FILED AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER DT:28-10-2010 PASSED BY TH E AO U/SEC 143(3) OF THE ACT AND (B) ITA NO.2323/KOL/2013 IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25-03-2013 PASSED BY THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VIII, KOLKATA FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09 WHICH IN TURN FILED AGAINST PENALTY ORDER D T:25-04-2011 PASSED BY THE AO U/SEC 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT 2. SINCE BOTH THE APPEALS ABOVE ARE AGAINST THE SAM E ASSESSEE AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED THEREIN ARE INTERLINKED AND WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND CON SOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED. 3. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15-03-2013 WHICH AROSE AGAINST ORDER U/SEC 14 3(3) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1934/KOL/2013 AY 2008-09 4. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) VIII, KOLKATA, HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.60,14,74 6/-TOWARDS HANDLING & MOISTURE LOSS FROM THE NET PROFIT IN T HE CASE OF IRON ORE 5. THE ASSESSE IS A COMPANY DEALING IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT AND CONDUCTING ITS BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE AS PK S LIMITED AND FILED ITS RETURN SHOWING A TOTAL INCOME AT RS.8,45,76,498/-ON 29 -9 2008. UNDER SCRUTINY, NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) O F THE ACT ISSUED, AND ITA NOS. 1934 & 1935/K/2013 M/S. PKS LTD 3 IN THE RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED AUDITED BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, TAX AUDIT REPORT, BANK STATEMENTS , DEPOSITORY STATEMENT AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 6. DURING SUCH PROCEEDINGS THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.60,14,746/-TOWARDS HANDLIN G AND MOISTURE LOSS FROM THE NET PROFIT AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF LOSSES I.E. HANDLING & MOISTURE THAT WOULD OCCUR DURING THE PERIOD OF MINING AND SHIPMENT AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CONSIDER SUCH A LOSS DURING THE VALUATION OF CLOSIN G STOCK OF IRON ORE, THEREBY, RESULTED MORE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK IN AU DITED ACCOUNTS. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ACCORDING TO TH EIR PRACTICE AND DEPENDING UPON THE FACTORS, THE LOSSES UNDER HANDLI NG AND MOISTURE WILL BE WORKED OUT TO 8% TO 10% IN THE VALUATION OF CLOS ING STOCK. THE AO OPINED THAT THE OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK WAS NOT V ALUED PHYSICALLY AND ALSO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT APPLICATION OF SUCH PERCE NTAGE WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND IT IS A NOTIONAL PERCENTAGE AND DISALLOWE D THE CLAIM OF RS.60,14,746/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT-A, THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE AO NOT ALLOWED THE CLAIM ONLY ON THE REASON THAT THE S AID CLAIM WAS NOT ROUTED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE PLACED ON RELIANCE ON COLUMN NO-12A OF TAX AUDIT REPORT WHERE IN ALL THE REQUIRED INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED IN RESPECT OF THE SAID CLA IM. CONSIDERING THE SAME AND ON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD WITH REGARD T O PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF STOCK CONDUCTED BY THE BANKS AND CE RTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT-A FOUND THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM TOWARDS HANDLING AND MOISTURE LOSS, ACCORDINGLY, ITA NOS. 1934 & 1935/K/2013 M/S. PKS LTD 4 DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.60,14,746/-MADE BY THE A O. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: 5.1.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF TH E CASE AND ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT COMPA NY. I AM UNABLE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT CLAIM OF LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF HANDLING AND MOISTURE STOCK OF IRON-ORE WAS SUPPORTED WITH DETAILS AND FOR THE THAT THE CLAIM WAS NOT ROUTED T HROUGH PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. FIRSTLY, THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED DETAI LED WORKING OF THE LOSS OR THE SHORTAGE OF STOCK FOR THAT MATTER. SECONDLY, TH ERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD REGARDING PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF STOCK BY THE BANKS AS WELL AS CERTIFICATES ENDORSED BY THE COMPANY OFFICI ALS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY. THUS, THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW HAS BEEN FULF ILLED. NOW, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT A N IOTA OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE STOCK HAS BEEN UNDER VALUED AND THAT THE CLAIM OF LOSS WAS FICTITIOUS WITH A VIEW TO LESSEN THE PROFIT. THAT A PART, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO DEMONSTRATED WITH FACTS AND FIGURES THAT THE CHANGED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING HAD RESULTED IN UNDER ESTIMATION OF PR OFITS. IN CIT V REALEST BUILDERS AND SERVICES LIMITED.