DCIT, Circle-14(2), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 483/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6029 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR A K NAYAK
• Assessee Lawyers: SAURABH BAGARIA ADV B R DUTTA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 80IA; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. NO. 316/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.................... APPELLANT [PAN : AAACW 4115 F] VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-11, KOLKATA........................... RESPONDENT I.T.A. NO. 483/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(2), KOLKATA....................... APPELLANT VS. M/S. WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.................RESPONDENT [PAN : AAACW 4115 F] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SAURABH BAGARIA, ADV., B.R. DUTTA, FCA & RITESH GOEL, ADV., APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. DR. A.K. NAYAK, CIT, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : SEPTEMBER 11 TH , 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : SEPTEMBER 20 TH , 2019 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY FOR SHORT) 2012-13 DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 4, KOLKATA [CIT(A) FOR SHORT] DATED 12.12.2017. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO. 316/KOL/2018. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS WRONG IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR RS.4,45,81,402 U/S 80IA. 2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CONTENTION RAISED IN GROUND NO. 1 ABOVE, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT AND THUS HE WAS WRONG IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ALLEGEDLY NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WAS WRONG IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 144,09,65,651 BEING INTEREST EARNED ON FIXED DEPOSITS WHICH HAD 2 I.T.A. NOS. 316 & 483/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BEEN REDUCED BY THE APPELLANT FROM ITS PROJECT COST. 4. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CONTENTION RAISED IN GROUND NO. 3 ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE NEXUS OF INTEREST EARNED ON FIXED DEPOSITS WITH THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT AND THUS HE WAS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 144,09,65,651 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 WHICH ARE ON THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT) ARE DISMISSED IN VIEW OF THE FINDING OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER AY 2011-12 IN ITA NO. 246/KOL/2017. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN, WHILE DISPOSING OFF GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE APPEAL FOR THE AY 2011-12, WE DISMISS THESE GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 ARE ON THE TAXABILITY OF INTEREST OF FIXED DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND STATING THAT, IT HAS OFFERED THIS INCOME TO TAX AND HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF THIS AMOUNT BY THE AO WOULD RESULT IN DOUBLE TAXATION. 5. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DEALT BY US WHILE DISPOSING OFF GROUND NO. 3 IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE AY 2011-12. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS PER THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY US WHILE DISPOSING OFF THIS ISSUE FOR AY 2011-12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. GROUND NO. 5 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. 7. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE AY 2012-13 IN ITA NO. 483/KOL/2018. GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-5, KOLKATA ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE ADDITION MADE ON INTEREST ON INVESTMENT IN TREASURY ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS. 24,34,806/- BY THE AO. 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-5, KOLKATA ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE ADDITION MADE ON LICENSE FEES AMOUNTING TO RS . 3.10 LAC BY THE AO. 3. THE LD. CIT(A)-5, KOLKATA ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE ADDITION MADE ON EXCESS LIABILITY AMOUNTING TO RS. 23,45,68,791/- BY THE AO. 4. THE LD. CIT(A)-5, KOLKATA ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE ADDITION MADE ON BOGUS LIABILITY AMOUNTING TO RS. 12.11 LAC BY THE AO. 5. THAT THE DEPARTMENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND/OR ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE CASE. 3 I.T.A. NOS. 316 & 483/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 8. GROUND NO. 1 IS ON THE ADDITION MADE OF INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS IN TREASURY ACCOUNTS. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY US WHILE ADJUDICATING GROUND NO. 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO FOR SHORT) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. GROUND NO. 2 IS ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,10,000/-. THE LD. CIT(A) AT PARA 18 PAGE 13 OF THE ORDER HELD AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND GROUNDS RAISED BY THE LD. A/R OF THE APPELLANT. LD. A/R MADE SUBMISSION THAT SINCE THERE HAD NOT BEEN ANY CERTAINTY ABOUT REALISATION OF THE LICENCE FEES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3.10 LAC, THE SAID AMOUNT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. CONSIDERING THE UNCERTAINTY OF REALIZATION OF THE FEE, CONTENTION OF THE LD. A/R IS ACCEPTED AND ADDITION MADE BY A.O. FOR RS. 3.10 LAC IN THIS REGARD IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AND GROUND OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS BEHALF IS ALLOWED. 10. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME. HENCE WE DISMISS THIS GROUND NO. 2. 11. GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 ARE ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS LIABILITY AMOUNTING TO RS. 23,45,68,793/- AND BOGUS LIABILITY AMOUNTING TO RS. 12.11 LAKHS. THE FACTS AS STATED BY THE AO IN THE STATEMENT ON FACTS SUBMITTED BY HIM ARE AS FOLLOWS: 'IN AUDITOR'S REPORT IT IS FOUND IN PARA 5(E) (I) THAT AUDITOR HAS POINTED OUT THAT RS. 2345.69 LACS WHICH REPRESENT APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BUT NOT ADJUSTED /REFUNDED AND IN ABSENCE OF PROPER RECONCILIATION OF APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED, AMOUNT TRANSFERRED TO ALLOTMENT ACCOUNT FOR SUCCESSFUL ALLOT TEES AND REFUNDED TO UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS, THE AFORESAID LIABILITY COULD NOT BE VOUCHED FOR. THE ASSESSEE IS ASKED TO OFFER HIS EXPLANATION WHY THE AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE ADDED BACK AS EXCESS LIABILITY SHOWN BY THE COMPANY. IN THE REPLY DATED 19.02.2015 IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE BEING A LARGE NUMBER OF SUCH CASES PROPER RECONCILIATION NEEDS TO BE DONE BEFORE THE PROCESS OF ADJUSTMENT OR REFUND AND AT PRESENT RECONCILIATION PROCESS IS CONTINUING AND APPROPRIATION ACTION WILL BE TAKEN ONCE THE RECONCILIATION IS COMPLETE. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TILL SUCH TIME LIABILITY IS REAL AND EXISTING AND HENCE THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY AD HOC ADD BACK TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THIS LIABILITY. FROM THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS CLEARLY REVEALED THAT ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT RECONCILIATION PROCESS IS STILL GOING ON AND APPROPRIATE ACTION WILL BE TAKEN ONLY AFTER THE RECONCILIATION PROCESS IS COMPLETE. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES HOW THE ASSESSEE ARRIVED AT THE FIGURE OF RS.23,45,68,791/-WITHOUT COMPLETING THE RECONCILIATION PROCESS. THE AUDITOR HAS CLEARLY POINTED OUT THAT IN ABSENCE OF PROPER RECONCILIATION SUCH LIABILITY COULD NOT BE VOUCHED FOR. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.23,45,68,791/- IS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME AS EXCESS LIABILITY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. PENAL PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1) (C) OF THE IT ACT IS INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME.' 4 I.T.A. NOS. 316 & 483/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 12. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO RECONCILE THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION. HE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT, EVEN IF THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN EARLIER YEARS, THESE CAN BE BROUGHT TAX IN THE CURRENT YEAR, IF THE GENUINENESS OF THE AMOUNTS WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE EARLIER YEAR. IN OTHER WORDS, HE SUBMITS THAT, IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CREDITS ARE EXAMINED, THEY CAN BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS. FOR THIS PROPOSITION HE RELIED ON THE CASE LAWS IN THE CASES OF C. PACKIRISAMY VS. ACIT REPORTED IN [2009] 315 ITR 293 (MADRAS), CIT VS. ANUPAM UDYOG REPORTED IN [1983] 142 ITR 133 (PATNA), CIT VS. ASHOK TIMBER INDUSTRIES REPORTED IN [1980] 125 ITR 336 (CALCUTTA) AND [1984] CIT VS. MANSURALI VALIBHAI DUDHANI REPORTED IN [1984] 148 ITR 526 (GUJARAT) . HE REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT, THERE IS NO BASIS ON WHICH HE CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION WERE RECEIVED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. TO A QUERY FROM THE BENCH AS TO THE SECTION UNDER WHICH THE AO MADE THE ADDITION THE LD. CIT(DR) SUBMITTED THAT AN ADDITION CAN BE MADE WITHOUT QUOTING ANY PARTICULAR SECTION AND THAT HE HAS AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT THIS VIEW. ON A FURTHER QUERY FROM THE BENCH HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS THE ADDITION IN QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN MADE U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES APPLICATION MONEY FROM VARIOUS INTENDING BUYERS OF LANDS AND FLATS. THIS AMOUNT RECEIVED IS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE MONEY IN RECEIVABLE FROM ACTUAL ALLOTTEES. THE BALANCE IN QUESTION, AS PER THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IS TO BE REFUNDED TO THE UNSUCCESSFUL ALLOTTEES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT RECONCILIATION IS AN ONGOING PROCESS AND ONCE THE RECONCILIATION IS COMPLETED, THE AMOUNTS WOULD EITHER BE ADJUSTED OR REFUNDED. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE LIABILITY OF RS, 23,45,68,791/- WAS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THE EARLIER YEARS AND IS NOT A NEW RECEIPT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 RELEVANT TO THE AY 2012-13. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT INVOKED ANY SECTION UNDER THE ACT TO MAKE THE ADDITION. HENCE, HE ARGUED THAT THE ADDITION IS BAD IN LAW. HE DISTINGUISHED ALL THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(DR). 14. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 15. THE LD. CIT(A) AT PARA 21 PAGE 15 OF HIS ORDER HELD AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND GROUNDS RAISED BY THE LD. A/R OF THE APPELLANT. LD. 5 I.T.A. NOS. 316 & 483/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION A/R EXPLAINED THAT THE APPELLANT, IN NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, RECEIVES APPLICATION MONEY FROM VARIOUS INTENDED BUYERS OF LAND/FLATS AND AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF MONEY RECEIVED FROM ACTUAL ALLOTTEES, EXCESS AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS ARE REFUNDED AFTER RECONCILIATION. TILL THE TIME OF REFUND, THE SAID AMOUNT IS SHOWN UNDER LIABILITIES. LD. A/R ALSO MADE SUBMISSION THAT THE SAID LIABILITY HAD BEEN IN RELATION TO APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED IN EARLIER YEARS AND SUCH LIABILITIES WERE EXISTING AND THERE HAD NOT BEEN ANY CESSATION OF THOSE LIABILITIES IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BALANCE OF APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.23,45,68,791 HAD BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD FROM EARLIER YEARS AND THERE HAD NOT BEEN ANY NEW RECEIPT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12, RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2012-13. CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT AND IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSION, CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS ACCEPTABLE. HENCE, ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. FOR RS. 23,45,68,791/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION OF EXCESS LIABILITY IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AND GROUNDS OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS BEHALF ARE ALLOWED. 16. THE LD. CIT(DR) COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 23,45,68,791/- WAS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM EARLIER YEARS AND HAS NOT BEEN A NEW RECEIPT IN THE IMPUGNED FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12. THE LD. CIT(DR) CANNOT DISPUTE THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THESE ARGUMENTS, SPECIFICALLY, WHEN THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN DISLODGED WITH THE EVIDENCE BY THE LD. DR. 17. BE IT AS IT MAY, THE ADDITION IN QUESTION, ADMITTEDLY IS NOT MADE U/S 41(1). FROM THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(DR) WE GATHER THAT HE RELIES ON SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT OF OPENING BALANCES BROUGHT FORWARD FROM PREVIOUS YEARS. IN OUR VIEW SUCH ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS THE CREDIT IN QUESTION WAS NOT FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LAW ON THIS ISSUE IS CLEAR. 18. COMING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANSURALI VALIBHAI DUDHANI (SUPRA) IT WAS NOT A CASE OF BROUGHT FORWARD OF OPENING BALANCES BUT A CASE WHERE THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR. IT WAS A CREDIT DURING THE YEAR. HENCE THIS CASE LAW IS NOT APPLICABLE. SIMILAR IS THE JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF ANUPAM UDYOG (SUPRA) AS THE HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT WAS DEALING WITH THE CREDIT FOUND ON THE VERY FIRST DAY OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. HERE ALSO THIS WAS NOT A CREDIT RECEIVED IN AN EARLIER YEAR. 19. IN THE CASE OF ASHOK TIMBER INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) THE SAME PROPOSITION WAS LAID DOWN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THIS CASE LAW ALSO IS NOT OF CASH CREDITS WHICH 6 I.T.A. NOS. 316 & 483/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WERE RECEIVED IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS AND ARE OPENING BALANCES DURING THE YEAR. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF C. PACKIRISAMY (SUPRA) WAS REGARDING THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF OPENING CAPITAL AND HOW IT WAS ACCUMULATED OVER THE YEARS. IT WAS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAD OPENING BALANCE OF CAPITAL, WHICH THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT. 50% OF THIS AMOUNT OF OPENING CAPITAL CLAIMED WAS ADDED ON THE AD HOC BASIS. THE FACTS OF ALL THESE CASES ARE NOT SAME AS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE NONE OF THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(DR) ARE FOUND APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS ON HAND. 20. ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE THE SAME FOR THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS ALLOWABILITY OF RS. 12.11 LAKHS. 21. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 OF THE REVENUE. 22. GROUND NO. 5 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED IN PART. KOLKATA, THE 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- [S.S. GODARA] [J. SUDHAKAR REDDY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 20.09.2019 BIDHAN 7 I.T.A. NOS. 316 & 483/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HIDCO BHABAN, 35-1111, MAJOR ARTERIAL ROAD, NEW TOWN, KOLKATA-700 156. 2. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-11, KOLKATA. 3. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(2), KOLKATA . 4. CIT(A)- 4, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH MAIL) 5. CIT- 6. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH MAIL) TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES