A.C.I.T Cir - 30,kolkata, Kolkata V. M/S Bells Advertising Syndicates, Kolkata

ITA 395/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3155 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: V N PUROHIT
• Keywords: Depreciation; Non-deduction of tax; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 194C; 12

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 395/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-2008 PAGE 1 OF 13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 395/KOL/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-2008 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,.............. ...................APPELLANT CIRCLE-30, KOLKATA, 2, GARIAHAT ROAD (SOUTH), KOLKATA-700 068 -VS.- M/S. BELLS ADVERTISING SYNDICATES,................. .......................RESPONDENT 50A, BIBHUTIBHUSAN BANDYOPADHYAY SARANI, BALLYGUNGE, KOLKATA-700 019 [PAN : AAGFB 9482 R] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SAURABH KUMAR, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI V.N. PUROHIT, FCA, FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JANUARY 07, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 10, 2016 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP :- THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, KOLKATA D ATED 13.12.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE GIVING RISE TO TH IS APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:- THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, WHICH IS ENGAG ED IN THE BUSINESS OF LETTING OUT OF DISPLAY SITES TO INDIAN AND MULTI -NATIONAL COMPANIES FOR THEIR ADVERTISEMENTS. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ORIGINALLY FILED BY IT ON 01.11.2 007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.19,47,697/-. THEREAFTER A REVISED RETU RN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 01.11.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS .49,30,245/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT I.T.A. NO. 395/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-2008 PAGE 2 OF 13 THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS AGAINST THE FOLLOWIN G EXPENSES WITHOUT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE:- 1. TRANSPORT CHARGES PAID TO SRI SUBHRA KR. GHOSAL RS. 1,88,790/ - 2. TRANSPORT CHARGES PAID TO SRI TAPAN SAMANTA RS. 1,02,900/ - 3. SITE RENT PAID TO ENTALLY SHIV SAK TI RS. 2,02,000/ - 4. SITE RENT PAID TO RUKSHMINI DEVI TRUST RS. 1,20,000/ - 5. PAINTING & MAINTENANCE PAID TO TULIKA ARTS RS. 61,289/ - 6. PAINTING & MAINTENANCE PAID TO MACRO MEDIA RS. 2,26,711/ - 7. PAINTING & MAINTENANCE PAID TO ASIT DUTTA RS. 1,19, 811/ - 8. PAINTING & MAINTENANCE PAID TO PRABIR HALDER RS. 2,20,832/ - 9. PAINTING & MAINTENANCE PAID TO SAMIR HALDER RS. 1,61,372/ - 10. PAINTING & MAINTENANCE PAID TO A.B. ENTERPRISE RS. 5,95,242/ - 11. PAINTING & MAINTENANCE PAID TO K.P. ENTERPRISE RS. 5,000/ - 12. PAINTING & MAINTENANCE PAID TO SONATA RS. 27,370/ - TOTAL RS. 20,31,317/ - THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, INVOKED THE PROVI SION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) AND MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,31,317/- O N ACCOUNT OF ABOVE EXPENSES. 3. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U NDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APP EAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LD. C IT(APPEALS) DELETED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 5.1 TO 5.14 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- 5.1 ON GOING THROUGH THE LEDGER OF APPELLANT FOR T HE ACCOUNTING YEAR 2006-07 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-0 8, THE A.O. FOUND THAT, THE APPELLANT HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RS.2, 91,690/- (RS.1,88,790/- TO SRI SUBRATA KUMAR GHOSAL AND RS. 1,02,900/- TO I.T.A. NO. 395/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-2008 PAGE 3 OF 13 SRI TAPAN SAMANTA) WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOUR CE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA). THE APPELLANT IN IT WRITTEN SUBMISSION ARGUED THAT THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN DISALLOWING ABOVE SUM OF RS.2,91,69 0/- IS BAD IN LAW FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- ' THE LD. A.O. ADDED BACK THE ENTIRE AMOUNT SINCE H E WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PAYMENTS TO THE TRANSPORTERS W ERE MADE PURSUANT TO CONTRACT FOLLOWED BY NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. YOUR APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF HEAR ING VEHEMENTLY CLAMORED THAT THERE. NEVER EXISTED ANY C ONTRACT WITH THE AFORESAID TWO TRANSPORTERS AND YOUR APPELL ANT WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO TRANSPORT ITS MATERIALS THRO UGH THEM ONLY. IN THIS CONNECTION, YOUR APPELLANT INVIT ES YOUR ATTENTION TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE KOLKATA T RIBUNAL IN THE ITA NO. 1158/KOL/2008 IN THE CASE OF ACIT CI RCLE 48 KOLKATA VS: M/S. STUMM INDIA, HOWRAH WHEREIN IN ADD ITION TO OTHER POINTS, HON'BLE ITAT KOLKATA HAS HELD THAT EXISTENCE OF A CONTRACT IS PRE-REQUISITE FOR APPLIC ATION OF SECTION 194C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LD. A.O. HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDEN CE, WHATSOEVER, AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF ANY CONTRACT AND AS SUCH ACTION OF THE A.O. IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 40(A)(III) IS VITIATED BY ERROR OF LAW AND HENCE TH E ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.2,91,690/- IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED I N FULL. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE TH AT THE AFORESAID JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE KOLKATA TRIBUNAL , WHICH IS SUARELY APPLICABLE HERE, HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 127 OF 2009. IN THE INSTANT CASE OF YOUR APPELLANT THERE WAS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN YOUR APPELLANT AND THE TRANSPORTER SUBRATA KR. GHOSAL AND TAPAN SAMANTA. THE ABOVE SAI D TRANSPORTERS TRANSPORTED GOODS OF THE PUBLIC IN GEN ERAL IN NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. THE AFORESAID TWO PERSON S WERE NOT IN ANY CASE BOUND UNDER ANY CONTRACT NOR YOUR APPELLANT WAS. TDS IS DEDUCTIBLE FOR ANY PAYMENT MADE BY A SPECIFI ED PERSON TO A CONTRACTOR IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT A S STIPULATED U/S 194C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THE I NSTANT CASE THERE EXISTED NO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE APPELLAN T AND THE TRANSPORTERS AND HENCE THERE WAS NO INFRINGEMEN T OF LAW BY YOUR APPELLANT WHICH COULD ATTRACT DISALLOWA NCE OF TRANSPORT CHARGES. MOREOVER, 40(A)(IA) PROVIDES THAT 'NOT WITHSTANDING ' ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN SECTION 30 TO 38, THE F OLLOWING AMOUNT SHALL NOT BE D EDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE INCO ME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUS INESS OR PROFESSION' : I.T.A. NO. 395/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-2008 PAGE 4 OF 13 A) IN THE CASE OF ANY ASSESSEE IA) ANY INTEREST COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE ... AMOUNT S PAYABLE TO A CONTRACTOR OR SUB-CONTRACTOR BEING RESIDENT FO R CARRYING OUT ANY WORK ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE U NDER CHAPTER XVIIB ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE AND SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED OR AFTER DEDUCTION HAS NO T BEEN PAID. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER SECTION 40(A) (IA) CAN BE INVOKED ONLY TO DISALLOW EXPENDITURE OF THE NATU RE REFERRED TO THEREIN (INTEREST, COMMISSION ETC.) WHI CH IS SHOWN AS 'PAYABLE' AS ON THE DATE OF THE BALANCE SHEET OR IT CAN BE INVOKED ALSO TO DISALLOW SUCH EXPENDITURES WHICH BE COMES PAYABLE AT ANY TIME DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YE AR AND WAS ACTUALLY PAID WITHIN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IN THIS CONNECTION, YOUR APPELLANT PLACES ITS RELIA NCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SPECIAL BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSP ORTS VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE I, VISAKHAPATNAM IN THE APPEAL NO. 477 (VIZ) OF 2008, JUDGEMENT DELIVERED ON APRIL 9, 2012 WHERE IN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT 'PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE AMOUNTS OF EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE PAYABL E AS ON THE DATE 31ST MARCH OF EVERY YEAR AND IT CANNOT BE INVOKED TO DISALLOW EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN ACTUALLY PAID D URING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TDS' (PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SPECIAL BENCH ENCLOSED MARKED AS A NNEXURE - 4). IN THE SAID JUDGEMENT IT HAS BEEN CONCLUDED T HAT THE WARD 'PAYABLE USED IN SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 HAS TO BE GIVEN ITS NATURAL MEANING AND G OING BY STRICT INTERPRETATION, THE HON'BLE VP OF THE SPECIA L BENCH OPINED THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS APPLICA BLE ONLY TO THE EXPENDITURE, WHICH IS PAYABLE AS ON 31ST MARCH OF EVERY YEAR AND CANNOT BE INVOKED TO DISALLOW THE AMOUNTS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR WIT HOUT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE IT AT SPECIAL BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE A DDITION OF RS.2,91,6901- (RS. 1,88,790/- + RS.1,02,900/-) M ADE U/S 40(A)(IA) BE DELETED IN FULL.' 5.2. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE PAYMEN T IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORT CHARGES PAID TO SRI SUBRATA KUMAR GHOSAL OF RS.1,88,790/- AND A SUM OF RS. 1,02,200/- TO SRI. T APAN SAMANTA. IN RESPECT OF THESE PAYMENTS, THE APPELLANT HAS STA TED THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE PURSUANT ANY CONTRACT. THE A PPELLANT HAS ARGUED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THERE NEVER EXISTED ANY CONTRACT WITH THE SAID TWO PARTIES AND THE APPELLANT WAS UND ER NO OBLIGATION TO TRANSPORT ITS MATERIALS THROUGH THEM ONLY. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF ACIT - CIRCLE - 48 - KOLKATA VS. M/S STUMM INDIA, HOWRAH I N ITA NO. I.T.A. NO. 395/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-2008 PAGE 5 OF 13 1158/KOL/2008, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06. IN THE SAI D CASE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE EXISTENCE OF CONTRACT IS PRE REQUISITE FOR APPLICATION OF SECTION 194C. IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE OF ANY CONTRACT, SECTION 194C IS NOT APPLICABLE. THE A FORESAID ORDER HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COU RT IN ITA NO. 127 OF 2009. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A ND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THERE DID NOT EXIS T ANY CONTRACT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND TWO PARTIES TO WHOM THE T RANSPORT CHARGES WERE PAID. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIN G AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, KOLKATA, CONFIRMED BY JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IT IS HELD THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 19 4C WAS NOT APPLICABLE. THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING DI SALLOWANCE OF RS.1,88,790/- AND RS. 1,02,900/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE AFORESAID TWO AMOUNTS OF DISALLOWANCE . ADDITION OF RS. 2,02,000/- (RENT PAID ) 5.3. THE A.O. ON GOING THROUGH THE LEDGER COPY OF THE APPELLANT FOR RELEVANT YEAR FOUND THAT, THE APPELLANT HAD PAI D RENT OF RS.2,02,000/- WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AS PROVIDED U/S.40(A)(IA) TO ENTALLY SHIVA SHAKTI. THE APPELLAN T IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION ARGUED THAT OUT OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS . 2,02,000/-, A SUM OF RS. 60,000/- HAS ALREADY BEEN DISALLOWED U /S 40A(3).IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE AFOR ESAID JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE SPECIAL BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM T RIBUNAL, THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS.2,02,000/- MADE DUE TO NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX BE DELETED IN FULL. 5.4. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. FURTHER I FIND THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE PAI D WITHIN THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND NOTHING WAS PAYABLE AS ON 31.03.2 007 AND, THEREFORE, NO TDS WAS PAYABLE AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN CASE OF M/S. MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS VS ACIT 136 I TD S-23 (S.B.). ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION BASED ON WRONG PERCEP TION MADE BY THE A.O. IS DELETED IN FULL. THE APPELLANT GETS REL IEF OF RS.2,02,000/-. 5.5. ADDITION OF RS. 1,20,000/- (RENT PAID TO RUKMI NI DEVI TRUST) THE APPELLANT DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 1,20,000/- UNDER THE HEAD RENT PAID TO RUKMINI DEVI TRUST. THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT SINCE NO TAX HAD BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AGAINST SUCH PAY MENT. THE APPELLANT IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION CONTENDED THAT THIS PAYMENT BEING RENT IN NATURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. A.O. U/S 194 I OF THE ACT AND THERE WAS NO SCOPE TO INVO KE SECTION 40(A)(IA) SINCE THE PAYMENT DID NOT EXCEED THE STAT UTORY LIMIT OF RS. 1,20,000/-, ACCORDINGLY IT WAS PRAYED THAT SUCH ADDITION OF RS.1,20,000/- IS BEREFT OR ANY LEGAL SANCTION BE DE LETED IN FULL. 5.6. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR AND GOING THROUGH THE SAME, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT TH E ACTION OF THE A.O. IS DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.1,20,000/- FOR NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW RENT SINCE PAYM ENT DID NOT I.T.A. NO. 395/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-2008 PAGE 6 OF 13 EXCEED THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF RS.1,20,000/- AND AS SUCH THE SAME IS DELETED. 5.7. ADDITION OF RS.14,17,627/- ON PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE A CCOUNTING YEAR 2006-07, RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, T HE A.O. FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS WITH OUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AS PROVIDED U/S 40(A)(IA ) OF THE ACT. '1) M/S TULIKA ARTS............ 61,289/- 2) MACRO MEDIA............... 2,26,711/- 3) ASHIT DUTTA................. 1,19,811/- 4) PROBHAT HALDER.......... 2,20,832/- 5) SAMIR HALDER............. 1,61,372/- 6) A.B. ENTERPRISE.......... 5,95,242/- 7) K.P .ENTERPRISE............... 5,000/- 8) SONATA........................... 27,370/- ___________________ 14,17 ,627/- _____________________ REGARDING PAYMENT MADE TO MACRO MEDIA (RS.2,26,711/ -) AS THE APPELLANT PAID A SUM OF RS.2,26,711/- TO M/S MACRO MEDIA WITHOUT DEDUCTION OR ANY TAX AT SOURCE, THE A .O. ADDED BACK THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA). IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO M/S MACRO MEDIA FOR SUPP LY OF PRINTED FLEX AND VINYL, ORDERS FOR WHICH WERE GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE BILLS OF M/S. MACR O MEDIA, WHICH THE LD. A.O. OVERLOOKED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. MOREOVER, M/S. MACRO MEDIA ALSO CHARGED VAT U/S 4(7 )(A) OF THE VAT ACT. THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF PAYMENT FOR SUPPLY OF MATERIALS AND NOT FOR CONTRACT WORK. WHEN SALE OF GOODS IS CO VERED BY VAT, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED OTHER THAN SALES. SALES TAX (NOT CALLED VAT) IS CHARGED ON SALE OF GOODS AS PER VAT ACT. THE APPELLANT FURTHER ARGUED THAT WHEN THE TITLE OF THE PROPERTY VESTS WITH THE PURCHASER ONLY UPON DELIVER Y, IT SUGGESTS THAT THE CONTRACT IS A CONTRACT FOR SALE AND NOT A CONTRACT FOR WORK. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT MERE FACT THAT THE PU RCHASER PROVIDES SOME SPECIFICATION TO THE MANUFACTURER, IT SHOULD NEVER BE CONSTRUED TO BE A CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH SHOULD LEA D TO THE INFERENCE THAT THE CONTRACT IS NOT A CONTRACT FOR S ALE. THE APPELLANT DREW THE ATTENTION AS TO THE JUDGEMEN T OF THE VARIOUS COURTS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE (I) PROPERTY PASSES TO THE PURCHASER UPON DELIVERY OF THE GOODS AND (II) THE RAW MATERIALS WERE SOURCED BY THE MANUFACTURER AND WAS NOT I.T.A. NO. 395/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-2008 PAGE 7 OF 13 SUPPLIED BY THE PURCHASER, THE SAME WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF SECTION 194C. THE APPELLANT, ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE H ON'BLE DIVISION BENCH OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BDA LIMITED VS. CIT (2006) 281 ITR 99 WHEREIN IT HAS BE EN HELD THAT PROVIDING SOME SPECIFICATION AS TO THE QUALITY AND NATURE TO THE MANUFACTURER WHO PRODUCES THE ARTICLE OR THING WOUL D NOT DETRACT THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION AS A SALE, SO LON G AS PURCHASER HAD NOT SUPPLIED RAW MATERIALS TO THE SELLER. SUCH CONTRACT WOULD BE A CONTRACT FOR SALE. THE APPELLANT ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE H ON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. KUBER KHAINI (P) LTD. (2011) 47 SOT 474/ 13. TAXMANN.COM 210 (DELHI), WHEREIN IT HA S BEEN HELD THAT IF A CONTRACTOR UNDERTAKES TO SUPPLY ANY ARTIC LE OR THING FABRICATED ACCORDING TO SPECIFICATION GIVEN BY SPEC IFIED PERSON AND PROPERTY IN SUCH ARTICLE OR THING PASSES TO SUC H PERSON ONLY AFTER SUCH ARTICLE OR THING IS DELIVERED, THE CONTR ACT WILL BE CONTRACT FOR SALE AND AS SUCH OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW O F SECTION 194C (IV). ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT PRAYED THAT SUCH I LLEGAL ADDITION OF RS.2,26,711/- BE DELETED IN FULL. 5.8. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. FURTHER I FIND THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE PAI D WITHIN THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND NOTHING WAS PAYABLE AS ON 31.03.2 007 AND, THEREFORE, NO TDS WAS PAYABLE AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN CASE OF M/S. MERILYN SHIPPING.& TRANSPORTS VS ACIT 136 I TD S-23 (S.B.). ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION BASED ON WRONG PERCEP TION MADE BY THE A.O. IS DELETED IN FULL. THE APPELLANT GETS REL IEF OF RS.2,26,711/-. 5.9. PAYMENT MADE TO M/S. A.B. ENTERPRISE (RS.5,95 ,242/-) ON GOING THROUGH THE LEDGER OF THE APPELLANT, THE A .O. FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS.5,95,242/- TO M/S. A.B. ENTERPRISE FOR PAINTING AND MAINTENANCE SINCE THE A PPELLANT DID NOT DEDUCT ANY TAX AT SOURCE AS PROVIDED U/S 40(A)( IA).THE APPELLANT IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION CONTENDED THAT IN FACT SUCH PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO M/S. A.B. ENTERPRISE FOR SUPP LY OF MATERIALS LIKE LIGHT SET, WIRE CABLE OF VARIOUS SIZ ES, JOINT BOX, PROJECTION BOX ETC. NECESSARY FOR INSTALLATION OF K IOSKS, INSTALLED AT VARIOUS STREET JUNCTIONS. THESE ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED BY M/S. A.B. ENTERPRISES AND M/S. A.B. ENTERPRISES HAD BEEN CHARGED 4% VAT FOR SUPPLY OF SUCH ITEMS AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE BILLS WHICH THE L D. A. O. NEVER CARED TO EXAMINE INSPITE OF TH E FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MENTIONED THIS POINT BEFORE THE LD. A .O. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS THE CONTRACT WAS FOR SUPPLY OF MATERIALS NO TAX WAS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURC E U/S 194C READ WITH SECTION 40(A)(IA). IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT WHEN A PRODUCT IS COVERED UNDER SALES TAX ACT, THE SAME CA NNOT BE TREATED OTHERWISE THAN SALE OF GOODS AND AS SUCH TH E APPELLANT I.T.A. NO. 395/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-2008 PAGE 8 OF 13 PRAYED FOR DELETION OF SUCH UNWARRANTED ADDITION OF RS.5,95,242/-. 5.10. ON GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPEL LANT AS WELL AS SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WHICH WERE ALSO PRODUCED BE FORE THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO TAX IS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON AMOUNT PA ID FOR PURCHASE OF MATERIALS. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE APPELLANT, I FIND THAT ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN THE FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN CASE OF M/S. MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS VS ACIT, 136 ITD S-23 (S.B) AS THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE WITHIN THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND NO AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE AS ON 31.03.2007. ACCORDINGLY TH E ADDITION OF RS.5,95,242/- IS DELETED. 5.11. PAYMENT MADE TO K.P. ENTERPRISE (RS.5,000/-) : THIS PAYMENT OF RS.5,000/-. WAS MADE TO THE LABOUR CONTRACTOR. SINCE NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, THE A.O. ADDED BACK THE AMOUNT OF RS 5,000/- U/S 40(A)(IA).THE APPELLANT CO NTENDED THAT SINCE THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,000/- PAID TO THE LABOUR C ONTRACTOR IS FAR BELOW THE STATUTORY LIMIT, THERE WAS NO QUESTIO N OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. AC CORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT STRONGLY CONTENDED FOR DELETION OF SUCH U NWARRANTED ADDITION. 5.12. THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN DISALLOWING THE SU M OF RS.5,000/- FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE FOR PAYMENT MADE TO THE LABOUR CONTRACTOR IS WHOLLY UNWARRANTED AND DEVOID OF ANY LEGAL SANCTION AND AS SUCH THE SAME IS DELETED. 5.13. DISALLOWANCE OF PAYMENTS OF RS.5,90,674/- THE A.O. DISALLOWED FURTHER SUM OF RS. 5,90,674/- F OR PAYMENT MADE TO M/S. TULIKA ARTS, ASHIT KUMAR DUTTA, PRABIR HALDER, SONA ELECTRICAL AND SAMIR HALDER FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TA X AT SOURCE. IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION, THE APPELLANT FURNIS HED THE BREAK-UP OF SUCH PAYMENTS AS BELOW:- MATERIALCRS.) : LABOUR(RS.): TOTAL(RS.): 1) TULIKA ARTS 48,345/- 12,944/- 6 1,289/- 2) ASHIT KR. DUTTA 96,053/- 23,758/- 1,19,811/- 3) PRABIR HALDER 1,69,412/- 51,420/- 2,20,832/- 4) SONA ELECTRICAL 23,040/- 4,3 30/- 27,330/- 5) SAMIR HALDER 1,31,055/- 30,317 /- 1,61,372/- _______________ ______________ _________ ____ 4,67,905/- 1,22,769/- 5 ,90,674/- _______________ ________________ __________ __ THE APPELLANT POINTED OUT THAT THE ABOVE BREAK-UP O F PAYMENTS MANIFEST THAT A SUM OF RS.4,67,905/- WAS FOR MATERI AL AND THE I.T.A. NO. 395/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-2008 PAGE 9 OF 13 BALANCE RS.1,22,769/- FOR SUPPLY OF LABOUR. THE APP ELLANT CONTENDED THAT MAJOR PART OF THE PAYMENT WAS MADE F OR SUPPLY OF MATERIAL (NEARLY 70%). AS REGARDS, PAYMENT MADE TO SONATA ELECTRICAL AND M/S. TULIKA ARTS, THE APPELLANT CLAI MED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE BELOW THE STATUTORY LIMIT AND AS SUCH NO TDS WAS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. THE APPELLANT ALSO REFERRED TO THE CBDT'S CIRCULAR NO. 13 OF 2006 DATED 13.02.2006 AND THE RATIO AS LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF M/S STUMM INDIA, HOWRAH (1158/KOL/2008) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT WHEREIN ANY PAYMENT IS MADE FOR JOB CONSISTING OF MATERIAL COST AND LABOUR, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) WOULD BE APPLICABLE ON THAT PORTION OF PAYMENT WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO LA BOUR CHARGES. THE APPELLANT FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SPECIAL BENCH VISHAKAPATNAM WHEREIN IT, HAS BEEN CA TEGORICALLY, HELD, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE AMOUNTS OF EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE PAYABLE AS ON 31ST MARCH OF EVERY YEAR AND IT CANNOT BE INVOKED TO DIS ALLOW EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS ACTUALLY BEEN PAID DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TDS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE WAS NO SUCH AMOUNT PAYABLE AS ON 31ST MARCH 2007 AND HENCE ADDITION OF RS.5,90,674/- BE DELETED IN FULL. 5.14. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE IN RE SPECT OF PURCHASE OF MATERIAL. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE APPELLANT, I FIND THAT ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN THE FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY THE JUDGEMENT OF THE, SPECIAL BENC H IN CASE OF MLS MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS VS ACIT, 136 ITD S-23 (S.B) AS THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE WITHIN THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND NO AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE AS ON 31.03.2007. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDIT ION OF RS.5,90,674/- IS DELETED. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS ALSO NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.25,84,532/-, WHICH WAS INCLUSIVE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON KIOSKS & CONSOLES @ 100%. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FULLY ESTABLISH BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE LIFE OF K IOSKS & CONSOLES WAS LESS THAN ONE YEAR IN ORDER TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANT IATE ITS CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION AT 100% THEREON. HE, THEREFORE, TREATE D THE SAID ASSETS AS NORMAL ITEMS OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AND RESTRICTED DEPRECIATION THEREON AT 15%, WHICH RESULTED IN DISALLOWANCE OF RS.15,88, 374/-. I.T.A. NO. 395/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-2008 PAGE 10 OF 13 5. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE MADE T HE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATIO N AT 100% ON KIOSKS & CONSOLES:- CONSOLES ON THE OTHER HAND ARE ELECTRONIC TRAFFIC LIGHT SIGNAL. YOUR APPELLANT FIRM HAS TO INSTALL TRAFFIC LIGHT SI GNALS IN LIEU OF ADVERTISEMENT RIGHT ON CONSOLE ROOF. ONCE THE CONSO LE IS INSTALLED, THE APPELLANT HAS TO MAINTAIN IT. ONCE I NSTALLED IN PUBLIC THOROUGH-FARE, YOUR APPELLANT LOOSES ITS RIG HT OF OWNERSHIP AND THOSE BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE POLI CE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL. SUCH CONSOLES ARE EXPOSED TO ROAD ACCIDENTS BY THE TRUCKS FREQUENTLY, BUS AND VE HICLE DRIVERS. IF A CONSOLE IS DAMAGED FOR ANY REASON, IT HAS TO B E REPLACED IMMEDIATELY BY THE APPELLANT. THE CONSOLES ARE FABR ICATED FROM TIN, PLYWOOD, WOODEN AND TEMPORARY IRON FRAMES. THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS TEMPORARY IN NATURE. THE LIFE OF EACH STR UCTURE OF CONSOLE IS VERY LIMITED AND HARDLY REMAINS USABLE B EYOND SIX MONTHS. IN FACT ELECTRONIC PORTION OF THE CONSOLE A RE AUTO MANUAL MICRO PROCESSOR BASED TRAFFIC SIGNAL (REMOTE TERMINAL DEVICE 1 INTELLIGENT ELECTRONIC DEVICES). THE MAIN UNIT OF ELECTRIC PORTION INCLUDING THE SOFTWARE IS INSTALLED AT DIFF ERENT PLACES FROM WHERE A PERSON CONTRACTS ITS OPERATION. THE CO NSOLES ARE AT WORK FOR ALL 24 HOURS OF THE DAY. SECONDLY AS STATED EARLIER CONSOLES ARE AUTO MANUAL MICRO PROCESSOR BASED TRAFFIC SIGNALS (COPY OF THE BILL M ARKED AS ANNEXURE - 9 ENCLOSED) FOR WHICH THE APPELLANT IS E NTITLED TO 80% DEPRECIATION VIDE 8(C) OF DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE (RU LE 5 OF I.T. RULE 1962) WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW AND SINCE THE AUTO TRAFFIC SIGNALS WORKS ROUND THE CLOCK FOR 24 HOURS, THE APP ELLANT IS ENTITLED TO TRIPLE SHIFT ALLOWANCE AND HENCE 100% D EPRECIATION IS TO BE ALLOWED IN CONSOLES. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, IT WAS ALSO C ONTENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT KIOSK S ARE PURELY TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND, THEREFORE, DEPRECIATION @100% IS AL LOWABLE THEREON AS PER APPENDIX 1 OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 6. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND MERIT IN THE ASSESSEE S SUBMISSIONS IN SO FAR AS IT WAS IN RELATION TO THE DEPRECIATION CL AIMED AT 100% ON KIOSKS AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS COUNT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 7.1 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- 7.1. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SU BMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. KIOSKS ARE PURELY TEMPORARY STRUCTUR ES, IN NATURE. THE KIOSKS ARE ALSO EXPOSED TO THE VAGARIES OF WEAT HER. RAIN I.T.A. NO. 395/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-2008 PAGE 11 OF 13 WATER AND SUNLIGHT AFFECT THE TEMPORARY WOODEN STRU CTURE BADLY. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED CERTIFICATE FROM CHART ERED ENGINEER CERTIFYING THAT THE LIFE SPAN OF THE KIOSKS ARE NOT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS. HAVING CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE, I HOLD THAT THE KIOSKS ARE PURELY TEMPORARY E RECTIONS ELIGIBLE FOR 100% DEPRECIATION AS PER I.T. RULES 19 62. HENCE, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION @ 100 % ON K IOSKS AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 7. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECI ATION AT 100% ON CONSOLES, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DID NOT FI ND MERIT IN THE SAID CLAIM AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEP RECIATION ON CONSOLES AT 30% FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 7.2 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- 7.2. CONSOLES ON THE OTHER HAND ARE RUN BY AUTO CO NTROL DEVICE AS IN THE CASE OF DISPLAY BOARD. AS THE CONSOLES WO RK ROUND THE CLOCK IN CONSONANCE WITH DISPLAY BOARDS, THESE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DOUBLE SHIFT ALLOWANCE. SINCE THE A.O. HAS ALLOWED THE DOUBLE SHIFT ALLOWANCE ON DISPLAY BOARD IN SUBSEQUENT ASSE SSMENT YEAR (I.E. A.Y.-2008-09) LEADING TO 30% DEPRECIATION, TH E A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW 30% DEPRECIATION ON CONSOLES ALSO . 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS:- 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,26,317/- (RS.20,31,317/- MINU S RS.5000/-) MADE U/S.40(A}(IA} BY THE A.O. FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF ITAT , VISHAKAPATTANAM IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & T RANSPORTS- VS- ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, VISHAKAPATTANAM. 2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON KIOSKS AND CONSOLES AT THE RATE OF 100% AND 30 % RESPECTIVELY AGAINST A.O'S RATE OF 15% ON THE SAID ASSETS WHICH WAS BASED ON DEPRECIATION CHART. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY S UBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY TH E REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS VIRTUALLY INFRUCTUOUS AS THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER UNDER I.T.A. NO. 395/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-2008 PAGE 12 OF 13 SECTION 40(A)(IA) NOT ONLY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT AT VISHAKHAPATNAM IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPP ING & TRANSPORTS VS.- ADDITIONAL CIT, BUT EVEN ON MERIT AND THIS POS ITION CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE PARAGRAPH NO. 5.1 TO 5.14 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED EVEN BY THE LD. D.R. SINCE THE REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE ON MERIT, GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY IT IN THIS A PPEAL HAS BECOME ONLY ACADEMIC AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY LIABLE TO BE D ISMISSED. 10. AS REGARDS THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 2 RELATING TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 10 0% ON KIOSKS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT KIOSKS BY THEIR OWN NATURE ARE PURELY TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AS EXPLAINED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE B EFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AS WELL AS BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A CERTIFICATE FROM CHARTERED ENGINEER CERTIFYING THAT THE LIFE SP AN OF THE KIOSKS ARE NOT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS MAKING IT ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECI ATION AT 100% AS PER THE RELEVANT INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION AT 100% ON KIOSKS BEING T EMPORARY STRUCTURES. 11. AS REGARDS THE OTHER ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 2 RELATING TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION ON CONSOLES, IT I S OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE TREATING THE CONSOLES AS ORDINARY ITEMS OF PL ANTS AND MACHINERY ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION AT NORMAL RATE OF 15%. HE , HOWEVER, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEA R HAS ALLOWED DOUBLE SHIFTING ALLOWANCE ON DISPLAY BOARDS THEREBY GIVING DEPRECIATION AT 30% AND BY TAKING A CONSISTENT STAND, THE LD. CIT(APPEA LS) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION AT 30% ON C ONSOLES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO RAISE ANY MATERIAL CONTENTION TO DISLO DGE THE BASIS ADOPTED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHILE ALLOWING THE DOUBLE S HIFT ALLOWANCE TO THE ASSESSEE ON CONSOLES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. WE, THEREFORE, I.T.A. NO. 395/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-2008 PAGE 13 OF 13 FIND NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IM PUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND UPHOLDING THE SAME, WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FEBRUARY 10, 2016. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 10 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-30, KOLKATA, 2, GARIAHAT ROAD (SOUTH), KOLKATA-700 068 (2) M/S. BELLS ADVERTISING SYNDICATES, 50A, BIBHUTIBHUSAN BANDYOPADHYAY SARANI, BALLYGUNGE, KOLKATA-700 019 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, KOLK ATA (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.