(2008) 170 TAXMAN 218 (SC), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT IN CASES WHERE THE DEPARTMENT WANTS TO TAX AN ASSE SSEE ON THE GROUND OF THE LIABILITY ARISING IN A PARTICU LAR YEAR, IT SHOULD ALWAYS ASCERTAIN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST AND WHETHER CHANGE IN METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WAS WARR ANTED ON THE GROUND THAT PROFIT IS BEING UNDERESTIMATED UNDER TH E IMPUGNED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMES TO THE C ONCLUSION THAT THERE IS UNDERESTIMATION OF PROFITS, HE MUST GIVE FACTS AND FIGURES IN THAT REGARD AND DEMONSTRATE TO THE COURT THAT THE IMPUGNED METH OD OF ACCOUNTING ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE RESULTS IN UNDERESTIMATION OF PROFITS AND IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED. OTHERWISE, THE PRESUMPTION WOU LD BE THAT THE ENTIRE EXERCISE IS THE REVENUE NEUTRAL. WHERE NO SUCH EXER CISE WAS UNDERTAKEN, THEY WOULD KNOW THE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CO NCLUSION GIVEN IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HIGH COURT. MORE SO, THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS SUP PORTED WITH THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRE CEDING TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS, 2006 2007 AND 2007 2008, WHEREIN THE VAL UATION OF STOCK OF IRON ORE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES . IT WOULD ALSO APPEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT YET APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE DISALLOWED OF THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF HANDLING AND M OISTURE ULTIMATELY ENHANCED THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK AND THAT IF VAL UE OF CLOSING STOCK HAS TO BE ADOPTED FOR THE OPENING STOCK OF THE NEXT YEA R. THIS PROPOSITION OF ITA NOS. 1934 & 1935/K/2013 M/S. PKS LTD 5 LAW HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONOURABLE INDORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF B.S.PATEL VS DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(2004) 2 ITJ 349(TRIBUNAL-INDORE) 8. IN CHALLENGE THE REVENUE BEFORE US BY RAISING TH E SOLE GROUND AS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANYTHING IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE AO. THE LEARNED DR FURTHER ARGUED THAT IT IS A NOTIONAL LOSS AND IT IS, AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE AO, NOT ALLOWABLE. THE LEARNED DR REFERRED TO PARA. 5.1.3 OF THE ORDER OF CIT-A SHOWING THAT THE CIT-A DELETED THE ADDITION B Y RELYING ON THE NEW EVIDENCE AS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME AND SUBMITTED THE CIT-A WOULD HAVE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO UND ER REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND SOUGHT TO ALLOW THE APPEAL. 9. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITS THAT THE AO DISALLOWED TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON THE IMPRESSION THAT THE SAID CLAIM WAS NOT ROUTED THROUGH PROFITS AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE LEARNED AR FU RTHER ARGUED THAT THE AO COMPLETELY IGNORED THE MATERIAL INFORMATION AS P ROVIDED IN COLUMN NUMBER-12A OF TAX AUDIT REPORT. THE LEARNED AR SUBM ITS THAT BASING ON SUCH INFORMATION THE RESPONDENT REVENUE WAS ALLOWIN G THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS AND PLACED ON RECORD THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR 2006 07 AND 2007 08 AND ARGUED THAT THERE WAS N O MATERIAL CHANGE INVOLVING THE PRESENT CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO MUST FOLLOW THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY AND PRAYED TO DISMISS THE APPEA L. 10. HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L EVIDENCE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ALL THE DETAILS RELEVANT TO ITS RETURN OF INCOME INCLUDING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS DETERMINED TOWARDS HANDLING AND MOISTURE LOSS IN TH E PROCESS OF MINING ITA NOS. 1934 & 1935/K/2013 M/S. PKS LTD 6 OF IRON ORE, IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A ND MORE PARTICULARLY EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY LE TTER DATED 4 OCTOBER 2010 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT WITH REGARD T O THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.6.60 CRORES DUE TO NON-CONSIDERATION OF LOSSES I NVOLVING THE CLAIM IN VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK AND SUBMITTED, BECAUSE O F SUCH NON - CONSIDERATION RESULTED THE DIFFERENCE IN AUDITED AC COUNTS. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE CIT-A EXAMINED THE DETAILS OF WORKING OF LOSS O R THE SHORTAGE OF STOCK AND ALSO VERIFIED THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED AND ENDOR SED BY THE CONCERNED OF OFFICIALS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE RECORD THAT ALL THE DETAILS INVOLVING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN PROVIDED I N COLUMN NUMBER 12A OF TAX AUDIT REPORT AND IT WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IGNORING SUCH INFORMATION AND THE AO H AVING THE OPINION THE SAID CLAIM WAS NOT ROUTED THROUGH PROFIT AND LO SS ACCOUNT AND ADDITION THEREON IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 11. WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED DR IN RESPECT OF ACCEPTANCE OF NEW EVIDENCE BY THE CIT-A AND RELIEF THEREON TO ASSESSE FOR THE REASON THAT THE RESPONDENT REVENUE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE AS COULD BE GATHE RED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR A.YS 2006-07-07 & 2007-08 AN D THE SAME WERE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENTS U/SEC 143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT-A AND IT IS JUSTIFIED, ACCORDINGLY, SOLE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE FAIL S AND IT IS DISMISSED. 