DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Ambuja Realty Development Limited, Kolkata

ITA 706/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2932 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L K S DEHIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: D S DAMLE
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Wholly owned subsidiary
• Section: 143(3); 28

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE . . . . . . . . , /AND ! '! , ) [BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, AM & SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] # # # # / I.T.A NOS. 706 & 707/KOL/2011 '$% &' '$% &' '$% &' '$% &'/ // / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 200 6- 0 7 & 2007-08 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VS. M/S. AMBUJA REALTY DEVELOPMENT LTD. CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA. (PAN: AAFCA4593G) ()* /APPELLANT ) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 20.03.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20.03.2013 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI L. K. S. DEHIYA, CIT (DR) FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI D. S. DAMLE, ADVOCATE - / ORDER PER BENCH: BOTH THESE APPEALS BY REVENUE ARE ARISING OUT OF SE PARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A) - I, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NOS. 160 & 161/CIT(A)-I/CC-10, N. DELHI/D CIT,C-1, KOLKATA/2010-11DATED 11.02.2011 RESPECTIVELY. ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED SE PARATELY BY DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-10, NEW DELHI U/S. 153C R.W.S. 143(3) AND U/S. 143(3) O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 -07AND 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY VIDE HIS ORDERS DATED 31.12.2008. 2. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS OF REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR EXPENSES UNDER VARIOUS HE ADS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY ANALYTICAL DETAILS AS PER AS-2 REGARDING VALUATION OF CLOSING PROJECT WIP AND PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES. FOR THIS, R EVENUE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUND IN BOTH THE YEARS I.E. AY 2006-07 AND 2007-08. THE IDENTIC ALLY WORDED GROUNDS RAISED IN AY 2006-07 READ AS UNDER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.14, 06,457/- BY OBSERVING THAT ASSESSEE MADE ANALYTICAL EXERCISE TO ASCERTAIN EXPENSES INCU RRED UNDER VARIOUS HEADS WHICH DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTED TO BRING THE PROJECTS TO THEIR LOCATIONS AND CONDITIONS WHEN NO SUCH ANALYTICAL DETAILS WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2 ITA NO.706 & 707/K/2011 M/S. AMBUJA REALTY DEVELOPMENT LTD.. AY. 06-07 & 0 7-08 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FAC T THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY ANALYTICAL DETAILS AS PER AS-2 REGARDING VALUATION OF CLOSING PROJECT WIP AND PRE- OPERATIVE EXPENSES WHEN HE HIMSELF HAS OBSERVED THA T IT IS IMPERATIVE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ANALYZE EXPENSES TO ASCERTAIN ONLY THOSE COST WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO BRING THE PROJECTS TO THEIR LOCATIONS AND CONDITIONS AT THE E ND OF THE YEAR. EXACTLY THE SIMILAR GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN AY 2007-0 8 AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL. HENCE, WE DISCUSS THE FACTS AS NARRATED IN AY 2006-07. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS ONLY DISALLOWED EXPENSES I. E. PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES AND VALUATION OF CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS (PROJECT) AS PER ACCOUNTIN G STANDARD-2. THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE BY THE AO PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A/R AND PERUSING THE ANALYTICAL STATEMENT OF EXPENSES, I FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE A/R. THE AO HAS ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED VARIOUS EXPENSES DURING F.Y. 2005-06 IN CONNECTION WITH APPELLANTS BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. T HE AO PER SE DID NOT DISPUTE BONAFIDE OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED DURING THE RELEVANT YEA R & HE DID NOT ALSO DISPUTE THAT THESE WERE REVENUE IN NATURE. THE AOS ONLY OBJECTION FO R NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR THE EXPENSES IN COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME OF A.Y. 2 006-07 IS THAT ALL EXPENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE VALUE OF PROJECT WORK-IN- PROGRESS. LN OTHER WORDS, THE AO HAS ESSENTIALLY CHALLENGED THE CORRECTNESS OF VALUATION OF INVENTORY OF PROJECT WORK-IN- PROGRESS AS DONE BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS PROFIT & L OSS A/C FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31ST MARCH 2006. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AOS SUCH CONCL USION WAS ERRONEOUS, UNTENABLE & WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGAL PROVISIONS OF THE I. T. ACT OR BY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING METHODS FOR INVENTORY VALUATION. THE AO DID NOT PROPERLY UN DERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF VALUATION OF INVENTORY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF TOTAL INCOME. THE AO APPEARS TO HAVE MIXED UP 2 SEPARATE ISSUES, ONE RELATING TO ALLOWAB ILITY OF THE BUSINESS EXPENSES IN DETERMINATION OF TOTAL INCOME IN THE YEAR OF ACCRUA L AND SECOND WITH REGARDS TO VALUATION OF THE INVENTORY AS ON THE CLOSE OF THE PREVIOUS YE AR. 10. IT APPEARED FROM THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C AND THE ANALYTICAL STATEMENT OF THE EXPENSES THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEADS AND EXPENSES UNDER, VARIOUS SUBHEADS SUCH AS, EMPLOYEE COST, AUDITORS R EMUNERATION, RENT, RATES & TAXES, LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES, CONSULTANCY FEES, TRAV ELLING & CONVEYANCE ETC. THESE EXPENSES BY THEIR VERY NATURE WERE REVENUE IN CHARA CTER AND WERE LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED IN COMPUTING INCOME OF THE YEAR OF ITS ACCRUAL. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT EXPENSES IN QUESTION WERE REVENUE IN NATURE AND INCURRED DUR ING THE RELEVANT YEAR IN CONNECTION WITH ASSESSEES BUSINESS PURPOSE. ONCE THIS IS AN A DMITTED FACT THEN THE AO WAS REQUIRED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION FOR ALL EXPENSES OF REVENUE IN NATURE AND WHICH WERE LAID OUT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES OF THE APPELLANT. THE EXPENSES WERE LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE LIABI LITY FOR THE EXPENSES HAD ACCRUED DURING THE F.Y. 2005-06. THE AO WAS THEREFORE NOT JUSTIFIE D IN MAKING BLANKET DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ON THE PLEA THAT ALL EXPENSES FORMED PART OF VALUE OF PROJECT WORK-IN-PROGRESS AS ON 31.03.2006. 11. THE AO SHOULD HAVE VALUED THE INVENTORY OF PRO JECT WIP, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY OF THE ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING METHOD OF INVENTORY VALU ATION. IT IS THE APPELLANTS CASE THAT IT 3 ITA NO.706 & 707/K/2011 M/S. AMBUJA REALTY DEVELOPMENT LTD.. AY. 06-07 & 0 7-08 FOLLOWED ACCOUNTING STANDARD-2 FOR VALUATION OF INV ENTORY. AS-2 IS PRESCRIBED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & THERE FORE IT WAS BINDING ON THE APPELLANT BEING A CORPORATE ASSESSEE. AS PER PARA-13 OF AS-2, ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEADS, SELLING & DISTRIBUTING COSTS WHICH DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO BRIN GING THE INVENTORY TO THEIR LOCATION AND CONDITION AS ON 31.03.2006 COULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE VALUE OF PROJECT WIP. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS IMPERATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE A S ALSO THE AO TO ANALYZE EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR AND INCLUDE IN TH E VALUE OF PROJECT WIP ONLY THESE COSTS AND OVERHEADS WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO BRINGING THE PRO JECTS TO THEIR LOCATION AND CONDITION AS ON 31ST MARCH 2006. WITHOUT CARRYING OUT THE ANA LYTICAL EXERCISE; THE AO MADE SWEEPING OBSERVATION THAT ALL COSTS & EXPENSES INCU RRED BY THE APPELLANT DURING F.Y. 2005-06 WERE LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE VALUE OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS ON THE CONTRARY, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE ANALYZED EACH AND EVERY EXPE NSE INCURRED DURING THE F.Y. 2005-06 AND ASCERTAINED THE EXTENT TO WHICH EACH SUCH EXPEN SE INCURRED UNDER VARIOUS ACCOUNTING HEADS CONTRIBUTED TO BRINGING THE PROJEC TS TO THER LOCATIONS AND CONDITIONS ON 31.03.2006 AND ONLY THE COST & EXPENSES WHICH SO CONTRIBUTED, WERE INCLUDED IN THE VALUE OF PROJECT WORK-IN-PROGRESS ON 31.03.2006. TH E REMAINING EXPENSES WHICH WERE IN THE NATURE OF FIXED OVERHEADS OR PERIOD COSTS & WHI CH WERE NOT RELATABLE TO PROJECT EXECUTION WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE AMBIT OF THE VALUE OF PROJECT WIP. I, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION FOR EXPENS ES AMOUNTING TO RS.14,06,457/- WHICH WERE REVENUE IN NATURE AND FOR WHICH THE LIABILITY HAD ACCRUED DURING THE F.Y. 2005-06 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2006-07. GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 ARE THE REFORE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMPLETE ANA LYTICAL STATEMENT OF VARIOUS OVERHEAD EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YE AR AND ALSO EXPLAINED THE BASIS ON WHICH EXPENSES WERE APPORTIONED BETWEEN PROJECT RELATED E XPENSES AND FIXED PERIOD COST. IN THE P&L ACCOUNT OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESS EE DEBITED ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES WHICH ARE NOT INCURRED IN RELATION TO ANY SPECIFIC PROJEC T RATHER THESE ARE COMMON EXPENSES. THIS EXPENDITURE I.E. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS.40,3 8,316/- INCLUDES FILING FEE OF RS.24.50 LAKH, WHICH ASSESSEE SUO MOTU DISALLOWED BEING CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE ASSESSEE VALUED THE INVENTORY AS PER ACCEPTED METHOD OF INVENTORY VALUATION. THE METHOD OF VALUATION IS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED AS PER AS-2, FOR VALUATION OF INVENTORY OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS (PROJECT). THE AS-2 PRESCRIBED BY INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA PROVIDES THAT EXPENSES AND ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEADS, WHICH DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO BRINGING THE INVENTORIES TO THEIR PRESENT LOCATION AND CONDITIONS OR SELLING AND DISTRIBUTION COST COULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE VALUE OF INVENTORY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS EXACTLY VALUED IN TE RM OF AS-2. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE VALUATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND C IT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION. WE CONFIRM THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEALS IS DISMISSED. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE IN ITA NO.707/K/2011 FOR AY 2007 -08 IS AS REGARDS TO ASSESSABILITY OF INTEREST INCOME, WHETHER THE SAME IS BUSINESS INCOM E OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.3: 4 ITA NO.706 & 707/K/2011 M/S. AMBUJA REALTY DEVELOPMENT LTD.. AY. 06-07 & 0 7-08 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT INTEREST INCOME IS ASSESSABLE U/S. 28 WHEN SUCH INTEREST INCOME WAS DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ADVANCES PROVIDED TO WHOLLY OW NED SUBSIDIARY AND OTHER ASSOCIATED COMPANIES AND FROM FIXED DEPOSITS WITHOU T APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT PROVIDING LOANS AND ADVANCES TO ASSOCIATED COMPANIE S AND MAKING FIXED DEPOSITS IN BANKS FOR INTEREST INCOME IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF TH E ASSESSEE. 6. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS ASSESSED MISCELLANEOUS INCOME AND INTEREST INCOME CREDITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT UND ER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 23 AS UNDER: 23. THE 4 TH AND THE LAST ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION IS WHETHER THE INTEREST AND MISCELLANEOUS INCOME CREDITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES OR PROFITS & GAINS OF BUSINESS. IT IS T HE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE INTEREST AND MISCELLANEOUS INCOME CREDITED IN PROFI T & LOSS ACCOUNT WAS INTIMATELY CONNECTED WITH APPELLANTS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE ASSESSED UNDER THE RESIDUARY HEAD OF INCOME. PERUSAL OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE TOTAL INCOME HAS NOT BEEN ASSESSED BY THE AO UNDER ANY PA RTICULAR HEAD. IT IS THEREFORE NOT CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS TO WHICH HEAD OF INCOME THE AO ULTIMATELY ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT THE DETERMINATION OF PROPER HEAD OF INCOME IS NECESSARY CONCOMMITMENT OF A VALID ASSESS MENT ORDER BECAUSE UNDER I T ACT 1961 EVERY INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE CLASSIFIED UNDE R A PARTICULAR HEAD SO THAT COMPUTATION PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THAT HEAD WOUL D GOVERN THE ASSESSMENT. ALTHOUGH THE AO DID ASSESS TOTAL INCOME UNDER ANY PARTCULAR HEAD, IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY INTEREST AN D MISCELLANEOUS INCOME WOULD NOT BE ASSESSABLE AS OTHER SOURCES. HAVING REGARD TO THE F ACTS OF THE CASE I HOWEVER FIND THAT THE INCOME CREDITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT COULD BE ASSESSED UNDER THE RESIDUARY HEAD. THE ASSESSEE CREDITED INTEREST WHICH PRINCIPALLY IN CLUDED RECOVERY OF RS.70,41,096/- FROM THE WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY TO WHOM ECO SPACE PROJE CT WAS TRANSFERRED. THE AMOUNT CREDITED REPRESENTED RECOVERY OF INTEREST PAID. THE RE WAS DIRECT AND PROXIMATE CAUSE BETWEEN INTEREST RECEIVED AND INTEREST PAID. THE LO AN WAS ORIGINALLY OBTAINED TO CARRY ON APPELLANTS OWN BUSINESS AND THEREFORE RECOVERY MAD E OUT OF INTEREST PAID HAD SAME CHARACTER I.E. BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EARNED I NTEREST ON LOANS GRANTED TO APPELLANTS BUSINESS ASSOCIATES WTH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD REGU LAR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND FUNDS WERE LENT MAINLY FOR DEVELOPING A REAL ESTATE PROJE CT IN NORTHERN INDIA IN JOINT VENTURE. INTEREST RECEIVED ON BUSINESS ADVANCES COULD THEREF ORE ONLY BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. AS REGARDS MISCELLANEOUS INCOME CREDITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IT REPRESENTED RECOVERY OF EMPLOYEE COST FOR THE EMPLO YEES DEPUTED TO THE ASSOCIATE CONCERNS. SINCE THE EMPLOYEES WERE EMPLOYED FOR CAR RYING ON ASSESSEES BUSINESS, RECOVERY MADE IN RESPECT OF THE SERVICES SECONDED T O SISTER CONCERN REPRESENTED BUSINESS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ASSESS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS & GAINS OF BUSINES S. THE CIT(A) TREATED THE MISCELLANEOUS INCOME AND INT EREST INCOME AS INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT & GAINS OF BUSINESS. REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOWHERE GIVEN ANY FINDING H OW THE INTEREST INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED 5 ITA NO.706 & 707/K/2011 M/S. AMBUJA REALTY DEVELOPMENT LTD.. AY. 06-07 & 0 7-08 AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BUT HE RECORDED THAT IT, THEREFORE, FOLLOWS THAT INTEREST INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.1,99,92,893/- IS TO BE BROUGHT TO T AX AND SETTING OFF THE SAME AGAINST BUSINESS EXPENSES IS NOT ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ASSESSED AT RS.1,99,92,893/- AS AGAINST THE LOSS OF RS.1,65,61, 218/- RETURNED BY IT. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT THAT LOA N WAS ORIGINALLY OBTAINED TO CARRY ON ASSESSEES OWN BUSINESS AND, THEREFORE, RECOVERY MA DE OUT OF INTEREST PAID AS THE SAME CREDITOR OF THE INCOME I.E. THE INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED UND ER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EARNED INTEREST ON LOAN GRANTED TO AS SESSEES BUSINESS ASSOCIATES WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS REGULAR BUSINESS TRANSACTION AND FUNDS WERE LENT MAINLY FOR DEVELOPING REAL ESTATE PROJECTS. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING OF C IT(A) THAT INTEREST RECEIVED ON BUSINESS ADVANCES ONLY TO BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. H ENCE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 9. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- . . . . . . . . , ! ! ! ! '! '! '! '! , (P. K. BANSAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . . .) )) ) DATED : 20 TH MARCH, 2013 /0 '$12 '3 JD.(SR.P.S.) 6 ITA NO.706 & 707/K/2011 M/S. AMBUJA REALTY DEVELOPMENT LTD.. AY. 06-07 & 0 7-08 - 4 +''5 65&7- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . )* / APPELLANT DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA. 2 +,)* / RESPONDENT M/S. AMBUJA REALTY DEVELOPMENT LTD., 86C, TOPSIA ROAD (SOUTH), VISHWAKARMA, KOLKATA-700 046 3 . '-$ ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. '-$ / CIT KOLKATA 5 <'= +'$ / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA ,5 +'/ TRUE COPY, -$>/ BY ORDER, ! 2 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .