ACIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata, Kolkata V. Stadmed Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 223/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4618 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL J
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBASH AGARWA
• Keywords: Proportionate interest
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 223 / KOL / 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 3 RD , FLOOR, KOLKATA V/S . STADMED PVT. LTD., BLOCK-AA21, SECTOR-I, SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKATA-700 064 [ PAN NO.AAECS 1580 Q ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL, JCIT-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SUBASH AGARWA, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING 11-05-2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05-07-2016 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XII, KOLKATA DATED 25.11.2011. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORD ER DATED 16.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVE NUE AS PER ITS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1) WHETHER ON THE FATS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF UNDISCLOSED SALES OF 258 LITERS INJECTIBLE WITHOUT SHOWING PROO F THAT IT DID NOT FORM PART OF THE 941 LITERS THAT WAS SOLD DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. ITA NO.223/KOL/2012 A.Y.2008- 09 ACIT CIR-10, KOL V. STADMED PVT. LTD. PAGE 2 2) WHETHER ON THE FATS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF AD-HOC COST ALLOCABLE WHICH WAS MADE WITHOUT SHOWING ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE PRODUCED ITEM AND DIRECT AND INDIRECT COST INVOLVED . 3) WHETHER ON THE FATS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF INTEREST ON LOANS & ADVANCES TO THE DIRECTORS WHICH WAS OTHERWI SE THAN FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL, LD. DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. 2. FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED SALES OF 258 LITERS INJECTABLE. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LI MITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING BUSINESS OF VARIOUS KINDS OF ALLO PATHIC MEDICINES AND ONE OF THEM WAS INJECTABLES. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE WAS M ANUFACTURING THE INJECTABLES PRODUCTS TILL THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE GOT PRODUCED THE SAME (INJECTABLES) 941.12 LITERS @2554.83 PER LITERS FOR RS. 24,04,403 .59 FROM OUTSIDE ON LOAN LICENSE BASIS. THESE INJECTABLE PRODUCTS PURCHASED FROM OUTSIDE WERE SOLD DURING THE YEAR FOR AN AMOUNT OF 28,52,854/- (941 LT. @ 3031.73 PER LTR.) THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED FROM THE COST AUDIT REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS A CLOSING BALANCE OF INJECT ABLES OF 258 LITERS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHICH WILL NATURALLY BECOME THE OPENING STOCK FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER THE LAST YEAR CLOSING STOCK FIGURES WAS NOT CARRIED FORWARD IN THE COST AUDIT REPORT AND CU RRENT YEAR CLOSING STOCK WAS ALSO SHOWN AT NIL. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO OPINED THAT THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE EARLIER YEAR MUST HAVE BEEN SOLD DURING THE CURRENT YEAR WITHOUT SHOWING IN ITA NO.223/KOL/2012 A.Y.2008- 09 ACIT CIR-10, KOL V. STADMED PVT. LTD. PAGE 3 ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, HE TREATE D THE SALE OF EARLIER YEAR STOCK AS UNDISCLOSED SALE FOR AN AMOUNT OF 7,82,186/- (258 LTR. X 3031.73) AND ADDED IT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4. REGARDING GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO ADDITION OF R S.7,82,186/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED SALES. THE AO RELIED UPON C OST AUDIT REPORT FOR QUANTITATIVE DETAILS AND HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAL ES ACCOUNT OF THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31-03-2008 WHIC H REFLECTED THE SALES OF INJECTIBLE OF 258 LTRS. HAVING VALUE OF RS .28,52,854/-. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.7,82,186/- IS DELETED. HENCE, GR OUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE COST RECORDS MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DULY AUDITED BY COST AUDITOR AND THEREFORE IT IS A RELIABLE DOCUMENT. AS PER THE REPORT, THE CLOSING STOCKS OF 258 LITERS OF INJECTABLES HAVE NOT BEEN CARRIED OVER IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION AND THE SAME IS NOT REFLECTING IN THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE CURRENT YEAR AS WELL. SO IT IS CLEAR THAT CLOSING STOCK HAS BEEN SOLD OUT BY ASSESSEE WITHOUT RECORDING THE SAME IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR FILED A PAPER BOOK WHICH IS RUNNING PAGES FROM 1 TO 99. THE LD. AR BEFORE US ADMITTED THAT THE FIGURES OF THE 258 LITERS OF LAST YEAR CLOSING STOCK WAS NOT REFLECTING IN THE COST AUDIT REPORT BUT THE SAME WAS VERY MUCH REFLECTING IN THE FINANCIAL DATA MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION AT PAGE 85 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHE RE THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF INJECTABLES WERE DULY RECORDED. AS PER THE FINAN CIAL REPORT, THERE IS OPENING BALANCE OF 258 LITERS AND PURCHASE OF 1079.83 LITER S, RETURN INWARD 26.066 LITERS, SAMPLE 35.244 LITERS, BREAKAGE 90.288 LITER S AND SALES OF 941.12 LITERS ALONG WITH CLOSING STOCK OF 296.716 LITERS WHICH AR E PLACED ON PAGE 85 IN THE ITA NO.223/KOL/2012 A.Y.2008- 09 ACIT CIR-10, KOL V. STADMED PVT. LTD. PAGE 4 PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AO HA S RELIED ON THE COST AUDIT REPORT WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY FLAW IN THE FINANCI AL AUDIT REPORT WHERE ALL THE DETAILS ABOUT THE INJECTABLES WERE DULY RECORDED. H E FURTHER RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE AFORESAID D ISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS SOME MISMATCH IN THE QUANTITATIVE DETAIL IN THE PRODUCT INJECTABLES FOR 258 LITERS IN THE COST AUDIT REPORT OF THE ASSE SSEE. AS A RESULT THE AO ASSUMED THAT 258 LITERS OF INJECTABLES HAVE BEEN SO LD OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT RECORDING THE CORRESPONDENCE SALES IN ITS B OOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT AO HAS RELIED MERELY ON THE COST AUDIT REPORT WITHOUT BRINGING ANY DEFECT IN TH E AUDITED SALES ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. NOW THE QUESTION BEFORE US ARISE IS AS TO WHETHER THE DATA OF COST AUDIT REPORT CAN BE RELIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKIN G THE ADDITION AND WITHOUT HAVING ANY FLAW IN THE AUDITED FINANCIAL DATA OF AS SESSEE. WE FIND THAT AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD IN THE FINANCIAL AUD ITED ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE. THE AO MERELY HAS RELIED ON THE COST AUDIT REPORT O F ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, AO BEFORE MAKING THE ADDITION WAS TO RECONCILE THE DATA FOUND FROM THE COST AUDIT REPORT WITH THE FINANCIAL DATA OF ASSESSEE AND IF HE FINDS SAME DIFFERENCE THEN HE SHOULD PROCEED FOR MA KING THE ADDITION / DISALLOWANCE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO DEFE CT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR DATA OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY AO DESERVES TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFE RE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. NEXT GROUND RAISE BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS T HAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF AD HOC COST ALLOCATION MADE BY ASSESSEE WITHOUT SHOWING ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE I TEM PRODUCED AND COST INVOLVED. ITA NO.223/KOL/2012 A.Y.2008- 09 ACIT CIR-10, KOL V. STADMED PVT. LTD. PAGE 5 DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SALES OF 2,59,23,719.50 IN THE COST AUDIT REPORT WITHOUT MENTIONING THE QUANTITY AND PR ODUCT DETAILS AGAINST THE ABOVE SALE AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ABOVE S ALE AMOUNT HAS ALLOCATED A COST OF 2,22,66,492.03 WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY QUANTITY AND PRODUCTS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN G, AO OBSERVED THAT THERE HAS TO BE COMPLETE DISCLOSURE IN THE COST AUD IT REPORT ABOUT THE SALES OF THE PRODUCT AND ITS PERTINENT COST. BUT IN THE INST ANT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS ALLOCATED THE COST ON AD HOC BASIS WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE RELEVANT NECESSARY DETAILS IN TERMS OF QUANTITY AND PRODUCTS. IN THE A BSENCE OF RELEVANT DETAILS LIKE NAME OF PRODUCT, QUANTITIES PRODUCED, TURNOVER, COS T OF RAW MATERIALS, COSTS OF OTHER INGREDIENTS, DIRECT WAGES, SALARY, INDIRECT C OST AND OTHER OVERHEADS WITH RESPECT TO THE ALL THE PRODUCTS PRODUCED AND SOLD, THE AO FOUND THAT THE COST ALLOCATED IS NOT PROPER AND NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDEN CE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE TOTAL COST ALLOCATED FOR RS.2,22 ,56,492.03 AS BOGUS AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 7. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO ADDITION OF R S.2,22,56,492/- ON ACCOUNT OF COST AUDIT REPORT. THE AO DID NOT CONSI DER THE FINANCIAL ACCOUNT AND THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. THE PURPOSE OF CO ST AUDIT REPORT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE FINANCIAL REPORTING. THE AO HAD ACCEPTED THE SALE VALUE OF OTHER PRODUCTS AT RS.2,59,23,719/- WHILE T HE COST ALLOCATING HAD NOT BEEN ACCEPTED. SINCE NO DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE ADDITION OF RS.2, 22,56,492/- IS DELETED. HENCE GROUND NO. 2 IS ALLOWED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. BEFORE US LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT COST AUDIT REPOR T IS A PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS AND IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE FULL DETAILS ABOUT THE PRODUCT SOLD AND COST INCURRED ON MANUFACTURING. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SAME. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AND STATED T HAT ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED ON MERIT. ITA NO.223/KOL/2012 A.Y.2008- 09 ACIT CIR-10, KOL V. STADMED PVT. LTD. PAGE 6 ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE I S MANUFACTURING MORE THAN THOUSAND ITEMS AND DO NOT FIND FEASIBLE TO SHO W ALLOCATED COST IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ITEMS MANUFACTURED BY IT IN THE COST AUD IT REPORT. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS RECORDED THE CONSOLIDATED SALES OF OTH ER PRODUCTS ALONG WITH CONSOLIDATED COST INCURRED BY ASSESSEE. HE VEHEMENT LY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF COST AUDIT REPORT WHERE THE PRODUCT -WISE DETAIL FOR SALE AND MANUFACTURING COST WERE NOT SPECIFIED. HOWEVER THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE FINANCIAL AUDIT REPORT FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION MERELY ON THE GROUND OF NON-DISCL OSURE OF THE COST OF THE ITEMS MANUFACTURED AND AT THE SAME TIME ACCEPTED TH E SALE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ADDITION MADE BY AO IS BASED ON WHIMSICAL GROUND AND THEREFORE WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. LAST GROUND IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS THAT L D. CIT(A) ERRED DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON THE LOAN AND ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE DIRECTORS OF ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SEC URED AND UNSECURED LOAN AMOUNTING TO 7,79,97,616/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED COST ON SU CH LOAN BY WAY OF INTEREST AND FINANCIAL CHARGES OF 1,12,59,548/- AS PER SCHEDULE 19 TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS A/C. AT THE SAME TIME, IT WAS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN INTEREST FREE LOAN FOR AN AMOUNT OF 22,38,883/- TO THE DIRECTORS. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSIN G OFFICER OPINED THAT THE INTEREST BEARING LOAN HAS BEEN DIVERTED BY THE ASSE SSEE TO THE INTEREST FREE LOAN ACCOUNT I.E. LOAN GIVEN TO THE DIRECTOR FOR 22,38,883/-. THE AO WORKED OUT THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST ON THE LOAN GIVEN TO THE DIRECTOR FOR AN AMOUNT OF 2,68,700/- WHICH WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TO TAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. ITA NO.223/KOL/2012 A.Y.2008- 09 ACIT CIR-10, KOL V. STADMED PVT. LTD. PAGE 7 11. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6. REGARDING GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,68,700/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES GIVEN TO DIRECTORS. THE ASSESS EE HAD RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH IN ITS OWN CASE IN AY 2001-02. THE OWN FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY IN THE FINANCI AL YEAR WERE RS.5.89 CRORES WHILE THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE DIRECTORS AR E RS.22.38 LAKH. SINCE, NO NEXUS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,68,700/- IS DELETED RELYING UPON THE ITATS JUDGMENT. THEREFORE , GROUND NO. 3 IS ALLOWED. 12. BOTH THE PARTIES ARE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AU THORITIES BELOW AS FAVOURABLE TO THEM. WE FIND THAT LD. AR SUBMITTED T HAT LOAN WAS ADVANCED TO THE DIRECTORS OUT OF ITS OWN FUND WHICH IS 5,89,14,826/- AS PER THE AUDITED ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2008. HE FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT AMOUNT WAS NOT MADE BY ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN THE YEAR UNDER APPE AL BUT IT WAS GIVEN IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT I N ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2001-02 THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS HONBL E TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE ON THE SIMILAR FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ITA NO.772/KOL/2005 DATED 26.08.2005, WHEREIN THE RELEVANT EXTRACT IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 12. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF TAX A UTHORITIES. IN THIS CASE, THOUGH THE AO HAS DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.1,04 ,376/- PRESUMING THAT INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUND HAS BEEN DIVERT ED FOR ADVANCING INTEREST-FREE LOANS TO THE DIRECTORS. HOWEVER, THAT THE AMOUNT BORROWED FROM BANK HAS BEEN DIVERTED TO THE DIRECTORS INTERE ST FREE LOANS. APART FROM THIS, PERUSAL OF PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSES SEE ALSO SUGGESTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT OWN FUND TO ENABLE IT TO ADVANCE INTEREST-FREE LOANS TO ITS DIRECTORS TOWARDS HOUSIN G LOAN. WE, THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DE LETING THE ADDITION AND, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE SAME AND REJECT THE GROUND RA ISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE INTERE ST FREE LOAN GIVEN TO DIRECTORS WAS ASSUMED BY THE AO AS THIS MONEY WAS ADVANCED TO DIRECTORS OUT OF INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUND. ACCORDINGLY, AO DIS ALLOWED THE PROPORTIONATE ITA NO.223/KOL/2012 A.Y.2008- 09 ACIT CIR-10, KOL V. STADMED PVT. LTD. PAGE 8 INTEREST CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT( A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO NEXUS BETW EEN THE MONEY BORROWED BY ASSESSEE AND LOAN ADVANCED TO THE DIREC TORS. LD. CIT(A) ALSO RELIED ON CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2001-02 (SUPRA). WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS ARE SUFF ICIENT ENOUGH TO ADVANCE THE INTEREST FREE LOAN TO THE DIRECTORS. AFTER CONS IDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY REV ENUE. AS SUCH, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). H ENCE, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 05/ 07/2016 SD/- SD/- (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP !- 05 / 07 /201 6 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-ACIT, CIRCLE1-10, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUAR E, 3 RD FLOOR, KOL-69 2. /RESPONDENT-STADMED PVT. LTD., BLOCK-AA21, SECTOR-I , SALT LAKE CITY, KOL-64 3. ) *+ , , - / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. , , -- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 012 33*+, , *+ , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 267 89 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , , /TRUE COPY/ / , *+ ,