Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Century Enka Ltd., Kolkata vs Department Of Income Tax
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, "B" BENCH : KOLKATA [ Before Hon'ble Shri B.R. Mittal, JM and Hon'ble Shri C. D. Rao, AM ] ITA No. 1775 (Kol) of 2010 : Assessment Year : 1992-93 Dy. Comissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Century Enka Limited Circle-6,Kolkata. Kolkata [PAN : AABCC 2491 D] [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant by : Shri D. R. Sindhal, CIT Respondent by : S/Shri A. J. Majumdar, Akash Mansinka & Ms. Preeti Bhatnagar.
Per B. R. Mittal, J. M. The Department has filed this appeal for assessment year 1992-93 against order of Ld. CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata dated 28.06.2010 on the following grounds :-
(1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-
VI, Kolkata has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Interest on borrowed capital of Rs.204.93 lakh (correct amount of interest deleted by Ld. CIT(A) Rs.138.20 lakh).
(2) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Investment allowance of Rs.251.46 lakh.
(3) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A)-VI.
Kolkata has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of additional depreciation allowance of Rs.1,89,69,500/- in respect of foreign exchange liability and devaluation of rupee.
(4) That the Ld. CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata has erred in law in allowing foreign exchange liability and devaluation of rupee on notional basis.
(5) That the Ld. CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata has erred in law in allowing claim made during assessment proceedings otherwise than by revised return on notional basis in violation of principle laid down by the Apex Court in M/s. Goetze India Ltd. case.
2. This appeal is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3)/254/251 of the Act.
2 ITA No. 1775/Kol/20103. The relevant facts are that the assessee filed return on 30.12.1992 disclosing total income of Rs.2830.83 lakhs as per normal provisions of the Income Tax Act. At the time of filing of said original return assessee capitalized interest expenditure and claimed depreciation thereon. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee filed a letter dated 17.02.1995 and claimed following deductions :-
(a) Investment allowance of Rs.251.46 lakhs u/s. 32A of the Income Tax Act on account of revised cost of plant and machinery in terms of Section 43A of the Act due to variation of rate of foreign exchange as on 31.03.1992; and
(b) Interest of Rs.204.93 lakhs payable during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, on funds borrowed for acquisition of fixed assets, which was capitalised in the books of account. The assessee also filed revised depreciation schedule alongwith said letter.
4. The Assessing Officer made assessment vide order dated 31.03.1995, copy placed at pages 36 to 46 of the paper book and stated as under :-
(i) That question of exchange rate loss can not arise during the year as the assessee has not made any actual payment. No consideration for future loss can be considered or ascertained.
(ii) That the assessee cannot be allowed to revise its return by submitting a letter and claim interest of Rs.204.93 lakhs in respect of loans taken for purchase/acquisition of fixed assets, which was capitalized as part of interest on fixed assets and claimed depreciation interest in its income-tax return filed for assessment year 1992-93.
(iii) That Assessing Officer did not discuss claim of investment allowance u/s. 32A of the Act claimed by the assessee on account 3 ITA No. 1775/Kol/2010 of variation of rate of foreign exchange.
5. Being aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)
6. The Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 07.09.1998 held as under :-
(i) In disallowing depreciation with reference to incremental liability on account of foreign exchange fluctuation, finding of Assessing Officer is confusing as he failed to bring out issue clearly. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) restored the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue with a speaking order devoid of ambiguities.
(ii) In regard to claim of interest on borrowed fund and claim of investment allowance on incremental liability, Ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to examine and allow the same if admissible.
7. Being aggrieved the Department as we all as the assessee filed appeals against the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 07.09.1998 before the Tribunal being ITA No.1596/Kol/98 (filed by the assessee) and ITA No.1841/Kol/98 (filed by the Department). The Tribunal vide its order dated 19.07.2002 decided the appeal of the Assessee alongwith other appeals of the assesse for assessment years 1993-94 & 1997-98 (copy placed at pages 73 to 82 of the paper book). That appeal of Department was decided vide order dated 24.10.2002 (copy placed at pages 83 to 85 of the paper book). Pursuant to above, the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order dated 28.11.2003 giving rise to this appeal for our consideration.
8. In respect of ground No.1 of the appeal, the Assessing Officer has stated as under :-
"Interest on borrowed capital As regards the allowability of interest on borrowed money as revenue expenditure, the A/R stated that borrowed money has been used for the purposes of business and depreciation has also been allowed and on the identical point the ITAT has allowed in assessment year 1993-94. The A/R has pointed out the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. vs. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 167. In response, the A/R submitted that the cited case is for an altogether new business and in the assessee's case, it is an existing business and used for the expansion of business which he contended was nothing but revenue expenditure.4 ITA No. 1775/Kol/2010
The submission of the A/R was considered and records verified in this regard. It is seen from the original assessment order that the assessee has capitalised the interest upto the date of installation of fixed assets in respect of loans taken for purchase/acquisition of fixed assets. This is in conformity with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. vs. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 167, the leading case law o this issue.
It is also noted that the portion of interest, on being capitalized as above, is being actually allowed to the assessee by way of higher depreciation and not directly u/s. 36. Therefore the assessee is not being denied the benefit of interest payment. The case law cited by the assessee (CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd., 254 ITR 503 (Cal) is not being defied as assessee's claim is not being denied only because the same was not made in the return filed. This issue is being decided on its merits only, which incidentally is in inconformity with assessee's own computation as given in its return of income. Accordingly, as directed by Hon'ble ITAT, the issue has been examined, and on examination and considering the submissions of the assessee, the contention of the assessee is rejected."
Being aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
9. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee has held that the case of Hon'ble Apex Court of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. [1975] 98 ITR 167, relied by the Assessing Officer does not apply as the assessee has successfully distinguished the said decision that in the case of the assessee's business it was already in existence. The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. [298 ITR 194 (SC)] held that out of total interest of Rs.204.93 lakhs, interest of Rs.138.20 lakhs relates to assets installed during the relevant assessment year and interest of Rs.66.73 lakhs are in respect of assets that were not installed during the relevant assessment year and accordingly allowed interest to the extent of Rs.138.20 lakhs to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has also held that amended Section 36(1)(iii) provide for capitalization of interest expenses on borrowing for purchase of fixed assets before they are put to use is effective only from assessment year 2004-
05. The Ld. CIT(A) has also stated that assessee has furnished details of loans borrowed, assets purchased and time for putting them to use. Hence, the Department is in appeal against aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal.
10. On behalf of the Department, Ld. Departmental Representative contended that the assessee itself capitalized interest and claimed depreciation thereon. Therefore, the assessee could not be allowed to claim interest as revenue expenditure. The Ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that the assessee did not file revise return to claim interest as 5 ITA No. 1775/Kol/2010 revenue expenditure and only filed a letter dated 17.02.1995. The Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) submitted that the assessing authority has no power to entertain a claim for deduction by allowing amendment in the return filed without a revised return. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer was justified not to consider the claim of the assessee as the assessee wanted to revise the return by way of a letter which was not inconformity with the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
11. On behalf of the assessee, Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court does not apply to the facts of the case. He submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court made it clear in its aforesaid order of Goetze (Inda) Ltd. (supra) that the decision was restricted to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return. It did not impinge on the power of the Appellate Tribunal. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee referred to order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 07.09.1998, in the original grounds of appeal and submitted that Ld. CIT(A) vide para 13 directed the Assessing Officer to examine the above claim and allow the same if admissible. He further submitted that against the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A) both the parties filed appeals before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in para 8.4, after considering the submissions of the parties laid down the law and held that irrespective of the fact that the assessee capitalised interest in its books of account, assessee is not debarred to claim interest if the borrowed money is utilized for business purposes and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to examine the allowability of interest on borrowed money in the light of the legal position laid down by the Tribunal. He referred to pages 74 to 82 of the paper book and relevant pages 79 to 81 of the paper book, which is a copy of the said order of the Tribunal. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that in view of above, the Assessing Officer examined the claim of the assessee for deduction of interest on borrowed capital but disallowed the same. That disallowance is not valid. Hence, the plea of the Ld. Departmental Representative has no merit. He submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to allow interest on borrowed capital to the assessee be confirmed.
12. We have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. Representatives of the parties 6 ITA No. 1775/Kol/2010 and the orders of the authorities below as well as earlier orders of the authorities below and I.T.A.T. (supra). We have also gone through the cases relied upon by the Ld. Representatives of the parties.
13. In respect of revising the claim of the assessee by letter dated 17.02.1995, to claim interest on borrowed fund as revenue expenditure instead of being capitalised and also to revise depreciation schedule by excluding depreciation claimed on capitalised interest in the return of income, we agree with the Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee that the said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) does not apply to the facts of the case before us. We observe that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said order has specifically stated that the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return was restricted to the powers of the assessing authority and did not impinge on the power of the appellate authority u/s.254 of the Income Tax Act. We observe that Ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 07.09.1998, copy placed at pages 57 to 66 of the paper book, directed the Assessing Officer to examine the claim and allow interest upto the date of installation of fixed assets as revenue expenditure, if admissible. We observe that the appeal was filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide para 8.4 to 8.6 of its order dated 19.07.2002, copy placed at pages 74 to 82 of the paper book, held that the assessee is entitled for deduction of interest on borrowed amount taken for installation of plant and machinery for expansion of units/installation of fixed assets and directed the Assessing Officer to examine the allowability of interest on borrowed money in the light of legal position laid down therein. We consider it prudent to reproduce Para 8.2 to 8.6 of the said order of I.T.A.T. which are as under :-
"8 2 During the course of hearing of the appeal before us, the Ld. A/R of the assessee submitted that the interest paid by the assessee on the amount borrowed for the purpose of its business should be allowed as an expenditure u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act irrespective of the fact that the assessee had capitalized the said interest or not once it is established that the borrowing was for the purpose of the assessee's business and the said fact has not been disputed by the Department. In respect of his submission the Ld. A.R. of the assessee relied on the following cases :
i) 251 ITR 61 (Guj)
ii) 242 ITR 129 (Del)
iii) 220 ITR 185 (SC)
iv) 236 ITR 471 (SC)
v) 78 ITD 1 (Amd.) TM 7 ITA No. 1775/Kol/2010 8.3 Further, in support of his submission that even if the amount is capitalized by the assessee in its books of account, the assessee is entitled to claim the expenditure as revenue as per the law, relied on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. 234 ITR 503. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the authorities below.
8.4 We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below and the submissions of the Ld. Representatives of the parties. We have also gone through the cases relied upon by the Ld. AR. of the assessee. There is no dispute that even if the acquisition of assets is capital expenditure, no disallowance of interest could be made unless it is found that borrowed monies were not used for the purpose of assessee's business. If borrowed money is used for the business purposes, the interest is an admissible deduction even if the borrowed money was utilized for acquiring capital assets. The department is to make enquiry as to whether the payment of interest was in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of the assessee's business or not. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the capital was borrowed for the purpose of the business of the assessee and the interest was paid thereon. So long as the money is utilized for business purpose, the interest has to be allowed as deduction according to law and the assessee is not stopped by the treatment given by the assessee to it in its books of account. The similar issue has been examined by the Gujarat Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Core Health Care Ltd v DCIT 78 ITD 1 (TM), wherein it was held that mere fact that the interest had been capitalized initially by the assessee in its books of account would not disentitle the assessee to claim the deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act, if the borrowed money was invested in expansion of manufacturing unit of the assessee by installing additional machineries. It was held that the provisions of section 145 of the Act could not override section 5. If expenditure is allowable under the relevant provisions of law, the deduction could not be denied because the book keeping entry and capitalization of such interest has been made on the basis of the recognized method of accounting and the Accounting Standard issued by ICAI. Whenever the Accounting Standard or the system of accounting or the manner of making book keeping entry is not in conformity with the legal position, the provisions of law would prevail over the method of accounting or book keeping entry or Accounting Standard.
8.5 In view of the above, we hold that the assessee is entitled for the deduction of interest on the borrowed amount taken for installation of plant and machinery for the expansion of its unit/installatio of fixed assets.
8.6 In view of above, we hold that in respect of assessment year 1992- 93 the A.O. will examine the allowability of interest on the borrowed 8 ITA No. 1775/Kol/2010 money in the light of the legal position laid down hereinabove and accordingly the ground No.8 of the appeal is disposed of with the above direction. As far as the assessment year 1993-94 is concerned, we reverse the orders of the authorities below and allow ground No.5 of the appeal in favour of the assessee."
In view of the above, we hold that the contention of the Ld. Departmental Representative has no merit that the claim of the assessee has not rightly been considered by the Ld. CIT(A).
14. Further, we observe that the Department has not contended the fact that the assessee has paid interest on borrowings for expansion of the existing business by establishing a new unit. The Department has not disputed the fact that the borrowed fund has been utilized by the assessee for business purposes. Therefore, we uphold that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the assessee is entitled to interest on borrowed fund on the assets which was installed during the relevant assessment year as the assessee has borrowed the amount for the purpose of purchase of fixed assets for expansion of its business. We hold that the above issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Core Healthcare Ltd. (supra) and the case of the assessee is not hit by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd.(supra) as in that case the interest was paid on borrowed fund utilized to bring into existence a fixed assets which has not gone into production. In that case, the Company had not yet started production and hence had not commenced any business when it borrowed the amount. We also hold that the amendment made in section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by Finance Act 2003 with effect from 01.04.2004 will not apply to the facts of the case before us as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Core Healthcare Ltd. (supra) that the said amendment be read as prospective and with effect from 01.04.2004. The case before us relates to assessment year 1992-93. Hence, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, ground No.1 of the appeal taken by the Department is rejected.
15. In respect of ground No.2 of the appeal, the Assessing Officer has stated that the Ld. CIT(A) restored the issue of incremental liability and the assessee's Ld. Representative did not press the point on the ground that the issue had been decided in the later years.
16. In the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee took additional ground and stated that in assessee's own case for assessment year 1994-95 vide order dated 27.06.2003 and for 9 ITA No. 1775/Kol/2010 assessment year 1991-92 vide order dated 23.09.2003, ITAT, by following the decision of the Third Member in the case of DCIT vs. ICI (India) Ltd. [2003] 85 ITD 85 (Cal.) (TM) decided the issue in favour of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the investment allowance in respect of incremental foreign exchange liability due to fluctuation in rate of exchange. Hence, the assessee took this additional ground before the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee allowed the claim of the assessee. Hence, the Department is in appeal before the Tribunal.
17. At the time of hearing Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the same very issue, in assessee's own case, has been considered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court for assessment year 1978-79 reported at [1992] 196 ITR 447 (Cal.) and the Hon'ble High Court held that the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance on additional liability arising on account of variation in the rate of exchange relating to foreign loan liability. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the decision of Third Member in the case of ICI (India) Ltd. (supra) relates to the claim of depreciation on the additional liability arising to the assessee on account of fluctuations in the rate of exchange of rupee and therefore, the said I.T.A.T., Third Member decision should not be followed vis-a-vis the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and that too in the case of the assessee itself.
18. On the other hand, Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee conceded that the same very issue in assessee's own case for assessment year 1978-79 has been decided against the assessee by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. However, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that the Third Member, I.T.A.T., Kolkata Benches in the case of ICI (India) Ltd. (supra) has held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation as well as investment allowance on the enhanced liability in respect of cost of the assets concerned incurred due to fluctuations in exchange rate after considering said decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra) The Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that I.T.A.T., Kolkata Benches by following the said decision of Third Member, I.T.A.T. has decided the issue in favour of the assessee in assessment years 1991-92 in ITA No. 200/Kol/2003 vide order dated 23.09.2003, copy placed at pages 142 to 147 of the paper book, 10 ITA No. 1775/Kol/2010 in assessment year 1994-95 in ITA No. 306/Cal/2000 vide order dated 27.06.2003, copy placed at pages 148 to 154 of the paper book. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that Third Member, I.T.A.T. considered the said decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Century Enka Ltd. (supra) and another decision of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd. (1994) 207 ITR 718 (Cal.) and thereafter decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. [2009] 312 ITR 254 (SC), while considering the question of allowing additional depreciation on account of additional liability incurred due to exchange rate fluctuations has held that as per Section 43A, as applicable prior to amendment by Finance Act, 2002, with effect from 01.04.2003, it was not necessary that there should be actual payment of increased/decreased liability as a consequence of exchange variation for making necessary adjustment in the carrying amount of the fixed assets. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that in view of aforesaid decisions, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be confirmed.
19. We have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. Representatives of the parties and the orders cited before us (supra).
20. It is a fact that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case for assessment year 1978-79 (supra) decided the issue against the assessee by observing that assessee would be entitled to investment allowance on additional liability arising due to fluctuations in the rate of conversion on the date of actual payment of loan. However, we observe that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kanoria Chemicals & Industrial Ltd. (supra) had taken a contrary view and held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation/development rebate on the increased value of plant and machinery on account of difference in the rate of exchange of Indian Rupee during the relevant accounting year and actual payment was not necessary. We observe that Third Member, I.T.A.T. after considering above both the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ICI (India) Ltd. (supra) held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation as well as investment allowance on the enhanced liability in respect of the cost of the assets concerned due to fluctuations in the exchange rate as per method of accounting 11 ITA No. 1775/Kol/2010 followed by the assessee. In other words, it was held that the claim of the assessee could not be denied on the ground that there was no actual payment made by the assessee in the relevant accounting year in respect of liability accrued to the assessee due to fluctuations in exchange rate. We observe that following the said decision of I.T.A.T., Third Member (supra), the same very issue has been decided by I.T.A.T., Kolkata Benches in assessee's own case for assessment year 1991-92 by order dated 23.09.2003, copy placed at pages 142 to 147 of the paper book, in assessment year 1994-95 vide order dated 27.06.2003, copy placed at pages 148 to 154 of the paper book and to which one of us is a party to that order, in assessment years 1994-95 & 1995- 96 by order dated 26.06.2003 in appeals filed by the Department, copy placed at pages 155 to 157 of the paper book and one of us is a party to that order also. In view of the above facts and also considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (supra), we hold that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) by rejecting ground No.2 of the appeal taken by the Department.
21. In respect of ground No.3 of the appeal to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,89,69,500/- accrued on account of variation in foreign exchange liability and on account of devaluation of rupee, we hold that the issue is squarely covered not only by the earlier orders of the Tribunal (supra) in assessee's own case but also by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (supra) in favour of the assessee. We consider it prudent to refer para 33 & 34 of the said order which are as under :-
"33. As stated above, what triggers the adjustment in the actual cost of the assets, in terms of unamended Section 43A of the 1961 Act is the change in the rate of exchange subsequent to the acquisition of asset in foreign currency. The section mandates that at any time there is change in the rate of exchange, the same may be given effect to by way of adjustment of the carrying cost of the fixed assets acquired in foreign currency. But for s. 43A which corresponds to para 10 of AS-11 such adjustment in the carrying amount of the fixed assets was not possible, particularly in the light of s. 43(1). The unamended s. 43A nowhere required as condition precedent for making necessary adjustment in the carrying amount of the fixed asset that there should be actual payment of the increased/decreased liability as a consequence of the exchange variation. The words used in the unamended s. 43A were "for making payment" and not "on payment' which is now brought in by amendment to s 43A vide Finance Act, 2002.
34. Lastly, we are of the view that amendment of s. 43A by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1st April, 2003 is a mendatory and not clarificatory. The amendment 12 ITA No. 1775/Kol/2010 is in complete substitution of the section as it existed prior thereto. Under the unamended s. 43A adjustment to the actual cost took place on the happening of change in the rate of exchange whereas under the amended s. 43A the adjustment in the actual cost is made on cash basis. This is indicated by the words "at the time of making payment". In other words, under the unamended s. 43A "actual payment" was not a condition precedent for making adjustment in the carrying amount of the fixed asset. This indicates a complete structural change brought about in S. 43A vide Finance Act, 2002. Therefore, the amended section is amendatory and not clarificatory in nature."
In view of the above and considering the unamended provisions of Section 43A as applicable to the assessment year under consideration, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) by rejecting ground No.3 of the appeal taken by the Department.
22. Ground No.4 do not require any specific adjudication as it is connected with ground No.2 & 3 of the appeal.
23. In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Court on............................
[ C. D. Rao ] [ B. R. Mittal ]
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated : February, 2011.
Copy forwarded to the -
1. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Kolkata.
2. Century Enka Limited, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Birla Building, Kolkata-700 001.
3. CIT(A)- (4) CIT-
5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Kolkata.
[True Copy]
By Order
Deputy/Assistant Registrar
(kkc) I.T.A.T., Kolkata.