Howrah Mills Limited, Howrah V. DCIT, CC-XXII, KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 1994/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1686 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHR RAKESH JAIN
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Capital receipt; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 139(5); 131

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1894/KOL/2014 & 1994/KOL/2014-M/S. HOWRAH MI LLS CO.LTD. A.Y.2010-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH A KOL KATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI M.B ALAGANESH, AM ] ITA NO.1994/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 HOWRAH MILLS COMPANY LTD. -VERSUS- D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXII, KOLKATA KOLKATA. (PAN: AAACH 7560 D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.1894/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXII, -VERSUS- HOWRAH MIL LS COMPANY LTD. KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN: AAACH 7560 D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE DEPARTMENT: SHRI SALLONG YADEN , ADDL. CIT FOR THE ASSESSEE : SHR RAKESH JAIN, CA DATE OF HEARING : 03.08.2017. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.08.2017. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM: ITA NO.1994/KOL/2014 IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE W HILE ITA NO.1894/KOL/2014 IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2014 OF CIT(A)-CENTRAL-III, KOLK ATA, RELATING TO AY 2010-11. ITA NO.1994/KOL/2014 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ A S FOLLOWS :- 1. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.37,21,056/- UNDER SEC 40[A][IA] OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. ITA NO.1894/KOL/2014 & 1994/KOL/2014-M/S. HOWRAH MI LLS CO.LTD. A.Y.2010-11 2 2. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY AND/OR SUBMIT FURTHER OR MORE GR OUND(S) OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT ANY TIME DURING THE HEARING OF THE APP EAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A MANUFACTURER AND TRADER IN JUT E GOODS. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT) THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID A SUM OF RS.37,21,056/- TOWARDS BROKERAGE/COMMISSION. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE DEDU CTED TAX AT SOURCE ON THE AFORESAID PAYMENT AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO THE AO INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT DISALLOW ED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNT. CONSEQUENTLY AN ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO THE AS SESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT A S ON THE LAST DATE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR THE COMMISSION/BROKERAGE IN QUESTION HAD ALREA DY BEEN PAID AND DID NOT REMAIN PAYABLE AS ON THE LAST DATE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM IN THE CAS E OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS VS ADDL. CIT 136 ITD 23 (VISAKHAPATNAM)( SB) AND SUBMITTED THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION HAVE ALREADY BEE N PAID AS IN THE LAST DATE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY CIT(A) BY FOLLOWIN G THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CRESCENT EXPORTS SYNDICATE (2013)216 TAXMAN.COM 258 (CAL). 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE PARTIES THAT THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CRESCENT EXPORT SYNDICATE (SUPRA) HAS NOW BEEN APPROVED BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE ITA NO.1894/KOL/2014 & 1994/KOL/2014-M/S. HOWRAH MI LLS CO.LTD. A.Y.2010-11 3 OF PALAM GAS SERVICE LTD. VS CIT IN CA NO..5512 OF 2017 JUDGMENT DATED 04.05.2017 WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD T HAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE EVEN WHEN THE A MOUNTS WHICH ARE CLAIMED AS AN EXPENDITURE ON WHICH TDS HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID AS ON THE LAST DATE OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. IN OUR VIEW FOL LOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERITS IN T HE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT SENDS JUTE GOODS ON CONSIGNMENT AND THE CONSIGNEES WHILE REMITTING T HE SALE PROCEEDS AND SENDING ACCOUNT SALES IN RESPECT OF THE CONSIGNMENT SALE, D EDUCTS VARIOUS CHARGES FROM SUCH SALE PROCEEDS TOWARDS VARIOUS EXPENSES RELATING TO CONSIGNMENT INCLUDING COMMISSION ON SALES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF EXPEN SES INCURRED BY THE CONSIGNEES WHICH ARE REIMBURSED WHICH IS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE SUM OF RS.37,27,056/- DISALLOWANCE BY THE AO U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT OBLIGED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. 7. ANOTHER SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE WAS FOR A REMAND OF THE ISSUE TO THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO THE AO TO V ERIFY IF THE PAYEES HAVE DECLARED THE RECEIPT FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME AND IF THEY HAVE SO DECLARED THEN THE ADDITION U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE DEL ETED BY THE AO. THE ABOVE SUBMISSION WAS MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE AMENDMENT S TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W .E.F. 1-4-2013, WHEREBY A SECOND PROVISO WAS INSERTED WHICH PROVIDED THAT IF THE PAY EES HAVE FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING THE RECEIPTS FROM THE ASSESSEE IN TH EIR RETURN OF INCOME THAN THE IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED AND PAID THE TAX ON SUCH SUM ON THE DATE OF FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME BY THE RESID ENT PAYEE REFERRED TO IN SEC.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 8. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITIES ARE VESTED WITH STA TUTORY POWERS U/S 133(6) OR 131 AND OR OTHER PROVISIONS AND THEY COULD HAVE MADE INQUIR ES WITH THE PARTIES OR THEIR ITA NO.1894/KOL/2014 & 1994/KOL/2014-M/S. HOWRAH MI LLS CO.LTD. A.Y.2010-11 4 RESPECTIVE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS REGARD IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS OF THE PAYEES WERE FURNISHED AND ARE AVAILA BLE ON RECORD WITH THEIR PAN AND AO DETAILS. 9. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ITAT, KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF RAMAKRISHNA VEDANTA MATH V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 59 (1), KOLKATA, [2012] 24 TAXMANN.COM 29 (KOL.) HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT ONCE ASSESSEE FURNISHES LAWFULLY MAINTAINED INFORMATION ABOUT RECIPIENTS, ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD FIRST ASCERTAI N RELATED FACTS ABOUT PAYMENT OF TAXES DIRECTLY FROM RECIPIENTS BEFORE INVOKING SECT ION 201 (1). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE DECISION ITAT KOLKATA IN THE ABOVE MENTIO NED CASE WILL ALSO APPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. FURTHER R ELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF VAS ELE CTRONICS VS. ACIT, ITAT KOLKATA IN I.T.A NO. 662/KOL/2013 DATED 24-11-2015 WHEREIN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANS AL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP P. LTD. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (DEL), THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VER IFY WHETHER THE RECIPIENTS HAVE INCLUDED THE RECEIPTS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURNS OF INCOME AND ALSO PAID TAXES ON THE SAME. 10. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOW ANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND REMANDED TO THE AO TO VERIFY WHETHER THE RECIPIENTS HAVE INCLUDED THE RECEIPTS P AID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURNS OF INCOME AND ALSO PAID TAXES ON THE SAME. TO THE EXTENT THE RECIPIENTS FROM THE ASSESSEE HAVE SO INCLUDED THE S UM IN THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME AND FILED THE SAME, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF TH E ACT SHOULD BE MADE BY THE AO. IN CASE THE RECIPIENT PARTIES ARE NOT COOPERATING I N PROVIDING DETAILS, THE AO SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO CALL FOR THE INFORMATION U/S. 133(6) OR 131 OF THE ACT, FOR VERIFICATION OF THE SAME. 11. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE BENEFIT OF THE SECOND PROVISO SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE TAX DEDUCTED AT ITA NO.1894/KOL/2014 & 1994/KOL/2014-M/S. HOWRAH MI LLS CO.LTD. A.Y.2010-11 5 SOURCE HAS NOT BEEN PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ON BOTH THE ASPECTS PLEADED BY THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY OF TAKING THIS PLEA BEF ORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SE T ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REMAND THE ISSUE FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION ON TWO ASPECTS PLEADED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.1894/KOL/2014 (REVENUES APPEAL) 13. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE REA D AS FOLLOWS :- (1) THAT, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE CARBON CREDITS FOR AN AMO UNT OF RS.L,01,58,581/- AS CAPITAL RECEIPTS. (2) THAT, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING RS.L,0L,58,581/- IN RESPEC T OF CARBON CREDITS AS CAPITAL RECEIPTS IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM THE SAME IN ITS RETURN OR REVISED RETURN AS IN THE CASE OF GOETZ INDIA LIM ITED [289 ITR 323}. (3) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, MODIF Y AND ALTER ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS CASE. 14. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.1,01,58,581 /- ON ACCOUNT OF CARBON CREDITS WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF INCOME AND THEREFORE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF MY HOME POWER LTD. VS DCIT 27 TAXMANN. COM 27 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT CARBON CREDIT WHICH IS A MONEY RECEIPT FOR REDUCING CARBON IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT NOT IN THE NATURE OF INCOME AND HENCE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TA X. 15. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.1894/KOL/2014 & 1994/KOL/2014-M/S. HOWRAH MI LLS CO.LTD. A.Y.2010-11 6 16. AS FAR AS GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE IS CONC ERNED WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE SAID GROUND. IN THE FOLLOWING JUDGM ENTS IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF CARBON CREDIT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF INCOME AND NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. (I) THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS . MY HOME POWER LTD. [365 ITR 82] WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT 'CARBON CREDI T WAS NOT AN OFFSHOOT OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT AN OFFSHOOT OF ENVIRON MENTAL CONCERNS. NO ASSET WAS GENERATED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS BUT IT WAS GENE RATED DUE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. THERE WAS NO COST OF ACQUISITION OR COST OF PRODUCTION TO GET ENTITLEMENT FOR THE CARBON CREDITS. THEREFORE, THE INCOME FROM SALE OF CARBON CREDITS WAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND NOT LIABLE TO TAX UNDER ANY HEAD OF INCOME UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. ' (II) ITAT (CHENNAI) IN CASE OF AMBIKA COTTON MILLS LTD. V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX [27 ITR(TRIB) 44] HELD THAT 'THE REALISATION OF CARBON CREDIT WAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL RECEI PT.' (III) ITAT (CHENNAI) IN CASE OF SRI VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS P. LTD. V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [27 ITR(TRIB) 106 ] (IV) ITAT (JAIPUR) IN CASE OFSHREE CEMENT LTD. VS. ACIT [31 ITR(TRIB) 513] HELD THAT 'CARBON CREDIT IS IN THE NATURE OF 'AN EN TITLEMENT' RECEIVED TO IMPROVE WORLD ATMOSPHERE AND ENVIRONMENT REDUCING CARBON, H EAT AND GAS EMISSIONS. THE ENTITLEMENT EARNED FOR CARBON CREDITS IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT AND CANNOT BE TAXED AS A REVENUE RECEIPT. IT IS NOT GENERATED OR CREATED DUE TO CARRYING ON BUSINESS BUT IT IS ACCRUED DUE TO 'WORLD CONCERN '. IT HAS BEEN MADE A VAILABLE ASSUMING CHARACTER OF TRANSFERABLE RIGHT OR ENTITLEMENT ONLY DUE TO WORLD CONCERN. THE SOURCE OF CARBON CREDIT IS WORLD CONCERN AND ENVIRONMENT. DUE TO THA T THE ASSESSEE GETS A PRIVILEGE IN THE NATURE OF TRANSFER OF CARBON CREDITS. THUS, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR CARBON CREDITS HAS NO ELEMENT OF PROFIT OR GAIN AND IT CAN NOT BE SUBJECTED TO TAX IN ANY MANNER UNDER ANY HEAD OF INCOME. ' ITA NO.1894/KOL/2014 & 1994/KOL/2014-M/S. HOWRAH MI LLS CO.LTD. A.Y.2010-11 7 17. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID JUDGMENTS WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.1 RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 18. AS FAR AS GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS CONCERNED THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME DID NOT MAKE ANY C LAIM THAT RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF CARBON CREDIT IS NOT TAXABLE. THE FACTS ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM THAT RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF CARB ON CREDIT IS NOT TAXABLE BUT SUCH A CLAIM WAS MADE ONLY IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE IN GROUND NO.2 THAT THE CLAIM THAT CARBON CREDIT IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX BEING CAPITAL RECEIPT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT FILING THE REVISED RET URN OF INCOME AND THEREFORE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED TAKING UP FOR CONSIDERATI ON BY CIT(A) IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F GOETZ INDIA LTD. 289 ITR 323(SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE AO IS NOT COMP ETENT TO ENTERTAIN ANY CLAIM WHICH IS NOT MADE EITHER IN THE RETURN OR BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. 19. ON THIS ISSUE WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMI SSIONS AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. T HE CIT(A) BEING THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS THE POWER TO ENTERTAIN A NEW CLAIM EV EN IN THE ABSENCE OF A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. THE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF GOE TZE (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS CLARIFIED THAT 'THE DECISION WAS RESTRICTED TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHERWISE THAN BY A REVISED RETURN, AND DID NOT IMPINGE ON THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTIO N 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THIS HAS BEEN INTERPRETED IN SEVERAL JUDICIA L PRONOUNCEMENTS AS APPLICABLE EVEN TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THE HONB LE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS 306 ITR 42 (DELHI) HAS HELD THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT, WERE FREE TO CONSIDER A CLAIM MADE BY AN ASSES SEE EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AND THAT THE REQUIREMENT F OR FILING A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF GOETZ INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN A CLAIM IS MADE CONTRARY TO TH E RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE AO. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT ALUMINIUM 163 TAXMAN 430J, ITA NO.1894/KOL/2014 & 1994/KOL/2014-M/S. HOWRAH MI LLS CO.LTD. A.Y.2010-11 8 HAS INTER-ALIA RULED THAT ASSESSEE CAN FILE REVISED COMPUTATION IN THE COURSE OF ONGOING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT, WITHOUT MAKIN G RECOURSE TO REVISED RETURN, DESPITE THE FACT THAT TIME LIMIT FOR REVISING RETUR N UNDER SECTION 139(5) HAD EXPIRED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DRP WAS RIGHT IN ACCEPTING THE REVISED CLAIM THAT SALES TAX REMISSIO N RECEIVED IS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. 20. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ACCEPTING THE REVISED CL AIM REGARDING NON TAXABLE OF CARBON CREDITS. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVE NUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 21. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. 22. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESEE IS T REATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHILE THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18.08.2017. SD/- SD/- [M.BALAGANESH] [ N.V.VASUDEVAN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 18.08.2017. [RG PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.M/S. HOWRAH MILLS COMPANY LTD., 135, FORESHORE RO D, SHIBPUR, HOWRAH-711102. 2. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA. 3. C.I.T.(A)- CENTRAL-III, KOLKATA 4. C.I.T-C ENTRAL-III, KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O, ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO.1894/KOL/2014 & 1994/KOL/2014-M/S. HOWRAH MI LLS CO.LTD. A.Y.2010-11 9