12. NOW, WE SHALL DEAL WITH THE OTHER APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE CANCELLATION OF PENALTY AS IMPOSED BY THE AO U/SEC 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS. 1934 & 1935/K/2013 M/S. PKS LTD 7 ITA NO.2323/KOL/2013 13. THE APPELLANT REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROU NDS: THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-VIII, KOLKATA, HAS ERRED IN LAW A S WELL AS IN FACTS IN DELETING THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS.2 1,96,942/- U/S 271(1)(C) DETERMINED ON HANDLING & MOISTURE LO SS 14. IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE PENALTY ORDER, THAT THE AO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING A NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT ON TWO GROUNDS. ONE SUCH GRO UND WAS THAT AS DISCUSSED IN THE AFORE MENTIONED PARAS OF A PPEAL IN ITA 1935/KOL/2013 WHEREIN WE ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION TH AT THE ORDER OF AO IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE INVOLVING TH E ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF HANDLING AND MOISTURE LOSS IS NO T JUSTIFIED AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF CIT-A. 15. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED FROM THE PENALTY ORDER, THA T THE AO PASSED PENALTY ORDER EXPARTE AND THEREBY, IMPOSED S UCH PENALTY WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO OB SERVED FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN THIS APPEAL, WHEREIN THE CIT- A OPINED THAT MERE MAKING A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE I N LAW, BY ITSELF, WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO PUNISHING INACCURATE PA RTICULARS REGARDING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME, THEREBY, CANCELLED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO. 16. IN THIS REGARD WE MAY REFER TO THE DECISION OF HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT SUPRA AND THE FACTS THEREIN ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS. 1934 & 1935/K/2013 M/S. PKS LTD 8 THEREIN FILED RETURN FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT DE CLARING LOSS OF RS. 26,54,554 AND THE DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS . 2,22,688, WHEREBY, THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS MADE. THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT O N ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME/FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME. THE CIT-A DELETED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE AND THE TRIBUNA L AND HONBLE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE ORDER OF CIT-A. BEFORE THE HONOURA BLE SUPREME COURT THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE B Y THE AO WAS SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF A DIFFERENT VIEW ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS AND THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR WHAT ANY INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF SUCH INCOME FURNISHED. THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT A MERE MAKING A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND WILL NOT AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'PARTI CULARS' IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS JUDGMENT. READING THE WORDS IN CONJUNC TION, THEY MUST MEAN THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT A CCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WE MU ST HASTEN TO ADD HERE THAT IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DET AILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT O R ERRONEOUS OR FALSE. SUCH NOT BEING THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. A MERE MAKIN G OF THE CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOU NT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. S UCH CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 17. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REQ UIRED EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN THE C LAIM AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.60,14,746/- WAS DISALLOWED ON THE GROU ND THAT IT NOT ROUTED THROUGH PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, IT IS CLE AR THE AO IDENTIFIED THE AMOUNT OF RS.60,14,746/- AND DISALLOWED. THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FOUND FAULT WITH THE FINDIN G OF THE AO AND ALLOWED THE ITA NOS. 1934 & 1935/K/2013 M/S. PKS LTD 9 SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE AO DID N OT CONSIDER THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. WE FIND THAT DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WE ALSO FIND THAT THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT O R FALSE. THUS, THE ORDER OF PENALTY IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. IN OUR VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED EXPLANATION VIDE ITS LETTER DT:4-10-2010 IN ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS REGARDING LOSS AS CLAIMED, WHICH HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY W AY OF MATERIAL EVIDENCES IN COLUMN NO-12A OF TAX AUDIT REPORT REGARDING THE CLAIM BEFORE THE AO, WHICH IS FOUND TO BE BONAFIDE RELATING TO CLAIM AS FOUND BY CIT-A. THEREFORE, NO PENALTY IN THIS REGARD CAN BE IMPOSED. THEREFORE , IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION ABOVE AND IN PARA-10, THE PENALTY IMPOSED IS HEREBY CANCELLED AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT-A IS CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, SOLE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE IN ITA NO.1934/KOL/2013 AND APPEAL IN ITA NO.1935/KOL/2013 FOR THE A.YS 2008-09 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH OCTOBER,2016 SD/- SD/- P.M JAGTAP S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 04/10/2016 ITA NOS. 1934 & 1935/K/2013 M/S. PKS LTD 10 1. THE APPELLANT/REVENUE: D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-7 , P-7, CHOWRANGEE SQUARE, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA 700069. 2 . THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE; P.K.S LTD ,7, CAMAC STREET, AZEEMGUNG HOUSE,KOLKATA-700017. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ** PRADIP SPS INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKAT A BENCHES, KOLKATA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:-