D.C.I.T Cir - 7,kolata, Kolkata V. M/s Ripley & Company Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2223/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4460 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL
• Keywords: Business expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 37(1)

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 2223/KOL/2013 M/S. RIPLEY & COMPANY LTD., AY 1010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI S. S. VISWAN ETHRA RAVI, JM] I.T.A NO. 2223/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VS. M/S. RIPLE Y & COMPANY LTD. CIRCLE-7, KOLKATA. (PAN: AABCR4633A) ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 24.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.09.2016 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL, JC IT, SR. DR FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH, ADVOCA TE ORDER PER SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM: THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF C IT(A)-VIII, KOLKATA VIDE APPEAL NO. 69/CIT(A)-VIII/KOL/12-13 DATED 13.06.2013. ASSE SSMENT WAS FRAMED BY DCIT, CIRCLE- 7, KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR AY 2010-11 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28.09.2012. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD CITA IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEMURR AGE CHARGES AND PENALTY CHARGES IMPOSED BY STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD AND CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LTD IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESS EE COMPANY INCORPORATED WITH THE MAIN OBJECTS OF CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITIES OF HANDLING AND STEVEDORING CONTRACTOR. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, THE RESPONDENT WAS ACTING IN SIMILAR CAPACITY FOR STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND C ENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED. THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 36,81,373/- AND RS. 1,43,27,044/- TO STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD (SAIL IN SHORT) AND CE NTRAL COAL FIELDS LTD (CCFL IN SHORT) RESPECTIVELY ON ACCOUNT OF RAILWAY DEMURRAGE AND PU NITIVE CHARGES WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN HANDLING & STEVEDORING EXPENSES AND ACCORDINGLY N OT ADMISSIBLE AS DEDUCTION IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT AS THE S AME IN THE OPINION OF THE LD AO ARE PENAL 2 ITA NO. 2223/KOL/2013 M/S. RIPLEY & COMPANY LTD., AY 1010-11 IN NATURE. THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT SUCH EXPENSES AROSE FOR BREACH OF THE CONTRACTUAL TERMS ENTERED WITH SAIL AND CCFL. THE SAID ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE LD CITA. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A .O. OF RS.1,80,08,417/- TOWARDS DEMURRAGE CHARGE AND PENALTY CHARGE (IMPOSED BY STEEL AUTHORI TY OF INDIA LTD. & CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LTD.) RESPECTIVELY SINCE THESE ARE PENAL IN NATURE AND UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PENALTY OF ANY SORT IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE. 4. THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF TH E LD AO. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BY THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 240/KOL/2012 DATED 27.6.2014 FOR THE ASST YEAR 2008-09 ; COVERED BY TH E HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS JIYAJEERAO COTTON MILLS LTD REPO RTED IN (1992) 103 CTR (CAL) 426 ; NANHOOMAL JYOTI PRASAD VS CIT REPORTED IN (1980) 3 TAXMAN 60 (ALL) ; MAHALAKSHMI SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD VS CIT REPORTED IN (1984) 19 TAXMAN 4 47 (DELHI) AND ACCORDINGLY ARGUED THAT THERE INTERFERENCE NEED TO BE MADE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CITA. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING SUMMARY AND EVI DENCES OF DEMURRAGE AND PUNITIVE CHARGES DEDUCTED BY SAIL AND CCFL (PAGES 5 TO 41OF PB) ; COPY OF AGREEMENT WITH SAIL (PAGES 42 TO 73 OF PB) ; COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF PENALTY AND DEMURRAGE IMPOSED BY CCFL (PAGES 74 TO 78 OF PB) ; COPY OF AGREEMENT WIT H CCFL (PAGES 79 TO 200 OF PB) ; COPY OF RETURN TOGETHER WITH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ( PAGES 239 TO 247 OF PB) ; COPY OF CERTIFICATION OF INCORPORATION TOGETHER WITH MEMORA NDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE ASSESSEE (VIDE PAGES 248 TO 272 OF PB). IT IS AN A DMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CONTRACTUALLY BOUND BY THE STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA , AND CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED TO ACT IN VARIOUS CAPACITIES. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXECUTE THEIR WORK WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED IN THE CONTRACTS AS REQUIRED BY THE STEEL AUTHORITY OF IND IA AND CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED WHICH RESULTED IN DELAY IN COMPLETING THE WORK BEYOND THE SCHEDULED TIME. ON FAILURE TO CARRY OUT THE WORK AS PER SCHEDULE, THE STEEL AUTHORITY OF IN DIA AND CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED IMPOSED DEMURRAGE AS WELL AS PUNITIVE CHARGES IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT ENTERED INTO WITH THEM BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DEMURRA GE WAS CHARGED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE CONTRACTEES UPON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE STEEL AUT HORITY OF INDIA AND CENTRAL COALFIELDS 3 ITA NO. 2223/KOL/2013 M/S. RIPLEY & COMPANY LTD., AY 1010-11 LIMITED WHO IN TURN CHARGED THE SAME ON THE PAYMENT S MADE TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DEMURRAGE AROSE OUT OF THE FAILURE OF TH E ASSESSEE TO COMPLETE THE WORK WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME ALLOTTED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF TH E CONTRACTEES AND THE SAME WAS DEDUCTED FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE CONTRACTEES OF THE AS SESSEE WHO, IN TURN, DEDUCTED THE SAME FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS LIN E OF BUSINESS, SUCH IMPOSITION OF DEMURRAGE CHARGES IS USUAL. THERE IS NO INFRINGEMEN T OF ANY LAW, THE FAILURE OF WHICH HAS LED TO THE INSTANT IMPOSITION OF DEMURRAGE BUT MERE LY DUE TO INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, THE LEVY WAS IMPOSED. THE ST ATUTORY PRESCRIPTION CONTAINED IN THE EXPLANATION ALONG WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 37(1) ACT PROHIBITS DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY PURPOSE WHICH IS A N OFFENCE OR WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW AS BEING OPPOSED TO PUBLIC POLICY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, INCURRING OF THE EXPENDITURE ON DEMURRAGE AND CLAIMING THE SAME AS AN EXPENSE WAS N OT FOR AN OFFENCE NOR PROHIBITED BY LAW AS BEING OPPOSED TO PUBLIC POLICY. WHERE DEMURR AGE CHARGED BY PORT AUTHORITIES IS IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION FOR DELAY IN CLEARING TH E GOODS FROM THE GODOWNS OF THE PORT AUTHORITIES WHICH INCLUDES AMOUNT CHARGEABLE FOR ST ORAGE AND SAFE CUSTODY OF THE GOODS BY THE PORT AUTHORITIES BEYOND THE FREE PERIOD ALLOWED UNDER PORT RULES, THEREFORE, THE DEMURRAGE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A FINE PAID FOR ANY CRIMINAL ACT BUT COMPENSATION FOR USE THE PART FACILITIES BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE FREE PERIOD AND THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE IS A PERMISSIBLE REVENUE DEDUCTION. IT IS FURTHER S ETTLED THAT PAYMENT OF DEMURRAGE IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF PENALTY AND THAT IT IS MERELY CHARGE MADE BY THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION TO COMPENSATE ITSELF FOR KEEPING THE GOODS OF THE ASSE SSEE IN ITS CUSTODY BEYOND A PARTICULAR TIME AND THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT OF DEMURRAGE IS INC IDENTAL TO BUSINESS AND WAS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. FURTHER, THE CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE HAD SPECIFIC CLAUSE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN CASE IT FAILED TO MAKE PRO GRESS AS PER THEIR REQUIREMENT MENTIONED IN THE WORK RATE CHART. THE CONTRACTEES, STEEL AUTH ORITY OF INDIA AND CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED IMPOSED THE INSTANT PUNITIVE CHARGES ON ACC OUNT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT WHICH DOES NOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF PAYMENT OF PENALTY FOR BREACH OF ANY LAW OF THE LAND BUT IS SIMPLY A COMPENSATION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION S. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PUNITIVE CHARGES AROSE OUT OF THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLET E THE WORK WITHIN THE TIME FRAME AGREED WITH THE CONTRACTEES, STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED. SUCH TYPES OF PENALTIES ARE USUAL IN THIS, LINE OF BUSINESS AND T HE CONTRACTEES DEDUCT SUCH CHARGES FROM THE PAYMENT DISBURSED BY THEM. THE WORKS UNDERTAKEN AS AGREED IN THE CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO 4 ITA NO. 2223/KOL/2013 M/S. RIPLEY & COMPANY LTD., AY 1010-11 WERE NOT COMPLETED IN TIME AND THEREFORE PUNITIVE C HARGES UNDER THE DEFAULT CLAUSE AS LAID DOWN THEREIN HAD TO BE PAID. IT IS NOT A PENALTY FO R BREACH OF LAW. SUCH PAYMENT WAS PERFORCE MADE TO HONOUR THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION UNDER THE AGREEMENTS EXECUTED. THIS WAS DONE IN COURSE OF CARRYING ON OF THE BUSINESS BY TH E ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE WAS A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT TO COMPLETE THE WORK IN TIME AND A CLAUSE FOR IMPOSING PUNITIVE CHARGES WAS INCLUDED FOR ANY DEFAULT. THESE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AROSE IN COURSE OF CARRYING ON OF THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT. THER EFORE, THIS PAYMENT MADE UNDER A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION IS TO BE ALLOWED U/S. 37(1) OF THE ACT. 6. WE FIND THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD AR ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS JIY AJEERAO COTTON MILLS LTD REPORTED IN (1992) 103 CTR (CAL) 426 IS WELL FOUNDED. IN THE SAID CASE, IT WAS HELD THA T : 12. FROM THE FACTS NOTED BY THE IT AUTHORITIES AN D THE TRIBUNAL, IT APPEARS THAT THE GOODS WERE NOT DELIVERED IN TIME AND AS BECAUSE THE GOODS WERE NOT DELIVERED IN TIME A PENALTY UNDER THE DEFAULT CLAUSE THE AFORESAID SUM OF RS. 4 7,393 HAD TO BE PAID BY WAY OF PENALTY. IT IS NOT A PENALTY FOR BREACH OF ANY LAW. THE PAYMENT WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION UNDER CL. 12 OF THE AGREEMENT. WHEN THE GOODS WERE NOT DELIVERED WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD, AN EXTRA AMOUNT, DESIGNATED 'PEN ALTY' HAD TO BE PAID. THIS WAS DONE IN COURSE OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS BY THE ASSESSEE. USUALLY TIME IS NOT OF THE ESSENCE OF THE CONTRACT BUT THE PARTIES ARE ENTITLED TO MAKE IT SO BY INSERTING A SPECIFIC CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT. THE PARTIES ARE ENTITLED TO FIX THE TIME WITHIN WHICH THE GOODS MUST BE DELIVERED AND TO STIPULATE THAT IF THERE IS ANY FAILURE TO DE LIVER THE GOODS WITHIN THE CONTRACTED PERIOD, EXTRA MONEY WILL HAVE TO BE PAID TO COMPENSATE THE BUYER FOR NON-DELIVERY OF THE GOODS IN TIME. 13. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE WAS SPECIFIC REQUIRE MENT TO DELIVER THE GOODS IN TIME AND A PENALTY CLAUSE FOR DEFAULT. THESE RIGHTS AND OBLIGA TIONS AROSE IN COURSE OF CARRYING ON OF THE BUSINESS OF BUYING AND SELLING GOODS. I FAIL TO SEE HOW THIS PAYMENT MADE UNDER A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS BUSINE SS EXPENDITURE. 7. WE FIND THAT THE PAYMENTS IN THE FORM OF PUNIT IVE CHARGES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COULD UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES BE REGARDED AS ILLEGAL PAYMENTS OR PAYMENTS WHICH WERE OPPOSED TO PUBLIC POLICY. WE FIND THAT AS LONG AS THE PAYMENT MADE IS NOT BY WAY OF DEFAULT ON ACCOUNT OF INFRACTION OF ANY LAW AND / O R OPPOSED TO PUBLIC POLICY, THE SAME WOULD BE ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. WE HOLD THAT IN T HE INSTANT CASE, THE PUNITIVE CHARGES PAID ARE ONLY COMPENSATORY IN NATURE PURSUANT TO THE CON TRACTUAL OBLIGATION WHICH IS DIRECTLY 5 ITA NO. 2223/KOL/2013 M/S. RIPLEY & COMPANY LTD., AY 1010-11 CONNECTED OR INTRINSICALLY RELATED WITH THE CARRYIN G ON OF ITS BUSINESS WHICH UNEQUIVOCALLY QUALIFIES AS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION U/S 37(1) OF TH E ACT. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE NOMENCLATURE USED IN ANY PROVISION OF LAW TO DESCRI BE ANY PAYMENT, TO BE MADE BY ANY PERSON, AS INTEREST, COMPENSATION, PENALTY , ETC IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORITIES TO CONSTRUE THE PROVISIONS AS A WHOLE TO FIND OUT THE TRUE NATURE OF THE IMPOST SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED. IN CERTAIN CASES, THE IMPOST MAY BE COMPOSITE COMPRISING OF ELEMENT OF COMPENSATORY NATURE AS WELL AS PENALTY N ATURE. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ANDHRAPRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS BHARAT TELEVISION P LTD REPORTED IN (1996) 218 ITR 173 (AP ). 8. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE DEMURRAGE AND / OR PUNITIVE CHARGES WERE DEDUCTED FROM THE BILL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ORDINARY CO URSE OF ITS BUSINESS. WE FIND THAT THE LD AO HAD MISCONSTRUED THE NATURE OF DEMURRAGE AND / OR P UNITIVE CHAGES AS BEING PAID FOR INFRACTION OF LAW AND OPPOSED TO PUBLIC POLICY THER EBY DISALLOWING THE SAME BY INVOKING THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 240/KOL/ 2012 DATED 27.6.2014 FOR THE ASST YEAR 2008-09 REPORTED IN (2014) 40 CCH 401 KOL, TRIB OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR DERIVED INCOME FROM EXECUTION OF JOBS OF HANDL ING CONTRACTORS UNDER CCFL (GOVT. UNDERTAKING). THAT IN THE EXECUTION OF SUCH JOBS, THE ASSESESE HAD NOT ALWAYS BEEN GIVEN ADEQUATE TIME AND THE DELAY IN COMPLETION OF JOB RE SULTED IN IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. THAT DEMURRAGE CHARGES ARE USUAL IN THE LINE OF BUSINESS . IT WAS HELD THAT :- 6.1. THUS WE FIND THAT WHEN THE AMOUNTS ARE PAID O N CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION THE SAME HAVE TO BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE AMOUNT PAI D FOR NON-DELIVERY OF GOODS IN TIME IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION EVEN THOUGH SUCH AMOUNT IS D ESIGNATED AS PENALTY IN THE SUPPLY CONTRACT, TIME BEING THE ESSENCE OF THE CONTRACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND PRECEDENT WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 9. WE FIND THAT THE DECISION RELIED ON HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NANHOOMAL JYOTI PRASAD VS CIT REPORTED IN (1980) 3 TAXMAN 60 (ALL) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD DEMURRAGE CHARGED BY PORT AUTHORITIES IS IN THE NAT URE OF COMPENSATION FOR DELAY IN CLEARING THE GOODS FROM THE GODOWNS OF THE PORT AUTHORITIES AND IT INCLUDES AMOUNT CHARGEABLE FOR STORAGE AND SAFE CUSTODY OF THE GOODS BY THE PORT A UTHORITIES BEYOND THE FREE PERIOD ALLOWED UNDER PORT RULES. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE DEM URRAGE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A FINE 6 ITA NO. 2223/KOL/2013 M/S. RIPLEY & COMPANY LTD., AY 1010-11 PAID FOR ANY CRIMINAL ACT BUT COMPENSATION FOR USE OF THE PORT FACILITIES BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE FREE PERIOD. 10. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAHALAKSHMI SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD VS CIT REPORTED IN (1984) 19 TAXMAN 447 (DELHI) IT WAS HELD THAT PAYMENT OF DEMURRAGE IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF DAMAGE OR PENALTY AND IT IS MERELY A CHARGE MADE BY THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION TO COMPEN SATE ITSELF FOR KEEPING THE GOODS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CUSTODY BEYOND A PARTICULAR TIME. PAYMENT OF DEMURRAGE IS INCIDENTAL TO BUSINESS AND ITS IMPACT IS TO INCREASE THE COST TO THE ASSESSEE OF THE GOODS TRANSPORTED. THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE ON THIS ACCOUNT CAN BE S AID TO BE LAID OUT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. 11. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FINDINGS, IN THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS RELI ED UPON HEREINABOVE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CITA. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROU ND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.09.2016 SD/- SD/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER DATED : 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2016 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT DCIT, CIRCLE-7, KOLKATA. 2 RESPONDENT M/S. RIPLEY & COMPANY LTD., BHAGYAKUL M ANSION, BLOCK- C, 1 ST FLOOR, 22, LEE ROAD, KOLKATA-700020. 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .