INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA V. S L PACKAGING PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 748/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by the Revenue against SL Packaging Private Limited concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the CIT (A) had deleted. The Revenue contended that the share capital received by the assessee from various companies was through shell companies and thus deserved to be added as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, including the documents and responses to notices under sections 131 and 133(6) of the Act, and found that the assessee had met the burden of proof required under section 68.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472606 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Shree Barkha Synthetic Ltd vs ACIT, CIT vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd, CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., CIT v. Green Infra Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADIP KUMAR BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH TIWARI
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Unexplained cash credit; Source of fund; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 68; 131; 133(6)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 748/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, West Bengal-700 069 Vs SL Packaging Private Limited 131, Cotton Street, Burraabazar, West Bengal-700 007 [PAN : AALCS0293H] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍ यर्थी/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Manish Tiwari, AR Revenue by : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. CIT(A)’] dated 26th February, 2024, for AY 2012-13 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), which is arising out of the assessment order dated 25.03.2015 u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. Ground no.1: for that, the ld. CIT (A), NFAC, New Delhi erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,50,00,000/- in the form of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act, without giving due weightage o the unjustified payment of high premium to acquire shares of a seemingly unprospective company and doubtful creditworthiness of share subscriber. Page | 2 ITA No.748/KOL/2024 SL Packaging Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 2. Ground no.2 for that, the appellant craves leave to add, delete, alter, modify, substitute otherwise in any or all of the grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of trading in jute goods. Return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 e-filed on 29.09.2012, declaring income of ₹10,53,640/-. Subsequently, case selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) to examine the large share premium received and the same was followed by validly issuing notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO asked the assessee to explain the nature and source of the share capital and share premium amounting to ₹2.50 crore and summons also issued u/s 131 of the Act for producing the directives and various details including proof of identity, list of companies where the director is common, copies of ITR return, bank statement, source of funds, etc. In response to summon u/s 131 of the Act, the director of the assessee company appeared on 18.03.2015 and his statements were recorded on oath, all the relevant details were submitted but since the directors of the other investing companies were not produced before the ld. AO, he came to the conclusion that the assessee has failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and made the addition u/s 68 of the Act at ₹2.50 crore and assessed income at ₹2,60,53,640/. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and succeeded. Now, Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. The ld. DR vehemently supporting the order of the ld. AO and submitted that the assessee has taken share capital from shell/ Page | 3 ITA No.748/KOL/2024 SL Packaging Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 paper companies and the same deserves to be added u/s 68 of the Act. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently relied on the finding of the ld. CIT (A) and also took us through various documents placed in he paper book containing 294 pages stating that genuine share capital and share premium has been received. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Revenue is aggrieved with the deletion of addition made u/s 68 of the Act which was made by the ld. AO observing that the assessee has been unable to explain the nature and source of the alleged sum. We observe that the assessee is regularly engaged in trading in jute. Turnover in the preceding financial year i.e. F.Y. 2010-11 was 36.27 crore and the same has increased to 42.26 crore during the year under consideration. We also observe that the assessee company has fixed assets and also the inventory at the year and in approx. 3.46 crore. This fact demonstrate that the assessee is regularly engaged in the business activity. During the year under consideration, assessee issued 40,000 equity shares of ₹10 each at a premium of ₹615. Assessee received the alleged sum from following these application:- Sl No. Name Address No. of Shares Total receipt including premium 1. Silversons Trade Lins Pvt. Ltd. 2A, G.C. Avenue, Room NO.11/12, Kolkata 700012 6400 40,00,000 2. Mukul Mills Pvt. Ltd. 4, Ballav Das Street, Kolkata-700 007 4000 25,00,000 3. Intime Traders Pvt. Ltd. 5, Weston Street, Kolkata-700 013 4000 25,00,000 4. Rockstar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 2A, G.c. Avenue, Room No.11/12, Kolkata-700 012 6400 40,00,000 5. Vedant Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. 114, Rabindra Sarani, Room No.39/1, Kolkata-700007 1600 10,00,000/- Page | 4 ITA No.748/KOL/2024 SL Packaging Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 6. Baviscon Vincom Ltd. 2A, G.c. Avenue, Room No.11/12, Kolkata-700 012 800 5,00,000 7. Sunlight Agency Pvt. Ltd. 16, Munshi Sadruddin Lane, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700 007 13600 85,00,000/- 8. Satguru Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. 16, Munshi Sadruddin Lane, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700 007 2400 15,00,000/- 9. Active Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd. 123, cotton Street, Kolkata-700007 800 5,00,000 40000 2,50,00,000 8. We further notice that the director of the assessee company duly appeared before the ld. AO in reply to the summon issued u/s 131 of the Act and also furnished the requisite details. The assessee in order to prove the nature and source of the alleged sum i.e. identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction and even to prove the source of source has filed following details before us and the same stands examined by us:- SL Particulars From TO 1. Copy of Written Submissions filed before Ld. CIT(A) 1 10B 2. Details of Appellant Company 1.) Copy of Memorandum & Articles of Association 2.) Audited Balance Sheet for the year ended 31.03.2012 3.) Copy of Form 2 & 5 filed with ROC 4.) Copy of Bank Statement 5.) Copy of Summons issued to the directors of the assessee company. 6.) Copies of reply filed by A/R in response to summons u/s 131 along with Annexures and justification on share premium. 11 34 51 60 -- 74 73 33 50 59 72 -- 75 3. Details of Investor Company Copies of replies filed before A.O. U/s 133(6) along with Income Tax Return Acknowledgement, Audited Accounts, Bank Statements (relevant part), Identity of Directors, copy of share application along with source of fund of following companies 1) Silverson Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. 76 105 a. Copy of reply dated 01.01.2025 to Notice u/s 133(6) -- 76 -- b. Copy of ITR Acknowledgement for the relevant AY -- 77 -- c. Copy of Audited Financial Statement for the relevant AY 78 -- 87 d. Copy of share application Form and source of funds 88 -- 95 e. Copy of Board Resolution -- 96 -- f. Copy of PAN Card -- 97 -- g. Copy of ITR Acknowledgement and Audited Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss A/c for the AY 2011-12 98 -- 100 Page | 5 ITA No.748/KOL/2024 SL Packaging Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 h. Copy of relevant Bank statement 101 -- 105 2) Mukul Mills Pvt. Ltd. 106 -- 122 a. Copy of Audited Financial Statement for the relevant AY 106 -- 116 b. Copy of Share Application Form -- 117 -- c. Copy of Board Resolution -- 118 -- d. Details of source of funds -- 119 -- e. Copy of relevant bank statement -- 120 -- f. Copy of ITR Acknowledgement for the AY 2011-12 -- 121 -- g. Copy of PAN Card -- 122 -- 3) Intime Dealers Ltd. 123 -- 148 a. Copy of Reply dated 06.01.2025 to Notice u/s 133(6) -- 123 -- b. Copy of ITR Acknowledgement for the relevant AY -- 124 -- c. Copy of Audited Financial Statement for the relevant AY 125 -- 139 d. Copy of Share Application form -- 140 -- e. Details of Source of funds -- 141 -- f. Copy of Board Resolution -- 142 -- g. Copy of PAN Card -- 143 -- h. Copy of ITR Acknowledgement and Audited balance Sheet and profit and loss A/c for the AY 2011-12 144 -- 146 i. Copy of relevant Bank statement 147 -- 148 4. Rockstar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 149 -- 176 a. Copy of reply dated 30.12.2014 to Noice u/s 133(6) -- 149 -- b. Copy of ITR Acknowledgement for the relevant AY -- 150 -- c. Copy of Audited Financial Statement for the relevant AY 151 -- 165 d. Copy of Share Application Form and source of funds 166 -- 169 e. Copy of Board Resolution -- 170 -- f. Copy of PAN Card -- 171 -- g. Copy of ITR Acknowledgement and Audited Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss A/c for the AY 2011-12 172 -- 174 h. Copy of relevant Bank statement 175 -- 176 5. Vedant Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. 177 -- 201 a. Copy of reply dated 06.01.2015 to Noice u/s 133(6) -- 177 b. Copy of ITR Acknowledgement for the relevant AY 178 c. Copy of Audited Financial Statement for the relevant AY 179 192 d. Copy of Share Application Form 193 e. Details of Source of funds 194 f. Copy of Board Resolution 195 g. Copy of PAN Card 196 h. Copy of ITR Acknowledgement and Audited Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss A/c for the AY 2011-12 197 199 i. Copy of relevant bank statement 200 -- 201 6) Baviscon Vincom Ltd. (merged with Unno Industries Ltd.) 202 225 a. Copy of reply dated 01.01.2015 to Noice u/s 133(6) 202 b. Copy of Audited Financial Statement for the relevant AY 203 2015 c. Copy of Share Application Form -- 216 -- d. Details of Source of funds 217 e. Copy of Board Resolution 218 Page | 6 ITA No.748/KOL/2024 SL Packaging Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 f. Copy of PAN Card 219 g. Copy of ITR Acknowledgement and Audited Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss A/c for the AY 2011-12 220 -- 223 h. Copy of relevant bank statement 224 -- 225 7) Sunlight Agency Pvt. Ltd. 226 249 a. Copy of Audited Financial Statement for the relevant AY 226 239 b. Copy of Share Application Form 240 c. Copy of Board Resolution -- 244 d. Copy of PAN Card -- 245 e. Copy of relevant bank statement 246 248 f. Copy of ITR Acknowledgement and Audited Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss A/c for the AY 2011-12 -- 249 8) Satguru Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. 250 272 a. Copy of Audited Financial Statement for the relevant AY 250 264 b. Copy of Share Application Form 265 c. Details of Source of funds 266 d. Copy of Board Resolution 267 e. Copy of PAN Card 268 f. Copy of ITR Acknowledgement for the AY 2011-12 269 g. Copy of relevant bank statement 270 272 9) Active Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. 273 a. Copy of reply dated 30.12.2014 to Noice u/s 133(6) 273 b. Copy of ITR Acknowledgement for the relevant AY 374 c. Copy of Audited Financial Statement for the relevant AY 275 286 d. Copy of Share Application form 287 e. Details of Source of funds 288 f. Copy of Board Resolution 289 g. Copy of PAN Card 290 h. Copy of ITR Acknowledgement and Audited balance Sheet and profit and loss A/c for the AY 2011-12 291 293 i. Copy of relevant Bank statement 294 9. We further noticed that all the above referred facts were also placed before us and the ld. CIT (A), who after examining those details in the light of judicial precedents gave relief to the assessee observing as follows:- “6. Ground No. 1 to 3 Through these grounds of appeal, the appellant agitated against the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act. 6.1 The appellant was provided various opportunities of being heard by way of issue hearing notices on various dates requiring the appellant to furnish written submissions and evidences in support of its grounds. In response to the above notices, the appellant has submitted the details called for vide his electronic reply on various dates. Page | 7 ITA No.748/KOL/2024 SL Packaging Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 6.2 In this ground of appeal, the appellant has contended that the AO erred in making an addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- on account of share capital including share premium by wrongly invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 6.3 As noticed from the assessment order the appellant has claimed to have received share capital/ premium aggregating to Rs.2,50,00,000/- and the details of share capital/ premium received from companies. The appellant has submitted the list of investors which is as under: Sl No. Name Address No. of Shares Total receipt including premium 10. Silversons Trade Lins Pvt. Ltd. 2A, G.C. Avenue, Room NO.11/12, Kolkata 700012 6400 40,00,000 11. Mukul Mills Pvt. Ltd. 4, Ballav Das Street, Kolkata-700 007 4000 25,00,000 12. Intime Traders Pvt. Ltd. 5, Weston Street, Kolkata-700 013 4000 25,00,000 13. Rockstar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 2A, G.c. Avenue, Room No.11/12, Kolkata-700 012 6400 40,00,000 14. Vedant Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. 114, Rabindra Sarani, Room No.39/1, Kolkata-700007 1600 10,00,000/- 15. Baviscon Vincom Ltd. 2A, G.c. Avenue, Room No.11/12, Kolkata-700 012 800 5,00,000 16. Sunlight Agency Pvt. Ltd. 16, Munshi Sadruddin Lane, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700 007 13600 85,00,000/- 17. Satguru Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. 16, Munshi Sadruddin Lane, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700 007 2400 15,00,000/- 18. Active Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd. 123, cotton Street, Kolkata-700007 800 5,00,000 40000 2,50,00,000 Further the appellant has submitted that the details of the investors and the documents called for related to the investors were duly submitted before the AO. The AO on receipt of such details issued letter u/s. 133(6) to the investors. The appellant further submitted that the investors were duly responded to the letter issued by the AO. The appellant response through its submission is as under: AO after receipt of list of share allottees with supporting documents issued notice u/s 133(6) to some allottees calling for detailed whereabouts of directors together with Income Tax Return Acknowledgement, audited accounts, source of funds etc. The appellant company has been informed by such allottees that they have complied to such notices u/s 133(6) through written replies as indicated below:- SL Name 1. Silversons Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. Reply sent on 01.01.2015 (Copy enclosed) 2. Intime Traders pvt. Ltd. Reply sent on 06.01.2015 (copy enclosed) 3. Rockstar Traders Pvt. Ltd. Reply Sent on 30.12.2014 (Copy enclosed) 4. Vedant Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Reply sent on 06.01.2015 (copy enclosed) 5. Baviscon vincom Pvt. Ltd. Reply sent on 01.01.2015 (copy enclosd) 6. Active Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd. Reply sent on 30.12.2014 (copy enclosed) 6.4 The appellant further contended through its submission which that the various judicial pronouncements were made by the higher appellate authorities in which the decision on the similar issues were in favor of the appellant as the AO failed to establish the nexus. The following case laws are relied upon by the appellant: a) Shree Barkha Synthetic Ltd vs ACIT(2006) by Rajasthan High Court b) CIT vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd(2008) 216 CTR 195(SC) Page | 8 ITA No.748/KOL/2024 SL Packaging Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 6.5 The appellant further contended that the details submitted before the AO about nine investors was not proved false by the AO and there was no adverse remark so far as various documentary evidence showing identity and genuineness of share applicants are concerned. Further the appellant contended that no independent enquiry was conducted by the AO then how the ingredients of section 68 are fulfilled. The appellant further submitted that the investor companies are regular tax return filers and the details of the same have been submitted before the AO which was ignored. 7. The contention and the submission made by the appellant have been duly considered. As noticed the appellant has received share capital/ premium aggregating to Rs. 2,50,00,000/- from the above mentioned companies which was disallowed by the AO as creditworthiness and genuineness could not be proved during the assessment proceedings. The AO held that the share premium amounting to Rs.2,50,00,000/- is nothing but appellant’s own money introduced under the garb of fresh share capital into its books of account and such funds utilized for making its own investments. The AO further held that presenting of confirmations and making payment for application of shares through bank in itself or appearance by director before the AO and admitting the fact of share application made, is in itself not sufficient to justify the genuineness of the transaction. In contrast, the appellant has argued that all the relevant documents substantiating the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness have been furnished during appeal proceedings as well as assessment proceedings. 7.1 In regard to the unexplained credits, a reading of Section 68 shows that the conditions that are required to be established by the appellant are the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction and the credit worthiness of the creditor. Once these three essential requirements are prima facie proved by the assessee, then the onus to disprove the same would shift on the AO. With regard to identity of the share applicants, the appellant has submitted the relevant documents such as ITR & financials etc. and also, the directors of the share applicant companies were produced by the appellant before the AO. The investor companies who have introduced money in the appellant company during the year, the details of such company was duly provided by the appellant. Accordingly, the identity of the share applicant companies stands established. 7.2 On the question of genuineness of the transactions, it is an undisputed fact that that the money was received through banking channels. The genuineness of the transaction has been substantiated by the appellant through submission of copy of share application form, share allotment letter, certificate of incorporation and also bank details of the shareholders. Further, acceptance by the share applicant companies before the AO confirms the genuineness of the transaction. 7.3 As far the creditworthiness of the share applicants is concerned, it is noted that most of companies which have invested in the appellant were having the capacity to invest in the appellant company. The appellant has submitted the duly audited accounts of the company as submission before the undersigned. The undersigned has noticed from the financial the investor companies were having the good credentials in their books of account which shows that they are capable enough for investment to the extent. 7.4 The Apex Court in Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. in the context to the preamended Section 68 of the Act has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the Revenue to add the same to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit. Page | 9 ITA No.748/KOL/2024 SL Packaging Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 Similarly, in the case of CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Bom)(HC), the Hon’ble High Court has held that the proviso to s. 68 (which creates an obligation on the issuing Co to explain the source of share capital & premium) has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 and does not have retrospective effect. If the AO regards the share premium as bogus, he has to assess the shareholders but cannot assess the same as the issuing company's unexplained cash credit. In the case of CIT v. Green Infra Limited (2017) (Bombay HC), for A.Y. 2011-12, dismissing the appeal of revenue the Court held that, even if the premium at which the shares are issued defies commercial prudence, the receipt cannot be assessed as \"unexplained credit\" if the identity of the payer, genuineness of the transaction and capacity of the subscriber are not disputed. The Revenue has not been able to show in any manner the factual finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse in any manner. 8.10 In the instant case, the appellant has fulfilled its onus and provided various details to prove the existence of the share applicant, creditworthiness of the share applicant and the genuineness of the transactions. However, the Assessing Officer couldn’t bring sufficient material on record to prove that the transactions claimed by the appellant are bogus and sham. The Assessing Officer has only mentioned that the appellant failed to produce the directors of the investor companies but failed to bring out any specific material for concluding that the transaction was not genuine. It was necessary on the part of the AO to demonstrate the discrepancy & inconsistency in the transactions claimed by the appellant. But, the Assessing Officer has only stated that the appellant failed to produce the directors of the investor companies before the AO. In this context it is to clear that the appellant company cannot force the investor companies’ directors to appear before the tax authorities, it would be the duty of the Assessing Officer to summons or issued notice to such investor companies’ director in this regard in which the AO failed to perform. Therefore, the undersigned finds no lapse on the side of the appellant. Furthermore, the section 68 of the Act does not bar a company from accepting share premiums at an agreed amount. 8.11 In view of the above discussion and duly observing the judicial precedents, it is considered view of the undersigned that the contention of the appellant is acceptable as the appellant has discharged the onus by submitting the details as called for by the AO. Therefore, the addition made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- is hereby deleted. Accordingly, the ground raised by the appellant through Ground Nos 1 to 3 are hereby allowed. 10. We have gone through the finding of the ld. CIT (A) and have also taking note of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (supra) and find that section 68 of the Act require the assessee to explain the nature and source of the credit during the year to the satisfaction of the ld. AO and in the instant case assessee has placed sufficient evidence which could proves; a) the identity of share applicant companies which are registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, having PAN and filing the regular return of income and the books of accounts Page | 10 ITA No.748/KOL/2024 SL Packaging Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 are regularly audited. b) Creditworthiness of the alleged share applicant companies proved with the fact that they all have sufficient interest free share capital as well as reserve and surplus and have other source of funds sufficient enough to explain the investment made in the assessee company. c) Genuineness of the transactions is also proved from the fact that assessee company is regularly engaged in trading jute goods and the turnover during the year is around 42.26 crore. Therefore, making investment in such company having regular business can be easily termed as good / prudent decision by the alleged share applicants. 11. Further, the Revenue authorities have failed to rebut any of these fact by finding any discrepancy in the details furnished by the assessee. Therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the additions u/s 68 of the Act is uncalled for. No infirmity is thus called for in the finding of the ld. CIT (A). Our view is further supported by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Forceful Estates Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2558/KOL/2018 dated 03.04.2023 and the judgements of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT v. Sreeleathers (2022) 448 ITR 332 (Cal). Thus, grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 748/KOL/2024 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 17th October, 2024 at Kolkata. Sd/- Sd/- (SONJOY SARMA) (DR. MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated 17.10.2024 *SS, Sr.Ps Page | 11 ITA No.748/KOL/2024 SL Packaging Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 आदेश की प्रतततिति अग्रेतषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अिीिार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. संबंतित आयकर आयुक्त / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयुक्त ( अिीि ) / The CIT(A)- 5. तवभागीय प्रतततनति , अतिकरण अिीिीय आयकर , कोिकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, 6. गार्ड फाईि / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण ITAT, Kolkata "