Gulab Mall Singhvi, Kolkata v. A.C.I.T., Circle-24, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 374/KOL/2010 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 37423514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AIQPS4269K
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 374/KOL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant Gulab Mall Singhvi, Kolkata
Respondent A.C.I.T., Circle-24, Kolkata, Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 28-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 02-06-2010
Next Hearing Date 02-06-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 19-02-2010
Judgment Text
1 A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH- A KOL KATA [ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . !' !' !' !' # ] BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI S.V.MEHROTRA ACC OUNTANT MEMBER $ $ $ $ / ITA NO. 374 (KOL) OF 2010 %&' () / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 GULAB MALL SINGHVI KOLKATA. (PAN-AIQPS4269K) ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-24 KOLKATA. ( - / APPELLANT ) - & - - VERSUS - (01 -/ RESPONDENT ) - 2 3 / FOR THE APPELLANT: / SRI SUBASH AGARWAL 01 - 2 3 / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SRI P.S. DUTTA 4 / ORDER ( . . . . . . . . ) (B.R.MITTAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. C.I.T.(A)-XIV KOLKATA DATED 14/10/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. FOR THAT THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORD ER DATED 14.10.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIV WHICH HAV E BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON 25.01.2010 IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND PERV ERSE. 2. FOR THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIV FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT RS.1 45 131 /- WOULD NOT BE ADDED TO ASSESSEES INCOME AS PERQUISITE INCOME ON ACCOMMODA TION WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. FOR THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIV HAS ERRED IN APPORTIONING THE INTERES T EXPENSES AMONG SHARE TRADING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN AN UNSCIENTIFIC MANNER. 2. THE ABOVE GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE DOES NOT REQUIRE SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 3. IN REGARD TO GROUND NO.2 ABOVE THE FACTS ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE LEASED OUT FIRST FLOOR OF HIS HOUSE PROPERTY TO HIS EMPLOYER AT AN A NNUAL RENT OF RS.4 32 000/-. THE 2 EMPLOYER IN TURN PROVIDED THE SAID FIRST FLOOR TO T HE ASSESSEE FOR HIS LIVING. THE EMPLOYER ADDED THE ENTIRE RENT AS SALARY ON RENT-FR EE ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE STATED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT HE HAS SHOWN THE RENT RECEIPT AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY FOR TAXATION AND THEREF ORE NO PERQUISITE FOR ACCOMMODATION OVER AND ABOVE THE RENTAL INCOME IS T AXABLE. THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS ACCORDING TO HIM THE EMPLOYER HAD PROVIDED HIM A RENT-FREE ACCOMMODATION. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTE R THE A.O. HELD THE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR TAX ON PERQUISITE OF RENT-FREE ACCOMMODATION AN D ADDED THE SUM OF RS.1 45 131/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THAT ACCOUNT AS PER COMPUTATION BELOW :- (1) ACTUAL LEASE RENT PAID BY HIS EMPLOYER RS.4 32 000/- (2) 10% OF SALARY RS.1 45 131/- (3) (WHICHEVER IS LOWER I.E. RS.1 45 131) 4. ON APPEAL THE LD. C.I.T.(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTI ON OF THE A.O. IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 45 131/- WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERV ATION :- IF THE EMPLOYER HAD GIVEN THIS ACCOMMODATION TAKEN ON RENT FROM THE ASSESSEE TO SOME OTHER EMPLOYEE THEN THE EMPLOYER WOULD HAVE MADE SO ME OTHER ARRANGEMENT FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED SOM E OTHER RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION OR THE HRA WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID TO HIM. IN BOTH TH E CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO TAX EITHER ON THE PERQUISITE OR THE ALLOWANCE RECEIVED. THEREFORE I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE RENT FREE H OUSE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE EMPLOYER IS A PERQUISITE IN HIS HAND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN TAKEN ON RENT FROM THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. THERE IS NO DOUBLE TAXATION INVOLVED IN IT. I THEREFORE UPHOLD THIS DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. A/R S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE LEASED OUT FIRST FLOOR OF HIS HOUSE TO HIS EMPLOYER AND TH E LEASE RENT RECEIVED OF RS.4 32 000/- WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID LEASED HOUSE WAS GIVEN BY T HE EMPLOYER TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS RESIDENCE AND NO RENT WAS CHARGED. HE SUBMITTED TH AT 10% OF SALARY I.E. RS.1 45 131/- HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS PERQUISITE VALUE FOR THE PUR POSE OF TAXATION AND IF THE SAID AMOUNT IS AGAIN ADDED TO THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOM E THE SAME WILL BE DEEMED TO BE TAXED TWICE. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDI TION ON ACCOUNT OF PERQUISITE SHOULD BE ASSESSED WHILE COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. 3 6. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS RECEIVED RENT-FREE ACCOMMODATION FROM HIS EMPLOYER AND THEREFORE THE AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO 10% OF THE SALARY IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS PERQUISITE VALUE UNDE R RULE 3 OF I.T. RULES 1962. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF LEASE RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSE LEASED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS EMPLOYER AN D THE SAME HAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE GOT SOME OTHER PROPERTY FROM HIS EMPLOYER UND ISPUTEDLY THE RENT-FREE ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED BY THE EMPLOYER TO THE ASSES SEE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS PERQUISITE VALUE AS PER RULE 3 OF THE RULES. HE T HEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T.(A) SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND SUBSTANTIAL FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT TH AT IN ONE HAND THE ASSESSEE HAS LEASED OUT HIS HOUSE PROPERTY TO HIS EMPLOYER ON RENT BASI S AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE SAME VERY HOUSE PROPERTY WAS PROVIDED TO HIM BY HIS EMPLOYER AS RENT-FREE ACCOMMODATION. THEREFORE THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN LETTING OUT TH E HOUSE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS EMPLOYER AND PROVIDING THE SAME HOU SE PROPERTY AS RENT-FREE ACCOMMODATION BY THE EMPLOYER TO THE ASSESSEE. IN T HAT VIEW OF THE MATTER TAX IS TO BE COMPUTED ON BOTH COUNTS ONE FOR EARNING RENTAL IN COME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CLA IMED AND THE OTHER UNDER THE HEAD PERQUISITE FOR GIVING RENT-FREE ACCOMMODATION BY HIS EMPLOYER. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THEREFORE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT IF THE EMPLOYER WOULD HAVE PROVIDED RENT-FREE ACCOMMODATION OR GRANTED HOUSE R ENT ALLOWANCE TO THE ASSESSEE IN LIEU OF PROVIDING RENT-FREE ACCOMMODATION OF THE HO USE NOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO TAX EITHER ON THE PERQUISITE OR THE ALLOWANCE RECEIVED. THEREFORE THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HA S RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN TREATING THE RENT-FREE ACCOMMODATION PROVID ED TO THE ASSESSEE BY HIS EMPLOYER AS PERQUISITE AND IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCES ADDITION OF RS.1 45 131/- HAS BEEN RIGHTLY MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND O F THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE FAILS. 4 8. GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST MANNER OF APPORTIONMENT OF INTEREST EXPENSES FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF INCOME/LOS S OF THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED BY LD. C.I.T.(A). THE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN TRADING OF S HARES AS WELL AS MADE INVESTMENT IN SHARES. ON SHARE TRADING ACTIVITY THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.3 59 285/- AND ON INVESTMENT ACCOUNT HE HAS SHOWN SHORT-TERM A ND LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS/LOSS. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.8 69 977/- IN HIS P/L ACCOUNT MADE FOR SHARE TRADING ACTIVITY. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT BOR ROWED FUNDS ON WHICH ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST HAVE BEEN UTILIZED BOTH FOR SHARE TRADING AS WELL AS INVESTMENT PURPOSES. HE THEREFORE APPORTIONED THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE AMO NGST DIFFERENT TYPES OF INCOME FROM SHARE TRANSACTIONS ON THE BASIS OF PEAK AMOUNT OF L OAN BORROWED FOR SHARE TRADING AND INVESTMENT IN SHARES WHICH HAS RESULTED IN SHORT-T ERM CAPITAL GAIN AS UNDER :- INTEREST RELATED TO SHARE TRADING BUSINESS - RS . 65 843 INTEREST RELATED TO STCG EARNED ON INVESTMENT - R S.1 00 000 INTEREST RELATED TO LTCG EARNED ON INVESTMENT - R S.7 04 143 RS.8 69 977 RESULTANT INCOME FROM DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEALINGS IN SHARES WAS ARRIVED AS UNDER: 1) SHARE TRADING BUSINESS PROFIT - RS. 4 43 299 2) STCG - RS. 1 32 755 3) LTCG - RS.27 36 137 9. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. C.I.T.(A). HE SUGGESTED AN ALTERNATIVE APPORTIONMENT TO ALLOCATE THE INTEREST BY STATING AS UNDER :- THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A VERY VAGUE AND UNSCIENTI FIC MANNER ALLOCATED THE INTEREST EXPENSES ON BORROWED CAPITAL RS.8 69 977/- BETWEEN THE TRADING ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE THE LTCGS AND STCGS. THE ALLOCATION HAS BEEN MADE IN MOST UNSCIENTIFIC MANNER WITHOUT ANY BASIS WHATSOEVER. IT CANNOT BE HOWEVE R DISPUTED THAT THE ALLOCATION OF INTEREST PAYMENT HAS TO BE MADE AMONG ALL THE DIFFE RENT FACTS OF THE TRANSACTION VIZ. TRADING ACTIVITY AND CAPITAL GAINS. IN THE ASSESSEE S OPINION THE MOST PRUDENT ALLOCATION THAN CAN BE MADE IS ON THE BASIS OF PURCHASE OF SHA RES BETWEEN THE 3 CATEGORIES. FOR YOUR HONOURS READY PERUSAL SUMMARY OF THE SAME IS PRESENTED BELOW : PARTICULARS TRADING ACTIVITY (RS.) LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (RS.) SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN (RS.) TOTAL (RS.) PURCHASES 57 08 791/- (AS SPECIFIED BY AO IN PAGE-2 OF HIS ORDER. 13 53 170 (AS PER THE STATEMENT ENC- LOSED AS ANNEXURE 38 00 000/- (AS SPECIFIED BY AO IN PAGE-2 OF HIS ORDER. 1 08 61 961 5 INTEREST ON THE BASIS OF PROPORTION OF PURCHASES. 4 57 239 1 68 576 2 44 152 8 69 977 LD. C.I.T.(A) REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE MORE D ETAILS ABOUT HIS TRADING OF SHARES AND IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DATE-WISE PURCH ASE AND SALE DETAILS OF THE SHARES BY SHOWING THE PEAK INVESTMENT VALUE OF RS.20 53 008/- AS PER CHART SUBMITTED AND REALLOCATING THE INTEREST IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER : - A) PEAK INVESTMENT VALUE - RS.20 53 008 INTEREST @ 10% AS PER A.O.S ORDER - RS. 2 05 301 TOTAL INTEREST CLAIMED - RS. 8 69 977 BALANCE INTEREST TO BE ALLOCATED BETWEEN - RS. 6 64 676 STCG & LTCG A) COST OF SALES RESULTING IN STCG RS.2 44 152/ - - RS.38 00 000 INTEREST ALLOCABLE CONSIDERING THE COST OF SALES RESULTING IN LTCG RS.1 68 576/- BEIN G - RS. 4 90 136 RS.13 53 170/-. B) INTEREST ALLOCABLE FOR LTCG - RS. 1 74 5 40 9.1. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND MANNER OF CALCULATION OF APPORTIONMENT OF INTEREST EXPENSES SUGGESTED BY THE LD. A/R LD. C.I.T.(A) COMPUTED THE INTEREST RELATED TO INVESTMENT IN TRADING SHARES AT RS.90 000/- AND DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ADOPT THE REMAINING INTEREST OF RS. 7 79 977/- TO BE DISTRIBU TED TO THREE TYPES OF INCOME/LOSS AS UNDER :- I) STCG RS.4 53 262/- II) LTCG RS.1 61 405/- III) LTCL (ON INDEXATION SHARES) RS.1 65 310/- FOR BETTER APPRECIATION THE OBSERVATION OF LD. C.I .T.(A) IS REPRODUCED BELOW :- 4.3. ON THIS ISSUE THE FIRST THING WHICH IS CLE AR IS THAT THE INTEREST OF RS. 8 69 977/- DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUN T OF SHARE TRADING ACTIVITY DOES NOT FULLY RELATE TO THE SHARE TRADING BUSINESS. THE QUE STION TO BE DECIDED HERE IS WHAT SHOULD BE THE METHOD FOR ALLOCATING THIS INTEREST AMONG TH E DIFFERENT TYPES OF INCOME THAT HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS DEALINGS IN SH ARES. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE METHODS USED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE METHOD WHICH IN MY OPINION IS MORE LOGICAL IS DESCRIBED BELOW. 6 FIRST OF ALL IF WE LOOK AT THE SHARE TRADING ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE WE FIND THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR THE OPENING STOCK OF TRADING SHARES WAS NIL AND THE CLOSING STOCK WAS RS.86 955/-. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE CONTI NUOUSLY PURCHASED AND SOLD SHARES ON DIFFERENT DATES. TO DETERMINE THE INTEREST ATTRI BUTABLE TO THE TRADING ACTIVITY WE HAVE TO SEE AS TO ON AN AVERAGE HOW MUCH FUNDS OF THE AS SESSEE REMAINED INVESTED IN THE SHARE TRADING ACTIVITY THROUGH OUT THE YEAR. FOR TH IS THE AO HAS TAKEN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6 58 434/- WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE AMOUNT FOR THE FIR ST PURCHASE OF TRADING SHARES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON 10.04.2003. I FEEL THAT THIS AMOUNT CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE REMAINED INVESTED THROUGHOUT THE YEAR BECAUSE THIS AMOUNT HA S FLUCTUATED WITH SUBSEQUENT PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. THE AMOUNT OF RS.20 53 008/- ADOPTED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SUBSEQUENT SUBMISSION IS ALSO NOT L OGICAL BECAUSE THIS WAS THE MAXIMUM INVESTMENT AT A PARTICULAR TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THIS AMOUNT DID NOT REMAIN INVESTED THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. IN THE DATE WISE SALE PURCHASE DETAILS THE AR CALCULATED THE CUMULATIVE PURCHASE MINUS SALE AMOUNTS ON DIFFE RENT DATES WHICH GIVES A FAIR IDEA OF THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES ON A PARTICULAR DATE. I F WE GO THROUGH THESE AMOUNTS WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A POSITIVE INVESTMENT IN TRAD ING SHARES FROM APRIL UPTO THE MIDDLE OF NOVEMBER ONLY. AFTER THAT THE FIGURE OF INVESTME NT COMES TO NEGATIVE WHICH MEANS NOW ONWARDS THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES WAS OUT OF THE PROFIT EARNED FROM SHARE TRADING TILL MIDDLE OF NOVEMBER. IT IS SEEN THAT FOR THE PE RIOD APRIL 2003 TO MIDDLE OF NOVEMBER 2003 THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT IN SHARES COME S TO ABOUT RS. 10 00 000/-. THEREFORE @ 10% P.A. INTEREST FOR 7.5 MONTHS WILL BE 7.5/12 X RS.1 00 000/- RS. 90 000/-. THERE WILL BE NO INTEREST CORRESPONDING T O THE REMAINING 4.5 MONTHS FROM MIDDLE OF NOVEMBER TO MARCH 2004 BECAUSE PRACTICALL Y NO BORROWED FUNDS REMAIN INVESTED IN TRADING SHARES DURING THIS PERIOD. THER EFORE INTEREST RELATED TO INVESTMENT IN TRADING SHARES DURING THE. PREVIOUS YEAR WILL BE AP PROXIMATELY RS.90 000/- ONLY. AFTER REDUCING THIS INTEREST OF RS. 90 000/- THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.7 79 977/- HAS TO BE APPORTIONED AMONG THE REMAINING THREE TYP ES OF INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS DEALINGS IN SHARES. IT IS SEEN TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE FOLLOWING CAPITAL GAINS/ LOSSES. (1) STCG RS. 2 32 755/- (2) LTCG RS. 34 40 280/- (3) LTCL (ON INDEXATION SHARES) RS. 2 73 745/- THE BEST WAY TO ALLOCATE INTEREST RELATED TO THIS INCOME/LOSS WILL BE TO APPORTION IT ACCORDING TO THE COST OF THE SHARES WHICH WERE SOLD FOR EARNING THESE INCOME/LOSS BECAUSE COST SHOWS HOW MUCH OF BORROWED FUNDS MAY H AVE REMAINED INVESTED IN THESE SHARES. FROM THE DETAILS OF CALCULATIONS FILED IT I S SEEN THAT THE COSTS RELATED TO THESE THREE TYPES OF INCOME/LOSS ARE RS.38 00 000/- RS.1 3 53 170/- AND RS.13 85 891/- RESPECTIVELY IF THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF INTEREST O F RS. 7 79 977/- IS DISTRIBUTED IN THE RATIO THESE COSTS OF INTEREST THE INTEREST ATTRIBU TABLE TO THESE THREE TYPES OF INCOME/LOSS WOULD AS FOLLOWS: (1) STCG RS. 4 53 262/- (2) LTCG RS. 1 61 405/- (3) LTCL (ON INDEXATION SHARES) RS.1 65 310/- 7 THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE ABOVE DETERMI NED VALUES OF INTEREST FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF INCOME/LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE AND RECALCULAT E THEM ACCORDINGLY. THE INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS (LTCL) M AY BE ADDED IN THAT LOSS AND MAY BE ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 10. THE LD. A/R MADE HIS SUBMISSIONS IN THE LINE M ADE BEFORE THE LD. C.I.T.(A) WHEREAS THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T.(A). 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. WE OBSERVE THAT THE LD. C.I.T.(A) AFTER CONSIDERING ALL ASPECTS OF THE MATT ER AND CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED A WAY WHICH HAS BEEN DETA ILED IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER AND REPRODUCED ABOVE TO ALLOCATE INTEREST RELATED TO S HORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS. NO CONVINCING ARGUMENTS COULD BE ADVANCED BY THE LD. A.R. BEFORE US TO CONTROVERT SUCH APPORTIONMENT OF INTEREST EXPENS ES ADOPTED BY THE LD. C.I.T.(A). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE FIND NO REASON TO INTER FERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T.(A) IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ADOPT THE DETERMINED VALUES O F INTEREST FOR (I) STCG RS.4 53 262/-; (II) LTCG RS.1 61 405/-; AND (III) LTCL (ON INDEXAT ION SHARES) RS.1 65 310/-. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T.(A) ON THI S ISSUE AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ! 4 #5 6 5& 7 !8 THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28.7.11 SD/- SD/- ( . . . . . .. . !' !' !' !' ) # ( . . . . . . . . ) (S.V.MEHROTRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (B.R.MITTAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( (( (9# 9# 9# 9#) )) ) DATE: -07-2011 8 $ $ $ $ / ITA NO. 374 (KOL) OF 2010 4 2 0%%: ; :(<- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. - / THE APPELLANT : GULAB MALL SINGH 57-D BALLYGUNGE CIRCULAR ROAD KOLKATA-70 0 019. 2 01 - / THE RESPONDENT : A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-24 KOLKATA. 3. %4& () : THE CIT(A) XIV KOLKATA. 4. %4&/ THE CIT KOL - 5 . %7 0%& / DR ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA 6 . GUARD FILE . 1: 0%/ TRUE COPY 4&5/ BY ORDER (DKP) @ A / DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR .