DCIT, CIR-32, KOLKATA, Kolkata V. M/s SPML CISC (JV), Kolkata

ITA 635/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9426 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAJJAN KUMAR TULSIYAN ASSES
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Additional evidence
• Section: 142(1); 145

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 635/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 635/KOL/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,................. ............APPELLANT CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA, 10B, MIDDLETON ROW, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 071 -VS.- M/S. SPML CISC (JV),............................... ........................RESPONDENT 22, CAMAC STREET, KOLKATA-700 016 [PAN: AACAS 4605 G] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DE PARTMENT SHRI SAJJAN KUMAR TULSIYAN, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSES SEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JANUARY 02, 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 03, 2017 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. .: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIX, KOLKATA D ATED 15.01.2014 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (1)ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REVERSING ASSESSING OFFICERS DECISION TO REJECT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATE THE PROFIT AT A CERT AIN PERCENTAGE OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. (2)ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT NO SUFFICIENT AND SPECIFIC FINDINGS WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD WHICH COULD HAVE WARRANTED REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. (3)ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT NON-FURNISHING OF DETAILS O F SUNDRY CREDITORS IN A PROPER WAY WAS NOT SUFFICIENT REASON S TO REJECT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. I.T.A. NO. 635/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 2 OF 7 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A JOINT VENT URE BETWEEN M/S. SPML AND M/S. CISC LIMITED FOR CARRYING OUT SOME WO RKS CONTRACT JOINTLY. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON WAS FILED BY IT ON 08.02.2010 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.1,36,71,480/-. DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROD UCE THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, INASMUCH AS THE ADDRESSES OF SOME OF THE CREDITORS WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DETAILS OF ONLY 106 CREDITORS COUL D BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF TOTAL 155 CREDITORS APPEARING IN TH E LIST. ON THE BASIS OF THIS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REJECTING THE SAME BY INVOKING THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 145(3), HE PROCEEDED TO DETERMINE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ESTIMATED BASIS. IN THIS REGARD, HE ESTIMATED THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BUSINESS OF EXECUTION OF WORKS CONTRACT BY APPLYING A G.P. RATE OF 5.15% AND DETERMINED THE LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,01,02,822/- IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/144 O F THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2011. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 143(3)/144, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF T HE BUSINESS OF EXECUTION OF WORKS CONTRACT BY APPLYING A HIGHER GR OSS PROFIT RATE OF 5.15%. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE ON THIS ISSUE, THE AS SESSEE MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSION IN WRITING BEFORE THE LD. CIT( APPEALS):- 2.1. WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEGAN VIDE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) IN AUGUST, 2011. HOWEVER, DETAILS OF CREDITORS WERE NOT REQUISITIONE D IN THE SAID NOTICE. LATER, IN COURSE OF HEARING IN NOVEMBER THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF CREDITORS. 2.2. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE COMPLETE BREAK-UP O F THE CREDITORS (PARTY-WISE) TOGETHER WITH THEIR ADDRESSE S IN THE LAST WEEK OF NOVEMBER. IT WAS ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE C REDITORS OF RS.43,95,311/- THAT THE ADDRESSES COULD NOT BE PROV IDED BECAUSE I.T.A. NO. 635/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 3 OF 7 THE PROJECT (PERTAINING TO SUCH CREDITORS) GOT TERM INATED AND ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT (INCLUDING THE CREDITOR DETAIL S) HAD TO BE TRANSFERRED TO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. TO WORSEN THE S ITUATION THE CONCERNED ACCOUNTANT ALSO QUIT THE ORGANIZATION. 2.3. UNDER THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT PRODUCE THE ADDRESSES OF THE BALANCE CREDITORS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AO UNDER THE PRESSURE OF CONCLUDING ASSES SMENT WITHIN DECEMBER, CONCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT TO THE BEST OF H IS JUDGMENT, WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE AS SESSEE. 3.1. FROM THE FACTS STATED ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED, BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE, FROM PRODUCING THE SAID DETAILS. FURTHER, EVEN THE AO, BEING UNDER THE PRES SURE OF CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT, DID NOT PROVIDE FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ENABLE HIM TO PRODUCE THE BALANCE DETAILS. 3.2. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE DETAILS OF CREDITORS (ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-II) BE A DMITTED AT THIS STAGE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED BELOW: '46A. (1) THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PR ODUCE BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE M AY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ANY EVIDENCE, WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HI M DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, NAMELY:- (B) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER; OR (C) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO TH E APPELLANT TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL .' 3.2. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CIT(A) MA Y ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RU LES, 1962 IN CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPOR TUNITY BY THE AO AND IN CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFIC IENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE AS CALLED UPON BY THE A O. 3.3. THUS APPLYING THE SAID RULE TO THE FACTS OF TH E CASE IT IS CLEAR THAT DETAILS OF BALANCE CREDITORS PRODUCED AT THIS STAGE SHOULD BE ADMITTED UNDER RULE 46A. 4.1. FURTHER, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO IN REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) AND COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING THE AVERAGE GP RATIO OF THE INDUSTRY IS COMPLETELY UNJUSTIFIED. I.T.A. NO. 635/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 4 OF 7 4.2. WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE IT IS POINTED OUT TH AT ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS AUDITED AND IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y ADVERSE REMARK IN THE AUDITOR'S REPORT, THERE LIES A PRESUM PTION THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CORR ECT. THE SAME CANNOT BE REJECTED U/S 145(3) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING RECORDED BY THE AO THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE I NCORRECT RENDERING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DEDUCE PROFITS THEREFROM . IN OTHER WORDS, THE AO HAS THE ONUS OF PROVING THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INCORRECT AND INCOMP LETE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS:- (I) ITO-VS.- GIRISH M. MEHTA [296 ITR (AT) 125 (RAJKOT) ]; (II) EAGLE SYNTHETICS PVT. LIMITED VS.- ITO [8 ITR (TRI B.) 211(AHMEDABAD)]; (III) MADNANI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION P. LIMITED VS.- C IT [296 ITR 45 (GUWAHATI)]. 4. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSION M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS CITED IN SUPPORT, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND MERIT IN THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE D THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE BY ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS OF EXECUTION OF WORKS CONTRACT AT HIGHER RATE OF 5.15% FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRA PH NO. 10 AND 10.1 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- 10. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION OF TH E APPELLANT HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED IN THE DECIDING THE ISSUE AT HAND. THE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS SUBMITTED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE HAS BEEN DULY CONSIDERED AND ADMITTED SINCE IT IS APPAR ENT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PR ODUCING THE EVIDENCE AS CALLED UPON BY THE AO. I FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT POINTED ANY SPECIFIC DEFICIENCY IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT WARRANTING THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 145 OF THE AC T AND MORE SO SINCE IT IS POINTED OUT THAT ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELL ANT ARE AUDITED AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE REMARK IN THE AUD ITOR'S REPORT, THERE LIES A PRESUMPTION THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAIN TAINED BY THE APPELLANT IS CORRECT. THE SAME CANNOT BE REJECT ED U/S 145(3) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING RECORDED BY THE AO TH AT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE INCORRECT RENDERING IT IMPOSSIBLE T O DEDUCE PROFITS THEREFROM. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AO HAS THE O NUS OF PROVING THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E INCORRECT AND INCOMPLETE. THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION IS SQUAR ELY BACKED BY THE CASE OF MADNANI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION P. LTD . V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [296 ITR 45] WHEREIN THE HON'BLE I.T.A. NO. 635/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 5 OF 7 COURT HELD THAT 'THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT RECO RD ANY FINDING THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSE E WERE INCORRECT RENDERING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DEDUCE THE PRO FIT AND DESPITE THAT HE WENT ON TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT INVOKING THE PRINCIPLES OF BEST JUDGMENT. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER D ID NOT INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOTICED ANY INCONSISTENCY OR INFIRMITY IN THE AUDIT REPORT. ON THE OTHER HAND , THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE REPORT RELATING TO THE PRECEDI NG YEAR. 10.1. FAILURE OF THE APPELLANT TO GIVE DETAILS OF T HE SUNDRY CREDITORS MAY BE A GROUND FOR RAISING SUSPICION, BU T SUSPICION ALONE WAS NOT ENOUGH FOR INVOKING THE POWERS OF BES T JUDGMENT WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF MATERIALS. THE AO RELIED UPO N A PART OF A TRANSACTION FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR WHILE REJECTING THE OTHER. THIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. WITHOUT POINTING OU T ANY ERROR IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE AUDITED REPORT, THE POWERS OF BEST JUDGMENT CANNOT BE INVOKED BY ANY MEANS. IN VI EW OF THE MATTER AS DISCUSSED, I FIND THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND HENCE THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS COUNT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THEREFORE DELETED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT SPECIFIC DEFECTS WER E POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER RECORD MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WERE SUFFICIENT TO REJECT THE BOOK RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3). HE CONTENDED THAT ALTHOUGH THE SAID DEFECTS WERE CLAIM ED TO BE REMOVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE DETAI LS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WERE NOT CONFRONTED BY THE LD. CIT(A PPEALS) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNI TY TO VERIFY THE SAME. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE T HEREFORE SHOULD GO BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR GIVING HIM SUCH A N OPPORTUNITY. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS FOR THE ASSESSEES FAILURE TO FURNISH T HE COMPLETE DETAILS OF CREDITORS AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE DULY EXPLAINED BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATIO N THE SAME, THE I.T.A. NO. 635/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 6 OF 7 COMPLETE DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE WERE TAKEN ON RECORD BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BY EXERCISING THE PO WERS CONFERRED UPON HIM UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. HE CONT ENDED THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUND IN ITS APPEAL ALL EGING VIOLATION OF RULE 46A BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND, THEREFORE, THE ARG UMENTS RAISED BY THE LD. D.R. SEEKING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO VERIFY THE RELEVANT DETAILS OF THE CREDITORS CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. HE CONTENDED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE SO-CALLED DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AS REGARDS THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE CREDITORS WAS NOT A MATERIAL DEFECT TO JUSTIFY THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN REMOVED BY THE ASS ESSEE BY FILING THE RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE A CTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALS O PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERV ED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE CREDITORS AS REQUIRED BY HIM AND THERE WAS NO O THER DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOU NT. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MADNANI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION PVT. LIMITED (SUPRA) CITED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE DETAILS OF THE SUND RY CREDITORS MAY BE A GROUND FOR RAISING SUSPICION, BUT SUSPICION ALONE I S NOT ENOUGH FOR INVOKING THE POWERS OF BEST JUDGMENT. MOREOVER, THE RELEVANT DETAILS AS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF SUNDR Y CREDITORS WERE COMPLETELY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND AFTER HAVING SATISFIED WITH THE REASONS EXPLAINED B Y THE ASSESEE FOR NOT FURNISHING THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ADMITT ED THE SAME ON RECORD AND ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY RELYIN G ON THE SAME. I.T.A. NO. 635/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 7 OF 7 ALTHOUGH THE LD. D.R. HAS RAISED AN ARGUMENT THAT T HERE IS A VIOLATION OF RULE 46A BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), INASMUCH AS, NO O PPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY HIM TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAID DETAILS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO GROUND SPECIFICALLY RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL ALLEGING VIOLATION OF RULE 46A BY THE LD. CIT(APPEA LS). EVEN OTHERWISE THE DEFECT AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGA RDING THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS NOT BEING MATERIAL OR SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE REJECT ION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS HELD BY THE HONBLE G UWAHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MADNANI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION P. LIM ITED (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS FULLY JUST IFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ESTIMATIN G THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BUSINESS OF EXECUTION OF WORKS CO NTRACT BY APPLYING HIGHER G.P. RATE OF 5.15%. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FEBRUARY 03, 2017. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER KOLKATA, THE 3 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 COPIES TO : (1) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA, 10B, MIDDLETON ROW, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 071 (2) M/S. SPML CISC (JV), 22, CAMAC STREET, KOLKATA-700 016 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XIX, KOLKA TA; (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,KOLKAT A (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.