DCIT, C.C.-XXVII, Kolkata, Kolkata v. Reliance Trading Enterprises Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 505/KOL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 50523514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AABCR2276H
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 505/KOL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, C.C.-XXVII, Kolkata, Kolkata
Respondent Reliance Trading Enterprises Ltd., Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 28-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 07-07-2010
Next Hearing Date 07-07-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 11-03-2010
Judgment Text
1 A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH- A KO LKATA [ . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . !' !' !' !' # ] BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI S.V.MEHROTRA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ $ $ $ / I.T.A. NO. 505 (KOL) OF 2010 %& '( / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVII KOLKATA RELIANCE TRADING ENTERPRISES LTD. KOLKATA. (PAN-AABCR2276H) (+ /APPELLANT ) - % - - VERSUS - ( /0+ / RESPONDENT ) C.O. NO.42 (KOL) OF 2010 [ $ $ $ $ / I.T.A. NO. 505 (KOL) OF 2010] %& '( / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 RELIANCE TRADING ENTERPRISES LTD. KOLKATA. (PAN-AABCR2276H) DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVII KOLKATA ( /APPLICANT ) - % - - VERSUS - ( /0+ / RESPONDENT ) FOR THE DEPARTMENT : SRI D.R. SINDHAL FOR THE ASSESSEE : SRI R. SALARPURIA 1 / ORDER ( . . . . . .. . ) (B.R.MITTAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T.(A) CENTRA L-II KOLKATA DATED 24.12.2009 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE BOTH THIS APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CO NSOLIDATED ORDER. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW LON G TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.25040713/-; LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WITH INDEXATI ON OF RS.93393.20 AND ALSO SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.7812785/- IN PLACE OF BUSINESS INCOME AS HELD BY THE AO FOR THE REASONS AS DISCUSSED IN THE ORDER. 2 2. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE THA T THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS A TRADER AS WELL AS AN INVESTOR IN SHARES SECURITIES AND MU TUAL FUND. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO A FINANCE COMPANY INVOLVED IN INVESTMENT AND OTHER AC TIVITIES. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TAX AUDIT REPORT AND OTHER DETAILS IN SUPP ORT OF THE RETURN DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3 29 61 078.91. IN THE RETURN OF INC OME THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF INVESTMENTS WHICH INCLUDED LONG-TE RM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) OF RS.2 50 40 713.45 LTCG (WITH INDEXATION) OF RS.93 393.20 SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN (STCG) OF RS.98 47 306.44 (WITH 10% TAX) STCG OF R S.11 500/- (WITH FULL TAX) AND STCG (MUTUAL FUND) OF RS.29 65 479.02 (WITH 10% TAX ). THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS STATED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSE E REMAINED THE SAME OVER THE YEARS. HE HOWEVER OBSERVED THAT THE INITIAL PURCHASE OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT BUT WITH A VIEW TO EARN P ROFIT BY RESALE OF THOSE SHARES AND HOLDING OF SHARES AS STOCK-IN-TRADE OR INVESTMENT W ILL NOT DEPEND ON THE BASIS OF ENTRY MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE THEREFORE DENIE D THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE ABOVE LTCG & STCG AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON APPEAL THE LD. C.I.T.(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO FO LLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. A.YS 2004-05 & 2005-06 HELD THAT THE P ROFIT ON SALE OF INVESTMENT SHOULD BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT BUSINESS INCOME. HE ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ALLOW LTCG AND STCG AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME AS TAKEN BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HEN CE THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. 4. ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT LD. DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T.(A) IS NOT A SPEAKING AND RE ASONED ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS NOT VERIFIED THE FACTS AND HE HAS GONE ON THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY AS WELL AS THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SHAR ES AND MUTUAL FUNDS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ENTERED AS AN INVESTMENT IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ACCORDINGLY HAS HELD THAT THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SHARES AND MUTU AL FUNDS IS THE CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT 3 THE BUSINESS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND RELYING UPON THEREON AND DEC ISIONS IN THE CASE OF BANDI CO- OPERATIVE LABOUR & CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY VS. CIT [30 0 ITR 107 (P&H)] AND IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CORPN. LTD. VS. ACIT [70 ITD 406 (MAD)] SUBMITTED THAT EACH YEAR IS AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSME NT YEAR AND IF A VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN AN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR THE SAME IS NO T BINDING IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES HAVE BEEN EFFECTED ON SUBSTANTIAL VOLUME AND AMOUNT AND AS SUCH THE SAME SHOULD BE TREATED AS BUSINESS TRANSACTION AND NOT AS INVESTME NT TRANSACTION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED WITHIN THE SCOP E AND AMBIT OF THE CASE OF RAJA BAHADUR VISWESWARA SINGH VS. CIT [41 ITR 685 (SC)] AND THE A.O. RELYING ON THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND NOT INVESTMENT TRANSACTIO NS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE A.O. SHOULD BE CONFIRMED BY TREATING THE CAPITA L GAIN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS BUSINESS PROFIT BY REVERSING THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T .(A). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. A/R SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF LD. C.I.T.(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION ARE SIMILAR TO THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 AND TH E TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 944 (KOL)/2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 BY ITS ORDER DATED 03/10/2008 IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON SIMILAR ISSUE HAS TREATE D THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SHARES SECURITIES AND MUTUAL FUNDS AS CAPITAL GAIN AND FOL LOWING THE SAID ORDER THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN ITA NO. 2024 (KO L)/2008 BY ITS ORDER DATED 13/3/2009 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AN D CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T.(A) THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON SALE O F SHARES SECURITIES AND MUTUAL FUNDS IS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT AS B USINESS INCOME. THE LD. A/R SUBMITTED THAT THE COPIES OF THE SAID ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE PLACED ON RECORD. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. C.I.T. (A) HAS GIVEN DETAILED FINDING AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASES CITED BY THE A.O. AT PAGES 8 TO 12 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY HOLDING THAT PROFIT ON SALE OF SHARES SECURITIES AND MUTUAL FUN DS IS THE CAPITAL GAIN OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT BUSINESS INCOME. THE LD. A/R FURTHER REFER RED PAGE-12 OF THE PAPER BOOK 4 WHICH IS A COPY OF THE CHART GIVING THE BREAK-UP OF LTCG WHICH IS TO BE ASSESSED @ 20% AND LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS EXEMPTED A ND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID SHARES WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER ASSES SMENT YEARS AND THE SAME WERE ACCEPTED EVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL AS INVESTMENTS. HE S UBMITTED THAT THE PROFIT ON THE SALE OF SAID SHARES WHICH HAD BEEN ACCEPTED AS INV ESTMENT IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS LTCG AS THE PERIOD O F HOLDING IS MORE THAN 12 MONTHS IN REGARD THERETO. THE LD. A/R FURTHER REFERRED PA GE- 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK GIVING THE BREAK-UP OF TOTAL STCG OF RS.78 12 785.46. HE SUBM ITTED THAT THE SAID STCG COMPRISES OF STCG ASSESSABLE AT 10% TAX AND THE SAI D AMOUNT IS RS.48 47 306.44 STCG ASSESSABLE AT 30% TAX AND THE AMOUNT COMPRISES OF RS.11 500/- AND ALSO THE STCG ON SALE OF MUTUAL FUNDS OF RS.29 65 479.02 WHI CH IS ALSO ASSESSABLE @ 10% TAX. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH WERE ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS A ND THE SAME HAD BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS INVESTMENT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF MUTUAL FUNDS AGGREGATING TO RS.29 65 479.02 THERE ARE ONL Y FIVE TRANSACTIONS AND OUT OF WHICH THREE MUTUAL FUNDS WERE PURCHASED IN THE PREC EDING ASSESSMENT YEARS AND WHEREAS THERE IS ONLY ONE MUTUAL FUND IN WHICH THE PURCHASE AND SALE TRANSACTIONS HAD TAKEN PLACE IN THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE CAPITAL GAIN IS ONLY OF RS. 2 803.96 OUT OF THE TOTAL CAPITAL GAIN ON MUTUAL FU ND SHOWN OF RS.29 65 479.02. THE LD. A/R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF RS.11 500/- THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT AS THE SAID STCG IS ASS ESSED @ 30%. THE LD. A/R FURTHER REFERRED THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF STCG ON THE SHARES WHICH ARE TAXABLE @ 10% AND COMPRISING OF RS.48 47 306.44 AND SUBMITTED THAT SOME OF THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND WERE A LSO SHOWN AS INVESTMENT AT THE CLOSE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 AND THOSE SHARE S WERE BROUGHT FORWARD AS INVESTMENT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AS SESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THIS REGARD HE REFERRED FROM THE SAID CHART AT P AGE-12 THE SHARES OF EMAMI (50 000) AND KARNATAKA BANK (220). IN REPLY TO A QUERY OF T HE BENCH THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN SHARES IN THE SAID LIST AT PAGE-12 IN WHICH THE HOL DING WAS ONLY FOR 2 DAYS OR FOR A 5 PERIOD OF LESS THAN ONE MONTH AND HOW IT COULD BE I NFERRED THAT THE SAID SHARES WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVEST MENT THE LD. A/R SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID SHARES WERE ALSO PURCHASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT AND ALSO ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AS SUCH HE SUBMITTED THAT TH E INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS RELEVANT AND THE PERIOD OF HOLDING IS NOT MATERIAL. THE LD. A/R REFERRED PAGE-4 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS P /L ACCOUNT HAS ALSO SHOWN THE TOTAL CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.3 29 61 078.91. AT THE TI ME OF HEARING ATTENTION OF LD. A/R WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN SHARES AND SECURITIES BUT IN THE P/L ACCOUNT THERE IS NO CLOSING STOCK OF SECURITIES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. A/R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE SOLD THE BROUGHT FORWARD CLOSING STOCK OF SECURITIES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HAS SHOWN THE INCOME OF RS.80 LAKHS IN ITS P/L ACCOUNT. THE LD. A/R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE SHARES UNDER THE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO OUT OF ITS OWN FUND NOT OUT OF BORROWED MONEY AND TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS SUBMI SSION ALSO REFERRED THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS. THE LD. A/R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD ALSO EARNED THE DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.9 85 958.47 AND INTEREST INCO ME OF RS.2 92 00 231.81 AS PER ITS P/L ACCOUNT AND NO INTEREST PAID IS CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ONLY CARRIED OUT THE INVESTMENT BUSINESS AND GIVING LOANS & ADVANCES ON INTEREST. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT I.T.A.T. MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF HITESH SATISHCHANDRA DO SHSI VS. JCIT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 15/6/2011 HAS HELD THAT PERIOD OF HOLDING IS NOT RELEVANT TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE PROFIT ON SALE TRANSACTION IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN OR BUSINESS PROFIT. THE LD. A/R SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS FULLY COVERED BY THE SAID DECISION OF I.T.A.T. MUMBAI BENCH DATED 15/6/2011 AND TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS SUBMISSION HE FILED A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL PLACED ON RECORD. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF LTCG ON SALE OF SHARES AS CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE WE OBSERVE THAT THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AS IS APPEARING ON PAGE-12 OF THE CHART FILED BEFORE US. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT DISPUTE THE FACT THAT THE SAID SHARES WERE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSE E UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT IN 6 ITS BALANCE SHEET FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID DETAILS IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT EACH OF THE SAID SHARES ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LTCG WERE HELD FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 12 MONTHS BEFOR E THE DATE OF SALE. WE ALSO OBSERVE ON PERUSAL OF THE EARLIER ORDERS OF THE TRI BUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 IN ITA NO. 944 (KOL)/2000 DATED 03/10/2008 AND ITA NO. 2024 (KOL)/2008 DATED 13/3/2009 RESPECTIVELY THAT T HE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES & SECURITIES WERE HELD AS INVESTMENTS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE THE SALE OF THOSE INVESTMEN TS HAS RIGHTLY BEEN CONSIDERED AS SALE OF INVESTMENTS AND THE PROFIT ARISING THEREON HAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME. IN THIS REGARD WE CONSIDER IT PRUDENT TO REFER PARA-8 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 03/ 10/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WHICH READS AS UNDER :- 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED TH E RECORDS AS WELL AS THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DENYING THE FACT THAT AS PER THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED THE ASSESS EE HAD ACTED BOTH AS A TRADER AS WELL AS INVESTOR IN SHARES AS PER THE MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION. ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED FOR TRADING / BUSINESS SHARES WHICH ARE HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE AND SEPARATELY FOR INVESTMEN T SHARES WHICH ARE HELD AND SHOWN IN BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT REPRESENTING CAPITAL ASSETS. THE DECISION USED TO BE TAKEN BY THE ASSESS EE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE ITSELF BASED ON DIFFERENT FACTORS WHETHER ANY SHARE & SECURITY WAS TO BE HELD AS INVESTMENT OR TRADING. WHEN THE SHARES ARE ACCO UNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS AS INVESTMENT SHARES THE VOLUME OF TRANSACTION OF SUC H SHARES CANNOT ALTER ITS STATUS FROM INVESTMENT TO TRADING. PROFIT ON SALE O F SUCH INVESTMENT SHARES HELD AS CAPITAL ASSETS ARE ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAP ITAL GAIN. THE PERIOD OF HOLDING SUCH ASSETS CANNOT DETERMINE ITS STATUS OR CHANGE IT FROM INVESTMENT (CAPITAL) TO TRADING (STOCK-IN-TRADE). THE AUDITED A/CS. FOR THE A.Y 2004-05 AND THE EARLIER YEARS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK MADE IT CLEAR THAT EVERY YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED SHARES FOR TRADING PURPOSE AN D SEPARATELY ALSO FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSE WITH AN INTENTION TO EARN DIVIDE ND INCOME IN ADDITION TO THE PROSPECT OF MAKING PROFIT ON SALE OF SUCH INVESTMEN T SHARES AT AN APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNE MOMENT WITHOUT MAKING ANY HURRY FOR SALE IGNORING DIVIDEND. THE INVESTMENT SHARES AND SECURITIES PURCHASED AND HELD TILL THEIR SALE HAD DUAL PURPOSE I.E. FOR EARNING DIVIDEND AS AN INCIDENTAL INCOME AS WELL AS TO MAKE PROFIT ON SALE AT APPROPRIATE TIME. THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE A.O BY TREATING THE INVESTMENT SHARES AS TRADING SHARES WAS BASED P URELY ON ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY MATERIA L OR EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF. THE A.O DID NOT REJECT THE BOOKS OF A/C. V IS--VIS THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS 7 U/S 145 OF THE I.T. ACT BEFORE ARRIVING AT SUCH A C ONCLUSION. THE A.OS FINDING CANNOT THEREFORE BE ACCEPTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE AGREE WITH DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE PROFIT ON SALE OF INVESTMENT SHARES SECURITIES AND MUTUAL FUND IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. GROUND N O. 1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 6.1. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE DEPARTMENT ALSO P REFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND THE TR IBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 13/03/2009 (SUPRA) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AND HELD THAT THE PROFIT ARISING TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SALE OF THE SAID INVESTMENT IS TO BE ASSESSED AS CAPITAL GAIN. IN THIS REGARD WE CONSIDER IT PRUDENT TO REFER THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOPAL PUROHIT VS. JCIT [228 CTR 582 (BOM)] WHEREIN ON SIMILAR FACTS OF THE CASE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS AFFIRMED THE CONCLUSION ARRIV ED BY THE I.T.A.T. MUMBAI BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- THE TRIBUNAL HAS ENTERED A PURE FINDING OF FACT THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS. THE FIRST S ET OF TRANSACTIONS INVOLVED INVESTMENT IN SHARES. THE SECOND SET OF TRANSACTION S INVOLVED DEALING IN SHARES FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CORR ECTLY APPLIED THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW IN ACCEPTING THE POSITION THAT IT IS OPEN TO AN ASSESSEE TO MAINTAIN TWO SEPARATE PORTFOLIOS ONE RELATING TO INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND ANOTHER RELATING TO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES INVOLVING DEALING IN SHARES. TH E TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE DELIVERY BASED TRANSACTIONS IN THE PRESENT CASE SH OULD BE TREATED AS THOSE IN THE NATURE OF INVESTMENT TRANSACTIONS AND THE PROFIT RE CEIVED THEREFROM SHOULD BE TREATED EITHER AS SHORT-TERM OR AS THE CASE MAY BE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN DEPENDING UPON THE PERIOD OF THE HOLDING. THE TRIBU NAL HAS OBSERVED IN ITS JUDGMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWED A CONSISTEN T PRACTICE IN REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITIES THE MANNER OF KEEPING REC ORDS AND THE PRESENTATION OF SHARES AS INVESTMENT AT THE END OF THE YEAR IN ALL THE YEARS. THE TRIBUNAL CORRECTLY ACCEPTED THE POSITION THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT ATTRACTED SINCE EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS SEPARATE IN ITSELF. T HE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE UNIFORMITY IN TREATMENT AND CONSISTENCY WHEN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL PARTICULARLY IN THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS APPROACH OF THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE FAULTED. THE REV ENUE DID NOT FURNISH ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR ADOPTING A DIVERGENT APPROACH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION . THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE ABOUT THE BASIC PROPO SITION THAT ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONE ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE IN DE TERMINING THE NATURE OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL HAS APPLIED THE CORRECT PRINCI PLE IN ARRIVING AT THE DECISION IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE FIND ING OF FACT DOES NOT CALL FOR 8 INTERFERENCE IN AN APPEAL UNDER S. 260A. NO SUBSTAN TIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS RAISED. [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED]. 7. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR EARLIER YEARS AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HI GH COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE WE HOLD THAT THE LD. C.I.T.(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECT ING THE A.O. TO ACCEPT THE LTCG OF RS.2 50 40 713.45 AND LTCG (WITH INDEXATION) OF RS. 92 393.20. THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T.(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS THEREFORE UPHELD AND T HE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT RAISED IN THIS REGARD IS DISMISSED. 8. NOW COMING TO OTHER LIMB OF THE GROUND OF REVEN UES APPEAL IN RESPECT OF STCG CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGREGATING TO RS.78 1 2 785.46 WE OBSERVE THAT THERE IS A PROFIT OF RS.29 65 479.02 ON SALE OF MUTUAL FU NDS THE DETAILS OF WHICH AS PER CHART PLACED ON PAGE-12 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE AS UN DER :- SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN (MF)- 10% TAX QTY . SALE DATE PURCHASE DATE GAIN/LOSS RELIANCE EQUITY FUND 250000 2889200.00 0 2.08.05 2500000.00 11.03.05 389200.00 TATA INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 48578.354 587502.00 01.10.05 500000.00 25.02.05 87502.00 TATA INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 1884.068 23764. 22 01.10.05 20960.26 08.07.05 2803. 96 STCG FROM RELIANCE PMS SERVICES 1983123.06 RELIANCE PHARMA FUND 250000 3002850.00 28.04.05 2500000.00 06.06.04 502850.00 6503316.22 5520960.26 2965479.02 ON PERUSAL OF ABOVE IT IS A FACT THAT THE SAID MUT UAL FUNDS WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS SAVE AN D EXCEPT ONE MUTUAL FUND OF TATA INFRASTRUCTURE FUND (1884.068 UNITS) ON WHICH THERE IS A CAPITAL GAIN SHOWN OF RS. 2803.96. WE OBSERVE THAT THE PERIOD OF HOLDING IN RESPECT OF SAID UNITS OF MUTUAL FUND IS OF ABOUT 3 MONTHS. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SAID PURCHASE OF MUTUAL FUND UNDER TH E INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO ALONG WITH OTHER FOUR MUTUAL FUNDS. WE FURTHER OBSERVE T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PURCHASED EARLIER UNITS OF TATA INFRASTRUCTURE FUND ON 25/02/2005 I.E. IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE SAME WERE ALSO SOLD ON THE SAME DATE ON WHICH THE OTHER 9 UNITS OF TATA INFRASTRUCTURE FUND SOLD IN THE ASSES SMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE OTHER MUTUAL FUNDS H AVE BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT IN THE PRECEDING ASSESS MENT YEARS AND THE SAID FACTS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF THE EAR LIER ASSESSMENT YEARS THAT THEY WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INVESTMENT AND NO T UNDER THE HEAD STOCK-IN- TRADE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE STCG ON SALE OF ABOVE MUTUAL FUNDS AGGREGATING TO R S.29 65 479.02 IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN. 9. NOW COMING TO THE STCG OF RS.11 500/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE SHARES OF SREE PATHI PHARMACEUTICALS (11 500 UN ITS) THERE IS A PROFIT OF RS.11 500/- AND AS PER CHART IT IS STATED THAT THE SAID PROFIT IS TAXABLE @ 30%. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PERIOD OF HOLDING IS ONLY 9 DAYS BUT IT HAS NO REVENUE EFFECT AS THE STCG CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS OFFE RED TO BE TAXED @ 30% WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO GO INTO THE DETAILS AS TO WHETHER THE SAID PROFIT IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE STCG OR AS BUSINESS PROFIT. 10. NOW COMING TO THE STCG OF RS.48 47 306.44 SHOW N BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS OFFERED FOR TAX @ 10% IT IS RELEVANT TO STATE THAT ORIGINALLY THE ASSESSEE FILED ANOTHER CHART AND THE SAID CHART STATED THE STCG OF RS.24 2 0 806.14. WHILE SEEKING CLARIFICATION THE LD. A/R SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE FOUR ITEMS INCLUDED THEREIN WHICH HAVE BEEN WRONGLY INCLUDED I.E. ICICI BANK SHARES (60 000 SHARES) AND BANK OF BARODA SHARES (5600 4200 & 18200 SHARES) ON WHICH THERE WAS A LOSS OF RS. 10 05 000.00 RS.1 58 558.56 RS.2 70 921.42 AND RS .9 92 020.32 RESPECTIVELY WHICH WERE WRONGLY SHOWN IN THE SAID CHART AND ACC ORDINGLY FILED A NEW CHART GIVING THE BREAK-UP OF THE STCG (ASSESSABLE @ 10% T AX) SHOWING STCG OF RS. 48 47 306.44. THE LD. A/R SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL CAPITAL GAIN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED CHART IS RS.3 29 61 078.91 WHICH IS TALLYING WITH THE CAPITAL GAIN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS AUDITED P/L ACCOUNT AT PAGE-4 OF THE PAPER BOOK. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS WE CONSIDER THE NEW CH ART FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWING THE CAPITAL GAIN (ASSESSABLE @ 10% TAX) GIVING BRE AK-UP OF RS.48 47 306.44. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID CHART WE AGREE WITH THE LD. A/ R THAT THERE ARE SHARES OF TWO 10 COMPANIES VIZ. EMAMI AND KARNATAKA BANK WHICH WER E PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE SAID SHARES WERE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALAN CE SHEET OF THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT. NOW C OMING TO THE OTHER SHARES WE OBSERVE THAT THE GAP BETWEEN PURCHASE AND SALE OF S HARES IS VARYING FROM ONE DAY TO PERIOD OF FIVE MONTHS. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS SHOWN THE SAID SHARES UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWING SEPARATELY THE SHARES PURCHASED AS STO CK-IN-TRADE AND PURCHASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT. WE AGREE WITH THE LD. A/R T HAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ACQUIRING THE SHARES IS RELEVANT AND IM PORTANT. THE ABOVE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO. P. LTD. [82 ITR 586 (SC)] AS WELL A S IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. H. HOLCK LARSEN [160 ITR 67 (SC)] AND ALSO CONSIDERED BY C.B.D.T. IN CIRCULAR NO. 4/2007 DATED 15/6/2007. IN SHORT THE PRINCIPLES LA ID DOWN IN THOSE CASES FOR DECIDING THE QUESTION OF NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION AS TRADIN G OR INVESTMENT MAINLY/BROADLY ARE WHAT IS THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF SHARES; WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED MONEY TO PURCHASE AND PAID IN TEREST THEREON; WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY OF SUCH PURCHASE AND DISPOSAL IN THAT PAR TICULAR ITEM; WHETHER THE PURCHASE AND SALE IS FOR REALIZING PROFIT OR PURCHASES ARE M ADE FOR RETENTION AND APPRECIATION IN ITS VALUE; AND HOW THE VALUE OF ITEMS HAS BEEN TAKE N IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THUS NO SINGLE FACTOR CAN BE SAID TO BE DECISIVE FACTOR AND NO SINGLE PRINCIPLE CAN BE LAID DOWN TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION I. E. TRADING ACTIVITY OR INVESTMENT. EACH CASE HAS TO BE DECIDED BASED ON THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF THE SAID CASE. 10.1. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED LTCG AS WELL AS STCG IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF ITS SHARES HELD UND ER INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO AND WE HAVE HELD THAT THE LTCG CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIED. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED VIEW THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS HELD SOME OF THE SHARES FOR A PERIOD O F LESS THAN 12 MONTHS ALONG WITH THE OTHER SHARES UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT THERE CANNOT BE SUB-DIVISION OF TRANSACTION AND TO HOLD THAT THOSE SHARES WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A 11 PERIOD OF LESS THAN 12 MONTHS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDE RED UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT AND TO HOLD THEM AS TRADING IN NATURE. A SIMILAR IS SUE CAME UP BEFORE THE I.T.A.T. MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF HITESH SATISCHANDRA DOS HI VS. JCIT (SUPRA) AND IN PARA 10.1 IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR IN BIFURCATING THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE A ND SALE OF SHARES ON THE BASIS OF HOLDING PERIOD OF 30 DAYS AND THUS THE INCOME ARISI NG FROM THE SAME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS STCG HAS BEEN SUB-DIVIDED AS STCG AND B USINESS INCOME. THEREFORE IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE THAT THE SHARES WHICH WERE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A SHORT PERIOD I.E. FOR A DAY OR TWO AND THAT TOO IN RESPECT OF ONLY A FEW OF THE TRANSACTIONS AS IS OB SERVED FROM THE CHART APPEARING ON PAGE-12 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND TO TREAT THOSE SHARES AS STOCK-IN-TRADE AND AT THE SAME TIME TO TREAT THE OTHER SHARES UNDER THE HEAD INVE STMENT BECAUSE THOSE SHARES WERE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 30 D AYS THE SAID CONTENTION OF LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT BE IN CONSONAN CE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH I.T.A.T. MUMBAI (SUPRA). 10.2. BE THAT AS IT MAY WE OBSERVE THAT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS TO THE INTENT OF THE ASSESSEE WHETHER ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES OR FOR TRADING PURPOSES. HOWEV ER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT ALL THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS DETAILS OF WHICH A RE GIVEN IN THE CHART APPEARING ON PAGE-12 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND RECASTED NEW CHART AF TER CLARIFICATION ARE UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT AND NOT FOR TRADING PURPOSES. CO NSIDERING THE PERIOD INVOLVED IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE SHARES RELATING TO SOME OF THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS WITHIN SHORT SPAN OF DAYS THAT IS TO SAY WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH OR SO WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THOSE TRANSACTIONS BE RE-EXAMI NED BY THE A.O. TO SEE AS TO WHETHER THE PURCHASES AND SALES OF THOSE SHARES WER E CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WITH AN INTENTION FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES OR FOR SHARE T RADING PURPOSES AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND CONSIDERING SUCH EVIDENC ES AS MAY BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10.3. IN VIEW OF ABOVE AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS WE HOLD THAT STCG IN RESPECT OF SHARES WHICH WERE HELD BY ASSESSEE FOR A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS OR MORE BE ACCEPTED. 12 HOWEVER IN RESPECT OF SHARES WHICH WERE HELD BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN 30 DAYS THE A.O. WILL EXAMINE THE SAME AS TO WHETHER THOSE SHARES WERE TRANSACTED FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES OR TRADING PURPO SES AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IS ALLOWED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICA TED ABOVE. C.O. NO. 42 (KOL)/2010 : 11. THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DELAYED BY TWO DAYS. THE LD. A/R EXPLAINED THE DELAY AND PRAYED FOR CONDONATION OF T HE SAME TO WHICH THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT OBJECT. WE TH EREFORE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE CROSS-OBJECTION FOR DISPOSAL. 12. IN THE CROSS-OBJECTION ONLY GROUND TAKEN BY T HE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8 48 305/- MADE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF I.T. RULES ON ACCOUNT OF EMPTED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.9 85 958/-. THE A.O. MADE THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE BY APPLYING RULE 8D OF THE R ULES READ WITH SEC. 14A OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.9 85 958/- IS EXEMPTED U/S. 10(34) OF THE ACT. IN THE FIRST APPEAL THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. ON THE GROUND THAT RULE 8D OF THE RULES IS BINDING AND THE A.O. HAS CORRECTLY CALCULATED THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.8 48 305/- U/S. 14 A OF THE ACT. 13. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. A/R RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. L TD. VS. DCIT [328 ITR 81(BOM)] AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT RULE 8D OF THE RULES IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND IS APPLIC ABLE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ONWARDS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL CO ULD MAKE A REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE INSTEAD OF RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE A.O. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS NORMALLY MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF 1% OF T HE DIVIDEND INCOME. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO OBJECTION TO MAK E A REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE AS PER SEC. 14A OF THE ACT SINCE DIVIDEND INCOME IS EX EMPTED U/S. 10(34) OF THE ACT. 14. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARN ED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND AFTER PERUSING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW WE AGREE THAT THE 13 AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED TO APPLY RULE 8D OF THE RULES FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT AS THE DIVI DEND INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.9 85 958/- IS EXEMPTED FROM TAX U/S. 10(34) OF THE ACT. BE THAT AS IT MAY WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT WILL BE REASONABLE TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.12 000/- AS PER SEC. 14A OF THE ACT AS THE DIVID END INCOME OF RS.9 85 958/- IS EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S. 10(34) OF THE ACT. HENCE THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART BY RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.12 000/- AS AGAINST RS.8 48 305/- WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. C.I.T.(A). 15. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS ALLOWED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED IN PART. ! 1 #2 3 2% 4 !5 THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28.07.2011 SD/- SD/- ( . . . . . .. . !' !' !' !' ) # ( . . . . . .. . ) (S.V.MEHROTRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (B.R.MITTAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( (( (6# 6# 6# 6#) )) ) DATE: 28-07-2011 1 7 /8 9 8':- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. /APPELLANT : D.C.I.T. CC.-XXVII KOLKATA. 2 /0+ / THE RESPONDENT : RELIANCE TRADING ENTP. LTD. 10/1D LALBAZAR STREET 3 RD FLOOR MERCANTILE BUILDING KOLKATA-700 001 3. 1% () : THE CIT(A) CENTRAL- II KOLKATA. 4. 1%/ THE CIT KOL- 5 . =4 /% / DR ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA 6 . GUARD FILE . 08 // TRUE COPY 1%2/ BY ORDER (DKP) ASSTT. REGISTRAR .