Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Kolkata V. D.C.I.T Cir - 5,kolkata, Kolkata

MA 108/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5906 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KUMAR ADL
• Assessee Lawyers: D S DAMLE
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A; 6

Judgement Text

M.A.NO.108/KOL/2017 A/O ITA NO.786/KOL/2013 M/S. ES SEL MINING & INDS. LTD A.Y.2008-09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A KOLKATA BEFORE HONBLE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.108/KOL/2017 (A/O ITA NO.786/KOL/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S. ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD., 18 TH FLOOR, 10, CAMAC STREET, KOLKATA-17. PAN:AAACE 66007 L V/S . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-5, INDUSTRY HOUSE, 18 TH FLOOR, 10, CAMAC STREET, KOLKATA-17 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI D.S.DAMLE, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SAURABH KUMAR, ADL. CIT(DR) /DATE OF HEARING 15.09.2017. /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.11.2017 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, AM BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE ASSESS EE IS SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE I. T.A.T. VIDE ORDER DATED 10 TH MARCH, 2017 ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE A PPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 2. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS :- 2. IN GROUND NOS. 1,2,3 & 4 OF THE PETITIONER'S APP EAL IT HAD OBJECTED TO THE CIT (A)'S ORDER CONFIRMING AO'S ORDER MAKING DISALLOWAN CE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D(2)(II) & (III) AMOUNTING TO RS.17,15,98,000/-. T HE AMOUNT DISALLOWED BY THE AO U/ S 14A INTER-ALIA INCLUDED INTEREST DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.1,573.03 LACS AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS.143.00 LACS. 3. IN PARA - 7.1 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 10.03 .2017 THE LD. ITAT DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D (2). THE ITAT NOTED THAT THE PETITIONER HAD OFFERED THE DISALLOWANCE ONLY IN RES PECT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III), BUT NO DISALLOWANC E WAS OFFERED TOWARDS M.A.NO.108/KOL/2017 A/O ITA NO.786/KOL/2013 M/S. ES SEL MINING & INDS. LTD A.Y.2008-09 2 INTEREST AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8 D(2)(II). THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER OBSERVED THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO PROVE THAT NO BORROWED FUND WAS USED IMPUGNED INVESTMENTS. THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE INTEREST EXPENSES. WE F IND THAT NO MATERIAL WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE NECESSARY INFORMATION TO JUSTIFY THAT THERE IS NO BORROWED FUNDS UTILIZED IN THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENTS . THUS, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE AO HAD NO OPTION EXCEPT TO RESORT TO THE PROVISION OF SEC. 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULES. 4. THE PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT WHILE RECORDING THE AFORESAID FINDING THE ITAT MISDIRECTED ITSELF ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN AS MUCH A S THE TRIBUNAL OMITTED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT MATERIAL FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS ALSO THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT IN THE PETITIONER'S OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08. ATTENTION IN THIS REGARD IS INVITED TO PAGE-6 OF THE SUPPLEME NTARY PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHEREIN PETITIONER HAD FURNISHED COMP ARATIVE CHART OF OWN FUNDS VIS-A-VIS INVESTMENTS HELD BY THE PETITIONER IN A.Y S. 2005-06 TO 2008-09. FROM THE SAID CHART, IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE INVESTMENTS WHICH THE PETITIONER HELD IN SHARES & UNITS WHICH WERE CAPABLE OF YIELDING EXEMP T INCOME AS ON 31.03.2007 WERE TO THE ORDER OF RS. 295.73 CRORES AND AS ON 31 .03.2007 THE PETITIONER'S OWN FUNDS IN THE FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL, FREE RESERV ES AND BALANCE IN PROFIT & LOSS AI C TOGETHER AGGREGATED RS.1,733.81 CRORES. T HE INVESTMENTS IN DIVIDEND YIELDING SECURITIES AS ON 31.03.2008 CAME DOWN TO R S. 283.46 CRORES WHEREAS THE PETITIONER'S OWN FUNDS IN THE FORM OF SHARE CAP ITAL, FREE RESERVES AND BALANCE OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT TOGETHER AGGREGATE D RS. 2,569.19 CRORES. IN FACT THE PROFIT OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR ITSELF WA S RS. 1,256.55 CRORES. THESE MATERIAL FACTS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE INVESTM ENTS CAPABLE OF YIELDING DIVIDEND INCOME HAD RECORDED A NET DECREASE OF RS. 12.27 CRORES DURING F.Y. 2007-. 5. THE ATTENTION OF THE LD. TRIBUNAL IS FURTHER INV ITED TO THE CIT(A)'S ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 IN THE PETITIONER'S OWN CASE WHICH WAS AT PAGES 64 TO 69 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY PAPER BOOK. THE ATTENTION IS PARTICUL ARLY INVITED TO PAGE-67 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY PAPER BOOK (INTERNAL PAGE-13 OF T HE CIT(A)'S ORDER) WHEREIN THE CIT (A) HAD RECORDED THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL FIN DING: IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WE FIND THAT AS ON 31.0 3.2007 THE TOTAL INVESTMENT ARE ABOUT RS.295.9 CRORE BUT AS AGAINS T THIS THE SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVES AND SURPLUS ARE ABOUT RS.1734 CRORE. T HEREFORE, IT CAN BE ASSUMED THAT THE SURPLUS FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON W HICH IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY INTEREST ARE DEPLOYED IN THE INVESTMENTS FROM W HICH EXEMPT INCOME IS EARNED. SINCE BORROWED FUNDS PRIMA-FACIE DO NOT APP EAR TO BE INVESTED IN THE INVESTMENTS THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U /S 14A OUT OF THE INTEREST EXPENSES.' 6. FROM THE FOREGOING IT IS APPARENT THAT THE CIT (A) HAD RECORDED A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE PETITIONER'S OWN FUNDS IN THE FORM OF CAPITAL & RESERVES AS ON 31.3.2007 WERE RS. 1,734 CRORES, WHEREAS INVESTMENT S WERE ONLY ABOUT RS. 295.90 CRORES AND THEREFORE IT HAD TO BE ASSUMED TH AT THE SURPLUS FUNDS ON WHICH ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY INTEREST WER E DEPLOYED IN THE M.A.NO.108/KOL/2017 A/O ITA NO.786/KOL/2013 M/S. ES SEL MINING & INDS. LTD A.Y.2008-09 3 INVESTMENTS FROM WHICH EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED. TH E CIT (A) FURTHER HELD THAT SINCE BORROWED FUNDS PRIMA- FACIE DID NOT APPE AR TO BE INVESTED IN THE INVESTMENTS THEREFORE NO INTEREST DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A WAS PERMISSIBLE. YOUR ATTENTION IS FURTHER INVITED TO THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE 'A' BENCH OF THE ITAT, KOLKATA IN I.T.A. NOS. 352 & 589 /KOL/20 11 D ATED 20.05.2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2007 -08 IN THE PETITIONER'S OWN CASE. ON PERUSAL O F PARAS 25 TO 29 OF THE SAID ORDER, IT WILL BE NOTED THAT IN GROUND NO. 2 OF I.T .A. NO. 589/KOL/2011 THE REVENUE HAD OBJECTED TO THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE C IT(A) OUT OF INTEREST PAID AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. AFTER TAKING DUE NOTE OF THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE CIT (A) IN PARA 7.1 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 29 OF THE ORDER DATED 20.05.2016 DISMISSED THE REVENUE'S APPEAL. IT WILL THEREFORE BE APPRECIATED THAT THE CIT(A)'S FINDING RECORDED IN T HE APPELLATE ORDER FOR A.Y. 2007-08 STOOD MERGED IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT. IT W ILL THEREFORE BE APPRECIATED THAT IN THE PETITIONER'S OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR THE ITAT HAD UPHELD THE CIT (A)'S CONCLUSION THAT THE INVESTMENT OF RS.295.90 CRORES HELD AS ON 31.03.2007 WAS MADE OUT OF PETITIONER'S OWN FUND S AND NO BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT AND THEREFORE NO IN TEREST DISALLOWANCE WAS WARRANTED. 7. THE PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT THE MATERIAL FACTS A S WERE APPARENT FROM PAGE 61 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY PAPER BOOK PROVED THAT THE INV ESTMENTS AS AT 31.03.2008 WERE ONLY RS.283.46 CRORES, WHEREAS THE CORRESPONDI NG FIGURES AS ON 31.03.2007 WAS RS.295.73 CRORES. THESE FACTS THEREF ORE ESTABLISHED THAT DURING F.Y. 2007-08 THERE WAS A NET REDUCTION IN THE INVES TMENTS BY RS.12.27 CRORES MEANING THEREBY NO ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS WERE ACQU IRED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN DURING F.Y. 2007-08 THERE WAS N ET REDUCTION IN THE INVESTMENTS THE PETITIONER COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO PROVE THAT NET REDUCTION IN INVESTMENTS WAS MADE OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS. THE APP LICANT SUBMITS THAT IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENTS OF RS. 295.90 CRORES AS ON 3 1.03.2007 THE CIT(A) & TRIBUNAL HAD RECORDED A CONCURRENT FINDING THAT APP ELLANT'S OWN FUNDS WERE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN THE INVESTMENTS AND THESE O WN FUNDS WERE UTILIZED IN ACQUIRING INVESTMENTS AND NO PART OF INTEREST PAID WAS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 14A. ONCE THE SAID FINDING WAS RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) AND UPHELD BY THE ITAT IN A.Y. 2007-08, THEN THE LD. TRIBUNAL COULD N OT RECORD A FINDING OF FACT WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE ONE RECORDED IN A.Y. 2007- 08 PARTICULARLY WHEN BY 31.03.2008 THE NET INVESTMENT IN SHARES & SECURITIE S HAD RECORDED NET DECREASE BY RS.12.27 CRORES MEANING THEREBY NO INCREMENTAL I NVESTMENT WAS MADE DURING F.Y. 2007-08. 8. THE PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT EVEN THOUGH ALL THES E MATERIAL FACTS & FIGURES WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ABOUT THESE FACTS IN PARA 7.1 OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ORDER. TH E PETITIONER FURTHER FINDS THAT IN DECIDING THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8D(2 )(II) THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL NEITHER CONSIDERED NOR DEALT WITH THE FINDINGS RECO RDED BY THE CIT(A) & UPHELD BY THE ITAT FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 EVEN THOUGH THESE FINDINGS HAD MATERIAL BEARING ON THE DECISION FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. THE P ETITIONER SUBMITS THAT NON CONSIDERATION OF THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS AS ALS O NON APPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES IN T HE ORDERS FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08, HAVING BEARING ON THE ISSUE IN A.Y. 2008-09; WAS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 254(2) OF THE I.T . ACT. M.A.NO.108/KOL/2017 A/O ITA NO.786/KOL/2013 M/S. ES SEL MINING & INDS. LTD A.Y.2008-09 4 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE OWN CA PITAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN THE INVESTMENT SHOWN IN ITS BALANCE SHEET AS E VIDENT UNDER :- (RS. I N CRORES) A.Y. SHARE CAPITAL GENERAL RESERVES PROFIT & LOSS A/C TOTAL OWN FUND INVESTMENTS AS AT THE END OF THE YEAR WHICH HAVE GENERATED OR MAY GENERATE TAX FREE INCOME PROFIT FOR THE YEAR (PBDT) INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN INVESTMENT(5) DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A (1) (2) (3) 4=(1+2+3) (5) (6) (7) (8) 05-06 0.49 544.30 32.53 577.32 321.02 572.24 - - NIL 06-07 0.49 1105.14 45.77 1150.91 352.15 771.52 31.1 3 1 % OF DIVIDEND I.E RS.4.07 LACS 07-08 0.49 1165.14 568.18 1733.81 295.73 896.54 (56 .42) 1% OF DIVIDEND I.E RS.3.99 LACS 08-09 0.49 1249.15 1319.55 2569.19 283.46 1256.55 ( 12.27) UNDER APPEAL IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ABOVE DETAILS WERE DULY FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS BEFORE THE HONBLE ITA T AT THE TIME OF HEARING. WE ALSO NOTE THAT IN THIS SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A. Y.2007-08 WAS PLEASED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N O. 589/KOL/2011 ORDER DATED 25.05.2016 WHEREIN THE HONBLE ITAT AFTER CON SIDERING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE HONBLE ITAT ORDER IS REPRODU CED BELOW :- THE FOLLOWING WERE THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD :- IN THE ABOVE DECISION HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HA S SAID THAT THOUGH RULE 8D WILL NOT APPLY TO ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09 BUT FOR EARLIER YEARS THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A SHOULD BE ESTIMATED ON A REASONABLE BASIS. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WE FIND THAT AS ON 31.03.2007 THE TOTA L INVESTMENT ARE ABOUT RS.295.9 CRORE BUT AS AGAINST THIS THE SHARE CAPITAL AND RES ERVES AND SURPLUS ARE ABOUT RS.1734 CRORE. THEREFORE, IT CAN BE ASSUMED THAT TH E SURPLUS FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY INTEREST ARE DEP LOYED IN THE INVESTMENTS FROM WHICH EXEMPT INCOME IS EARNED. SINCE BORROWED FUNDS PRIMA -FACIE DO NOT APPEAR TO BE INVESTED IN THE INVESTMENTS THEREFORE NO DISALLOWAN CE CAN BE MADE U/S.14A OUT OF THE INTEREST EXPENSES. AS REGARDS THE ADMINISTRATIV E AND OTHER EXPENSES WHICH CAN BE ASCRIBED TO THE EXEMPT INCOME IT IS SEEN THAT IN RECENT JUDGMENT HON'BE ITAT, KOLKATA HAS DECIDED THAT ONE PERCENT OF THE EXEMPT INCOME CAN BE TAKEN AS RELATED M.A.NO.108/KOL/2017 A/O ITA NO.786/KOL/2013 M/S. ES SEL MINING & INDS. LTD A.Y.2008-09 5 TO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREAD Y DISALLOWED ONE PERCENT OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.3,99,203/- IN ITS C OMPUTATION OF INCOME. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER DISALLOWANCE IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE U/S 14A. HENCE I DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,94,14,773/- MADE BY THE A.O. O N THIS GROUND. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) REVENUE HAS PREFER RED GROUND NO.2 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 28. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND LD. DR. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO WHILE THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH HAS BEEN TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW THAT 1% OF THE EXEMPT INCOME WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND DISALLOWANCE OF OTHER EXPENSES PRIO R TO A.Y.2008-09 AND THIS VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN HELD BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT. THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS WERE REFERRED TO IN THIS REGARD : 1. HIMTAJ CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. VS. I.T.O. (ITA NO. 721/KO1L2007- AY. 2004-05) ORDER DATED 27.04.2007. 2. CHNHS ASSOCIATION VS. ACIT(ITA NO.74/KOI/2008-AY .2004-05) ORDER DATED 19.02.2008. 3. I.T.O. VS. M/S S.P.S. SECURITIES (P) LTD. (ITA N O.123/KOI/2010- AY.2000-01 ORDER DATED 19.08.2010 HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S.R.R.SEN & BROTHERS PVT.LTD. IN GA NO.30 19 OF 2012 IN ITA NO.243 OF 2012 DATED 4.1.2013 HELD THAT COMPUTATION OF 1% OF EXEMP T INCOME AS DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT WAS PROPER. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IN ANY CASE HAS TO BE 1% OF T HE EXEMPT INCOME. 29. WE HAVE GIVEN A VERY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION T O THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS REFERRE D TO BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS JUST AND PROPER AND CALLS FO R NO INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. FROM THE ABOVE WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE ITAT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HE ARING WHEREIN IT WAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE OWN CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE E XCEEDS THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT THEREFORE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES. BESIDES THE ABOVE THE HONBLE ITAT HAS ALSO NOT CON SIDERED THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE ITAT IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSE E IN ITA NO.589/KOL/2011 (SUPRA) WHERE IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE HOLD THAT THE MISTA KE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD HAS OCCURRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE IT AT IN PURSUANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE THEREFO RE RECALL THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE DISA LLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO M.A.NO.108/KOL/2017 A/O ITA NO.786/KOL/2013 M/S. ES SEL MINING & INDS. LTD A.Y.2008-09 6 UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE REGIS TRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE CASE FOR HEARING IN DUE COURSE OF TIME. HENCE THE G ROUND FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, M.A FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10/11/201 7 SD/- SD/- ( !) ( !) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) *RG.SPS #- / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-M/SESSELMINING&INDUSTRIES LTD. INDUSTRY HOUSE, 18 TH FLOOR, 10 CAMAC ST.KOL-17 2. /RESPONDENT-DCIT, CIRCLE-5, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CH OWRINGHEE SQ. KOL-69 3. - 0 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 0- / CIT (A) 5. 3 -, -, KOLKATA / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 9 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ / -,