DCIT, Bhubaneswar V. KD & Sons Pvt. Ptd, Bhubaneswar

ITA 71/CTK/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 7122114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BIBEKANANDA MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: SUVENDU DUTTA
• Keywords: Search and seizure

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK . , & , BEFORE S/SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R & PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ./ ITA NO.71/CTK/2014 ( ' ' ' ' #$ #$ #$ #$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-2011) DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), BHUBANESWAR. VS. M/S. K.D. & SONS PVT LTD., 621, JANPATH, SAHID NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR. ! ./ %& ! ./PAN/GIR NO. AABCK 3660 L ( ' /APPELLANT ) .. ( ()' / RESPONDENT ) '+ - - - - /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUVENDU DUTTA %# - - - - /REVENUE BY : SHRI BIBEKANANDA MOHANTY '#. + / DATE OF HEARING : 3 RD NOV. 2015 /$ + /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 5 TH NOV. 2015 0 0 0 0 / O R D E R PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A)- 1, BHUBANESWAR DATED 9.12.2013 ON THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.62,00,245/-. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.40,59,117/- MADE BY THE AO TOWAR DS COMMISSIONS PAID TO THE DIRECTORS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS IN 2 ITA NO.71/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-2011 RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS.2,99,085/-, IN PLACE OF RS. 14,04,934/- MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS UNDER VALUATION OF STOCK OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPON DING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF GOLD JEWELLER Y. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 16.9.2010 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3 ,08,57,830/-. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON 9.4.2009 IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO, INTER A LIA, MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME AS UNDER : I) RS.20,00,000/- BEING UNDISCLOSED STOCK II) RS.62,00,245/- BEING UNEXPLAINED PURCHASE III) RS.40,59,117/- BEING COMMISSION ON SALE PAID TO DIRECTOR. IV) RS.14,04,934/- BEING GOLD STOCK DIFFERENCE. 3. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE LD CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWE D THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, INTER ALIA, CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS.62,0 0,245/- BEING UNEXPLAINED PURCHASE, RS.40,59,117/- BEING COMMISSION ON SALES PAID TO DIRECTOR AND RS.2,99,085/- BEING GOLD STOCK DIFFERENCE AS AGAINS T RS.14,04,934/- DISALLOWED BY THE AO. HENCE, THE REVENUE HAS PREFE RRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. APROPOS GROUND NO.1, FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED FROM THE VAT RECONCILIATION STATEMENT THAT PURCHASE WAS MADE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,53,79,68,347/- BUT 3 ITA NO.71/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-2011 FROM PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, HE NOTICED THAT PURCH ASE MADE WAS RS.1,53,17,68,102/- RESULTING A DIFFERENCE OF RS.62 ,00,245/-. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED RS.62,00,245/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE AMOU NT OF RS.62,00,245/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED THE WRI TTEN SUBMISSION, WHICH IS AS UNDER: '2. UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES AS REGARDS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE OF PURCHASE IN VAT RETURN AND & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT THERE IS NO ACTUAL DIFFERENCE. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HA S STATED THE INCORRECT FIGURE THAT PURCHASES AS PER VAT RECONCIL IATION STATEMENT IS RS.1,53,79,68,347.00 WHICH IS RS. 1,53,79,68,407.00 . HOWEVER, WHILE CO-RELATING THE SAME WITH THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOU NT, HE FAILED TO DO IT CORRECTLY. THAT THE FIGURES REPORTED IN VAT RETU RN ARE SUMMATION OF THE FOLLOWING: AMOUNT IN RS. NON-TRADING PURCHASES FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE CONVERSION CHARGES PACKING MATERIALS PURCHASES OF MATERIALS TOTAL THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER COMMITTED A MI STAKE WHILE CORRELATING THE PURCHASES AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCO UNT WITH THE TOTAL FIGURE, AS PER VAT RETURN. HENCE, THERE IS NO DIFFE RENCE. FURTHER, WHILE ANALYZING THE REPLY AND WITHOUT CONFRONTING T HE DETAILS AVAILABLE, HE MADE INCORRECT STATEMENTS AS REGARDS CONVERSION CHARGES AND PACKING MATERIALS. CONVERSION CHARGES OF RS.86,34,127.00 HAS BEEN ADDE D TO PURCHASES, THE BREAK UP WHICH AS FOLLOWS: AMOUNT IN RS. OUTSIDE STATE CONVERSION CHARGES (AS PER VAT RETURN) INSIDE STATE CONVERSION CHARGES TOTAL THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ASKING FOR CL ARIFICATION ON THE SAME, JUSTIFIED THE DIFFERENCE. PACKING MATERIALS OF RS.39,64,963.00 HAS BEEN DEBIT ED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE AND SELLING EXPEN SES HEAD VIDE SCHEDULE-13, THE BREAK UP OF WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: 23,33,542.00 38,66,763.00 1,53,17,68,102.00 1,53,79,68,407.00 23,33,542.00 63,00,585.00 86,34,127.00 4 ITA NO.71/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-2011 AMOUNT IN RS. OUTSIDE STATE PURCHASE (AS PER VA T RETURN) : 38,66,763.00 INSIDE STATE PURCHASE : 98,200.00 TOTAL 39,64,963.00 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ASKING FOR CL ARIFICATION ON THE SAME, JUSTIFIED THE DIFFERENCE WHICH IS INCORRECT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF D IFFERENCE IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. COPIES OF THE VAT RETURNS FROM APRI L TO MARCH ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH. 6. THE LD CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THE A SSESSEE HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO HAS STATED THAT THE CONVERSION CHARG ES AND EXPENSE ON PACKING MATERIALS HAVE BEEN SEPARATELY DEBITED IN T HE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, HAS HELD THAT TH E DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PURCHASE REPORTED IN VAT RETURN AND AS PER P&L ACCO UNT ARISES FOR THE FACT THAT THE VAT RETURN HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, THE CON VERSION CHARGES AND PACKING MATERIALS IN RESPECT OF NON-TRADING PURCHAS ES FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE, WHEREAS IN THE P&L ACCOUNT, THE CONVERSION CHARGES AND PACKING MATERIALS BOTH FOR OUTSIDE AND INSIDE THE STATE ARE SEPARATEL Y DEBITED. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PURCHASES SHOWN IN P&L ACCO UNT AND VAT RETURN IF THE CONVERSION CHARGES AND PACKING MATERIALS ARE CO MPLETELY IGNORED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE LD CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION O F RS.62,00,245/- MADE BY THE AO. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND MATE RIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE DEPA RTMENT HAS BEEN IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF REMAND REPORT. THE AO HAS NOT EVEN ASKED FOR ANY CLARIFICATION IN HIS REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSEE AND HAS STATED 5 ITA NO.71/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-2011 THAT CONVERSION CHARGES AND EXPENSES ON PACKING MAT ERIALS HAVE BEEN SEPARATELY DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. FROM THE AB OVE, WE OBSERVE THAT IF THE CONVERSION CHARGES AND PACKING MATERIALS ARE TA KEN INTO CONSIDERTION, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PURCHASE SHOWN IN TH E P&L ACCOUNT AND VAT RETURN. HENCE, WE CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REJECT GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. 8. SO FAR AS DELETION OF RS.40,59,117/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION ON SALES PAID TO DIRECTORS IS CONCERNED, THE AO OBSERV ED THAT THE PROFIT HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO THE DIRECTORS IN GUISE OF COMMI SSION INSTEAD OF DISTRIBUTING DIVIDEND TO AVOID DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTIO N TAX U/S.115-O. SINCE THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION IS NOT INCIDEN TAL TO THE BUSINESS, THE AO DISALLOWED RS.40,59,117/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSI ON ON SALES PAID TO DIRECTORS. 9. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FOU ND FAVOUR ON THIS ISSUE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT, CUTTACK IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS BANSPANI IRON LTD (ITA NO.109,110 & 297/CTK/2010), WHEREIN, IT HA S BEEN HELD THAT COMMISSION PAID BY FIXED PERCENTAGE OF TURNOVER IS NOTHING BUT ASSESSABLE AS SALARY. IN THAT CASE, THE BENCH HAD EVEN OBSERVED THAT SAID PAYMENT OF COMMISSION HAS SUFFERED TAX AT HIGHEST RATE IN THE HANDS OF THE DIRECTORS. IT IS WITHIN THE LAW AS THE COMPANIES ACT PRESCRIBES N O LIMIT OF PAYMENT TO DIRECTORS IN CASE OF PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES. FU RTHER, IN THIS CONNECTION, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT OUT OF SIX DIRECTORS IN AS SESSEES COMPANY, FOUR DIRECTORS ARE PAID COMMISSION FOR THEIR EFFORTS IN ACHIEVING THE TARGET SINCE THEY ARE ACTIVELY INVOLVED AND THE SAME IS INCIDENT AL TO BUSINESS. ALL THE 6 ITA NO.71/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-2011 DIRECTORS WHO RECEIVE THE COMMISSION ARE TAXED AT T HE HIGHEST RATE OF TAXATION WHICH IS EQUAL TO RATE APPLICABLE FOR THE COMPANY. THEY ALL ARE INCOME TAX ASSESSES AND OFFERED THE COMMISSION TO T AX. THE LD CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF B ANSPANI IRON LTD (SUPRA) HELD THAT COMMISSION PAID TO DIRECTORS UNDER SIMILA R CIRCUMSTANCES IS JUSTIFIED. THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO DIRECTORS A S A PERCENTAGE OF SALES IS THE USUAL PRACTICE IN THE BUSINESS TO ENCOURAGE VOL UME. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION ON SALES IS NOT INCI DENTAL TO THE BUSINESS SINCE THE VERY PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IS TO ENCOURAGE BUSINESS AND TO REWARD THE EFFORTS MADE TO INCREASE SALES. THEREFORE, THE LD CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.40,59,117/-. BEING AGGR IEVED, THE REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON THIS ISSU E, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF BA NSPANI IRON LTD (SUPRA), WHEREIN, THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT DIRECTORS O F THE ASSESSEE ARE ASSESSED AT THE HIGHEST RATE OF TAXATION APPLICABL E FOR THE COMPANY. THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY SHOWING AN Y INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE DIRECTORS TO AVOID TAX. THERE IS NO FINDING THAT THE TOTAL REMUNERATION PAID INCLUDING COMMISSION EXCEEDS THE REMUNERATION PAYABLE UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. FURTHER, WE OBSERVE THAT IT IS ALSO ON RECORD THAT THE DIRECTORS ARE ASSESSED AT THE HIGHEST RATE OF TAXAT ION AS APPLICABLE FOR THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY OR VIOL ATION OF ANY RULES AND INSTRUCTIONS IN PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. BASED ON TH IS LEGAL PROPOSITION AS ENUMERATED BY THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF BANSPANI IR ON LTD (SUPRA) AND ALSO BY TAKING GUIDANCE OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GESTNER 7 ITA NO.71/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-2011 DUPLICATORS PVT LTD. VS CIT, 117 ITR 1 (SC), WE CON CUR WITH THE VIEW OF THE LD CIT(A) AND REJECT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY TH E REVENUE. 11. THE NEXT GROUND RELATES TO RESTRICTION OF ADDIT ION OF RS.2,99,085/- AS AGAINST RS.14,04,934/- MADE BY THE AO. THE FACTS AR E THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.14,04,934/- ON ACCOU NT OF DIFFERENCE IN GOLD STOCK. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF STOC K OF GOLD FOUND BETWEEN THE DATE OF SEARCH AND DT 31.3.2009 IS 2966.823 GMS . AFTER CONSIDERING THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF GOLD DURING 1.4.2009 AND THE D ATE OF SEARCH (8 TH & 9 TH APRIL, 2009), THE AO COMPUTED THE UNEXPLAINED DIFFE RENCE IN GOLD STOCK OF 872.619 GMS WHICH HAS BEEN VALUED AT RS.14,04,934/- AND IN ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE EXPLANATION, WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS EXPLANATI ON REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK AND RELEVANT PORTION IS REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS FOLLOWS: IN CONNECTION TO THIS, THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT THE DIFFERS 1 STOCK BETWEEN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2009 AN D THE DATE OF SEAR ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE NET INCREASE I N STOCK DURING THE INTERVENING PERIOD 01 DAYS. THE DIFFERENTIAL FI GURE BEING CORRECTLY ACCOUNTED FOR DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2009- 10, ADDITION OF THE SAME HAS LED TO DOUBLE TAXATION. THE DETAILS AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND PROVIDED TO THE INVESTIGATING TEAM ARE AS FOLLOWS PARTICULARS OPENING STOCK (01.04.2009) PURCHASE (01.04.09 TO 8.04.09) SALES (01.04.09 TO 8.04.09) CLOSING STOCK (08.04 . 2009 NEW G OLD ORNAMENTS 22KT 97,525.639 17,756.344 15,913.833 99, 368.150 24 KT GOLD COIN 969.00 2.000 15 2,000 819.000 18 KT GOLD COIN 769.240 - 6,300 762 .940 TOTAL 99,263.979 17,758.344 16,072.133 100,950 .09 8 ITA NO.71/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-2011 THE ABOVE IMPLIES THERE IS A NET INCREASE OF 1686.2 11 GRAMS WHERE AS LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED FIGURES AT TWO PLACES ONE AT 2966.82 GRAMS AND 2094.204 GRAMS AT OTHER_PLACE AND HAS RELIED UPON THE L ATER FIGURE FOR FINDING THE DIFFERENCE. FURTHER, THERE HAS BEEN DIFFERENCE IN SALES QUANTIT Y BETWEEN THAT AVAIIEA WITH THE APPELLANT AND THAT QUOTED BY THE L EARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHERE H THE QUANTITY OF PURCHASES HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY 407.993 GRAMS. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHEREFROM THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER GATHERED SUCH INFORMATION. THE RECORD IN TH AT RESPECT AVAILABLE WITH HIM IF ANY HAS NOT BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE APPE LLANT AND HENCE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ARTIFICIAL DIFFERENCE IS LIABLE TO THE DELETED.' 12. THE LD CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN THE REMAND R EPORT THE AO HAS STATED THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL KDS-02 SUPPORTS THE ASSEES SES FIGURE. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CLARIFY AS TO WHERE FROM THE AO GOT THE STOCK FIGURES AS ON THE DATE SEARCH SO AS TO AR RIVE AT THE STOCK DIFFERENCE OF 2966.823 GMS BETWEEN THE DATE OF SEAR CH AND 31,3.2009. ACCORDINGLY, HE OBSERVED THAT THE UNEXPLAINED STOCK DIFFERENCE COMPUTED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS FAULTY. IN THE REJOINDER FILED ON DT.26.11,2013 IN RESPECT OF REMAND REPORT, HAS WORK ED OUT THE STOCK DIFFERENCE OF 185.765 GMS AND SUBMITS THAT SUCH A DIFFERENCE IS NEGLIGIBLE WHICH IS ONLY 0.17% OF THE VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS F OR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SUCH DIFFERENCE SHOULD BE IGNORE D. THE LD CITA) FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO RECONCILE THE STOCK. THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF STOCK. UND ER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK HAS TO BE TAKEN AT 185.765 GMS. THE AO HAS TAKEN VALUE OF 872.619 GMS AT RS. 2,99,085/- AND SUCH VALUATION HAS NOT BEEN OBJECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, TAKING THE SAME VALUA TION, THE VALUE OF UNEXPLAINED STOCK OF 185.765 GMS COMES TO RS.2,99,0 85/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 14,04, 934/- WAS REDUCED TO RS.2,99,085 BY THE LD CIT(A). 9 ITA NO.71/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-2011 13. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AN D MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT HERE THE ASSESSEE HIMSE LF HAS ADMITTED THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF STOCK AND THAT THE AO WAS A BLE TO RECONCILE THE STOCK TO THAT EXTENT, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE WELL R EASONED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), WHEREIN, HE HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.2,99,085/-. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5/11/20 15 SD/- SD/- . ,/B.RAMAKOTAIAH , PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK; '! DATED 5 /11 /2015 B.K.PARIDA, SPS 0 0 0 0 (+ (+ (+ (+ 3$+ 3$+ 3$+ 3$+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 4 44 4 4 44 4 4 44 4 4 44 4 4 44 4 4 44 4 4 44 4 0' 0' 0' 0' / BY ORDER, SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. ' / THE APPELLANT : DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR 2. ()' / THE RESPONDENT. M/S. K.D. & SONS PVT LTD., 621, JANPATH, SAHID NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR. 3. 5 ( ) / THE CIT(A), BHUBANESWAR. 4. 5 / CIT , BHUBANESWAR 5. #6 (+' , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. 8 9. / GUARD FILE. )+ (+ //TRUE COPY//