Howrah Mills Co. Ltd., Howrah V. CIT, Central - I, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 37/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7237 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D R SINDHAL LD
• Assessee Lawyers: B C JAIN LD
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 43B; 263; 139

Judgement Text

I.T.A NO. 37/KOL/2011-C-SVM 1 , C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : KOLKATA BEFORE SRI S.V MEHROTRA, AM & SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM () . ., !' !' !' !' ! #' , '$ / I.T.A NO. 37/KOL/2011 #%& !'( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. HOWRAH MILLS CO. LTD VS. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX PAN: AAACH 7560D CENTRAL-I, KOLKATA (*+ /APPELLANT ) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT ) *+ / FOR THE APPELLANT : . / SHRI B.C.JAIN, LD.AR ,-*+ / FOR THE RESPONDENT : . /SHRI D.R.SINDHAL, LD.DR /%!0 1 2 /DATE OF HEARING : 28/09/2011 3' 1 2 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28/09/2011 4 / ORDER . ., SHRI S.V MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL-III, KOLKATA DATED 10-12-2 010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE, INTER-ALIA, HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE ID CIT ERRED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION UNDER SEC 263 , WHERE THE ID A 0 HAS TAKEN ONE POSSIBLE VIEW FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS IN R ESPECT OF THE ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF BELATED DEPOSIT PF & ESI PERTAINING TO EMPLOYEES SHARE, 2. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE CIT ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ID A 0 TO DISALLOW THE SUM PAID FOR E MPLOYEES SHARE OF PF &ESI WITHIN THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN 3. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE ID CIT ERRED IN REJECTING APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF SUCH BELATED PAYMENTS OF EMPLOYEES SHARE OF PF & ESI UNDER SEC 3 7[1] 4. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE ID CIT ERRED IN TREATING THE EMPLOYEES SHARE OF PF / ESI SEPARATE / DIFFERENT THAN THE EMPLOYERS SHARE 5. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , THE ID CI T ERRED IN IGNORING JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE, AND NOT FOLLOWING THE RATIO DE CIDED IN RESPECT OF BELATED DEPOSITS OF EMPLOYEES SHARE OF PF & ESI BY HONBLE APEX COURT I.T.A NO. 37/KOL/2011-C-SVM 2 6. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ID CIT ERRED IN PASSING ORDER IN RESPECT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES O N ACCOUNT OF MISC EXP OF RS. 134800 AND EXPORT EXPENSES OF RS. 164202/-. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY, ALTER, C ORRECT, AND SUBMIT FURTHER MORE GROUNDS EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G OF APPEAL. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY SUBMITTED ITS RETURN ON 30.11.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.NIL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) WAS COMPLETED DETERMINING T OTAL INCOME AT RS. 2,91,79,379/-. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WHILE EX AMINING THE RECORDS OF THE CASE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED IN PROFIT & LOSS A/C MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES OF RS.1,34,800/- AND EXPORT EXPENSES OF RS.1,64,202/ - RELATING TO EARLIER YEAR. HE OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SY STEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE SAID EXPENDITURES OF EARLIER YEARS WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION I N THE CURRENT YEAR. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WITH OUT ANY EXPLANATION OF THE MATTER AND WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIM. 4.1 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTER-A LIA, OBSERVED AS UNDER:- AS EVIDENT FROM THE TAX AUDIT REPORT AND ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THESE EXPENSES PERTAINED TO EARLIE R YEAR AND THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED IN THE CURRENT YEAR WAS WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O IS DIRECTED TO DISALLOW THE CL AIM MADE IN THE CURRENT YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS.1,34,800/- IN RESPECT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE AND OF RS.1,64,2 02/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPORT EXPENSE. 5. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE BELATED PAYMENT OF EMPLO YEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND, WHICH WAS LIABLE FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S.36(1)(V A) R.W.S 2(24)(X) OF THE ACT, WAS NOT DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OBSERVED AS UNDER:- I.T.A NO. 37/KOL/2011-C-SVM 3 HOWEVER, THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO E SI AND PF BOTH, IS ALLOWED FOR DEDUCTION U/S.36(1)(VA) OF THE I.T. ACT, ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE ENSURES THE CREDIT OF SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS I N THE RESPECTIVE FUNDS BEFORE THE DUE DATES DEFINED IN RESPECTIVE A CTS AND IN CASE OF BOTH ESI ACT AND PF ACT, SUCH DATES ARE 20 TH OF THE MONTH( WITH GRACE PERIOD) FOLLOWING THE MONTH FOR WHICH CONTRI BUTION IS DEDUCTIBLE FROM THE SALARY OF THE EMPLOYEE. THIS V IEW HAS BEEN APPROVED BY HONBLE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH KOLKATA IN CASE OF JT.CIT VS. ITC REPORTED IN 299 ITR (AT) 341. IN THE PRESE NT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS DEFINITELY DEFAULTED IN MAKING PAYMENTS OF ES I AND PF SO FAR AS DUE DATES AS MENTIONED IN ESI AND PF ACTS ARE CONCE RNED. THEREFORE, THE ELEMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION IN THE PAYM ENT OF ESI AND PF CANNOT BE ALLOWED FOR DEDUCTION U/S.36(1)(VA) OF TH E I.T. ACT. AS THE A.O HAD FAILED TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE, THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THE JURI SDICTION U/S.263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CORRECTLY ASSUME ED IN THIS CASE TO RE CTIFY THIS ERROR. 6.1 HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U /S.143(3) DATED 19-12-08 WAS ERRONEOUS SO FAR AS IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF R EVENUE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y 2006-07 IN ACCOR DANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS AS GIVEN BY HIM AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT SO FAR AS DIRECTION IN REGARD TO EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND AND ESI I S CONCERNED, THE SAID ISSUE IS NOW COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 ON THIS COUNT HAVE NO LEGS TO S TAND. HOWEVER, AS FAR AS INITIATION OF PROCEEDING U/S.263 IN REGARD TO MAKING OF DISALLOWA NCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES WAS CONCERNED, THE LEARNED COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO TH E SAME 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO BELATED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUN D AND ESI, IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF JCIT VS. ITC (S UPRA) AND THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, IN ITA NO.1255/KOL/2010 DATED 19 TH NOV., 2010 IN THE CASE OF DCIT,CIR.1, KOL VS. M/S. ASHIKA STOCK BROKING LTD. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE SPECIAL BENCH HAS CONSIDERED THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF VINAY CEMENT ALSO. I.T.A NO. 37/KOL/2011-C-SVM 4 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT IN ORDER TO I NVOKE JURISDICTION U/S. 263, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TO BE ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IF EITHER OF THE CONDITION IS NOT FULFILLED, THEN THE JURISDICTION U/S.263 CANNOT BE INVOKED. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS IN CONFORMIT Y WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ERRONEOUS ORDER. THEREFORE, EVEN IF IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, THE JURISDICTION U/S.263 CANNOT BE INVOKED. IN THE PRESENT CASE ONE OF THE I SSUE IS RELATING TO BELATED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND AND ESI. THE LEARNED CIT (DR) HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITC LT D (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF ACIT, CIRCLE-VII, KOLKATA VS. M/S. VIJAY SHREE LTD IN ITA NO.1091/KOL/2010 FO R THE A.Y 2006-07 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 28-4-11 TRIBUNAL OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 6. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF P.M. ELECTRONICS LTD. (SUPRA) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSU E OF PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PROVIDENT FUND AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF V INAY CEMENT (SUPRA) AND ALSO DISTINGUISHED THE CASE LAW OF HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN PAMWI TISSUES LTD. (SUPRA). WE FURTHE R FIND THAT EVEN HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SABARI ENTERPRISES (SUPRA) HAS CONSIDERED THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE OF EMPLO YEES CONTRIBUTION FALLING UNDER 36(L)(VA) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) OF THE ACT AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: THIS CLAUSE IS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT WITH EF FECT FROM APRIL 1, 1988. THE EXPLANATION TO THIS CLAUSE IS READ VERY CAREFULLY. DUE DATE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED STATI NG THAT : MEANS THE DATE BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED AS AN EMPLOYER TO CREDIT CONTRIBUTION TO THE EMPLOYEES A CCOUNT IN THE RELEVANT FUND UNDER ANY ACT, RULE OR ORDER OR N OTIFICATION ISSUED THEREUNDER OR UNDER ANY STANDING ORDER, AWAR D, CONTRACT OF SERVICE OR OTHERWISE. PRIOR TO THE ABO VE CLAUSE WAS INSERTED TO SECTION 36 GIVING STATUTORY DEDUCTI ONS OF PAYMENT OF TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, SEC TION 43B(B) WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1983, WHICH CAME I NTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 1984. THEREFORE, AGAIN TH E PROVISION OF SECTION 43B(B) CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT NOTWITHSTAN DING I.T.A NO. 37/KOL/2011-C-SVM 5 ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE A CT INCLUDING SECTION 36(1) CLAUSE (VA) OF THE ACT, EVE N PRIOR TO THE INSERTION OF THAT CLAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITL ED TO GET STATUTORY BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION OF PAYMENT OF TAX FR OM THE REVENUE, IF THAT PROVISION IS READ ALONG WITH THE F IRST PROVISO OF THE SAID SECTION WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINAN CE ACT, 1987, WHICH CAME INTO EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 1988, TH E LETTERS NUMBERED AS CLAUSE (A), OR CLAUSE (C) OR CLAUSE (D) OR CLAUSE (E) OR CLAUSE (19 ARE OMITTED FROM THE ABOVE PROVIS O AND THEREFORE DEDUCTION TOWARDS THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUT ION PAID CAN BE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPLANATION TO CLAUSE (VA) OF SECTION 36(1) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT FURTHE R MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY THE ASS ESSEE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTING RETURNS OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 OF T HE ACT TO THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR CAN BE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEES FOR DEDUCTION OUT OF THEIR GROSS INCO ME. THE ABOVE SAID STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT ABUNDANTLY MAKES IT CLEAR THAT, THE CONTENTION URGE D ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT DEDUCTION FROM OUT OF GR OSS INCOME FOR PAYMENT OF TAX AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION OF RET URNS UNDER SECTION 139 IS PERMISSIBLE ONLY IF THE STATUTORY LI ABILITY OF PAYMENT OF PROVIDENT FUND OR OTHER CONTRIBUTION FUN DS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) ARE PAID WITHIN THE DUE D ATE UNDER THE RESPECTIVE STATUTORY ENACTMENTS BY THE ASSESSEE S AS CONTENDED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE IS NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BY US. LEARNED COUNSEL SRI PARTHASARATHY AND DR. KRISHNA APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENTS, ALSO DREW OUR ATTENT ION TO THE DELETION OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 438 OF TH E INCOME- TAX ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2003, WHICH PROVISION H AS COME INTO FORCE, WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 2004. THE REL IANCE PLACED UPON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN ALLIED MOTOR S P. LTD. V. CIT 119971 224 JTR 677 AND ALSO ON THE DECISION IN GENERAL FINANCE CO. V. CIT (ASST.) 120021 257 JTR 338 (SC) IN RESPECT OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 438(B) AND ALSO OMISSION OF CLAUSE (A) OR (C) OR (D) OR (E) OR (F) REFERRED TO ABOVE OCCURRED IN THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 43B, SUPPORTS THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEES AND ALSO RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS EXTRACTED FR OM ALLIED MOTORS CASE [1997] 224 ITR 677 AND PARAGRAPH 59 R EFERRED TO SUPRA IN THIS JUDGMENT FROM THE FINANCE BILL WIT H ALL FOURS SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE RESPONDENTS. THER EFORE, WE HAVE TO ANSWER THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW NO. 1 FRAMED I.T.A NO. 37/KOL/2011-C-SVM 6 BY THIS COURT IN THESE APPEALS AT THE INSTANCE OF T HE REVENUE AGAINST THEM, VIZ., IN THE NEGATIVE. ACCORDINGLY, W E ANSWER THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION NO. 1 FRAMED IN THESE APPE ALS IN THE NEGATIVE. EVEN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (SUPRA) HAS CLEARLY DISCUSSED THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VA) AND HELD AS UNDER: IN VIEW OF THE SECOND PROVISO, WHICH STOOD ON THE STATUTE BOOK AT THE RELEVANT TIME, EACH OF SUCH ASSESSEE(S) WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE A CT FOR ALL TIMES. THEY WOULD LOSE THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION EVE N IN THE YEAR OF ACCOUNT IN WHICH THEY PAY THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WELFARE FUNDS, WHEREAS A DEFAULTER, WHO FAILS TO PA Y THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE WELFARE FUND RIGHT UP TO APRIL 1, 2004, AND WHO PAYS THE CONTRIBUTION AFTER APRIL 1, 2004, WOUL D GET THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. IN OUR VIEW, THEREFORE, THE FINANCE ACT, 2003, TO THE EXTENT IND ICATED ABOVE, SHOULD BE READ AS RETROSPECTIVE. IT WOUL4 TH EREFORE, OPERATE FROM APRIL 1, 1988, WHEN THE FIRST PROVISO WAS INTRODUCED. IT IS TRUE THAT PARLIAMENT HAS EXPLICIT LY STATED THAT THE FINANCE ACT, 2003, WILL OPERATE WITH EFFECT FRO M APRIL 1, 2004. HOWEVER, THE MATTER BEFORE US INVOLVES THE PR INCIPLE OF CONSTRUCTION TO BE PLACED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE FINANCE ACT, 2003. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (SUPRA), VINAY CEMENT (SUPRA) AND THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELE TING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE FOR EMPLOYEES CONT RIBUTION TO ESI AND PF. THIS ISSUE OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . 9.1 THE ABOVE DECISION HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE HO NBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. VIJAY SHREE LIMITED [ ITAT NO.245 OF 2011 GA NO.2607 OF 2011 DATED 06/09/2011 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:-. AFTER HEARING MR. SINHA, LEARNED ADVOCATE, APPEARI NG ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT AND AFTER GOING THE DECISION OF THE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ALOM EXTRUSI ON LTD, WE FIND THAT THE SUPREME COURT IN THE AFORESAID CASE HAS HELD TH AT THE AMENDMENT TO THE SECOND PROVISO TO THE SEC 43(B) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, AS INTRODUCED BY FINANCE ACT, 2003, WAS CURATIVE IN NATURE AND I S REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL, 1988. I.T.A NO. 37/KOL/2011-C-SVM 7 THUS, THIS ISSUE IS CONCLUDED BY THE DECISION OF H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ALOM EXTRUSIONS LIMITED (SUPRA). 10 IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS THE ASSESSMENT OR DER COULD NOT BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND THEREFORE, INVOCATION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 263 APROPOS THIS ISSUE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, WE QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ON THIS ISSUE. 11. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE RELATING TO MISCELLANEOUS E XPENSES OF RS.1,34,800/- AND EXPORT EXPENSES OF RS.1,64,202/- RELATING TO EARLIER YEAR IS CONCERNED, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ON THIS COUNT AS LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSE D THE SAME.. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE S TANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4 / 5 /% 6 7 2 28-09-2011 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28-09-2011 SD/- SD/- [ ! #' , ] [ . . , ] ( MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER) (S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) (2) DATED :28-09-2011 *PP !89 #%:; #='?- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT- M/S. HOWRAH MILLS CO. LTD 135 FORESHO RE ROAD, HOWRAH-711102,. 2 ,-*+ / RESPONDENT : COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PODDAR C OURT, 18 RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA. 3. #4%/ THE CIT, 4. #4% ()/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 5. !#6 ,#%/ DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA -= ,#/ TRUE COPY , 4%// BY ORDER , '; /ASSTT. REGISTRAR