V.Mart Retail Ltd, Kolkata v. Addl C.I.T Rg - 7,kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 2120/KOL/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016

Appeal Details

RSA Number 212023514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AABCV7206K
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 2120/KOL/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant V.Mart Retail Ltd, Kolkata
Respondent Addl C.I.T Rg - 7,kolkata, Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 21-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 21-09-2016
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 15-07-2013
Judgment Text
1 ITA NO. 2120/KOL/2013 V. MART RETAIL LTD.. AY 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI P. M. JAGTAP AM & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY JM] I.T.A NO. 2120/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 V. MART RETAIL LTD. NEW DELHI VS. ASSISTANT COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (PAN:AABCV7206K) RANGE-7 KOLKATA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING: 21.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.09.2016 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI V. N. PUROHIT FCA FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI SALLONG YADEN ADDL. CIT ORDER PER SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY JM: THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A)-VIII KOLKATA VIDE APPEAL NO. 301/CIT(A)-VIII/KOL/11-12 DATED 03.12.2012. AS SESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ADDL. CIT RANGE-7 KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR AY 2009-10 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 31.12.20 11. 2. THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DELAYED BY 121 DAYS A ND A CONDONATION PETITION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT. AFT ER CONSIDERING THE SAME AND ON THE CONCESSION GIVEN BY THE LD. DR FOR CONDONATION OF D ELAY WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THIS APPEAL FOR HEARING. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S ENGAGED IN RETAIL BUSINESS THROUGH A CHAIN OF OUT LETS. THEY FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCO ME FOR THE AY 2009-10 ON 16.9.2009 DISCLOSING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1 33 27 140/- AND O N 21.9.2010 THEY HAVE FILED THEIR REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U /S.143(1) OF THE ACT AND IN THE MEANWHILE IT WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. SUBSEQUENT LY IT WAS SELECTED IN CASS. BY WAY OF ORDER DATED 31.12.2011 LEARNED AO ASSESSED TOTAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1 71 76 930/- AND IN THAT PROCESS DISALLOWED A P ART OF DEPRECIATION OF GENERATOR CLAIMED AT 80% AS PROVIDED IN ITEM NO.8(XIII) OF NEW APPEND IX I OF THE I. T. RULES DISALLOWED DEPOSIT OF ESI U/S 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT PART OF GE NERAL EXPENSES AND FINES AND PENALTIES. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO THE ASSES SEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO BY WAY OF IMPUGNED ORDER INTER ALIA DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN RESPECT 2 ITA NO. 2120/KOL/2013 V. MART RETAIL LTD.. AY 2009-10 OF DEPRECIATION ON GENERATORS REDUCED THE DISALLOW ANCE IN RESPECT OF GENERAL EXPENSES AND CONFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED AO IN RESPECT OF ESI. CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE ASSESSEE PREFERR ED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON HEAVY DUTY GENERATOR SET TO THE EXTENT OF RS.35 64 438/- AS MADE BY AO. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN SUSTAIN ING AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OUT OF GENERAL EXPENSES AT RS. 1 LAC. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ACC EPTING ASSESSEE/APPELLANTS PLEA THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF CLAIM NOT MADE IN RETURN BUT ONLY D URING ASSESSMENT STAGE OF ESI CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BEFORE FILING OF RETURN AT RS.17892/-. 4. ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AR IS THAT INSOFAR AS TH E DEPRECIATION ON GENERATOR IS CONCERNED IT IS PROVIDED IN VIDE ENTRY NO (XIII) O F ITEM NO III(8) PROVIDED IN PART A OF NEW APPENDIX I WHICH DEALS WITH THE RATES AT WHICH DEPR ECIATION IS ADMISSIBLE 80% OF DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF ANY SPECIAL DEVICES INCLUDING ELECTRIC GENERATORS AS SUCH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW COMMITTED ERROR IN LIMITING THE DEPRECIATION TO 15%. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS NO DISALLOW ANCE OF GENERAL EXPENSES IN ANY EARLIER YEARS AND THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES MEE TING OF SUNDRY EXPENSES LIKE SERVING TEA ETC TO THE CUSTOMERS AND DETAILS OF SUCH MINOR ITE MS WILL BE NUMEROUS. LASTLY HE CONTENDS THAT THOUGH THERE IS DELAY IN PAYMENT OF ESI IT WAS PAID WITHIN DUE DATE AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. LD DR VEHEMENTLY RELIES ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. BASING ON THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION AND CONTENTION S ON EITHER SIDE THE POINTS THAT ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION ARE: I. ARE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE DEPRECIATION ON GENERATORS AT 15%? II. IS THE LEARNED CIT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE GEN ERAL EXPENSES TO A TUNE OF RS.1 00 000/-. III. ARE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT? IV. TO WHAT RELIEF? ISSUE NO1: 5. CASE OF ASSESSEE IS THAT FOR RUNNING THEIR BUSIN ESS THEY ARE USING HEAVY DUTY GENERATOR SETS AND IN RESPECT OF SUCH GENERATOR SET S IN THE RELEVANT AY THEY CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT HIGHER RATE. SUCH PERCENTAGE WAS R ESTRICTED TO 15% BY THE LEARNED AO AND 3 ITA NO. 2120/KOL/2013 V. MART RETAIL LTD.. AY 2009-10 CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED AO ELECTRIC GENERATORS USED TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY BY USING CONVENTIONAL FUELS SU CH AS COAL DIESEL PETROL GAS FIREWOOD ETC ARE CONSIDERED FALLING WITHIN THE GENERAL CATEGORY OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AND DEPRECIATION APPLICABLE IS AT A GENERAL RATE AND FOR GENERATORS WHICH USE NON-CONVENTIONAL FUELS MUNICIPAL WASTE AGRICULTURAL WASTE OR GENERATORS W HICH HARNESS SOLAR AND WIND POWER TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY MAY BE TREATED AS ELIGIBLE FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION UNDER SPECIAL CATEGORIES. BETWEEN THE TWO DECISIONS CITED BEFORE HIM I.E CIT VS. AGARWAL TRANSFORMERS (P) LTD (2002) 258 ITR 0251 RELIED UPON BY THE ASSE SSEE AND CIT VS. ANANG POLYFILE PVT. LTD (2004) 267 ITR 0266 RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE LEARNED AO PREFERRED THE LATER DECISION ON THE GROUND THAT SIMILARITY AND APPLICAB ILITY OF THE FORMER DECISION TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WERE NOT PROPERLY EXP LAINED OR JUSTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND THE DECISIONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE. WHILE CONSIDERING THE ENTRY (XIII) A NY SPECIAL DEVICES INCLUDING ELECTRIC GENERATORS AND PUMPS RUNNING ON WIND ENERGY HONBL E RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS : ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF CONSTRUCTION WHERE TWO OR MORE WORDS WHICH ARE SUSCEPTIBLE OF ANALOGOUS MEANING ARE COUPLED TOGETHER NOSCITUR A S OCIIS THEY ARE UNDERSTOOD TO BE USED IN THEIR COGNATE SENSE. THEY TAKE AS IT WERE THEIR C OLOUR FROM EACH OTHER THE MEANING OF THE MORE GENERAL BEING RESTRICTED TO A SENSE ANALOGOUS TO THAT OF THE LESS GENERAL. THUS IN OUR VIEW THE WORD 'ELECTRIC GENERATOR' MUST BE CONSTRUE D AS EJUSDEM GENERIS. THE ELECTRIC GENERATOR BY ITSELF GENERATE ELECTRICITY AND THERE FORE DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVICES. IT IS DIFFERENT FROM PUMPS RUN ON W IND ENERGY WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVICES. THUS IT IS ERRONEOUS TO SAY THAT THE CONDITION 'RUN ON WIND ENERGY' IS ALSO ATTACHED TO ELECTRIC GENERATORS. EV EN GRAMMATICALLY NEITHER NOR THE WORD BOTH IS USED AFTER THE WORD PUMPS IN THE RELEVA NT ENTRY AND THIS ALSO CLARIFIES THAT THE CONDITION 'RUNNING ON' WIND 'ENERGY' IS ONLY ATTACH ED TO THE WORD PUMPS AND NOT TO THE ELECTRIC GENERATORS. A FURTHER READING OF THE ENTRY SHOWS THAT IT IS INCLUSIVE IT REFERS TO TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS NAMELY ELECTRIC GENERATORS AND SEC ONDLY THE PUMPS RUNNING ON WIND ENERGY. THUS IN OUR VIEW THE ELECTRIC GENERATOR CLEARLY FA LLS UNDER THE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVICES HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WHILE CONSIDERING THE EN TRY (XIII) ANY SPECIAL DEVICES INCLUDING ELECTRIC GENERATORS AND PUMPS RUNNING ON WIND ENERGY HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS : ALTHOUGH AT THE FIRST BLUSH IT MAY APPEAR THAT TH IS SUB-ITEM (XIII) INCLUDES ELECTRIC GENERATORS AND THEREFORE DIESEL SETS FOR GENERATI NG ELECTRICAL ENERGY MAY FALL UNDER THIS SUB-ITEM ON PROPER SCRUTINY IT WOULD APPEAR THAT W HAT IS CONTEMPLATED IS ELECTRIC GENERATORS RUNNING ON WIND ENERGY AND PUMPS RUNNING ON WIND EN ERGY AND HENCE GENERATOR SETS RUNNING ON DIESEL WOULD NOT FALL UNDER SUB-ITEM (XI II). 4 ITA NO. 2120/KOL/2013 V. MART RETAIL LTD.. AY 2009-10 7. IT IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR THAT IN CIT VS. AGARWAL TRANSFORMERS (P) LTD. (2002) 258 ITR 0251 THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COUR T CLEARLY STATED THAT THE WORD ELECTRIC GENERATOR MUST BE CONSTRUED AS EJUSDEM GENERIS I.E. THE WORDS HAVE TO BE UNDERSTOOD WITH REFERENCE TO THE COMPANY OF THE OTH ER WORDS WHICH THEY KEEP. IT IS FURTHER HELD BY THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT THAT THE C ONDITION RUNNING ON WIND ENERGY IS ONLY ATTACHED TO THE WORD PUMP AND NOT TO THE EL ECTRIC GENERATORS. LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH CO URT OBSERVED THAT ELECTRIC GENERATOR CLEARLY FALLS UNDER THE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVICES IN VIEW OF ITS OBSERVATIONS THE SAID WORD IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF OTHER EXPRESSION S IN ITEM NO. 8(III) PROVIDED IN PART A OF NEW APPENDIX-I. IN THAT SCENARIO IT FOLLOWS THAT ALL THE ELECTRIC GENERATORS DO NOT FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVICES BUT SUCH E LECTRIC GENERATORS WHICH RUN ON NON- CONVENTIONAL FUELS FIT IN THE ENTRIES OF ITEM NO. 8 (III) OF APPENDIX. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE FOCUS OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT WAS ON WH ETHER THE EXPRESSION RUN ON WIND ENERGY COULD BE ATTACHED TO PUMPS AS WELL AS ELECTR IC GENERATORS. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT SUCH AN EXPRESSION CANNOT BE ATTACHED TO ELECTRICAL GENERATORS AND HAS TO BE READ AS PUMPS RUNNING ON WIND ENERGY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL ELECTRIC GENERATORS ARE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVICE S UNLESS THEY RUN ON NON-CONVENTIONAL ENERGY SOURCES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THAT IS THE REASON WHY IN A LATER DECISION BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THEIR LORDSHIPS WERE PL EASED TO OBSERVE THAT ALTHOUGH AT THE FIRST BLUSH IT MAY APPEAR THAT THE SUB ITEM (XIII) INCLUDES ELECTRIC GENERATORS AND THEREFORE DIESEL SET FOR GENERATING ELECTRICAL ENERGY MAY FAL L UNDER THE SUB ITEM ON PROPER SCRUTINY IT WOULD APPEAR THAT WHAT IS CONTEMPLATED IS ELECTRICA L GENERATOR RUN ON WIND ENERGY AND PUMPS RUN ON WIND ENERGY AND HENCE GENERATOR SETS RUNNING ON DIESEL WOULD NOT FALL UNDER SUB ITEM (XIII). ACCORDING TO LD. DR THERE IS NO C ONFLICT BETWEEN THESE TWO DECISIONS AND HE SUBMITS THAT THE CONDITION RUNNING ON WIND ENER GY HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE ELECTRICAL GENERATOR BUT AT THE SAME TIME ONLY SUCH ELECTRICA L GENERATORS AS RUN ON NON-CONVENTIONAL ENERGY SOURCES ALONE ANSWER THE DESCRIPTION RENEWAL ENERGY DEVICES. WE FIND A LOT OF FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DR. HOWEVER EITHER FR OM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND TH E SOURCE OF ENERGY FOR THE ELECTRIC GENERATOR IN RESPECT OF WHICH HIGHER RATE OF DEPREC IATION IS CLAIMED. WHETHER SUCH GENERATORS ARE RUNNING ON CONVENTIONAL OR NON-CONVE NTIONAL ENERGY SOURCES IS VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL TO GIVE A FINDING ON THE RATE OF DEPRECIA TION WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED. SINCE IT 5 ITA NO. 2120/KOL/2013 V. MART RETAIL LTD.. AY 2009-10 IS A VERIFIABLE QUESTION OF FACT WE FIND IT JUST A ND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH VERIFICATION OF THE SOURCE OF ENERGY WHICH THE ELECTRICAL GENERATOR OF THE ASS ESSEE IS RUNNING ON AND ACCORDINGLY REACH THE CORRECT RATE OF DEPRECIATION WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. ISSUE NO.2 8. NOW TURNING TO THE ASPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF GEN ERAL EXPENSES ARE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT ORDER READS THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AN D DEDUCTED MISC. EXPENSES TO A TUNE OF RS.59 95 496/- OUT OF WHICH AN AMOUNT OF RS.52 44 9 76 WAS CLAIMED AS GENERAL EXPENSES. LEARNED AO DISALLOWED THE SAME TO A TUNE OF RS.2 62 248/-REPRESENTING 5% THEREOF ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COULD NOT FURNISH ITS FULL DETAILS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR INCURRING SUCH EXPENSE. LEARNED CIT(A) REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.1 00 000/-. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AR THAT IN NONE OF THE PR ECEDING YEARS SINCE 2006-07 THERE IS ANY DISALLOWANCE OF GENERAL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF GE NERAL EXPENSES AT RS.51 84 134/- AGAINST NET SALES OF RS.97 93 18 179/- AND SUCH EXPENSES CO NSTITUTE 0.52% OF NET SALES. IT IS HIS FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE EXPENSES CLAIMED CONSTITUTE ONLY 0.42% AGAINST THE INCREASE OF SALES BY 45%. H E FURTHER BROUGHT IT TO OUR NOTICE THAT NO SPECIFIC ITEM OF DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE OUT FRO M THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ANY VERIFICATION IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DETAILS. 9. THERE IS NO DENIAL OF THESE FIGURES SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR. ON THE OTHER HAND THEY FIND A PLACE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). WHEN THE LEARNED AO ALLOWED GENERAL EXPENSES AT 51 84 134/- I.E. 0.52% OF THE NET SALES IN THE IMM EDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR THERE IS NO REASON FOR DISALLOWING THE SAME WHEN THE NET SALES WENT UP BY 45% AND GENERAL EXPENSES WENT DOWN BY 0.10% IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. FURTHER THE RE IS NO REFERENCE TO ANY PARTICULAR ITEM OF DISALLOWANCE. DISALLOWANCE AT 5% AS ADOPTE D BY LEARNED AO OR THE RS.1 00 000/-AS ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC OR RATIONALE BASIS AMENABLE TO SCRUTINY BY US AND THEY ARE PRESUMPTIVE IN NATURE. FURTHER RULE OF CONSISTENCY DEMANDS THAT THE AUTHORITIES ARE CONSISTENT IN THEI R TREATMENT WITH REFERENCE TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE RESTRICTION OF DEDUCTION OF GENERAL EXPENSES BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINABLE AND DOES NOT STAND TO JURIDICAL 6 ITA NO. 2120/KOL/2013 V. MART RETAIL LTD.. AY 2009-10 SCRUTINY. WE THEREFORE WHILE ANSWERING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE. THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AL LOWED. ISSUE NO3: 10. INSOFAR AS THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 43B OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED LEARNED AO DISALLOWED DEDUCTION TO A TUNE OR RS.17 892/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE THE CLAIM AT THE TIME OF FILING THE RETURN. IN RESPECT OF LATE PAYMENT OF ESI CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS THAT THOUGH THERE IS SOME DELAY THE PA YMENT WAS MADE WELL WITHIN THE STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. LEARNED CIT(A) TUR NED DOWN THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FOLL OWED THE PROCEDURE FOR MAKING THE CLAIM INASMUCH AS THE LIABILITY IS OUTSTANDING IN THE BAL ANCE SHEET AND THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME TO SHOW T HAT THE SAID LIABILITY HAS PROPERLY BEEN DISCHARGED. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE WITH SOME DELAY BUT BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT NO EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED BY THEM. LEARNED AR SUBMITS THAT SUCH EVI DENCE IS NOT WITHIN THEIR COMMAND AND THE SAME COULD BE SECURED AND VERIFIED BY THE L EARNED AO. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE IT IS A VERIFIABLE FACT INSTEAD OF DISALLOWI NG THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT ONCE WE DEEM IT JUST AND PROPER TO AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THEIR CASE BEFORE THE LEARNED AO AND THE LEARNED AO WILL SECURE THE RELE VANT PAPERS FOR VERIFICATION TO REACH THE JUST TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE MATTER ON THIS POINT AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF LEARNED AO FOR DUE VERIFICA TION AND DISPOSAL AFRESH. WE ANSWER THE POINT ACCORDINGLY. THEREFORE THIS GROUND OF APPEA L OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.09.2016 . SD/- SD/- (P. M. JAGTAP) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER 2016 JD.(SR.P.S.) 7 ITA NO. 2120/KOL/2013 V. MART RETAIL LTD.. AY 2009-10 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT V. MART RETAIL LTD. C/O SARAF & CH ANDRA CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ASHOKA HOUSE SUIT NO. 501 3A HARE S TREET KOLKATA-700 001. 2 RESPONDENT ACIT RANGE-7 KOLKATA. 3. THE CIT (A) KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT KOLKATA DR KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA /TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR .