M/s Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata V. DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 483/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1797 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income; Bad and doubtful debts; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI ABY. T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM ] I.T.A NO. 483/KOL/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-1 1 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. -VS- DCIT, CIRCLE -5, KOLKATA [PAN: AABCB 0984 E ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A NO. 496/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-1 1 DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA -VS- BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. [PAN: AABCB 0984 E] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A NO. 421/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-1 2 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. -VS- DCIT, CIRCLE -5(2), KOLKATA [PAN: AABCB 0984 E ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A NO. 471/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-1 2 DCIT, CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA -VS- BALMER LAW RIE & CO. LTD. [PAN: AABCB 0984 E] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE ASSESSEE : SHRI J.P. KHAITAN, SR. ADVOCATE MRS. SANJUKTA GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE DEPARTMENT : SHRI SALLONG YADEN, ADDL . CIT, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 14.08.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.09.2018 2 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 2 ORDER PER M.BALAGANESH, AM 1. THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS R EVENUE ARISE OUT OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APP EALS)-VI, KOLKATA [IN SHORT THE LD CIT(A)] IN APPEAL NO. 65/CIT(A)-VI/CIR-513-14/KO L DATED 27.12.2013 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA [ IN S HORT THE LD AO] UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) D ATED 07.03.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVE NUE ARISE OUT OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)- 8, KOLKATA [IN SHORT THE LD CIT(A)] IN APPEAL NO. 970/2014-15 DATED 12.01.2016 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA [ IN SHORT THE LD AO] UNDE R SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 31.01.2014 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. SINCE IDENTICAL FACTS ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPE ALS, THEY ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE. 2. WRITE OFF OF ADVANCES RS 12,92,000/- GROUND NO.1 OF REVENUE APPEAL FOR ASST YEAR 2010-1 1 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF INDUSTRIAL CONT AINER GREASE & LUBRICANTS, LEATHER CHEMICALS, TRADING IN TEA, LOGISTIC INFRASTRUCTURE (CFS) , ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY SERVICE DIVISION AND TRAVEL & TOUR SERVICES. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASST YEAR 3 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 3 2010-11 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 23.9.2010 DECL ARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 153,93,56,690/- . THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD DEBITED ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF OF RS 12,92,000/- IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUN T AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE BREAK UP OF THE SAME AND FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SAME, THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ACCOUNTED FOR THE SAME AS INCOME IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME WAS SOUGHT T O BE DISALLOWED U/S 36(1)(VII) READ WITH SECTION 36(2) OF THE ACT. 2.1. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN ITS ANNUAL ACCO UNTS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 CORRESPONDING TO ASST YEAR 2010-11, HAD WRITTEN OFF AN AMOUNT OF RS 12,92,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES, BEING IN THE NATURE OF SECURIT Y DEPOSIT, AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS ALLOWABLE BUSINESS LOSS. A STATEMENT SHOWING ITEM W ISE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCES AND SECURITY DEPOSIT EXTENDED BY THE ASSES SEE TO ITS CUSTOMER EITHER IN THE FORM OF SECURITY DEPOSIT OR TENDER DEPOSITS DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY OF THE PAYMENT OF SECURITY DEPOSITS AND ADVANCES AND SUBMITTED THAT T HE SAME WERE GIVEN SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE LD CITA OB SERVED THAT IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE DETAILS PRODUCED, THAT THE WRITE OFF OF ADVANCE S / CLAIMS ARE MOSTLY IN NATURE OF SECURITY DEPOSITS, APART FROM SOME SMALL BAD DEBTS (WHICH ARE EVEN OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE). THE ALLOWABILITY OF WRITE OFF OF IRREC OVERABLE SECURITY DEPOSIT IS ALSO A RECURRING ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. FOLLOWING THE ORDERS PASSED IN THE EARLIER YEAR BY HIS PREDECESSOR, HE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MAD E BY THE LD AO IN THE SUM OF RS 12,92,000/-. AGGRIEVED , THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2.2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE DETAILS OF ADVANCES AND CLAIMS WHICH WERE SOUGH T TO BE WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUM OF RS 12,92,000/- ARE AS UNDER:- 4 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 4 FROM THE AFORESAID DETAILS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD DULY CREDITED ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN THE EARLIER YEARS EITHER BY OFFERING THE INCOME OR REDUCING ITS EXPENSES THEREBY MAKING IT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)( VII) READ WITH SECTION 36(2) OF THE ACT. WE ALSO FIND THAT CERTAIN ADVANCES WERE ACTUA LLY MADE IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS WHICH WAS MEANT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. WE FIND FURTHER THAT CERTAIN AMOUNTS LYING IN THE ADVA NCES RECOVERABLE BECAME 5 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 5 IRRECOVERABLE FOR QUITE A LONG TIME AND THE ASSESSE E HAD CONSCIOUSLY TAKEN A CALL TO WRITE OFF THE SAME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WH ICH WOULD BE SQUARELY ALLOWABLE AS TRADING LOSS. WE FIND THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY T HE LD AR ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MYSORE SUGAR CO. L TD REPORTE DIN 46 ITR 649 (SC) AND THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LTD REPORTED IN 120 ITR 110 (CAL) ARE VERY WELL FOUNDED , AMONG OTHERS. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE AFORESAID JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CITA GRANT ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASST YEAR 2010-11 IS DISMISSED. 3. DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT GROUND NO. 2 OF REVENUE APPEAL FOR ASST YEAR 2010-1 1 GROUND NO. 3 OF ASSESSEE APPEAL FOR ASST YEAR 2010- 11 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS 17,95,43,785/- IN RESPECT OF CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION (CFS) ACTIV ITY CARRIED ON BY IT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE CFS ACTIVI TY IS AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. THE AS SESSEE FILED THE BREAK UP OF ITS INCOME BEFORE THE LD AO. IN THE SAID BREAK UP, THERE WERE CERTAIN ITEMS LIKE INTERST ON SECURITY DEPOSITS / LOANS , INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT BY C USTOMERS, CHARGES TOWARDS WAREHOUSING OF CARGO, REVENUE PROFIT ON DISPOSAL OF FIXED ASSETS, SALE OF TENDER DOCUMENTS ETC . THE DETAILS OF OTHER INCOME ARE AS UNDER:- 6 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 6 THE LD AO HELD THAT THE SAID RECEIPTS WERE NOT DERI VED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OF CFS ACTIVITY AND DENIED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA O F THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS 80,01,000/- IN THE ASSESSMENT. 3.1. THE LD CITA GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSE SSEE AND THE REVENUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6.2. IT IS TRUE, THAT SECTION 80IA IS AVAILABLE ON LY ON THE INCOME DERIVED FROM ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING / ENTERPRISE ENGAGED IN DEVELOPMENT / O PERATION / MAINTENANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO NOT PR OPER TO SUMMARILY CONCLUDE THAT ALL ITEMS OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'OTHER INCOME' ARE N OT DERIVED FROM SUCH ENTERPRISE. RATHER, THE NATURE OF EACH ITEM UNDER THE HEAD 'OTH ER INCOME' SHOULD BE CLOSELY EXAMINED. IN THIS REGARD, IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD ARISEN IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE AND M Y ID. PREDECESSORS HAVE ALSO DONE SUCH ANALYSIS. IN CASE OF A CFS, THE OPERATOR EARNS INCOME FROM UPLOADING, DOWNLOADING AND WAREHOUSING OF GOODS AND CONTAINERS AT THE FACILITY DEVELOPED. THE 7 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 7 OPERATOR ALSO DERIVES INCOME FROM RELATED SERVICES LIKE CUSTOM CLEARING, CARGO HANDLING ETC. THE BREAK- UP OF 'OTHER INCOME' IN TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION REPRODUCED EARLIER. ON EXAMINING THE SAME, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN ITEMS WHICH ARE CLOS ELY RELATED TO OPERATION OF CFS FACILITY. THESE ARE NET REALIZATION OF AUCTION OF C ARGO, CREDIT BALANCE WRITTEN BACK, DISPOSAL OF PALLETS AND FORFEITURE OF DEPOSITS, WHI CH AGGREGATE TO RS.77.06 LACS. THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION, THESE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DE DUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, THE REMAINING ITEMS SUCH AS INT EREST, PROFIT ON DISPOSAL OF ASSET, RENT, HIRE CHARGES AND SALE OF TENDER DOCUMENTS ETC ., WHICH AGGREGATE TO RS.2.95 LACS, CANNOT BE CALLED TO BE DERIVED FROM OPERATION OF TH E UNDERTAKING, AS THEY ARE ONE STEP REMOVED FROM THE MAIN FUNCTION OF CFS. IT MAY BE ME NTIONED HERE, THAT IN THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY MY ID. PREDECESSOR, THAT RECEIPT FROM SALE OF TENDER DOCUM ENTS, INTEREST AND PROFIT FROM DISPOSAL OF ASSETS ETC. ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCT ION U/S 80IA. SIMILAR FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN IN RESPECT OF RENT IN THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR A.Y. 2008-09. CONSIDERING THIS, THE AMOUNT ON WHICH DEDUCTION IS NOT ALLOWABLE IS TAKEN AS RS. 2.95 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO REDUCE THE DISALLOWANCE ACCO RDINGLY. 3.2. AGGRIEVED, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE RE VENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NO T IN DISPUTE THAT THE CFS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER THE AMBIT OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING THEREBY MAKING IT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. THE ONLY D ISPUTE TO BE DECIDED HERE IS AS TO WHETHER CERTAIN RECEIPTS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE COU LD BE CONSTRUED TO BE PROFITS DERIVED FROM CFS UNDERTAKING AND CONSEQUENTIAL ELIGIBILITY OF THE SAME FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. THE DETAILS OF OTHER INCOME EARNED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE TABULATED ABOVE. THE LD DR ARGUED THAT THE LD CITA OUGHT NOT TO HAVE GIV EN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CREDIT BALANCES WRITTEN BACK IN THE SUM OF RS 12 .39 LAKHS; FORFEITURE OF DEPOSIT OF RS 2.69 LAKHS; DISPOSAL OF PALLETS / GARBAGE IN THE SU M OF RS 6.26 LAKHS AND NET REALIZATION FROM AUCTION OF CARGO IN THE SUM OF RS 55.72 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO LD DR, THESE RECEIPTS DOES NOT HAVE FIRST DEGREE NEXUS WITH THE CFS ACTIV ITY OF THE ASSESSEE. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA VS CIT REPORTED IN 317 ITR 218 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HEL D THAT THE SOURCE OF DEPB AND 8 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 8 DUTY DRAWBACK WAS THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT THE BUSINE SS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXPRESSION PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM ANY BUSINESS AND PROFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO AN Y BUSINESS AND THAT SINCE THE SECTION SPEAKS OF PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM ANY BUSI NESS, SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS MUST HAVE A CLOSE AND DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE . ACCORDING TO LD DR, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE RECEIPTS FROM AFORESAID 4 ITE MS DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE EXPRESSION OF PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM CFS ACTIVITY AND HENCE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME. WI TH REGARD TO NET REALIZATION FROM AUCTION OF CARGO AND DISPOSAL OF PALLETS / GARBAGE, THE SAM E COULD AT BEST BE CONSTRUED AS RECEIPT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CFS UNIT AND NOT DERIVED FROM T HE SAME. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF CREDIT BALANCES WR ITTEN BACK AND FORFEITURE OF DEPOSITS SO AS TO BRING THE BUSINESS NEXUS BETWEEN THE SAME AND THE CFS ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.3.1. IN RESPONSE, THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE CREDI T BALANCES WRITTEN BACK AND FORFEITURE OF DEPOSIT REPRESENTS ADVANCES AND DEPOSITS RECEIVE D FROM CUSTOMERS WHICH WERE TREATED AS NO LONGER PAYABLE AND HENCE WRITTEN BACK TO INCOME. WHEN ASKED FOR THE DETAILS FOR THE SAME, THE LD AR PRAYED FOR ONE OPPO RTUNITY BEFORE THE LD AO FOR FURNISHING THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT THE LD AO TO VERIFY THIS ASPECT IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE SAME RELATES TO CFS ACTIVITY SO AS TO FALL WITHIN THE EXPRESSION DERIVED FROM FROM THE DETAILS TO BE FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THIS REGARD . AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS, THE LD AO IS DIRECTED TO GIVE A DEFINITE FINDING AS TO WHETHER THE SAME HAS A FIRST DEGREE NEXUS WITH THE CFS UNIT . IF SO, DEDUCTION IS TO BE GRANTED U/S 80IA OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. 3.3.2. WITH REGARD TO INCOME DERIVED FROM DISPOSAL OF PALLETS / GARBAGES, THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE SAME ARE EQUIVALENT TO SALE OF SCRA P. WE FIND THAT THE PALLETS ARE NOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME ARE OWNED BY THE CUSTOMERS WHO STACK THEIR 9 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 9 PRODUCTS IN THE PALLETS. WHILE REMOVING THE GOODS FROM THE WAREHOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE PALLETS ARE LEFT BY TH E PARTIES , WHICH WERE UNNECESSARILY OCCUPYING THE SPACE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE S AME WERE DISPOSED OFF. WE FIND THAT THIS DOES NOT HAVE ANY FIRST DEGREE NEXUS WITH THE CFS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE SAID UNDERTAKING. HENCE WE HOLD THAT THE LD AO HAD RIGHTLY DENIED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT FOR THE SAME. 3.3.3. WITH REGARD TO INCOME EARNED ON NET REALIZAT ION FROM AUCTION OF CARGO, THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT LIEN OVER THE GOOD S STORED IN THE WAREHOUSE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE CFS UNIT. WHEN THOSE GOODS ARE NOT TAKEN / REMOVED BY THE CUSTOMERS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO UTILIZE THE RELEVANT SPACE FOR BETTER COMMERCIAL PURPOSES AND DERIVE MORE INCO ME, WOULD RESORT TO AUCTION THE SAID GOODS AND REALIZE PROCEEDS THEREON, WHICH PROC EEDS WOULD ONLY BE SUBSTITUTE FOR RECEIPT OF RENTAL INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS GOT FIRST DEGREE NEXUS WITH CFS ACTIVITY. WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS ARGUME NT OF THE LD AR IN AS MUCH AS , THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE HAVING LOT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY IN DISPOSING OFF THE CARGO FROM ITS WAREHOUSE AND FOR THAT PURPOSE WOULD EVEN RESORT TO AUCTION THE SAME. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE GOODS/ CARGO BELONGS TO THE CUSTOM ERS WHO HAD STORED THE SAME IN THE WAREHOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE AT BEST WOU LD BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIMING DEMURRAGE FOR STORING THE GOODS BEYOND THE PRESCRIB ED TIME WHICH WOULD BE CONSTRUED AS FIRST DEGREE NEXUS WITH THE CFS ACTIVITY. MOREO VER, THESE ARE EXTRANEOUS CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT UNDERGO IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNIS H ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT IT HAS GOT LIEN OVER THE GOODS STORED IN THE CFS UN IT. IN ANY CASE, THE PROCEEDS REALIZED WERE ONLY FROM AUCTION OF GOODS AND NOT FROM STORAG E OF GOODS AND HENCE THE FIRST DEGREE NEXUS WITH THE CFS ACTIVITY IS CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT. HENCE WE HOLD THAT THE LD CITA ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN TH IS REGARD. 10 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 10 3.3.4. WITH REGARD TO THE INTEREST ON SECURITY DEPO SITS OF RS 0.71 LAKHS, WE FIND THAT THE LD AR FAIRLY STATED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEAR HAD HELD THAT IT IS NOT DERIVED FROM CFS UNIT AND ACCORDINGL Y NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMI TY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CITA DENYING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 3.3.5. WITH REGARD TO REVENUE PROFIT ON SALE OF FIX ED ASSETS TO THE TUNE OF RS 0.10 LAKHS, THE SAME WOULD TAKE THE CHARACTER OF SALE OF SCRAP AS IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE FIXED ASSETS WERE UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY IN ITS CF S UNIT AND THE SALE THEREON WOULD HAVE FIRST DEGREE NEXUS WITH THE SAID UNIT AND ACCORDING LY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN RIGHTLY PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD VS ADDITIONAL CIT REPORTED IN 56 TAXMAN N.COM 415 (CAL HC). ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT THE LD AO TO GRANT DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT FOR THE SAME. 3.3.6. WITH REGARD TO RENT RECEIPTS OF RS 1.59 LAKH S, WE FIND THAT THE SAME IS SIMILAR TO DEMURRAGE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE HAS GOT FIRST DEGREE NEXUS WITH THE CFS UNIT AND ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT . ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT THE LD AO TO GRANT DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT FOR THE SAME. 3.3.7. ON HIRE CHARGES RECEIVED ON ASSETS TO THE TU NE OF RS 0.02 AND RS 0.07 LAKHS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED REFRIGERATORS, GENERATOR SETS AND PERSONAL COMPUTERS TO THE CUSTOMERS WHO HAD STORED THE GOODS IN THE GO DOWN / WAREHOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAD COLLECTED HIRE CHARGES. THESE ASSETS ARE G IVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS AS PART AND PARCEL OF THE CFS ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESS EE FOR SMOOTH AND EFFECTIVE STORAGE OF THE GOODS AND INCOME DERIVED THEREON IN THE FORM OF HIRE CHARGES IS INEXTRICABLY LINKED 11 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 11 WITH THE CFS ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE WE DIRECT THE LD AO TO GRANT DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT FOR THE SAME. 3.3.8. WITH REGARD TO SALE OF TENDER DOCUMENTS IN T HE SUM OF RS 0.46 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE BEING A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE, WOULD HAVE TO INVITE TENDERS FROM THE CUSTOMERS IN CONNECTION WITH ITS CFS UNIT. FOR THI S PURPOSE, THE TENDER DOCUMENTS WERE PRINTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAD INCURRED EXPENSES F OR THE SAME. THESE TENDER DOCUMENTS , WHEN REMAINING UNUTILIZED, WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO RECOVER ITS COST / EXPENSES INCURRED THEREON. HENCE IT WOULD ON LY TANTAMOUNT TO RECOVERY OF EXPENSES INCURRED DIRECTLY IN CONNECTION WITH THE C FS UNIT. WE FIND THAT THE RELIANCE HAS BEEN RIGHTLY PLACED BY THE LD AR ON THE DECISIO N OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MEGHALAYA STEELS LTD REPORTED IN 383 ITR 217 (SC) IN THIS REGARD. HENCE WE DIRECT THE LD AO TO GRANT DEDUCTION U/S 80 IA OF THE ACT FOR THE SAME. 3.3.9. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASST YEAR 2010-11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASST YEAR 2010-11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES GROUND NO.3 OF REVENUE APPEAL FOR ASST YEAR 2010-11 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE LD AO OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD DEBITED RS 14,04,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD A DJUSTMENTS DURING THE YEAR 2009-10 RELEVANT TO ASST YEAR 2010-11 AS PER SCHEDULE 13 OF AUDITED BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THIS EXPENDITURE RELATING TO E ARLIER YEARS WHICH IS NOT LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION SINCE IT MAINTAINS ITS ACCOUNTS ON MERCAN TILE BASIS FOR WHICH THE SAID EXPENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLAIMED IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS FOR WHICH IT PERTAINS. THEREFORE THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS 14,04,000/- ON ACC OUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENT 12 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 12 WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE DETAILED BREAK UP OF EXPENSES RELATING TO PRIOR PERIOD, LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF WHICH CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD AO GIVING JUSTIFICATION FOR EACH ONE OF THEM . IT WAS SPECIFICALLY SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE EXPENSES WERE RELATING TO THE EARLIER YEAR, THE LIABILITY FOR SUCH EXPENSES CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AND HENCE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS DEDUCTIBLE IN COMPUTING THE BUSINESS INCOME. IT WA S ALSO SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT NO DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDI TURE IN EARLIER YEAR ON MERCANTILE BASIS. IT WAS POINTED OUT BEFORE THE LD CITA THAT S IMILAR DISALLOWANCE MADE IN ASST YEAR 2002-03 WAS DELETED BY THE LD CITA VIDE ORDER DATED 29.9.2005 AND FOR THE ASST YEAR 2003-04, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE LD AO U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT TOWARDS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT T HAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES MADE FOR THE ASST YEARS 2005-06 , 2007-08 , 2008-09 AND 2009-10 WERE DELETED BY THE LD CITA. 4.1. THE LD CITA BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HIS PRED ECESSOR FOR ASST YEAR 2009-10, GAVE A FINDING THAT LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF THE PRIOR PE RIOD EXPENSES CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR WHICH ARE QUITE EVIDENT FROM THE DETAILS FILED BEFORE THE LD AO. THE LD CITA ALSO OBSERVED THAT NO DISCREPANCY WAS NOTICED BY THE LD AO ON THE SAID DETAILS OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE. THE LD CITA NOTICED THAT THE PR IOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE DEBITED DURING THE YEAR INCLUDE DEPRECIATION OF RS 7,16,473 /- BEING THE DEPRECIATION AS PER BOOKS, WHICH IN ANY CASE, WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDED BA CK WHILE COMPUTING THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS 7,16,473/- AND GRANTED RELIEF FOR THE REMAINING SUM OF RS 6,83 ,527/- ( 14,04,000 7,16,473) TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE US. 13 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 13 4.2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND T HAT THE ENTIRE DETAILS OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS 14,03,667/- ARE ENCLOSED IN PAGE 77 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THESE DETAILS WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID DETAILS, WE ARE CONVINCED OF THE FACT T HAT THE LIABILITY FOR SUCH EXPENSES HAD CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR EXCLUDING DEPRECIATION OF RS 7,16,473/- AND HENCE WE HOLD THAT THE LD CITA HAD RIGHTLY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASST YEAR 2010-11 IS DISMISSED. 5. THE GROUND NO. 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE A SST YEAR 2010-11 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATI ON. 6. THE GROUND NOS. 1 & 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R THE ASST YEAR 2010-11 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDIC ATION. 7. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NOS. 1 & 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASST YEAR 2010-11 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPEC IFIC ADJUDICATION. 8. DISALLOWANCE OF LEASE PREMIUM GROUND NO. 2 OF ASSESSEE APPEAL FOR ASST YEAR 2010- 11 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE LD AO OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED LEASE PREMIUM OF RS 45,58,305/- AS DEDUCTION U/S 37 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF CLAIM IN RESPECT OF THE SA ID LEASE PREMIUM WHICH REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD PAID PROPORTIONATE PREMIUM ON LEASEHOLD LAND AS ADVANCE RENT PAYABLE BY IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERM OF L EASE AGREEMENT AND CLAIMED THE SAME 14 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 14 AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED THE SAID LAND AT DIFFERENT LOCALITIES FROM VARIOUS LESSORS I N DIFFERENT YEARS FOR LONG PERIOD OF TIME I.E 60 YEARS, 77 YEARS, 88 YEARS, 99 YEARS ETC. T HE SAID PERIOD GIVES THE ASSESSEE AN ADVANTAGE OF ENDURING BENEFIT OF SAID LEASEHOLD LAN D. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THE LEASE PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS 45,58,305/- CANNOT BE TREAT ED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND NOT LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 37 OF THE ACT. 8.1. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD CITA AS U NDER:- 15 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 15 16 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 16 8.2. THE LD CITA FOLLOWED THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASS ESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASST YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA NO. 1481/KOL/2011 DATED 30.4.2012 AN D DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE US. 8.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE DET AILS OF CLAIM IN RESPECT OF LEASE PREMIUM ARE AS UNDER:- 17 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 17 THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE PROPORTIONATE PREMIUM ON LEASE HOLD LAND AS ADVANCE RENT PAYABLE BY IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE L EASE AGREEMENT AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE ALLOWABLE U/S 37 OF THE ACT. APPARENTLY , THE ISSUE IS ALREADY DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITS OWN CASE FOR T HE ASST YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA NO. 1481/KOL/2011 DATED 30.4.2012 . BUT WE FIND THAT TH E LD AR WAS TRYING TO MAKE OUT A CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WERE FRESH FACTS INVO LVED IN THIS YEAR WHICH MAKE IT DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE ASST YEAR 200 8-09. HE BROUGHT THE FOLLOWING FRESH FACTS IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL BY STATING THA T DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO A FRESH LEASE AGREEMENT W ITH KOLKATA PORT TRUST FOR A FRESH PERIOD OF 15 YEARS IN RESPECT OF LAND SITUATED AT C GS KOLKATA AND W&D (I.E LAST 2 ITEMS IN THE AFORESAID TABLE) FOR WHICH IT HAD CLAIMED A SUM OF RS 16,09,686/- AND RS 6,91,893/- RESPECTIVELY AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE AFOR ESAID TABLE. THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TERM RENT AND PREMIUM. HE ARGUED THAT THE PAYMENT MADE FOR GETTING INTO A PREMISES IS CALLED PREMIUM. HE ARGUED THAT THE PAYMENT MADE FOR USING THE PREMISES IS CALLED RENT . ADMITTEDLY, THE PAYMENTS MADE DURING THE YEAR CONTAINS PAYMENT TOWARDS LEASE RENT FOR FRESH LEASE AND FOR EXISTING LEASES. OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT NEED TO BE GIVEN FOR BOTH IN THE LIGHT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TERM RENT AND PREMIUM A S THE SAID DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN DULY NOTED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS PANBARI TEA COMPANY LTD REPORTED IN 57 ITR 422 (SC). IN THE ABSENCE OF PR OPER FINDING IN THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WITH REGARD TO THE SAME, WE DEEM IT FIT AND APPROPRIATE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIRPLAY, TO REMAND THIS ISSUE TO TH E FILE OF LD AO FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE AFRESH AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO ADVANCE FRESH ARGUMENTS AND ADDUCE FRESH EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E FOR THE ASST YEAR 2010-11 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 18 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 18 9. DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8 D OF THE RULES GROUND NO. 4 OF ASSESSEE APPEAL FOR ASST YEAR 2010- 11 ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 2 OF ASSESSEE APPEAL FOR ASST YEAR 2010-11 AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IN RESPECT OF THIS ISSUE CONTESTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A O F THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND DOES NOT INVOLVE VERIFICATION OF FACTS AND HENCE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APE X COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD CASE REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383 (SC), WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJUDI CATION. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DERIVED EXEMPT INCOME IN THE FORM OF DIVIDEND TO THE TUNE OF RS 1,37,01,000/- AND HAD MADE SUO MOTO DISA LLOWANCE OF EXPENSES U/S 14A OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS 9,67,000/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD AO HOWEVER INVOKED RULE 8D(2) OF THE RULES AND MADE DISALLOWAN CE UNDER SECOND AND THIRD LIMB THEREON TO THE TUNE OF RS 36,90,606/- , FROM WHICH HE REDUCED RS 9,67,000/- AND MADE EFFECTIVE DISALLOWANCE OF RS 27,23,606/-. THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS AT ITS DISPOSAL WHICH WERE MUCH MORE THAN THE INVESTMENTS MADE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN ANY CASE, ONLY DIVIDEND BEAR ING INVESTMENTS ALONE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILE MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D( 2) OF THE RULES. IT WAS SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT FOREIGN INVESTMENTS HELD BY THE ASSESS EE COMPANY SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS THE DIVIDEND FROM THE SAME, IF ANY, WOULD BE TAXABL E AS PER THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE LD CITA DIRECTED THE LD AO TO EXCLUDE THE FOREIGN INVESTMEN TS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THAT REGARD AND S USTAINED THE REMAINING DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD AO. WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAD ALREADY HELD THAT ONLY DIVIDEND BEARING INVESTMENTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PU RPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE 19 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 19 DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECOND AND THIRD LIMB OF RULE 8D (2) OF THE RULES. IN THE INSTANT CASE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS HAVING SUFFICIE NT OWN FUNDS , BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD REPORTED IN 313 ITR 340 (BOM), WE DIRECT THE LD AO NOT TO MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UNDER SECOND LIMB OF RULE 8D(2) OF THE RULES. WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THIRD LIMB OF RULE 8D(2) OF THE RULES, IN CONSONANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO L TD REPORTED IN 144 ITD 141 , WE DIRECT THE LD AO TO CONSIDER ONLY INVESTMENTS (EXCLUDING F OREIGN INVESTMENTS) THAT HAD YIELDED DIVIDEND INCOME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR WORKING OU T THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THIRD LIMB OF RULE 8D(2) OF THE RULES. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 4 OF ORIGINAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ASSESSEE APPEAL FOR ASST YEAR 2010-11 AND ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 2 OF ASSESSEE APPEAL FOR ASST YEAR 2010-11 IS PARTLY ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. THE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASST YEAR 2011-12 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDIC ATION. 11. THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASST YEAR 2011-12 IS SIMILAR TO GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASST YEAR 2010-11 A ND THE DECISION RENDERED THEREON WOULD APPLY WITH EQUAL FORCE FOR ASST YEAR 2011-12 ALSO EXCEPT WITH VARIANCE IN FIGURES . 12. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ASST Y EAR 2011-12 IS SIMILAR TO GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ASST YEAR 2010-11 AN D THE DECISION RENDERED THEREON WOULD APPLY WITH EQUAL FORCE FOR ASST YEAR 2011-12 ALSO EXCEPT WITH VARIANCE IN FIGURES. 20 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 20 13. THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ASST Y EAR 2011-12 IS SIMILAR TO GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ASST YEAR 2010-11 AN D THE DECISION RENDERED THEREON WOULD APPLY WITH EQUAL FORCE FOR ASST YEAR 2011-12 ALSO EXCEPT WITH VARIANCE IN FIGURES . 14. THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ASST Y EAR 2011-12 IS SIMILAR TO GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ASST YEAR 2010-11 AN D THE DECISION RENDERED THEREON WOULD APPLY WITH EQUAL FORCE FOR ASST YEAR 2011-12 ALSO EXCEPT WITH VARIANCE IN FIGURES . 15. THE GROUND NO. 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASST YEAR 2011-12 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 16. TO SUM UP, ITA NO. APPEAL BY ASST YEAR RESULT 496/KOL/2014 REVENUE 2010-11 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES 483/KOL/2014 ASSESSEE 2010-11 ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES 471/KOL/2016 REVENUE 2011-12 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES 421/KOL/2016 ASSESSEE 2011-12 ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 05.09 .2018 SD/- SD/- [A.T. VARKEY] [ M.BALAGANESH ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 05.09.2018 SB, SR. PS 21 ITA NOS.421&471/KOL/2016 ITA NOS.483&496/KOL/ 2014 BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 21 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD., 21, NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD , KOLKATA-700001. 2. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA, AAYKAR BHAVAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-69. 3. C.I.T(A)- 4. C.I.T.- KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVAT E SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O., ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHE S