DCIT, C.C.-1(4), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Mahalaxmi Marketing P. Ltd., Kolkata

ITSSA 118/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0186 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TULSYAN
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Question of law
• Section: 14A; 68

Judgement Text

1 IT(SS)A NO. 118/KOL/2017 MAHALUXMI MARKETING P. LTD., AY 2012-13 , B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA ( ) BEFORE . , /AND . . , ) [BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM & SHRI A. T. VA RKEY, JM] I.T(SS).A. NO. 118/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), KOLKATA. VS. M/S. MAHALUXMI MARKETING PVT. LTD. (PAN: AACCM0519R) APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 14.11.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.12.2018 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI VIJAY SHANKAR, CIT, DR FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI A. K. TULSYAN, FCA ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-20, KOLKATA DATED 15.06.2017 FOR AY 2012-13. 2. GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINS T THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.153,60,07,000/- MADE U/ S. 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) ON ACCOUNT O F INVESTMENT IN SHARE CAPITAL OF AMALGAMATING COMPANIES. SINCE AO NOTED FROM BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.03.2012 THAT IN THE AY 2012-13, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD TOTAL INVESTME NT OF RS.155,28,60,000/-, BEING SHARES OF RASHMI GROUP OF COMPANIES, AFTER REDUCING THE COMMISSION PAID BY ASSESSEE TO SHRI MAHENDRA SETHIA OF RS.1,68,53,000/-, THE BALA NCE AMOUNT OF RS.153,60,07,000/- WAS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR AY 2 012-13. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO ALLOWED THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND ORDERED DELETION OF THE ADDITION. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2 IT(SS)A NO. 118/KOL/2017 MAHALUXMI MARKETING P. LTD., AY 2012-13 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROU GH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION TAKING NOTE THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE AMALGAMATED C OMPANY (ASSESSEE COMPANY) I.E. M/S. MAHALUXMI MARKETING PVT. LTD. AND THAT TOO IN THE A Y 2012-13 FOR INTRODUCTION OF SHARE INVESTMENTS OF 14 DIFFERENT PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANI ES WHICH WAS ALREADY EXISTING IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BOOKS FROM FY 2008-09 (AY 2009-10), WHIC H ACCORDING TO LD. CIT(A) IS NEITHER JUSTIFIED NOR LEGAL. ACCORDING TO LD. CIT(A), THE SHARE CAPITAL INTRODUCED IN THE FY 2008-09 OF THE 14 AMALGAMATING COMPANIES TO THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY IN THE AY 2012-13 CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY AND HA S HELD AS UNDER: 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER AND I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED WRITTEN SUBMISSION AS WELL AS DIFFERENT CASE LAWS O N THIS ISSUE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AR. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE AR HAS ARGUED AND PUT MAIN EMPHASIS ON FOLLOWING TECHNICAL ISSUES, THOUGH HE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMI SSION AND ARGUED ON MERIT ALSO. THE MAIN TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE AR ARE I) THAT, ALL THE ALLEGED INVESTMENTS BEING SHARE CA PITAL AND PREMIUM WERE RAISED IN FY 2008- 09. IN SUCH CASE CAN THERE ANY ADDITION ON INVESTME NTS IN AY 2012-13. II) WHEN INVESTMENTS OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PRE MIUM IN 14 COMPANIES (AS PER THE CHART PRESENTED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION) WERE MADE IN D IFFERENT 14 COMPANIES, AFTER AMALGAMATION IN ANOTHER COMPANY. CAN ADDITION BE MADE IN THE HAN DS OF AMALGAMATED COMPANY. ON THIS ISSUE THE AO HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD. CASE LA WS DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1990] 53 TAXMAN 92 (SC) AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS HU KUMCHAND MOHANLAL [1971] 82 ITR 624 (SC)]. IN THE CASE OF SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYND ICATE LTD (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT, THAT THE SUBSEQUENT REMISSION/C ESSATION OF TRADING LIABILITY, CANNOT BE TAXED U/S 41(1) IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y. AS PER THE APEX COURT'S DECISION, THE ALLOWANCE MADE TO 'I' (THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY), W HICH WAS A DIFFERENT ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE: HELD TO BE INCOME OF THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY WH ICH IS A SEPARATE ENTITY AND A DIFFERENT ASSESSEE. THE ORDER BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE SAID CAS E, CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: SECTION 41(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - REMISSI ON/CESSATION OF TRADING LIABILITY - ASSESSMENT YEAR 1965-66 - A COMPANY 'I' AMALGAMATED WITH ASSESSEE-COMPANY - PRIOR TO AMALGAMATION I HAD BEEN ALLOWED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE ON ACCRUAL BASIS - SAID COMPANY HAD SHOWN AFORESAID AMOUNT AS A TRADING LIABILITY AND S AID TRADING LIABILITY WAS TAKEN OVER BY ASSESSEE - WHETHER AFTER AMALGAMATION OF 'I' WITH A SSESSEE, IDENTITY OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY WAS LOST AND IT WAS NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE AND, THE REFORE, ASSESSEE BEING DIFFERENT ENTITY WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX ON AFORESAID AMOUNT - HELD, YES. 3 IT(SS)A NO. 118/KOL/2017 MAHALUXMI MARKETING P. LTD., AY 2012-13 THE AR HAS ALSO BROUGHT ON RECORD THE CASE LAW OF C IT VS USHA STUD AGRICULTURAL FARMS LTD (2008) 76 CCH 0398 DELHI (HC) 5 DTR 0335, (2008) 30 1 ITR 0384 DELHI (HC). IN THIS CASE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: INCOME-CASH CREDIT-OPENING BALANCE OF EARLIER YEAR- CIT(A) HAVING DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 LACS MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE CREDIT BALANC E OF RS.15 LACS IS BEING REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE OVER THE PAST FOUR TO FIVE YEARS OR SO AND HENCE THIS WAS NOT A FRESH CREDIT ENTRY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON FOR BEING CONSIDERED UNDER S.68, AND TRIBUNAL HAVING ENDORSED THE SAID FINDING, NO SUBST ANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. THE AR HAS ALSO BROUGHT ON RECORD MANY OTHER CASE L AWS ON THIS ISSUE WHICH ARE DISCUSSED IN THE ORDER OF JURISDICTIONAL KOLKATA BENCH OF ITAT I N THE CASE OF ITO WARD 12(1), KOLKATA VS M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT LTD IN ITA NO.2620/KOL/201 3 DT.07-09-2016. THEY ARE AS UNDER: 'IN THE CASE OF DY CIT VS AMOD PETROCHEM (P) LTD (2 008) 23 (I) ITCL 145 (GUJ-HC) : (2008) 217 CTR (GUJ) 401, IT WAS HELD THAT AS PER SECTION 68, THERE SHOULD BE CASH CREDITS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE SECTION PROVIDES FOR A DEEMING F ICTION OF TREATING THE SUM FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOU S YEAR, BEING CHARGED TO INCOME- TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, P ROVIDED (I) THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION AS TO THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CRED ITS, OR (II) THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, SATISFACTORY. THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE, THEREFORE IS, THERE HAVE TO BE CREDITS OF ANY SUM I N THE BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, ONLY THEN THE SUM SO CREDITED CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR; IN OTHER WORDS, FIR ST OF ALL, THERE HAVE TO BE CREDITS IN A PREVIOUS YEAR AND ONLY IN THE ASSESSMENT RELATABLE TO THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, NAMELY, YEAR OF CREDIT, THE SUM CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX. IN CIT VS US HA STUD AGRICULTURAL FARMS LTD (2008) 301 ITR 384 (DEL) : (2009) 183 TAXMAN 277 (DEL), IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE IT IS A FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THAT THE CRE DIT BALANCE APPEARING IN THE ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE, DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE I MPUGNED ADDITION U/S 68 AND AS SUCH NO FAULT COULD BE FOUND WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAD ENDORSED THE DECISION OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). IN MAHABIR PRASAD PREM CHAN D JAIN VS ITO (1988) 40 TAXMAN 35 (DEL-TRIB)(TAX MAG), IT WAS HELD THAT AMOUNTS FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE WERE IN EXISTENCE MUCH PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE ACCOUN TING PERIOD CORRESPONDING TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE SAME COULD NOT, THEREFORE, BE TREATED AS THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE EARNED DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. IN NUCHEM LTD VS DY CIT (2004) 87 TTJ (DEL-TRIB) 166, IT WAS HELD THAT REVENUE HAD FAILED TO PROVE T HAT THE AMOUNTS WERE CREDITED TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. THESE AMOUNTS WERE BROUGHT FORWARD FROM EARLIER YEARS AND IT IS SETTLED LAW TH AT THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 COULD BE MADE ONLY IF THE AMOUNT WAS CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT S OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. IN SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD VS ASSTT. CIT ( DEL-TRIB) : 24 SOT 393, IT WAS HELD THAT NO NEW AMOUNT HAD BEEN CREDITED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS ALSO RULED OUT AND ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT'. FROM THE RATIO DECIDED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL KOLKAT A BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF STANDARD LEATHER PVT LTD (SUPRA) AND IN CASE LAWS DECIDED BY OTHER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ADDITION U/S 68 CAN BE MADE ONLY IN THE YEAR WHEREIN IT WAS INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN FUTURE ASSESSMENT YEARS IF THE AMOUNT IS BROUGHT FORWARD AND SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. BUT HERE IN THIS CASE THE AMOUNTS WERE CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF 14 COMPANIES IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 BUT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 4 IT(SS)A NO. 118/KOL/2017 MAHALUXMI MARKETING P. LTD., AY 2012-13 FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED THE RATIO IN THE CASE OF SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD (SUPRA) THAT THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY IS A NEW LEGAL ENTITY AND A DIFFERENT ASSESSEE. THE REFORE, IT COULD NOT BE TAXED FOR ANY REMISSION/ CESSATION OF LIABILITY OF AMALGAMATING C OMPANIES IN EARLIER YEARS. BUT IN THIS CASE THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE AMALGA MATED COMPANY I.E. M/S MAHALAXMI MERKETING PVT LTD AND THAT TOO IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 012-13 FOR INTRODUCTION OF SHARE INVESTMENTS IN DIFFERENT 14 COMPANIES IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 WHICH IS NEITHER JUSTIFIED NOR LEGAL. IN MY VIEW PERHAPS THE AO COULD HAVE REOPENE D CASES OF 14 AMALGAMATING COMPANIES OF THE YEAR IN WHICH SHARE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE AN D COULD FIND POSSIBILITIES OF MAKING INVESTIGATIONS, IF ANY. BUT THE AO HAS NOT DONE SO. RATHER HE HAS MADE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF AMALGAMATED COMPANY WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THUS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO DECIDED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE LAWS OF SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. HUKUMCHAND MOHANLAL (SUPRA). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO DECIDED BY THE APE X COURT IN CASES DISCUSSED ABOVE, ASSESSEES APPEAL ON GROUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWED. SINC E I HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THIS ISSUE ON TECHNICAL GROUND SO I AM NOT INCLINED TO DISCUSS AN D DECIDE IT ON MERIT. 4. THE LD. CIT, DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FACT THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE 14 AMALGAMATING COMPANIES WERE OF THE FY 2008-09 AND T HESE 14 COMPANIES HAVE AMALGAMATED W.E.F. 20.07.2011 WITH THE ASSESSEE COM PANY IN AY 2012-13 BY VIRTUE OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS ORDER DATED 27.06.2013 (PARA 8 OF AOS ORDER). THE LEGAL EFFECT AFTER AMALGAMATION OF THESE 14 COMPANIES WITH ASSESSEE CO MPANY IS THAT THE AMALGAMATING COMPANIES LOSES ITS IDENTITY. THUS, THE IDENTITY O F THE AMALGAMATING 14 COMPANIES WERE LOST AND IT EFFACES AWAY FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES AND IS NO LONGER INEXISTENCE AND SO NON-EST IN THE EYES OF LAW. AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS DIFFERENT JURISTIC ENTITY CANNOT BE TAXED BY APPLYING SEC. 68 OF THE ACT FOR THE SHARE CAPITA L AND PREMIUM WHICH THESE 14 AMALGAMATING COMPANIES HAVE SHOWN IN THEIR RESPECTI VE BOOKS FROM FY 2008-09 ONWARDS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY TAKEN NOTE OF THE JUDI CIAL PRECEDENCE TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER TAKING EFFE CT, THE CORPORATE ENTITY OF THE TRANSFEROR COMPANY CEASED TO EXIST AND FROM THAT DATE THE AMAL GAMATING COMPANIES IS NON-EST IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THE AMALGAMATED ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A DIFFERENT CORPORATE ENTITY AND CANNOT BE SADDLED WITH THE SHARE CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY 14 DIFFERENT AMALGAMATING COMPANIES IN FY 2008-09, THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED ABO VE AND THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD. 5 IT(SS)A NO. 118/KOL/2017 MAHALUXMI MARKETING P. LTD., AY 2012-13 CIT(A) WE CONCUR AND, THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE SAM E AND DISMISS THE REVENUES GROUND OF APPEAL FOR AY 2012-13. 5. GROUND NO. 5 IS IN RESPECT OF DELETION OF ADDITI ON ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE I. T. RULES, 19 62. 6. AT THE OUTSET ITSELF, IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY DIVIDEND INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM TAX, SO AC CORDING TO LD. AR, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE APPLYING SEC. 14A READ WITH RU LE 8D OF THE RULES. WE NOTE THAT HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHEMINVEST LTD. (2015) 378 ITR 33 (DEL.) HAS HELD AFTER TAKING NOTE THAT ASSESSEE COM PANY IN THAT CASE ALSO DID NOT EARN ANY DIVIDEND INCOME. IN THIS CASE THE HONBLE HIGH COUR T HAS HELD AS UNDER: ''SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 - EXPENDIT URE INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME NOT INCLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME (APPLICABILITY) - ASSESS MENT YEAR 2004-05 - WHETHER SECTION 14A ENVISAGES THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ACTUAL RECEIPT OF INCOME WHICH IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME; HENCE, SECTION 14A WILL NOT APPLY WHERE NO EXEMPT INCOME IS RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DURING RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR - HELD, YES [PARA 23] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE](CITED BELOW) 23. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS ENUMERATED HEREINBE FORE THE COURT ANSWERS THE QUESTION FRAMED BY HOLDING THAT THE EXPRESSION 'DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME IN SECTION 14A OF THE ENVISAGES THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ACTUAL RECEIPT OF INCOME, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME, DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR FOR THE P URPOSE OF DISALLOWING ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE SAID INCOME. IN OTHER W ORDS, SECTION 14A WILL NOT APPLY IF NO EXEMPT INCOME IS RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. ' THEREFORE, FROM THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS I T IS CLEAR THAT AS PER LAW, THE RECEIPT OF THE INCOME EXEMPTED FROM TAX IS NECESSARY FOR ANY D ISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D. IF THERE IS NO EXEMPTED INCOME RECEIV ED DURING THE YEAR, THERE CAN BE NO DISALLOWANCE MADE APPLYING SECTION 14A OF THE ACT R EAD WITH RULE 8D. HENCE, IN THE INSTANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, QUESTION OF ANY DISAL LOWANCE DOES NOT ARISE, AS IT HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY EXEMPT INCOME. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF T HE CASE LAWS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, NO DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED IN THE INSTANT CASE AS NO EXEMPTED INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE CONFIRM THE ACTION OF LD CI T(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE. 6 IT(SS)A NO. 118/KOL/2017 MAHALUXMI MARKETING P. LTD., AY 2012-13 7. GROUND NO. 4 IS IN RESPECT OF DELETION OF ADDITI ON MADE BY AO AS THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT TO PRELIMINARY EXPENSES WRITTE N OFF. 8. WE NOTE THAT AO HAD MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS BEFORE HIM IN RESPECT TO THIS CLAIM MAD E BY ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DELIBERATED ON THIS ISSUE WHILE ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, FOR THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIRPLAY, WE SET ASIDE THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE DE NOVO THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE ALL DETAILS BEFORE THE AO. AND THE AO TO DECIDE THI S ISSUE AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12TH DECEMBE R, 2018. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 12TH DECEMBER, 2018 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT DCIT, C.C-1(4), KOLKATA. 2 RESPONDENT M/S. MAHALUXMI MARKETING P. LTD., ORBI T HOUSE, GARSTIN PLACE, ROOM NO. 3B, 3 RD FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 001. 3 4 5 CIT(A)-20, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR