Alliance Commercial Transport, Kolkata V. PCIT-14, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 735/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1709 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset converted into stock in trade; Revision of order; Speculation loss
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133A; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI ABY. T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM ] I.T.A NO. 735/KOL/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-1 3 ALLIANCE COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT -VS- PRINCIPAL CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14, KOLKATA [PAN: AAHFA 4581 B] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI SUBASH AGARWA L, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI GOULEN HANGSHING, C IT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.09.2017 ORDER PER M.BALAGANESH, AM 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE O RDER OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14, KOLKATA [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT] IN M. NO. CIT-14/263/2016-17/9986- 9989 DATED 23.03.2017 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AGA INST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. J.C.I.T., RANGE-40, KOLKATA [IN SHORT THE LD. AO] U /S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] DATED 3 0.03.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD CIT WAS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS, RENTING OF HEA VY GOODS VEHICLES AND TRADING IN MUTUAL FUNDS / SECURITIES ETC. A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 17.8.2011 IN THE BUSINESS CUM OFFICE PREMISES OF TH E ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF 2 ITA NO.735/KOL/2017 ALLIANCE COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT A.YR.2012-13 2 SURVEY, THE TWO PAGES DOCUMENTS SHOWING CASH BOOK F OR THE PERIOD 1.4.2011 TO 31.3.2012 WERE IMPOUNDED VIDE ID MARK PGC-1. ANOTH ER DOCUMENTS CONTAINING INFORMATION REGARDING INTRODUCTION OF CASH WAS IMPO UNDED VIDE ID MARK PGC -2. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASST YEAR 2012-13 WAS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.9.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 75,41,168/-. IN THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDE D TO THE ASSESSEE AND WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAID DOCUMENTS. THE LD AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30.3.2015 BASED ON THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS A ND DETERMINED THE TAXABLE INCOME AT RS 1,16,99,129/-. 4. LATER THIS ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REVISED BY THE LD CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT TREATING THE ORDER OF THE LD AO AS ERRONEOUS AND PR EJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- (A) THE LOSS ON TRADING OF MUTUAL FUNDS AMOUNTING TO RS 21,38,237/- IS A SPECULATIVE LOSS AND HENCE THE SAME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE TRANSPORTATION INCOME ; AND (B) THE ASSESSEE HAD VALUED THE CLOSING STOCK OF MU TUAL FUNDS AT MARKET RATES UPTO 31.3.2011 AND DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, IT HAD CHANGED THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF MUTUAL FUNDS TO LOWER OF COST OR NET REALIZABLE VAL UE. THE LD CIT FROM THE RECORDS WORKED OUT THE LOSS ARISING IN RESPECT OF 10 MUTUAL FUNDS THAT NO SALE OR SETTLEMENT HAD TAKEN PLACE AND HENCE THE LOSS ARISING THEREON TO T HE TUNE OF RS 20,97,742/- WAS ONLY NOTIONAL AND CONTINGENT IN NATURE AND HENCE THE SAM E IS NOT ALLOWABLE. 5. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT IT HAD PREPARED TWO SE PARATE TRADING ACCOUNTS I.E. ONE FOR TRADING IN MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH RESULTED IN TRADING L OSS OF RS 21,38,237/- AND OTHER FOR ITS TRANSPORT DIVISION WHICH RESULTED IN TRADING PROFIT OF RS 5,89,84,926/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD SET OFF THE TRADING LOSS OF MUTUAL FUNDS WITH THE T RADING PROFIT OF TRANSPORT DIVISION AND AFTER REDUCING ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, INTEREST, P ARTNERS REMUNERATION ETC AND AFTER 3 ITA NO.735/KOL/2017 ALLIANCE COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT A.YR.2012-13 3 INCLUDING INTEREST INCOME, RENTAL INCOME AND TECHNI CAL SERVICE CHARGES , DETERMINED THE NET PROFIT AFTER TAX TO THE TUNE OF RS 54,25,565/- WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT IT HAD UTILIZED THE SURPLUS FUNDS TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH WERE HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE. IT WAS STATED THAT THE MUTUAL FUNDS CANNOT BE SPECULATED A T ALL AND HENCE THERE IS NO CASE FOR TREATING THE SAID LOSS AS SPECULATIVE IN NATURE. S INCE THIS FACT IS KNOWN TO THE LD AO , HE THOUGHT IT FIT NOT TO MAKE ANY ENQUIRY IN THIS REGA RD DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THIS IS A SETTLED ISSUE. HENCE THE ORDER OF THE LD AO IN NOT LOOKING INTO THIS , WOULD NOT MAKE HIS ORDER ERRONEOUS. SIMILAR LY WITH REGARD TO CHANGE IN VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF MUTUAL FUNDS AT LOWER OF COST O R NET REALIZABLE VALUE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, IT WAS STATED THAT THE SAID VALUATION WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCOUNTING STANDARD 2 (AS 2) ON VALUATION OF INVENTORIES ISSUE D BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA (ICAI) . IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INDEED SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF MUTUAL FUNDS BOTH AT MARKET RATES AS WELL AS LOWER OF COST OR NET REALIZABLE VALUE , AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO VALUATIO NS WERE ARRIVED AT RS 13,26,925.19 WHICH WAS ALSO DULY MENTIONED BY THE TAX AUDITOR IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE DIFF ERENCE IN PROFIT DUE TO CHANGE IN METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF MUTUAL FUND S WAS RS 13,26,925/- ACTUALLY AND NOT RS 20,97,742/- AS ERRONEOUSLY WORKED OUT BY THE LD CIT BY TAKING ONLY THE SELECTED MUTUAL FUNDS. 6.IN THE OPINION OF THE LD CIT, THE LD AO HAD NOT M ADE ANY ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID TWO ISSUES THEREBY MAKING HIS ORDER ERRON EOUS. THE LD CIT ALSO OBSERVED THAT WITH REGARD TO THE CHANGE IN METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF MUTUAL FUNDS , THE LD AO HAD NOT APPLIED PROPER LAW THEREON. HE FURTHE R OBSERVED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD AO SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE , IF, IN THE OPINION OF THE LD CIT THAT THE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN MADE IN ACCORDANCE 4 ITA NO.735/KOL/2017 ALLIANCE COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT A.YR.2012-13 4 WITH ANY ORDER, DIRECTION OR INSTRUCTION ISSUED BYT HE CBDT U/S 119 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY HE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD AO TO MAKE VERIFICATION ON THE AFORESAID TWO ISSUES AND DIRECTED TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT THEREON. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. PR. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 263. 3. FOR THAT THE LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN EXERCISING THE POWER OF REVISION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIRECTING THE A.O. TO HOLD ANOTHER INVES TIGATION WHEN THE ORDER OF THE A.O. WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 4. FOR THAT THE LD. PR. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CO MING TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 21,38,237/- IN SHARE TRANSACTI ONS WAS SPECULATION LOSS AND THE SAME SHALL NOT BE SET OFF EXCEPT AGAINST PROFIT S AND GAINS, IF ANY, OF ANOTHER SPECULATION BUSINESS. 5. FOR THAT THE LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT T HE LOSS OF RS. 20,97,742/- ON VALUATION OF MUTUAL FUNDS IS CONTINGENT IN NATURE A ND COULD NOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE TAXABLE INCOME. 6. FOR THAT THE LD. PR. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN H OLDING THAT THE A.O. FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) WITHOUT MAKING NECESSAR Y ENQUIRIES AS TO THE ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE ALL OF ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE PAPER BOOK COMPRISING OF (I) COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME TOGETHER WITH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND TAX AUDIT REPORT FOR ASST YEARS 2012-13 AND 2013-14 (ENCLOSED IN PAGES 1 TO 61 OF PB) ; (II) SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS SUED BY THE LD CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT (ENCLOSED IN PAGES 62 TO 64 OF PB) ; (III) REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT (ENCLOSED IN PAGES 65 TO 66 OF PB) ; (IV) EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT THE SUBJECT MENTIONED 5 ITA NO.735/KOL/2017 ALLIANCE COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT A.YR.2012-13 5 ISSUES UNDER DISPUTE WERE DULY EXAMINED BY THE LD A O AND REPLIES FILED BEFORE THE LD AO BY THE ASSESSEE (ENCLOSED IN PAGES 67 TO 70 OF P B) ; (V) WORKINGS OF MUTUAL FUND STATEMENT AT MARKET RATES AS WAS DONE IN EARLIER YE ARS AND WORKINGS OF THE MUTUAL FUND STATEMENT AT LOWER OF COST OR NET REALIZABLE VALUE AS WAS DONE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL DUE TO THE CHANGE IN METHOD OF VALUATION RESULTING IN A NET DIFFERENCE OF RS 13,26,925/- (ENCLOSED IN PAGE 71 TO 77 OF PB) AND (VI) MUTUAL F UND TRANSACTION STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2007 TO 4.7.2012 (ENCLOSED IN PAGES 78 T O 90 OF PB). IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PREPARED TWO TRADING ACCOUNTS VIZ ONE FOR TRADING IN MUTUAL FUNDS AND OTHER FOR ITS TRANSPORT DIVISION. THERE IS NO DISP UTE ON THE TRADING RESULTS OF TRANSPORT DIVISION. THE DISPUTE BEFORE US IS ONLY WITH REGAR D TO THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF MUTUAL FUNDS. THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF MUTUAL FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2012 IS AS UNDER:- TRADING ACCOUNT OF MUTUAL FUND DIVISION FOR THE YEA R ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2012 TO OPENING STOCK 3,03,59,520.78 BY SALES 12,61,9 63,00 TO PURCHASES 53,616.43 BY DIVIDEND RECEIV ED 616.43 BY CLOSING STOCK 2,70,12,321.24 BY GROSS LOSS CARRIED TO 21,38,236.54 PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT -------------- ----------- ------------------------- 3,04,13,137.21 3,04,13,137.21 7.1. IN THE OPINION OF THE LD CIT, THE LOSS ARISING ON TRADING OF MUTUAL FUNDS AMOUNTING TO RS 21,38,237/- IS SPECULATIVE IN NATURE AND HENC E THE SAME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE LD AO. THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT. THE LD AR APART FROM REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFO RE THE LD CIT BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.3.2015 FIL ED BEFORE THE LD AO , WHEREIN IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD REPLIED IN PARA 10 ENCLOSING THE STATEMENT OF MUTUAL FUND ALONG WIT H THE RELEVANT PAPERS BEFORE THE LD AO (ENCLOSED IN PAGE 67 OF PB). HE ALSO DREW OUR A TTENTION TO YET ANOTHER LETTER FILED BEFORE THE LD AO CLEARLY EXPLAINING THE CHANGE IN M ETHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK 6 ITA NO.735/KOL/2017 ALLIANCE COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT A.YR.2012-13 6 OF MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH HAD ALSO RESULTED IN THE UNDE RSTATEMENT OF PROFIT BY RS 13,26,925/- AS POINTED OUT ALREADY BY THE TAX AUDIT OR IN FORM 3CD EXPLAINING THE REASONS THEREON (ENCLOSED IN PAGES 69 TO 90 OF PB). THE FILING OF THESE PAPERS BEFORE THE LD AO AND THE EXAMINATION CARRIED OUT BY THE LD AO IN THIS REGARD ARE PROVED BEYOND DOUBT. WE FIND THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY ON THE PART OF THE LD AO. IN OUR OPINION , THE LD AO HAD DULY GONE INTO THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF TRADING IN MUTUAL FUNDS TOGETHER WITH ITS CHANGED METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK THEREON AND CHOSE NOT TO MAKE ANY ADDITION THEREON WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT AS HE WAS THOROUGHLY CONVINCED ON THE EX PLANATIONS GIVEN THEREON. HENCE THE LD CIT IS ONLY TRYING TO SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN OPI NION IN THE PLACE OF AN OPINION ALREADY FRAMED BY THE LD AO (THOUGH NOT SPECIFICALLY WRITTE N BY HIM IN HIS ORDER, WHICH IN OUR OPINION IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DONE) . THE LD AO IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD TAKEN A VIEW ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUES AND THE SAME CANNOT BE THE SUBJ ECT MATTER OF REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE LD CIT. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLAC ED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COM PANY REPORTED IN 243 ITR 83 (SC) AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS NIR AV MODI REPORTED IN (2016) 71 TAXMANN.COM 272 (BOM HC) . 7.2. EVEN OTHERWISE, WE AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENT ADV ANCED BY THE LD AR THAT THE TRADING IN MUTUAL FUNDS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS SPECULATIVE IN NATURE AS THE SAME CANNOT BE SPECULATED. IT IS WELL SETTLED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UCO BANK REPORTED IN 240 ITR 355 (SC) THAT UNITS ARE DIFFERENT FROM SHARES. HENCE THE FIRST OBJECTION RAISED BY THE LD CIT THAT TRADI NG LOSS ON MUTUAL FUNDS IS SPECULATIVE IN NATURE IS DEVOID OF MERITS. 7.3. WITH REGARD TO THE CHANGE IN METHOD OF VALUATI ON OF CLOSING STOCK OF MUTUAL FUNDS, WE FIND THAT THE CBDT HAD NOTIFIED THE ACCOUNTING S TANDARDS U/S 145(2) OF THE ACT VIDE 7 ITA NO.735/KOL/2017 ALLIANCE COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT A.YR.2012-13 7 NOTIFICATION NO. 9949 [F.NO.132/7/95-TPL] DATED 25. 1.1996 WHEREIN WITH REGARD TO DISCLOSURE OF ACCOUNTING POLICIES, IT HAS BEEN MENT IONED IN PARA 4 AS UNDER:- 4. ACCOUNTING POLICIES ADOPTED BY AN ASSESSEE SHOU LD BE SUCH SO AS TO REPRESENT A TRUE AND FAIR VIEW OF THE STATE OF AFFAIRS OF THE BUSINESS, PROFESSION OR VOCATION IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PREPARED AND PRESENTED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ACCOUNTING POLICIES. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE MAJOR CO NSIDERATIONS GOVERNING THE SELECTION AND APPLICATION OF ACCOUNTING POLICIES AR E FOLLOWING, NAMELY : I) PRUDENCE- PROVISIONS SHOULD BE MADE FOR ALL KNOW N LIABILITIES AND LOSSES EVEN THOUGH THE AMOUNT CANNOT BE DETERMINED WITH CERTAIN LY AND REPRESENTS ONLY A BEST ESTIMATE IN THE LIGHT OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION ; 7.4. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHAINRUP SAMPA TRAM VS CIT REPORTED IN 24 ITR 481(SC) THAT THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK AT THE CLOSE OF ACCOUNTING PERIOD IS NECESSARY PART OF PROCESS OF D ETERMINING TRADING RESULTS OF THAT PERIOD AND CAN IN NO SENSE BE REGARDED AS SOURCE O F SUCH PROFIT. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD MADE A BONAFIDE CH ANGE IN METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK TO BE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE NOTIFIED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS VIDE CBDT NOTIFICATION DATED 25.1.1996 . WHEN A CHANGE IS MA DE TO BE IN CONSONANCE WITH CBDT DIRECTION U/S 119 OF THE ACT AND THE LD AO HAVING A CCEPTED THE SAME AFTER DUE EXAMINATION OF THE WORKINGS THEREON, THE ORDER OF T HE LD AO CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS. IN FACT THE LD CIT HAD ACTUALLY CRITICI ZED THE ORDER OF LD AO FOR FOLLOWING THE CBDT NOTIFICATION IN THE INSTANT CASE. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN PROFIT FIGURE TAKEN BY THE LD CIT AT RS 20,97,742/- IS ALSO WRONG FACTUALLY IGNORING THE CORRECT WORKINGS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD AO AND DULY CERTIFIED BY THE TAX AUDITOR IN THIS REGARD. 7.5. HENCE WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE OR DER OF THE LD AO IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID TWO ISSUES AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN INTERFERED BY THE LD CIT BY INVOKING REVISIONARY JURISDICTION. HENCE THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY THE LD 8 ITA NO.735/KOL/2017 ALLIANCE COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT A.YR.2012-13 8 CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS HEREBY QUASHED. ACCORD INGLY THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 06 .09.2017 SD/- SD/- [A.T. VARKEY] [ M.BALAGANESH ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 06.09.2017 SB, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S ALLIANCE COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT SUITE-1006, 10 TH FLOOR, OM TOWERS, 32, J.L. NEHRU ROAD, KOLKATA-700071. 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14, KOLKATA , 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE, KOLKATA- 700001. 3. C.I.T.- 4. C.I.T.- KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVAT E SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O., ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHE S