DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar V. M/s. Mesco Logistics Ltd., Bhubaneswar

ITA 555/CTK/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 55522114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K DASH
• Assessee Lawyers: S C BHADRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 548/CTK/2013 : (ASST. YEAR : 2008 - 09) M/S. MESCO LOGISTICS LIMITED 3915, MESCO TOWER, KEDAR GOURI SQUARE, LEWIS ROAD, BHUBANESWAR PAN : AACCM1344A (APPELLANT) VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), BHUBANESWAR (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 555/CTK/2013 : (ASST. YEAR : 2008 - 09) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), BHUBANESWAR (APPELLANT) VS. M/S. MESCO LOGISTICS LIMITED 3915, MESCO TOWER, KEDAR GOURI SQUARE, LEWIS ROAD, BHUBANESWAR PAN : AACCM1344A (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S.C. BHADRA REVENUE BY : P.K. DASH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 01/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 /06/2014 O R D E R PER P.K. BANSAL : 1. TH E S E CROSS - APPEAL S HA VE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), BERHAMPUR DT. 9.9.2013 FOR A.Y 2008 - 09. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL HAS TAK E N THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND, ON FACT IN ADDING TO THE INCOME A SUM OF RS.6,13,91,123/ - AND, HOLDING THE SAME AS THE AMOUNT OF INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MISCONCEIVED ASSUMPTION THAT, SUM REFLECTED IN T.D.S. CERTIFICATE (FORM 16A) ISSUED BY M/S MIDEAST INTEGRATED STEELS LIMITED REPRESENTS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS 2 ITA NOS. 548 & 555/CTK/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2008 - 09) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION APPELLANT COMPANY HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 6.00 CRORES FOR ONWARD PAYMENT TO TRANSPORTERS OF M/S MIDEAST INTEGRATED STEELS LIMITED AND WAS THUS NOT INCOME OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) AFTER BEING SATISFIED THAT THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF PROFIT ON ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM MIDEAST INTEGRATED STEELS LIMITED, ON SURMISE AND CONJECTURE ESTIMATED PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 8% ON ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM MIDEAST INTEGRATED STEELS LIMITED AND ADDED TO THE TO TAL INCOME DISCLOSED. WHILE THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN ESTIMATING INCOME ONLY AT RS .1,00,08,000/ - @ 8% OF RS.12,51,00,000/ - , WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD SUPPRESSED THE IMPUGNED RECEIPTS AND THEREFORE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE INCOME. THUS THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ENHANCED THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE AO. 2. ON THE FACTS A ND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO COMPARE THE CLOSING BANK BALANCE (RS.97,07,409/) WITH ESTIMATED INCOME OF RS.1,00,08,000/ - @ 8% OF RECEIPTS OF RS.12,51,00,000/ - WITHOUT BRINGING ANY ELEMENTARY FACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN OVERLOOKING THE ISSUES OF ONE TDS CERTIFICATE TO MESCO LOGISTICS BY MISL WHICH IS FOR ONLY OF RS.6,13,91,123/ - AGAINST GROSS PAYMENT MADE BY MISL OF RS.12,51,00,000/ - TO MESCO LOGISTI C LTD. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE RECEIPTS, RECEIVED THROUGH ITS BANK ACCOUNTS, WHICH WAS NOT SHOWN IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. 5. ON THE F ACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IGNORING THE FACT THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS MISL BEING THE SISTER CONCERN ARE DOING TRANSACTIONS OUTSIDE BOOKS TO DERIVE MUTUAL BENEFIT AND AVOID TAX. 2. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 4 IN ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 3 ITA NOS. 548 & 555/CTK/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2008 - 09) 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CONSULTANCY. THE AO NOTED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM FORM 16A FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN RESPECT OF INCOME OF RS.59,50,000/ - FROM PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES, TDS AMOUNTING TO R S.5,42,57 5 / - WAS DEDUCTED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED TDS FOR A SUM OF RS.13,91,123/ - FOR WHICH THERE WAS A SEPARATE FORM 16A IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.6,13,91,123/ - . THE SAID TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED U/S 194C. THE SAID AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN CREDITED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. WHEN INQUIRED, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TDS OF RS.13,91,123/ - WAS INCORRECTLY DEDUCTED BY THE SISTER CONCERN NAMELY MIDEAST INTEGRATED STEELS LTD. (MISL). SINCE MISL COULD NOT GET REFUND OF THE TDS IT ISSU ED CERTIFICATE IN FORM 16A AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CREDIT OF THE SAID TDS. THE AO TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.6,13,91,123/ - TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 198. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). C IT(A) REDUCED THE ADDITION TO RS. 1,00,08,000/ - BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATTER AND GONE THROUGH THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE A O MADE THE ADDITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF FORM NO.16A FILED BY THE APPELLANT. WHILE THE AO CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY MISL TO THE APPELLANT IS OF A NATURE OF SUB - CONTRACT PAYMENT, HE CHOSE TO BRING THE ENTIRE R ECEIPT TO TAX WITHOUT BRINGING ANYTHING ON RECORD AS TO WHY THE ENTIRE RECEIPT IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD OR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO INDICATE THAT THE A O EXAMINED THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN MISL AND THE APPELLA NT. ON THE OTHER HAND, AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AND AS VERIFIED BY THE A O IN THE REMAND PROCEEDING, THE TOTAL PAYMENT MADE BY MISL TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR WORKS OUT TO ` 1 2,51,00,000/ - OUT OF WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS DISBURSED TO VARIOUS PARTIE S AN AMOUNT OF ` 11,53,92,591/ - LEAVING A BALANCE OF ` 97,07,409/ - AT THE END OF THE YEAR. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT IT WAS ONLY FACILITATING PAYMENTS AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE BILLS ON BEHALF OF MISL AND HENCE THERE WAS NO ELEMENT OF INCOME IN THE GROS S RECEIPT OF ` 12,51,00,000/ - . WHILE THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WHICH STAND VERIFIED BY THE AO APPEAR TO BE PRIMA FACIE CORRECT AND THE PAYMENTS AS AVAILABLE IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN MADE TO VARIOUS TRANSPORTERS INCLUDING SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAYS, I AM UNABLE TO PERSUADE MYSELF THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTE NO ELEMENT OF INCOME IN THE GROSS RECEIPT. WHILE I DO 4 ITA NOS. 548 & 555/CTK/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2008 - 09) NOT FIND THE A O S APPROACH IN BRINGING TO TAX THE ENTIRE RECEIPT AFTER HAVING ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE SAID IS TOWARDS A CONTRACT PAYMENT AND WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE ENTIRE RECEIPT CONSTITUTES AN INCOME AND THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SPENT ANY AMOUNT IN RELATION TO THIS RECEIPT, I AM EQUALLY UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT THAT THIS ENTIRE WORK OF VERIFYING THE BILLS AND MAKING TH E PAYMENT ON BEHALF OF MISL WAS DONE BY THE APPELLANT COMPLETELY FREE OF COST. PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER INDICATES THAT APART FROM PAYMENT TO TRANSPORTERS, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO MADE PAYMENT TO VARIOUS PARTIES TOWARDS EXPENSES RELATING TO HOUSING COLONY OF MI SL. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THE TDS IN ITS RETURN. IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND ALSO IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS GRUDGINGLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT EVEN IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF INCOME, THE SAME CANNOT BE EQUAL TO THE GROSS RECEIPTS. IN VIEW OF THE SAME AND CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTS OF THE CASE, I FIND IT PROPER DIRECT THAT THE INCOME FROM THE APPELLANT FROM THESE TRANSACTIONS SHOULD BE ESTIMATED AT 8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS I.E. ` 1,00,08,000/ - . THIS AMOUNT IS ALSO CLOSE TO THE AMOUNT OF 97,07,409/ - , WHICH IS LEFT WITH THE APPELLANT AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE A O IS ACCORDINGLY SUSTAINED AT ` 1 ,00,08,000/ - . THE APPELLANT THUS GETS A RELIEF OF ` 5,13,83,123 / - . 4. TO THE EXTENT THE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED BY CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL AND TO THE EXTENT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED, THE REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL. THEREFORE, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 5. THE LD. AR BEFO RE US REITERATED THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING CONSULTANCY SERVICES TO MIDEAST INTEGRATED STEEL LTD. (MISL) AS PER AGREEMENT DT. 1.4.2006 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND MISL, A COPY OF WHICH WAS FI LED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PG. 46 TO 50. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CONSULTANCY FEES AT RS. 59,50,000/ - WHICH WAS OFFERED TO TAX. FOR THIS OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PG. 33 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.12,01,00,000/ - FOR ONWARD PAYMENT TO TRANSPORTERS OF MISL AND THE ASSESSEE DULY PAID THE AMOUNT TO THE TRANSPORTERS ON BEHALF OF MISL IN F.Y 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 AND AFTER MAKING THE PAYMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, OUT OF RS.12,01,00,000/ - A SUM OF RS. 97,07,409/ - REMAINED AT THE END OF F.Y 2007 - 08. FOR THIS OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWARDS 5 ITA NOS. 548 & 555/CTK/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2008 - 09) PG. 37 - 41 AS WELL AS PG. 42 - 45 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE SIMPLY RECEIVED THE AMOUNT FOR INCURRING TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE ON BEHALF OF MISL. IN FACT, MISL HAD INCURRED EXPENDITUR E FOR FREIGHT @ RS.41,67,39,998/ - WHICH IS MORE THAN RS.12,01,00,000/ - PAID THROUGH THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT YEAR. M/S. MISL ERRONEOUSLY DEDUCTED TDS AMOUNTING TO RS.13,91,123/ - ON A SUM OF RS.6 CRORES REMITTED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON 25.3.2008 AND NOT AT THE TIME OF REMITTANCE. ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWARDS TDS CERTIFICATE AVAILABLE AT PG. 35 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY INCOME OF RS.6,13,91,123/ - . MISL HAD WRONGLY DEDUCTED TDS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. MISL COULD NOT GET THE REFUND AND THEREFORE IT ISSUED TDS CERTIFICATE TO THE ASSESSEE SO THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY GET CREDIT FOR THE SAME. THE AO OVERLOOK ED THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION AS WELL AS THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSE E AS PER LEDGER ACCOUNT OF MISL IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SUM OF RS.12,01,00,000/ - FOR MAKING PAYMENT TO TRANSPORTERS OF MISL. ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS. 1 1 , 0 3,92,591/ - TO THE TRANSPORTERS ON BEHALF OF MISL AND RS. 97,07,409/ - BALANCE REMAINED AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THIS BALANCE WAS CARRIED FORWARD IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR AND AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED. THE SUM OF RS. 6 CRORES WAS OUT OF REMITTANCE OF RS. 12,01,00,000/ - RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT FOR MAKING PAYMENT TO THE TRANSPORTERS. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CARRY ON TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF KEDARNATH JUTE MFG. CO. LTD. V. CIT , 82 ITR 363 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO A PARTICULAR DEDUCTION OR NOT WILL DEPEND ON THE PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING THERETO AND NOT ON THE VIEW WHICH THE ASSESSEE MIGHT TAKE OF HIS R IGHTS NOR CAN THE EXISTENCE OR ABSENCE OF ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BE DECISIVE OR CONCLUSIVE IN THE MATTER. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD. V S. CIT REPORTED IN 227 ITR 6 ITA NOS. 548 & 555/CTK/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2008 - 09) 172. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED SUM OF RS. 6 CRORES. UNTIL AND UNLESS THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED THE INCOME, IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. MISL HAS NOT CLAIMED SUCH PAYMENT TO BE EXPENDITURE BUT HAS SIMPLY SHOWN THE REMITTANCE AS ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. FOR THIS ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWARDS COPY OF ACCOUNTS IN THE BOOKS OF MISL. THE AO WITHOUT LOOKING TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TRANSACTION TREATED THE SUM OF RS. 6, 1 3, 91 , 123 / - TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT MISL HAS CORRECTLY DEDUCTED TDS. ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON TECHNICAL BASIS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE REVISED FORM 16A WAS FILED BY MISL BY SHOWING GROSS BILL AMOUNT ON WHICH THE TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT RS. 13,91,123/ - AND TDS AMOUNT HAS ALSO BEEN SHOWN AT RS.13,91,123/ - . CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT CORRECT TO TREAT GROSS RECEIPT OF RS. 12,51,00,000/ - RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MISL TOWARDS BUSINESS CONSIDERATION AND ESTIMATING INCOME THEREON @ 8% AMOUNTING TO RS.1,00,08,000/ - STAT ING THEREIN THAT THE SAID SUM IS CLOSE TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.97,07,409/ - . IF THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF INCOME, IT CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. U/S 4 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IT IS ONLY THE REAL INCOME WHICH IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX. 6. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 198 & 199 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE GOT CREDIT FOR THE TDS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE SUM OF RS.6,13,91,123/ - TO BE ITS INCOME. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDER OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE MONEY FROM MISL FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT TO THE TRANSPORTERS ON THEIR BEHALF. THE EXPENSES SO PAID ARE DULY DEBITED BY MISL IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING RUNNING ACCOUNT ON BEHALF OF MISL. IN FACT, MISL WAS INCURRING THE TRANSPORT CHARGES THROUGH THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS ON MAKING 7 ITA NOS. 548 & 555/CTK/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2008 - 09) THE PAYMENT TO THE TRANSPORTER ON BEHALF OF MISL. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT MISL COMMITTED DEFAULT IN NOT DEDUCTING TDS IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE TRANSPORTERS THROUGH ASSESSEE . THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION IS APPARENT FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF MISL AND COPY OF ACCOUNTS OF MISL IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CLEARLY DEPI CTS THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY MISL TO THE ASSESSEE NOT FOR TRANSPORT CHARGES BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCURRING THE EXPENDITURE ON THEIR BEHALF. REIMBURSEMENT OR INCURRING OF THE EXPENDITURE ON THEIR BEHALF WILL NOT TANTAMOUNT TO BE THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. IF MISL HAS WRONGLY DEDUCTED TDS ON THE PART OF THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, IT WILL NOT BECOME THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTED THAT TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MISL HAS BEEN REVISED AND TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 13,91,123/ - WAS DULY RETURNED. AT THE MOST, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 198 THE SUM OF RS.13,91,123/ - COULD BE TREATED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DEDUCT THE TDS IN RESPECT OF TRANSPORT CHARGES WHIC H THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ON BEHALF OF MISL FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE GOT PAYMENT FROM MISL. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND REDUCE THE ADDITION TO RS.13,91,123/ - . 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED WHILE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN PURSUANCE OF RULE 34(4) OF ITAT RULES, 1963 BY PUTTING ON NOTICE BOARD OF THE BENCH AT CUTTACK ON 1 3 /06/2014. S D / - (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER S D / - (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI DATED : 1 3 /06/2014 *SSL* 8 ITA NOS. 548 & 555/CTK/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2008 - 09) COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT CONCERNED (4) CIT(A) CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER