ITO,Ward-10(4), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/S Electrical Manufacturing Company Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 638/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8137 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MAHAPATRA
• Assessee Lawyers: M P THARD; J M THARD
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence; Notional interest
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI, SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.638/KOL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(4), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 3 RD . FLOOR, ROOM NO.73, KOLKATA 700 069 V/S . ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD., 139B, B.T. ROAD, KAMARHATI, KOLKATA 700 038 [PAN: AAACE 7582J] (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) /BY APPELLANT SHRI A.K. MAHAPATRA, CIT-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI M.P. THARD & SHRI J.M. THARD, AR /DATE OF HEARING 27-08-2012 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25-09-2012 O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM:- THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE ARISING OUT OF TH E ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XII, KOLKATA (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 12-01-2012, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSES SMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR (A.Y) 2008-09 VIDE ORDER DATED 28-12-2010. 2. THE REVENUES APPEAL RAISES AS MANY AS SIX (6) G ROUNDS; THE SEVENTH BEING ONLY BY WAY OF A PRAYER FOR MODIFICATION OR SUBSTITUTION OR FRESH ADDITION TO THE GROUNDS RAISED PER THE MEMO OF APPEAL. THE SAME READ AS UND ER:- ITA NO.638/KOL/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 ITO WD-10(4), KOL V. ELECTRICAL MFG. CO. LTD. PAGE 2 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.74,41,82,2 54/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS AND ADVANCES REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASS ESSEE TO FURNISH NECESSARY DETAILS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,13,15,56 0/- BEING THE UNRECONCILED DIFFERENCE IN BANK BALANCES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE MADE DURIN G THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WAS NOT SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,46,52,88 8/- ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ON LOANS AND ADVANCES, IGNORING THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DIVERTED INTEREST BEARING FUNDS TOWARDS INTEREST FREE LOANS AND ADVANCES AND ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NOT PRODUC ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.18,03,214/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED ADDITION TO FIXED ASSETS, ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.45,19,550/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PRO-RATA INTEREST RELATING TO WORK IN-PROGRESS WITHOUT CONTR OVERTING THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,80,86,1 00/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED FRESH SHARE APPLICATION MONEY CREDITED TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THAT IT IS PRAYED THAT ADDITIONAL/FRESH GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND/OR MODIFICATION/SUBSTITUTION IN THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA NO.638/KOL/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 ITO WD-10(4), KOL V. ELECTRICAL MFG. CO. LTD. PAGE 3 3.1 AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. AR, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, SUBMITTED THAT HE WISHES TO RAISE A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION, FILING A NOTE TIT LED FACTS IN BRIEF AND THE RESPONDENTS SUBMISSIONS DATED 27-08-2012. IT WOUL D BE APPARENT, HE URGED, THAT THE REVENUES GROUNDS DO NOT CHALLENGE THE IMPUGNED ORD ER ON ITS MERITS BUT ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT THERE HAD BEEN A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE NECESSARY DETAILS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE/S BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER (AO) AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID MATERIAL FROM THE AO ON 01/4/2011, AND WHO FAILED T O RESPOND THERETO, DESPITE REMINDERS, EVEN UP TO 10-01-2012, WHEN THE APPEAL W AS FINALLY HEARD. THERE WAS ALSO NO REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER BY THE AO BEFORE THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, I.E., EVEN FOR EXTENSION OF TIME OR TOWARD THE REASONS FOR THE SAID DELAY. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS, AS WOULD AGAIN BE APPARENT, A HIGH DEMAND CASE AND, THEREFORE, HAD TO BE DECIDED ON A PRIORITY BASIS; IT FACING CONTINUOUS PRESSURE FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE CIT FOR AN EARLY DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. IT WAS UNDER THESE CI RCUMSTANCES THAT THE LD. CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO DECIDED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, AND WHI CH HE HAS DONE BY HIM ON MERITS, WHICH ARE NOT BEING QUESTIONED BY THE REVENUE. THE AO FAILING TO REPRESENT, AS WELL AS TO COMPLETE AND PRESENT THE REMAND REPORT, BEFOR E THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DESPITE BEING AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY TOWARD TH E SAME, IT DOES NOT NOW LIE IN THE MOUTH OF THE REVENUE TO ASSAIL THE ACCEPTANCE OF TH E ASSESSES CASE BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, INCLUDING THE MATERIALS FURNIS HED BY IT BEFORE HIM. THE REVENUES APPEAL, THEREFORE, DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE , HE AVERRED. ON BEING QUERIED BY THE BENCH TO EXHIBIT THAT THE REMAND REPORT STOOD I N FACT CALLED FOR BY THE LD. CIT(A) FROM THE AO AS FAR BACK AS ON 01-04-2011, THE LD. A R DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF THE LETTER OF EVEN DATE, WHICH STANDS ANNEXED TO HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 27- 08-2012. 3.2 THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD, IN RESPON SE TO THE SAID PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BY THE LD. AR, SUBMIT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD FAILED TO OBSERVE THE PROCEDURE AS LAID DOWN UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES , 1962 (THE RULES HEREINAFTER), AND WHICH ARE MANDATORY, SO THAT IT WAS INCUMBENT O N HIM TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE AS PRESCRIBED THEREBY. THE SAID RULE CONTEMPLATES THRE E (3) SEPARATE STEPS. FIRSTLY, THERE ITA NO.638/KOL/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 ITO WD-10(4), KOL V. ELECTRICAL MFG. CO. LTD. PAGE 4 HAS TO BE, IN TERMS OF RULE 46A(2), A RECORDING OF REASON/S FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE/S, WHICH COULD ONLY BE IN AND U NDER ANY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS ENUMERATED UNDER RULE 46A(1) (VIDE CLAUSES (A) TO ( D) THEREOF). THE MATTER HAS THEN TO TRAVEL TO THE AO, WHO HAS TO BE ALLOWED REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE SAID EVIDENCE/S, AS WELL AS, WHERE DEEMED FIT, CROSS-EXA MINE THE WITNESS(ES) PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, AS ALSO TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR D OCUMENT OR WITNESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE/S AS ADMITTED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IT IS ONLY THEN THAT ANY RELIANCE COULD BE PLACED BY THE FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY ON THE SAID EVIDENCE/S; THE OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS BY THE AS SESSING AUTHORITY FORMING PART OF HIS ADJUDICATION IN THE MATTER, SO THAT THE FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY DECIDING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CONSIDER AND MEET THE SAME. CLEARLY, NONE OF THE STEPS AS ENUMERATED U/R. 46A OF THE RULES STOOD FOLLOWED IN THE INSTANT CASE. 3.3 IN REJOINDER, THE LD. AR WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE REVENUE, PER ITS SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, HAS NOT CHALLENGED OR ASSAILED THE IMPUG NED ORDER FOR NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE PROCEDURE U/R. 46A OF THE RULES. AS SUCH, THE A RGUMENT/S ADVANCED BY THE LD. DR QUA THE SAME IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE REVENUES APPE AL. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE PROJECTED BY THE REVENUE PER ITS SEVERAL GROUNDS IS THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE/S BEFORE THE AO. IN FACT, ALL SUCH MATERIAL IS ONLY SUPPORTIVE IN NATURE, AND NOT IN THE NATURE OF ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE, IN ANY CASE, COULD NOT BE PREJUDICED FOR WANT OF OBSERVANC E OF THE REQUIRED PROCEDURE BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. 4.1 IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR US TO DEAL WITH T HE ASSESSEES PRELIMINARY OBJECTION, WHICH IN FACT TOUCHES THE CORE OF THE PRESENT APPEA L BY THE REVENUE, FIRST. ITS PRIME GRIEVANCE, AS DISCERNED ON THE BASIS OF THE MATER IAL ON RECORD AND THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BEFORE US DURING HEARING, IS THE NON-EXAMI NATION BY THE AO OF THE MATERIAL ADDUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE FIRST TIME. H OWEVER, THE QUESTION THAT ARISES IS: COULD IT REALLY LIE IN THE MOUTH OF THE REVENUE TO SO CONTEND WHEN IT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH A REMAND REPORT, CALLED FOR BY THE FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY AS EARLY AS ON 01- ITA NO.638/KOL/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 ITO WD-10(4), KOL V. ELECTRICAL MFG. CO. LTD. PAGE 5 04-2011, DESPITE REMINDERS, EVEN BY 10-01-2012; THE ASSESSEE HAVING FURNISHED THE SAID MATERIAL ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE HEARING BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) (09-03-2011) ITSELF ? AT THE SAME TIME, THERE HAS BEEN, WITHOUT DOUBT, A CLEAR VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES. THE QUESTION OF CONSIDERATION OF THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE/S BY THE LD. CIT(A) COMES ONLY SUBSEQUENT TO ITS FIRST QUALIFYING FOR ADMISSION IN TERMS OF RULE 46A, WHICH IS MANDATORY IN NATURE. IN FACT, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS DATED 12-01-2012, WHILE THE LAST DATE OF HEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ON 10-01-2012. THERE HAS, THUS, BEEN A CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIAL FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM EVEN PRIOR TO 10-01-2012, AS IT WOULD OTHERWISE BE UNFEASIBLE TO DO SO AND DELIVER HIS ORDER WITHIN TWO DAYS OF HEARING. 4.2 FURTHER, THE SCOPE OF EXAMINATION UNDER RULE 46 A(3) OF THE RULES IS MUCH VASTER THAN THAT ENVISAGED UNDER A REMAND REPORT CA LLED FOR BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY U/S. 250(4). THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ASS ESSEES CONTENTION THAT IT DID NOT FURNISH ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE LD. CIT(A), EVEN AS POINTED OUT TO IT BY THE BENCH DURING HEARING WITH REFERENCE TO THE LETTER D ATED 01-04-2011 BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE AO CALLING FOR THE REMAND REPORT, WHICH ITSE LF STATES SO. THE SAID LETTER, IN FACT, LEAVES ONE IN NO MANNER OF ANY DOUBT THAT ADDITIONA L MATERIALS AND EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IT IS, WE MAY CLARIFY, NOT AN EITHER/ OR SITUATION FOR THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, SO THAT HE COULD, AT HIS OPTION, CHOOSE TO GO FOR E ITHER, I.E., CALL FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, OR RECORD REASONS FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE/S U/R. 46A AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESS ING AUTHORITY FOR HIS VERIFICATION AND EXAMINATION. WHEN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE/S IS SOUGHT T O BE ADDUCED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE, HE IS BOUND TO ADOPT THE PROCEDURE AS LAI D DOWN U/R. 46A, AND THIS IS WHAT IS IMPLIED AND MEANT WHEN IT IS, AS IN THE FOREGOING P ARAGRAPH (# 4.1), STATED THAT THE SAID RULE IS MANDATORY IN NATURE. IT IS ONLY UNDER CIRCU MSTANCES OTHER THAN WHERE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE/S ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AD MITTED AND SOUGHT TO BE RELIED UPON BY HIM, THAT THE MANDATE OF R. 46A SHALL HAVE NO AP PLICATION, SO THAT WHERE IT IS FOUND BY HIM, FOR INSTANCE, THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN OMISSI ON ON THE PART OF THE AO TO CONSIDER SOME ASPECT OF THE ASSESSEES CASE, AND WHICH IS NE CESSARY FOR THE PROPER ADJUDICATION ITA NO.638/KOL/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 ITO WD-10(4), KOL V. ELECTRICAL MFG. CO. LTD. PAGE 6 OF THE ISSUE ARISING, HE MAY CALL FOR A REMAND REPO RT FROM HIM IN THE MATTER. IT IS DIFFICULT AND, RATHER, NOT NECESSARY TO ENUMERATE A LL SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. IN A GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCE THE ASSESSEE MAY FURNISH AN ARGUMENT F OR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, SO THAT THE FAIRNESS OF PROCED URE WOULD REQUIRE A CONSIDERATION OF THE REVENUES VIEWPOINT THEREON AND, THUS, A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, AND WHICH MAY (OR MAY NOT), IN TURN, REQUIRE AN EXAMINATION A ND/OR VERIFICATION BY HIM. WHY, WHERE SOME MATERIAL IS CALLED FOR BY THE FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY FROM THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM/S, I.E., AS SUPPORTING MATERIA L, AND ON WHICH POWER OF THE SAID APPELLATE AUTHORITY THERE IS NO RESTRICTION, THE SA ME ITSELF AFFORDS AN EXAMPLE OF MATERIALS NOT BEFORE THE AO, WHICH, NEVERTHELESS, W OULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE RIGOUR OF R. 46A, BUT ONLY NECESSITATE A REMAND REPORT FROM T HE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. SUFFICE TO SAY THAT THE TWO, I.E., THE PRE-REQUISITES AND INGR EDIENTS FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, AND THAT WARRANTING OBSERVANCE OF R. 46A, DO NOT OVERLAP, AND OPERATE IN DIFFERENT FIELDS. 4.3 FINALLY, WE ARE NOT MOVED BY THE ASSESSEES A RGUMENT THAT THE REVENUES CHALLENGE IS NOT QUA RULE 46A OF THE RULES; IN OUR VIEW THAT BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE REVENUES GRIEVANCE, WHICH IN ANY CASE COULD BE SUP PORTED BY THE ARGUMENT CENTERING AROUND NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE PROCEDURE AS PRESCRIBE D U/R. 46A, AS WAS INDEED DONE BY THE REVENUE THROUGH THE LD. DR. ALSO, THE ASSESS EES CLAIM THAT THE REVENUE DOES NOT QUESTION THE ORDER BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON MERITS IS ALSO WITHOUT MERIT. WHERE IS THE QUESTION, ONE MAY ASK, OF A CHALLENGE ON MERITS WHE N THERE HAS BEEN NO EXAMINATION OF THE RELEVANT MATERIAL BY THE AO AND, CONSEQUENTL Y, NO EXPRESSION OF OPINION BY HIM IN THE MATTER ? FOR ALL WE KNOW, THE AO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SA ID MATERIALS, MAY NOT BE INCLINED TO FOLLOW HIS EARLIER VIEW! THAT IS, A CHALLENGE ON MERITS WOULD BE SPECULATIVE OR AT BEST PREMATURE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMS TANCES, AND SHALL HAVE TO NECESSARILY AWAIT THE FINDINGS ON THE SAID EXAMINAT ION AND CONSEQUENT ADJUDICATION THE CART CANNOT BE PUT BEFORE THE HORSE. THE ONLY M ERIT OR FALLOUT OF THE ASSESSEES THIS ARGUMENT, SO HOWEVER, IS THAT THERE BEING NO SPECIF IC CHALLENGE BY THE REVENUE TO THE NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE PROCEDURE U/R. 46A, IT CANNOT CALL INTO QUESTION THE NON- RECORDING OF THE REASONS BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH R EPRESENTS THE FIRST OF THE THREE ITA NO.638/KOL/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 ITO WD-10(4), KOL V. ELECTRICAL MFG. CO. LTD. PAGE 7 MANDATORY STEPS TO BE OBSERVED BY HIM WHERE HE WISH ES TO PLACE RELIANCE ON ANY MATERIAL NOT BEFORE THE AO, BUT IS NEVERTHELESS SOU GHT TO BE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER, THE REFORE, CANNOT BE AGITATED BY THE REVENUE, NOR INDEED WAS. WE, NONETHELESS, RECORD TH IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETENESS OF THE DISCUSSION ON THE SUBJECT. AS S UCH, DESPITE THE SAID NON RECORDING OF REASONS FOR ADMISSION BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE MAT ERIAL UNDER REFERENCE SHALL HAVE TO BE TAKEN AS ADMITTED. 5. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IN VIEW OF THE FORE GOING, WE ONLY CONSIDER IT FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO RESTORE THE M ATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCES/MATERIALS FURNIS HED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE SCOPE OF THE EXAMINA TION BY THE AO WOULD BE THE SAME AS THAT DEFINED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE RULES. THE AO SHALL, FURTHER, ADJUDICATE THE RELEVANT ISSUES, I.E., AS RAISED BY THE REVENUE PER ITS GROUNDS BEFORE US, AFRESH, IN LIGHT THEREOF AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL ALREADY ON RECORD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GRANTING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSES SEE. IN OTHER WORDS, WE PLACE NO FETTERS OR RESTRICTION ON EITHER PARTY IN THE ENSUI NG PROCEEDINGS. WE ARE, IN ARRIVING AT THIS DECISION, ALSO GUIDED AND SUPPORTED BY THE DEC ISION BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TIN BOX CO. V. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC). WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, *DKP - 25/09/2012 ! ! ! ! ''# ''# ''# ''# $ # $ # $ # $ # / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. %'& ' / CONCERNED CIT ITA NO.638/KOL/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 ITO WD-10(4), KOL V. ELECTRICAL MFG. CO. LTD. PAGE 8 4. ' - / CIT (A) 5. #() '''& , '& , *+% / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. ),- ./ / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ ! , ASSTT . REGISTRAR, KOLKATA BENCHES STRENGTHEN PREPARATION & DELIVERY O F ORDERS IN THE ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 29/08, 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE NO 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 30/08 4) DATE OF CORRECTION 07/09 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 07/09 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON /09 8) SHORT-HAND NOTE ATTACHED TO FILE YES 9) FINAL ORDER AND 2 ND COPY SEND TO BENCH CLERK ON /09 FIT FOR PUBLICATION IN ITD SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (SANJAY A RORA) JM AM ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 25/9/12 SD/- SD/- [ GEORGE MATHAN ] [ C.D RAO ]