ITO,Ward 35(2), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s J.L. Goward & Co., Kolkata

ITA 2287/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6940 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S L KOCHAR
• Keywords: TDS; Set aside
• Section: 43B; 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.2287/KOL/2016 M/S. J. L. GOWARD & CO. AY- 2012-13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, C AT KOLKATA () . . , . , ) [BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, A M] I.T.A. NO. 2287/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-35(2), KOLKATA VS. M/S. J. L. GOWARD & CO. (PAN: AACFJ4149F) APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 17.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01.03.2019 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI SAURABH KUMAR, ADDL. CIT, DR FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI S. L. KOCHAR, ADVOCATE & S HRI ANIL KOCHAR, ADVOCATE. ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 10, KOLKATA DATED 28.09.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-1 3. 2. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THIS APPEAL WAS HEAR D ON 17.12.2018 ALONG WITH ITA NO. 169/KOL/2017 FOR AY 2013-14 AND THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED ON 27.02.2019. 3. BY PREFERRING THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE RE VENUE CHALLENGES THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) OF RS.14,10, 464/-. WE NOTE THAT SIMILAR GROUND WAS RAISED FOR THE AY 2013-14 WHEREIN THE GROUND WAS TH AT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY AO U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR R S.1,80,10,469/-. WE FIND THAT THE GROUND IS IDENTICAL AND FACTS ARE ALSO THE SAME. S INCE THERE IS NO CHANGE IN LAW, THE RESULT OF OUR ADJUDICATION ON THIS ISSUE FOR AY 2013-14 WO ULD BE APPLICABLE TO THIS ISSUE WHEREIN IN ITA NO. 169/KOL/2017 WE HELD AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED T HE RECORDS. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENT WORKING ON BEHALF O F SEVERAL CLIENTS, AND IT IS THEIR JOB TO SECURE THE EASY AND EVENT-FREE PASSAGE OF GOODS FOR A SERVICE CHARGE/BROKERAGE FROM SUCH CLIENTS. FROM THE NATURE OF WORK IT IS DISCERNED TH AT CERTAIN PAYMENTS NEED TO BE MADE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND OTHER AGENCIES TO CLEAR GOODS FOR TI MELY SMOOTH PASSAGE AND DELIVERY OF GOODS IMPORTED TO THE CLIENTS. WE NOTE THAT RS. 1,2 9,51,844/- WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR 2 ITA NO.2287/KOL/2016 M/S. J. L. GOWARD & CO. AY- 2012-13 CFS CHARGES, SHIPPING AGENT CHARGES PAID TO INDIAN SHIPPING AGENT WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 46,82,854/-, SURVEY FEES OF RS. 3,75,771/- THUS TOT AL RS. 1,80,10,469/-. FROM THE LEDGERS, IT IS SEEN THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE T O THE AGENCIES ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENTS AND BILLS WERE RAISED AGAINST THE CLIENTS TO CLAIM REIMBURSEMENT OF THE SAME. WE TAKE NOTE THAT OVER AND ABOVE THE REIMBURSEMENT CLAIM, THE AS SESSEE HAS RAISED BILLS FOR SERVICES RENDERED FOR CLIENTS AND THIS WERE PAID BY THE CLIE NTS AFTER DULY DEDUCTING THE TDS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO HIS PREDECESSORS ORDER FOR A Y 2012-13 WHERE IN THE CIT(A) HAS GONE IN DETAIL AND HAS EXPLAINED THE MODUS OPERANDI OF T HE ASSESSEE AND HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF INCOME IN THE REIMBURSEMENT BILL WHICH E XCLUSIVELY RELATE TO THE AMOUNTS SPEND BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CUSTOMERS / CLIENTS. NO CHANGE IN FACTS OR LAW COULD BE POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DR AS THAT OF AY 2012 -13. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE SINCE THE FACT S AND LAW ARE THE SAME, THE DECISION CITED SUPRA TAKEN FOR AY 2012-13 IS FOLLOWED FOR TH IS ASSESSMENT YEAR AND FOR THE SAME REASONING, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE GROUND O F APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THIS REVENUES GROU ND OF APPEAL. 5. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ACTIO N OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,37,459/- MADE BY AO U/S. 43B O F THE ACT BY ACCEPTING FRESH EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE I . T. RULES, 1962. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO NOT ED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY OF ASSESSEE AS ON 31.03.2 012 IN RESPECT OF THE SERVICE TAX WAS OF RS.6,55,303/- AND PF CONTRIBUTION OF RS.83,156/- AN D THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT AFTER THE PRESCRIBED TIME LI MIT, SO THE AO ISSUED NOTICE AS TO WHY THESE AMOUNTS SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S. 43B OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO AO, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT DUES WAS ON ACCOUNT OF FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES FACED BY THEM DURING THE SAI D PERIOD. ACCORDING TO AO, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 43B OF THE ACT IS MANDATORY AND, THEREFORE A SUM OF RS. 7,37,459/- WAS DISALLOWED U/S. 43B OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASS ESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO WAS PLEASED TO DELETE THE ADDITION BY TA KING NOTE THAT THE LIABILITY HAVE BEEN CLEARED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING OF THE RE TURN. TAKING NOTE OF THIS FACT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED , THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD . DR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO 3 ITA NO.2287/KOL/2016 M/S. J. L. GOWARD & CO. AY- 2012-13 AND URGED BEFORE THE BENCH TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND WANTS US NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). W E NOTE THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT OUTSTANDING LIABI LITIES AS ON 31.03.2012 IN RESPECT OF SERVICE TAX AND PF CONTRIBUTION WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.7,37,459/- (RS.6,53,303 + RS.82,156). WHEN AO CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THIS AMOU NT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S. 43B OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO FINAN CIAL DIFFICULTIES AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT OF TIME ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO CLEAR THE LIABILITY. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAS STATED THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED IN GOVERN MENT ACCOUNT AFTER THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. SO, FROM THE SAID AVERMENT OF THE AO ITSELF IT IS CLEARLY INFERRED THAT THE AO WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THOUGH THIS AMOUNT WAS OUTST ANDING LIABILITY AS ON 31.03.2012, HOWEVER, THIS AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN GOVERNMENT AC COUNT AFTER THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT IS UNDISPUTED. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO TH AT THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES COULD NOT DEPOSIT THE SAID AMOUNT WITH IN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT AS PRESCRIBED BY SPECIFIC STATUTE GOVERNING PF ACT ETC., HOWEVER IT HAD DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF TAKING NOTE OF THE RATIO LAID BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. 390 ITR 306 (SC) THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT W ITHIN THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN U/S. 43B OF THE ACT DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT WARRANTED. WE GIVE OUR IMPRIMATUR TO THE LD. CIT(A)S DECISION. WE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO VIOLAT ION OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES BECAUSE THE AO HIMSELF HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSIT ED THE AMOUNT IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT SO, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO FRESH EVIDENCE A S SUCH THAT WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS, T HEREFORE, DISMISSED. 8. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO OF RS.17,26,59 2/- IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE I. T. RULES, 1962. 9. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO NOTED DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM THE DETAILS OF RECEIPTS FURNISHED BY THE DEBTORS OF THE ASSESSEE IN 26AS THAT THEY HAVE CREDITED THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR SUCH RECEIPT. THEREFORE, THE AO GAVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT OF RS.17,26,592/- SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE 4 ITA NO.2287/KOL/2016 M/S. J. L. GOWARD & CO. AY- 2012-13 ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSES SEE COULD NOT OFFER ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION, THEREFORE, HE ADDED RS.17,26,592/-. A GGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO WAS PLEASED TO DEL ETE THE SAME VIDE PARA 3 OF HIS ORDER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 3. I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ACTION OF THE LD . AO, AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS OFFERED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF T HE APPEAL. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE COPY OF THE TDS RECONCILIATION ANALYS IS AND CORRECTION ENABLING SYSTEM (TRACES) BEARING THE FORM 26AS IN ITS OWN CASE RELE VANT FOR THE AY 2012-13. A SET OF THE COMBINED DETAILS FOR THE SERVICE CHARGES AND THE RE IMBURSEMENT CHARGES IN ITS OWN CASE HAS ALSO BEEN FILED RECONCILING THE VARIOUS RECEIPTS. IT IS SEEN FROM THE SAME THAT THE AGENCY COMMISSION RECEIPTS WERE RS.74,40,823.50, WHILE THE REIMBURSEMENTS RECEIVED WERE RS.5,01,29,702.00. THE ENTIRE DETAILS, PARTY WISE O F THE SERVICE CHARGES AS WELL AS THE DETAIL OF THE REIMBURSEMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN FILED, AND IT IS TO BE OBSERVED THAT THE FIGURES ARE RECONCILED. THEREFORE I FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIO N OF THE APPELLANT THAT TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED BY CERTAIN CLIENTS NOT ONLY ON THE SERVICE CHARGES BILLS BUT ALSO WITH REFERENCE TO REIMBURSEMENT BILLS. THESE ARE LIKELY TO BE APPEARI NG IN THE FORM NO. 26AS WITH GROSS AMOUNT OF RS.17,26,592/-. HOWEVER, AS PER THE RECON CILIATION STATEMENT FILED BY THE APPELLANT THE .FIGURE OF RS.2,52,335 APPEARS TO BE HAVE BEEN RECONCILED BY THE APPELLANT IN BOTH, THE FORM 26AS AS WELL AS THE ITR SUBMISSION. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE LD. AO HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ALLEGED AMOU NTS TOTALING RS.17,26,592/- HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, NOR ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES APPEAR TO H AVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE LD AO. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC FINDING, IN A SITUATION WHE RE THE LD AO IS SIMPLY DEPENDING ON FIGURES IN THE FORM 26AS, IT WOULD NOT BE CORRECT T O MAKE ANY ADDITION. HON'BLE COURTS HAVE FOR LONG HELD THAT ADDITIONS MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION NETWORK OF THE DEPARTMENT, SUCH AS FORM 26AS OR AIR INFORMATION, W ITHOUT CORROBORATIVE AND INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES WOULD NOT BE TENABLE. IN THE SAID SITUATI ON, THERE IS ALSO AN EXPLANATION BY THE APPELLANT, WHICH IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW IS ALSO ACCE PTABLE. WITH SUCH VIEW OF THE MATTER, I AM UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO, AND THE SAME IS ORDERED TO BE DELETED. THE GROU ND IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. DR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND URGED BEFORE THE BENCH TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD . CIT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE AO AND THERE IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF RULE 46A, SO THIS ISS UE MAY BE RESTORED TO AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND WANTS US NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE NOTE THAT THE A SSESSEE IS A CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENT AND BY ITS NATURE OF WORK HAD TO MAKE PAYMENT S ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENTS TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE RAISES BILLS FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND FOR ITS SERVICE TO THE CLIENTS RAISES BILL FOR SERVICE CHARGES. WHILE WE DECIDED THE ISSUE NO.1, WE HAD ELABORATED ABOUT THIS NATURE OF RECEIPTS. SINCE THE REIMBURSE MENT ELEMENT DOES NOT HAVE INCOME WHICH 5 ITA NO.2287/KOL/2016 M/S. J. L. GOWARD & CO. AY- 2012-13 EXCLUSIVELY RELATES TO THE AMOUNT SPENT BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CUSTOMER/CLIENTS, THERE WAS NO NECESSITY FOR DEDUCT ING TAX BY THE CLIENTS WHILE MAKING THE PAYMENTS. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, CERT AIN CLIENTS ON MISTAKEN BELIEF HAS DEDUCTED TAX ON THE REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNT ALSO WHICH HAD CREATED THE MISMATCH BETWEEN THE INCOME AND THE TDS CERTIFICATE. WE NOTE THAT T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THIS FACT TO GIVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOL ATED RULE 46A OF THE RULES. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR THAT THERE IS VIOLA TION OF RULE 46A BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CLEARLY NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED B EFORE HIM A COPY OF THE TDS RECONCILIATION ANALYSIS AND CORRECTION ENABLING SYS TEM WHEREIN THE FORM 26AS IN ITS OWN CASE RELEVANT TO AY 2012-13 AND THAT THE RECONC ILIATION HAS ALSO BEEN FILED BEFORE HIM WHICH SHOWED THE COMMISSION RECEIPTS WERE TO THE TU NE OF RS.74,40,823/- WHILE THE REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,01, 29,702/-. WE NOTE THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE ENTIRE DETAILS OF PARTY WISE SERVICE CHARGES AS WELL AS THE DETAILS OF THE REIMBURSEMENT. FROM THE AFORESAID DO CUMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM, THE LD. CIT(A) APPRECIATED THAT THE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED B Y CERTAIN CLIENTS NOT ONLY ON THE SERVICE CHARGES BILLS BUT ALSO WITH REFERENCE TO REIMBURSEM ENT BILLS AND THUS, IN FORM NO. 26AS A GROSS AMOUNT OF RS.17,26,592/- HAS APPEARED. THE L D. CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT AS PER RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE FIGURE OF RS.2,52,335/- HAS BEEN RECONCILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE FORM 26AS AS WELL AS TH E ITR. WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT NEITHER THE AO HAS SPECIFIED THE NAME OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ALLEGED AMOU NT TOTALING RS.17,26,592/- HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIR IES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC FINDING CARRIED OUT BY AO MERELY DEPENDING ON THE FIGURES I N 26AS TO MAKE ANY ADDITION IS NOT CORRECT AND, THEREFORE, HE HAS GIVEN THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT COUNTENANCE THIS ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE NOTE THAT SOME DOCUME NTS HAVE BEEN FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND THEN SHOULD HAVE ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AS PER RULE 46A OF THE RULES. SINCE THERE IS A VIOLATION OF RULE 46A AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY RECONCILED ABOUT THE FIGURE OF RS.2,52,335/- IT WOU LD BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND THE IS SUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH 6 ITA NO.2287/KOL/2016 M/S. J. L. GOWARD & CO. AY- 2012-13 ADJUDICATION ON THIS ISSUE. THE AO IS ALSO DIRECTE D TO ENQUIRE AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE 26AS AND FIND OUT AS TO THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE A SSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION AND THEREAFTER THE ENQUIRY FROM THE THIRD PARTIES THE AO TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AFTER ADDRESSING ALL THE FAULTS NOTICED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO GIVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVEN UE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01 MAR CH, 2019 SD/- SD/- (DR. A. L. SAINI) (ABY. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1ST MARCH, 2019 JD. (SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT ITO, WD-35(2), KOLKATA. 2 RESPONDENT M/S. J. L. GOWARD & CO., 2, CHURCH LAN E, 3 RD FLOOR, R. NO. 303-B, KOLKATA-700 001. 3 . THE CIT(A)-10, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, ITAT, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR