Sriram Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata V. ITO, WD-9(4), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 1126/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6337 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G HANGSHING
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Source of fund
• Section: 142(1); 131; 68; 148; 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1126/KOL/2016 SRIRAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. A .Y.2009-10 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH A KOL KATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JM ] ITA.NO.1126/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SRIRAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. VS I.T.O., WARD-9 (4 ) KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN: AAMCS 6825 L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY, ADVO CATE FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI G.HANGSHING, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 30.05.2018. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.06.2018. ORDER PER MAHUMITA ROY, JM THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X-(A)-3, KOLKATA U/S 143(3)/263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT) (HEREI NAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) ARISING OUT OF AN ORDER DATED 31.03.2014 PASSED BY THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), KOLKATA U/S 143(3)/263/147/143(3) FOR TH E A.Y. 2009-10. 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED HEREIN IS AS TO WHETHE R THE ADDITION OF RS.8,39,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY TREATING THE SHARE CAPITAL SUBSCRIPTION AS UNEXP LAINED CASH CREDITS IS SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. 3. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RA ISED SHARE CAPITAL (INCLUDING SHARE PREMIUM ) TO THE TUNE OF RS.8,39,00,000/-. TH E ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED HIS TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1320/- FILED ON 01.07.2009 WHICH WAS DULY PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISS UED ON 03.12.2010 AND THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY THE AO AT RS,.71,520/-. THE SAID ORDER WAS THEREAFTER SET ASIDE BY THE LD. CIT AND A SHOW CAUS E NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 01.02.2013. FURTHER THAT IN TERMS OF THE DIR ECTIONS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT IN THAT ORDER TO MAKE A FRESH ENQUIRY REGARDING IDENTITY AN D CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ITA NO.1126/KOL/2016 SRIRAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. A .Y.2009-10 2 SHAREHOLDERS A NOTICE DATED 07.01.2013 FIXING THE D ATE OF HEARING ON 21.11.2013 WAS ISSUED BY THE AO. HOWEVER, THE SAID NOTICE CAME BAC K UNSERVED. THE AO WAS FURTHER INFORMED BY A LETTER DATED 02.12.2013 THAT THE REGI STERED OFFICE OF THE COMPANY HAS CHANGED; PHOTO COPY OF FORM 18 FILED BEFORE THE R. O.C. FOR CHANGE OF ADDRESS WAS ALSO ENCLOSED THERETO. DETAILS OF REQUISITION U/S 1 42(1) OF THE ACT DATED 06.02.2014 WAS ALSO ISSUED BY SPEED POST TO THE ASSESSE FIXING THE CASE ON 17.02.2014 CALLING FOR DETAILS OF SHAREHOLDERS UPON WHICH THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THE LIST OF SHARE HOLDERS SHOWING ALLOTMENT OF ABOVE SHARES. SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT WERE ALSO ISSUED TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FIXING THE HE ARING ON 12.03.2014. SINCE NONE APPEARS ON THE SAID DATE AN INSPECTOR WAS DEPUTED T O ENQUIRE INTO THE EXISTENCE OF THE SHAREHOLDERS COMPANY UPON WHICH THE AO WAS INFORMED THAT NO SUCH COMPANY EXISTED AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. RELYING ON THE JUDGEM ENT OF SUMATI DAYAL VS CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT GENUIN ENESS OF THE RELEVANT TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING SUBSCRIPTION OF SHARE CAPITAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED BY LOOKING INTO SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCE S AS WELL AS BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITY. HE ALSO HELD THAT THE ONUS OF PROVING THE IDENTITY AND CAPACITY OF THE CONCERNED CREDITORS/ SUBSCRIBERS AND THE GEN UINENESS OF THE RELEVANT TRANSACTIONS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSE E, ACCORDING TO THE AO, HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE SAID ONUS SATISFACTORILY, SHARE CA PITAL CONTRIBUTION AMOUNTING TO RS.8.39 CRORES WAS TREATED BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS UNDER SECTION 68 AND THE SAME WAS ADDED BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. 4. AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BY THE ASSESSEE AND BEING DISSATISFIED WITH THE STATEMENTS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY TREATI NG THE SHARE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. AT THE VERY ON SET OF THE PROCEEDINGS THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT NO PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE AO NEITHER THE ITA NO.1126/KOL/2016 SRIRAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. A .Y.2009-10 3 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE RESPECTIVE SHARE HOLDERS FINAL ACCOUNTS, BANK ACCOUNTS, OTHER DETAILS THOUGH PLACED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS THE SAME WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD. AO. SUCH DOCUMENTS WHICH ALSO PART OF TH E RECORDS CONTAINING PAGES 19 TO 292 OF THE PAPER BOOK PROVES THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AS CLAIMED BY THE LD. AR. FURTHER THAT, THE SHARE APPLICANTS IN THEIR REP LIES ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FROM WHICH INVESTMENT WAS MADE. HE FURTHER AD DED THAT AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES THE AMOUNT OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS MUCH LESS THAN NET WORTH. MORE SO, THE INVESTMENT IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS MADE BY THE SHARE HOLDERS THROUGH ACCOU NT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THEREFORE IDENTIFY, GENUINITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS ARE PROVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF ITO VS NILKANTH FINB UILD LTD. IN ITA NO.2821/DEL/2009. HE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE JUDGEM ENT PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS LD. TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S SRIRA M TIE UP PVT. LTD. VS ITO. THE LD. AR FORCEFULLY ARGUED BEFORE US FOR REMANDING THE MA TTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF THE DO CUMENTS ALREADY PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HOWEVER THE LD. DR AGREES TO THE SAME. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND IN THE JUDGM ENT PASSED BY THE ITAT DELHI WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENU E IT WAS HELD THAT EVEN IF THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL IS TAXED NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE I N ASSESSEES HANDS IF IDENTITY OF SHARE HOLDER IS ESTABLISHED. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RE QUIRED TO SHOW SOURCE OF SHAREHOLDERS FUNDS. ANOTHER IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS ALS O CONSIDERED AND PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SH RI RAM TIE UP PVT. LTD,. (SUPRA). THE LD. TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING THE VIEW TAKEN BY ANOT HER COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS LD. TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUKANYA MERCHANDISE PV T. LTD. VS ITO ITA NO.291/KOL/2016 DATED 15.12.2017 SET ASIDE THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE SAID JUDGMENT OF M/S SUKAN YA (SUPRA) IS AS FOLLOWS : 6. IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUKANYA MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. VS ITO (ITA 291/KOL/2016 DATED 15.12.2017) CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENC H OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE ITA NO.1126/KOL/2016 SRIRAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. A .Y.2009-10 4 SIMILAR ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE UNDER S ECTION 68 ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPL AINED CASH CREDITS IS RESTORED BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. IN ALM OST SIMILAR SITUATION AFTER RECORDING ITS OBSERVATIONS / FINDINGS AS UNDER: WE NOTE THAT THE AO PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF LD. CI T HAD TAKEN NOTE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 14 2(1) DATED 16.08.2013 AND HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED TH E COPY OF FINAL ACCOUNT, I. T. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, BANK STATEMENT FOR THE RELEV ANT PERIOD EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THE SHA RE APPLICANTS. THEREAFTER, THE AO MAKES CERTAIN INFERENCES BASED O N THE LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS AND TAKING NOTE OF THE BANK STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTE THAT AFTER THE INITIAL NOTICE DA TED 16.08.2013, THEREAFTER THE AO HAD ISSUED THE NOTICE ON 26.02.2014 WHICH HA S BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGE 3 OF THE REASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN AO REQUIR ED THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO BE PRESENT BEFORE HIM ON 06.03. 2014. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE NOTICE ONLY ON 07.03.2014 AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE AO TO PR OVIDE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 20.03.2014. THERE AFTER, THE AO FIXED THE DATE OF HEARING ON 12.03.2014 VIDE NOTICE DATED 10.03.20 14. SO, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SINCE THE DIRECTORS WERE NOT IN ST ATION TILL 23.03.2014, THE LD. AR HAD REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT TILL THAT TIME . THOUGH THE AO HAS STATED THAT HE HAS ISSUED SUMMONS ON 24.03.2014 TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY BEFORE HIM ON 26.03.2014, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CONTENDED THAT IT HAS NOT RECEIVED THE SAID SUMMON AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT MAKE THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE. THE AO HAS DRAWN ADVERSE CONCLUSION BASICALLY BECAUSE OF NON-APPEARANCE OF T HE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPAN IES. WE NOTE THAT INITIALLY THE AO STARTED THE ENQUIRY ON 16.08.2013 WHICH WAS COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS WHICH HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE AO. THEREAFTER, THE ENQUIRY WAS STARTED ONLY AT T HE FAG END OF FEBRUARY 2014 AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD INFORMED THE AO T HAT THEIR DIRECTORS WERE OUT OF STATION TILL 23.03.2014. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET FAIR O PPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO SO, THERE WAS A LACK OF OPP ORTUNITY AS AFORESAID, THEREFORE, IT HAS TO GO BACK TO AO. 8. WE ALSO NOTE THAT LD. CIT WHILE SETTING ASIDE TH E ORDER OF THE AO WHICH WAS PASSED U/S. 147/143(3) OF THE ACT, THE LD . CIT GAVE CERTAIN GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW FOR CONDUCTING DEEP INVESTIGAT ION. WE ALSO NOTE THAT ITA NO.1126/KOL/2016 SRIRAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. A .Y.2009-10 5 SIMILARLY PLACED ASSESSEES HAD CHALLENGED THE EXERC ISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT BEFORE THIS TRIBUN AL IN THOSE CASES ONE OF IT OF SUBHA LAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT IN ITA NO. 1104/KOL/2014 DATED 30.07.2015, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL WAS PLEASED TO UPH OLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH WE LE ARN TO HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE SLP PREFERRED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THEREFORE, SIMILAR ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN UPHELD. WE NOTE THAT THE AO WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE CITS 263 ORDER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS IN FACT FURNISHED THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY HIM TO HI S NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE AO TOOK THE ADVERSE VIEW AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE PLEA THAT THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SHAR E SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES HAD NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM ON 26.03.2014 AND T AFT ER TAKING NOTE THAT NONE APPEARED ON 26.03.2014 CONCLUDED ON THE SAME DAY 2 6.03.2014 THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED ALONG WI TH PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS.8,06,00,000/- WHICH HAS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD. C IT AFTER LOOKING INTO THE PERNICIOUS PRACTICE OF CONVERTING BLACK MONEY INTO WHITE MONEY HAS GIVEN THE GUIDELINES TO AO AS TO HOW THE INVESTIGATION SH OULD BE CONDUCTED TO FIND OUT THE SOURCE OF SOURCE. SINCE SIMILAR ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE SLP HAS BEEN DIS MISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, SIMILAR ORDER OF THE LD. CIT HAS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO AS DIRECTED BY THE LD. CIT. WE TAKE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT WITH HIS EXPERIENCE AND WISDOM HAS GIVEN CERTAIN GUIDELINES IN THE BACK DROP OF BLACK MONEY MENACE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROPERLY ENQUIRED INTO AS D IRECTED BY HIM. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE INVESTIGATING GUIDELI NES AND METHOD AS DIRECTED BY HIM TO UNEARTH THE FACTS TO DETERMINE W HETHER THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE SUBSC RIBERS. WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THREE JUDGES BENCH IN THE CASE OF TIN BOX, (SUPRA), HAS HELD THAT SINCE THERE WAS LACK OF OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ITSELF, THE ASSESSMENT NEEDS T O BE DONE AFRESH AND THEREBY REVERSED THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, TRIBUNAL A ND CIT(A)S ORDERS AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO AO FOR FRESH ASSESS MENT. SO, SINCE THERE WAS LACK OF OPPORTUNITY AS AFORESTATED IT HAS TO GO BACK TO AO. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 525/20 14 DATED 11.03.2015 ITA NO.1126/KOL/2016 SRIRAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. A .Y.2009-10 6 WHEREIN AFTER NOTICING INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BY AUTHO RITIES BELOW HAVE HELD AS UNDER: 41. WE ARE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CIT(APPEALS) , AND CONSEQUENTLY WITH ITAT, TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR CONCLUSION THAT T HE ASSESSEE HEREIN HAD COME UP WITH SOME PROOF OF IDENTITY OF SOME OF THE ENTRIES IN QUESTION. BUT, FROM THIS INFERENCE, OR FORM THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY F OLLOWING THAT SATISFACTION AS TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PART IES OR THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION WOULD ALSO HAVE BEE N ESTABLISHED. 42. THE AO HERE MAY HAVE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS OB LIGATION TO CONDUCT A PROPER INQUIRY TO TAKE THE MATTER TO LOGICAL CONC LUSION. BUT CIT(APPEALS), HAVING NOTICED WANT OF PROPER INQUIRY , COULD NOT HAVE CLOSED THE CHAPTER SIMPLY BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AN D DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE. IT WAS ALSO THE OBLIGATION OF THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AS INDEED OF ITAT, TO HAVE ENSURED THAT EFFECTIVE INQUIRY WAS CARRIED OUT, PARTICULARLY IN THE FACT OF THE ALLEGA TIONS OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ACCOUNT STATEMENTS REVEAL UNIFORM PATTERN OF CA SH DEPOSITS OF EQUAL AMOUNTS IN THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS PRECEDING THE TR ANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. THIS NECESSITATED A DETAILED SCRUTINY OF THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SEC TION148 ISSUED BY THE AO, AS ALSO THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED AT THE STAGE OF APPEALS, IF DEEMED PROPER BY WAY OF MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE A 'FU RTHER INQUIRY IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER UNDER SECTION 250(4). HIS APP ROACH NOT HAVING BEEN ADOPTED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ITAT, AND CONSE QUENTLY THAT OF CIT(APPEALS), CANNOT BE APPROVED OR UPHELD.' IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID ORDER AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN TIN BOX COMPANY (SUPRA) AND TAK ING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 O F THE ACT IN SIMILAR CASES BEING UPHELD UP TO THE LEVEL OF APEX COURT, AND TAK ING NOTE OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURTS ORDER IN JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARK ETING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) A ND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT AND TO DEC IDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT FAIR AND PROPER AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON TH E ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO DECIDE THE SA ME AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ITA NO.1126/KOL/2016 SRIRAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. A .Y.2009-10 7 ASSESSEE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY CHOOSE TO FILE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE ON THE ISSUE. 6.1. WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGEM ENT PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE LD. AO TO DECIDE THE SAME DENOVO UPON GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE UPON TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE ALREADY PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY CHOOSE TO FILE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE ON THE ISSUE. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. OR DER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT 01.06.2018. SD/- SD/- [ J.SUDHAKAR REDDY] [ MADHUMITA ROY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 01.06.2018. [RG SR.PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.SRIRAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., 147, NILGUNGE ROAD, BELGHORIA, KOLKATA-700056. 2. I.T.O., WARD-9 (4), KOLKATA. 3. C.I.T.(A)- 3, KOLKATA 4. C.I.T-3, KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O, ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO.1126/KOL/2016 SRIRAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. A .Y.2009-10 8