Star Griha Pvt Ltd, Kolkata V. C.I.T Kol - II,kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1244/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83067 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record
• Section: 147; 131; 263; 63; 10; 143(3); 142(1); 133(6)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 1244/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 1 OF 15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER), AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. NO. 1244/KOL/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-2009 STAR GRIHA PRIVATE LIMITED,........................ ........................APPELLANT 96, GARDEN REACH ROAD, KOLKATA-700 023 [PAN : AAKCS 8181 M] -VS.- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,..................R ESPONDENT KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 APPEARANCES BY: N O N E, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI AJAY KUMAR SINGH, CIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : AUGUST 12, 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : AUGUST 14, 2014 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA IN F. NO. CIT-II/DC(HQ)-2/KOL/263/2012-13/1 0339-41 DATED 26/28.03.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (1) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 AND THE ORDER PASSED THERE UNDER BY THE LD. CIT IS WRONG, UNJUSTIFIED, B AD IN I.T.A. NO. 1244/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 2 OF 15 LAW AND BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE CONDITIONS PRECED ENT FOR INITIATION OF ACTION U/S 263 DID NOT EXIST AND WERE NOT SATISFIED IN THIS CASE. THE ORDER SO PASSED DESERVE S TO BE CANCELLED IN LIMINE. (2) THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 263 AND THE L D. CIT ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN ASSUMING JURISD ICTION U/S 263 AND SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT WITH A PRECONCEIVED NOTION AND A PREJUDICED MIND. THE ORDE R SO PASSED IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. (3)THAT THE LD. CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RECEIPT O F SHARE CAPITAL WAS NOT PROPERLY INVESTIGATED AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING HER OWN VIEW OF THE MANNER IN WHICH ENQUIRY WAS TO BE CONDUCTED. THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN B Y THE LD. CIT AMOUNT TO MAKING A ROVING & FISHING ENQUIRY , WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 263. (4) THAT THE LD. CIT ERRED IN LAW IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 MERELY ON THE BASIS OF TH E SO CALLED BACKGROUND WRONGLY CONCEIVED BY HER WHICH HAD NO APPLICATION IN THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE . THE LD. CIT ERRED IN MISCONSTRUING THE MEANING & PURPORT OF THE PRINCIPLES DECIDED IN THE COURT DECISIONS RELIED ON BY HER WHICH HAD NO RELEVANCE IN THE FACTS OF THE APPELLAN TS CASE. 3. NONE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND S HRI AJAY KUMAR SINGH, CIT, D.R. REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVEN UE. 4. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FILED ON 14. 05.2013. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED STAY PETITION IN S.P. NO. 73/KOL /2013 WHICH CAME TO BE DISPOSED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE AN ORDER DATED 20. 06.2014. WHILE DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES STAY PETITION, THE COORDI NATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAD POSTED THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 27.06 .2014. THE STAY PETITION WAS ORIGINALLY FILED ON 29.08.2013. THE ST AY PETITION ALONG WITH THE APPEAL WAS ORIGINALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 04.1 2.2013. THE STAY PETITION WAS POSTED ON MULTIPLE DATES, LIKE 06.11.2 013, 21.11.2013, 04.12.2013. ON 04.12.2013 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E WAS ALSO POSTED FOR I.T.A. NO. 1244/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 3 OF 15 HEARING ON 26.12.2013. ON 26.12.2013 AGAIN ADJOURNM ENT WAS SOUGHT. THE STAY PETITION ALONG WITH THE APPEAL WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 29.01.2014. AGAIN ADJOURNED REPEATEDLY AT THE REQUEST OF THE AS SESSEE TO 07.12.2014, 14.02.2014, 17.06.2014 AND FINALLY STAY PETITION WA S DISPOSED OF ON 20.06.2014 AND IN THE ORDER DISMISSING THE STAY PET ITION THE APPEAL WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 27.06.2014. ON 27.06.2014 AGA IN THE ASSESSEES LD. COUNSEL SOUGHT AN ADJOURNMENT, ON WHICH DATE IT WAS SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT NO FURTHER ADJOURNMENT WAS TO BE GIVEN AND THE APPEAL POSTED TO 02.07.2014. THE ORDER-SHEET RECORDING ON 27.06.2014 IS EXTRACTED BELOW:- THIS APPEAL IS A PRIORITY APPEAL BECAUSE THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE IS THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT-I I, KOLKATA UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS INIT IATED BY THE AO IN PURSUANCE TO DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE CIT U NDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND FOR THIS, THE STAY PETIT ION WAS FILED VIDE S.P. NO. 73/KOL/2013, WHICH WAS REJECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 26.03.2014 FIXING THE APPEAL FOR HEARIN G ON OUT-OF-TURN BASIS FOR 27.06.2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT OF APPEAL AS THE COUNSEL IS GOING OUT OF STATION AND IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THIS APPEAL IS ADJOURNED TO 02.07.2014. BUT AT THE TIME OF ADJOURNMENT, IT WAS MADE CLEAR TO THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE THAT NO FURTHER ADJOURNMENT WILL BE GIVEN ON 02.07.2014 AS THIS IS A PRIORITY APPEAL AND THE ASS ESSEE EVEN ASKED FOR STAYING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE A O, AS NOTED ABOVE. IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE, THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 02.07.2014. BOTH THE PARTIES ARE INFORMED IN THE OP EN COURT. 5. ON 02.07.2014, AGAIN ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT AND AGAIN WITH THE DIRECTION THAT NO FURTHER ADJOURNMENT SHOULD BE GRA NTED. THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 05.08.2014. THE ORDER-SHEET NOTING FOR 02.07.2014 IS EXTRACTED BELOW:- TODAY, WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI J.M. THARD, ADVOCATE STOOD UP AND ASKED FOR ADJOURNMENT FOR THE REASON THAT HE COULD NOT PREPARE THE APPEAL AS HE WAS BUSY IN SOME FAMIL Y AFFAIRS AND HE WAS OUT OF STATION FOR THE SAME. THI S IS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED ON L AST DATE WITH A CLEAR DIRECTION THAT NO FURTHER ADJOURN MENT I.T.A. NO. 1244/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 4 OF 15 WILL BE GIVEN BUT IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTIC E AND KEEPING THE OPTION OF FAIR PLAY OPEN, WE GRANT ONE MORE ADJOURNMENT AND FOR THIS THE LD. CIT(DR) HAS CONSEN TED. HOWEVER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECT ED TO GIVE THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF MANAGING DIRECTOR AND DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY BY 8 TH JULY, 2014. THE REVENUE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO BRING ASSESSMENT RECORDS AS WELL A S THE RECORD FILE OF REVISION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 2 63 OF THE ACT. IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE, THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 05.08.2014. NO FURTHER ADJOURNMENT WILL BE GIVEN ON THAT DATE. BOTH THE PARTIES ARE INFORMED IN THE OPEN COU RT. 6. ON 05.08.2014, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEAR ING, AGAIN ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT VIDE A LETTER DATED 04.08.20 14, WHICH WAS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED BY THE LD. CIT, D.R. HOWEVER, TH E APPEAL WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED TO 12.08.2014. THE ORDER-SHEET RECORDING FOR 05.08.2014 IS EXTRACTED BELOW:- AGAIN TODAY, WHEN THIS MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARI NG, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADJOURNMENT PETITION DATED 04.08 .2014, WHICH STATES THE REASON AS UNDER:- THE HEARING OF THE ABOVE APPEAL IS FIXED ON 05.08.2014 BEFORE THE HONBLE B BENCH OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BUT DUE TO PRESSURE OF INCOME TAX RETURN FILING WORK IN THE MONTH OF JULY, WE AND OUR COUNSEL COULD NOT PREPARE THE CASE. THEREFORE, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE PLEASE GRANT US AN ADJOURNMENT OF ONE MONTH. AT THE FIRST INSTANCE, THEY HAVE FILED THE STAY PET ITION FOR STAYING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO IN CONSEQUENC E TO REVISION ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT AND NOW THEY ARE, TIME AND AGAIN, ASKED FOR ADJOURNMENT. ON EARLIER OCCASI ONS, IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT NO FURTHER ADJOURNMENT WILL BE GIVEN. NOW, THE LD. CIT, DR, SHRI AJOY SINGH HAS VEHEMENTL Y OPPOSED GRANTING OF ADJOURNMENT AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE NOW WANTS TO AVOID HEARING ON THE ONE PRET EXT OR THE OTHER. THE LD. CIT,DR STATED THAT THE ISSUE IS NOW COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. JAIN VS.- CIT IN ITA NO. 232 OF 2 006 DATED 12.11.2010 AND ALSO BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ZIGMA COMMODITIES PRIVATE LTD. & ANR. VS.- ITO IN W.P. N O. 281 OF 2014 DATED 08.05.2014. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE ISSU E IS I.T.A. NO. 1244/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 5 OF 15 COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. JET AGE SECURITIES PVT. LTD. VS.- ACIT IN ITA NO. 637/ KOL/2013 DATED 18.07.14. IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT, DR STATED THAT IN CASE THE BENCH IS INCLINED TO GRANT ADJOURN MENT, VERY SHORT ADJOURNMENT BE GIVEN. AFTER HEARING THE LD. CIT,DR AND IN ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ADJOURN THE MATTER TO 12.08.2014 AND M AKE IT CLEAR IN THE OPEN COURT THAT NO FURTHER ADJOURNMENT WILL BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE, THE M ATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 12.08.2014. DATE IS INFORMED IN THE OP EN COURT. TODAY I.E. ON 12.08.2014, WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP F OR HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THESE FACTS CLE ARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO GENUINE INTEREST IN HAVING ITS APPE AL DISPOSED OF. CONSEQUENTLY THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS B EING DISPOSED OF EX- PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 7. LD. CIT, D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED UN DER SECTION 263 BY THE LD. CIT, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA WAS VALID. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY WHICH HAS ISSUED ITS SHARES O F RS.10/- AT A PREMIUM OF RS.90/- PER SHARE TO AN EXTENT OF 24,55, 000 SHARES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT 100 RUPEES WAS INCLUDING A PREMIUM. LD. CIT, D.R. PLACED BEFORE US THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF THE A SSESSEE-COMPANY TO BE OF 2007-08. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT WHEN THE COM PANY WAS INCORPORATED, THERE WERE TWO SUBSCRIBERS TO THE SHA RES BEING SHRI GANPAT JAIN AND SHRI SUBODH TODY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION TH AT THE SAID SHRI GANPAT JAIN HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN AFTER THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LAST RETURN FILED BY SH RI GANPAT JAIN WAS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THERE IS NO RETURN AFTER THAT. REGARDING SHRI SUBODH TODY, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ITSELF OF FILING OF RETURN REGARDING THE SAID PERSON. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT 263 WAS INVOKED BY THE LD. CIT ON THE GROUND T HAT UNACCOUNTED MONEY WAS BEING CONVERTED THROUGH A MASQUERADE OR A CHANNEL OF INVESTMENT IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF COMPANY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THERE WERE SIMILAR MANY OTHER CASES, WHICH ARE PEND ING BEFORE THE I.T.A. NO. 1244/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 6 OF 15 TRIBUNAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE METHODOLOG Y ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT, IT FILED RETURN OF INCOME WHICH W AS EITHER NOT PROCESSED OR PROCESSED ONLY UNDER SECTION 143(1).THEN THE ASS ESSEE FILED A LETTER INTIMATING THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF AN ESCAPEMENT O F INCOME OF SOME NOMINAL AMOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED 148 NO TICES TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE RESPONDS THAT THE RETURN FILED EARLIER WAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ W ITH SECTION 148 ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONAL INCOME. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN MOST CASES, THE ISSUANCE OF THE SHARES AT A PREMIUM IS ALSO RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I T WAS THUS THE SUBMISSION THAT BY MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE ISSUAN CE OF THE SHARES AT A PREMIUM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ATTEMPT HAS BEEN M ADE TO SUBVERT THE POSSIBILITY OF ANOTHER 148 REOPENING OR 263. IT WAS THEN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. CIT, D.R. THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY CAME INTO EXISTENCE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 RE LEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WITH TWO SUBSCRIBERS. THEN FURTHER SHARES HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED AT A PREMIUM. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION T HAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN THR OUGH ON-LINE ELECTRONIC FILING ON 18.09.2008. THE SAID RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON 21.10.2009. SUBSEQUENTLY A LETTER WAS RECEIVED F ROM THE ASSESSEE ON 03.05.2010 INTIMATING THAT NO INTIMATION HAS BEEN R ECEIVED. ON THIS LETTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE UND ER SECTION 148 ON 05.05.2010, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN RECORDED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.46,840/- IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS A/C. AND TH IS AMOUNT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35D OF THE ACT. ON 10.05.2010, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR THE COMMUNIC ATION OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REOPENING. INTERESTINGL Y THE SAID REASONS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. ON 10.05.20 10, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO ISSUED 142(1) NOTICE TO THE ASSESS EE, WHEREIN VARIOUS DETAILS HAVE BEEN CALLED FOR. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT HOWEVER, IN THE 142(1) NOTICE, THERE WAS NO REQUISITION BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IN I.T.A. NO. 1244/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 7 OF 15 RESPECT OF THE ALLOTMENT OF THE SHARES AT THE PREMI UM. ON 17.05.2010, THE ASSESSEE HAD APPEARED AND HAD FILED CERTAIN WRITTEN COMPLIANCES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE SAID COMPLIANCE THOUGH T HERE WAS NO REQUISITION IN RESPECT OF THE DETAILS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL RECEIVED. THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN DETAILS WHEREIN THE NAMES AN D ADDRESSES AND PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS OF VARIOUS COMPANIES, WHO HAD INVESTED IN THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AT A PREMIUM, HA D BEEN GIVEN. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT NOTICES WERE ISSUED ON 19.05.20 10 UNDER SECTION 133(6) TO THE SHARE APPLICANTS WHO ARE ALLOTTED SHA RES OF 80000 AND ABOVE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT EVEN THE VOKALATN AMA OF THE PERSONS, WHO HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID N OT CONTAIN THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMI SSION THAT 133(6) NOTICES WHICH HAD BEEN ISSUED TO THE VARIOUS SHARE APPLICANTS WERE HAND DELIVERED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CONT AINED THE SAME SIGNATURE AS THE PERSON WHO HAS FILED THE PRESENT A PPEAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THOUGH CERTAIN DETAILS HAVE BEEN FI LED IN RESPONSE TO THE 133(6) THEY WERE INCOMPLETE AND THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD ALSO NOT VERIFIED NOR DISCUSSED THE REPLIES. IT WAS THE FURT HER SUBMISSION THAT NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) WERE ISSUED BY HAND AN D SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF NOTICES WERE RECEIVED BY THE SAME PERSON ON BEHALF OF THE MULTIPLE COMPANIES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE PERSON WHO RECEIVED THE NOTICES FOR MULTIPLE COMPANIES WAS THE SAME PER SON, WAS SIGNED THE FORM 36 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE NAME ARIHANT JAIN. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON REC ORD TO SHOW THAT ARIHANT JAIN WAS A DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY . EVEN IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE ORIGINAL SUBSCRIBERS TO THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WHO WERE ALSO THE IDENTIFIED DIREC TORS WERE GANPAT JAIN AND SUBODH TODY. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE REVENUE RAISING THIS OBJECTION ON AN EARLIER DA TE IN THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A REVISED FORM 36 AL ONG WITH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL SIGNED BY ONE JHUMAR MALL SARAOGI. IT WAS TH E SUBMISSION THAT THIS FORM 36 AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL WAS VERIFIED ON 31.07 .2014. IT WAS THE I.T.A. NO. 1244/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 8 OF 15 SUBMISSION THAT ALONG WITH FORM 36 AND GROUNDS OF A PPEAL WERE VERIFIED ON 31.07.2007. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE GRS-7 REC EIVED FOR THE FORM 18 OF THE COMPANIES ACT FOR THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS WHER EFROM IT IS NOTICED THAT THE RECEIPT WAS ISSUED ON 16.01.2014 AND THE A DDRESS OF THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS BEEN CHANGED W.E.F. 10.01.2014. IT WAS THUS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE APP EAL HAVING BEEN ORIGINALLY FILED ON 14.05.2013. THE FORM 36 AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED ITSELF WERE INVALID. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION TH AT NOTHING HAS BEEN PRODUCED ON RECORD TO SHOW WHEN THE SAID JHUMAR MAL L SARAOGI BECAME THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. IT WAS THE FU RTHER SUBMISSION THAT THUS WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS DONE, NO INVE STIGATION HAD BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE SHA RE APPLICANTS, MUCH LESS AN ENQUIRY AS IS NORMAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT FURTHER AS A CONSEQUENCE TO THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263, THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD BEEN PASSED ON 30.03.2014, WHE REIN NOTICE UNDER SECTION 131 HAD BEEN ISSUED TO THE SHAREHOLDERS AND NONE HAD APPEARED NOR RESPONDED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SHARE APPLICATIO N MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSEESSEE HAS BEEN TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED CASH CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO ORDER-SHEET RECORDING AS TO THE IDENTITY, GEN UINENESS OR THE EXISTENCE OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS. IT WAS ALSO THE SUBMISSION THAT WHETHER THE SHARES HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED TO THE SHARE APPLICAN TS HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN SHOWN. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 , IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF KAILASH PRASAD JAIN IN ITA 232/KOL/2006 DATED 12.11.2010, T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. LD. D.R. ALSO PLACED RELI ANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF JET AGE SECURITIES PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 637/KOL/2013 DATED 18.07.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHEREIN ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONSEQUENTI AL ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER I.T.A. NO. 1244/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 9 OF 15 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 HAS BEEN HELD TO BE INFRUC TUOUS. IT WAS ALSO THE SUBMISSION THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF ZIGMA COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. IN W.P. NO. 281 OF 2014 VIDE AN ORDER DATED 08.05.2014 HAS HELD AS AN OBITER DICTA THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAD RECEIVED THE RECORDS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE AND OPINED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO APPLY HIS MIND OBJECTIVELY AND FAILED TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY OVER THE SUBSCRIPTION OF THE SHA RES TO VARIOUS SUBSCRIBERS AT A HIGH PREMIUM. SECTION 263 OF THE A CT NEVER ENVISAGES THE SEPARATE RECORDING OF THE SATISFACTION BEFORE THE I SSUANCE OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE BUT IF IT IS CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE FROM THE FA CTS NARRATED IN THE SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R APPEARS TO BE ERRONEOUS AND A PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE REVENUE, IT WOULD RENDER THE SAID SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE LEGALLY VALID . IT WAS THUS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 8. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENCH AS TO WHAT HA S LED TO THIS SUDDEN SPURT IN THE 263 BEING INITIATED IN THE SHARE APPLI CATION AND SHARE APPLICANTS OF THE VARIOUS COMPANIES. IT WAS THE REP LY BY THE LD. CIT, DR IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS:- MANY OF THESE COMPANIES ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS AS WELL AS CBI, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND SIT. IN CASE OF POLITIC ALLY EXPOSED PERSON, THE INVESTIGATIONS ARE AT A CRITICA L LEVEL AND THEREFORE, THE NAMES OF THE ENTRY OPERATO RS CANNOT BE DIVULGED AT THIS JUNCTURE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER S ECTION 263 MAY BE UPHELD. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. DE HORS THE FACT THAT MANY OF THE COMPANIES ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION BY VARIOUS AU THORITIES. DE HORS THE FACT THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL ALLEGATION AGAINST M ANY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS AND DE HORS THE FACT THAT ALLEGATIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED WITH I.T.A. NO. 1244/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 10 OF 15 REGARD TO THESE COMPANIES, WE ARE BOUND BY THE FACT S AS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE RECORDS. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THE PRESENT CA SE CLEARLY ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY WHICH CAME INTO EXISTENCE DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED ON 07.05.2007. THE ASSESSEE HAS ISSUED SHARES AT THE PREMIUM. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR D ECLARING AN INCOME OF A LOSS OF RS.1,840/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A PROF IT AS PER 115 JB AT RS.1,844/-. THE ASSESSEE AS PER MEMORANDUM & ARTICL ES OF ASSOCIATION IS IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE. THE ANCILLIARY BUSI NESSES ARE ALSO PERMITTED. AS PER THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C., THE ASSES SEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASES OF UNQUOTED SHARES OF VARIOUS OTHER COMPA NIES. THE LIST OF THE COMPANIES WHOSE SHARES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED SHOWS TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING THE SHARES OF THE COMPANIES FROM WHOM THE A SSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. THE P&L A/C. OF THE ASSESS EE SHOWS NO SALES AT ALL. BALANCE-SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS NO DEBTORS BUT THE CASH AND BANK BALANCES. THE CASH IN HAND BEING AT RS.5,18,633/-. IT ALSO SHOWS TDS RECEIVABLE OF ABOUT RS.50 LAKHS AND SHARE APPLICATI ON MONEY RS.84,44,684/-. THIS BEING THE FIRST YEAR OF BUSINE SS OF THE ASSESSEE, TDS RECEIVABLE OF RS.50 LAKHS SHOULD ITSELF DRAWN THE A TTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN THERE IS NO SALES, NO CONTRA CTS, NOTHING WHATSOEVER OTHER THAN THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF V ARIOUS COMPANIES. THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE AS RECORDED IN THE PROFIT & L OSS A/C. IS BARELY RS.5 LAKHS, THEN HOW THE TDS RECEIVABLE OF RS.50 LAKHS C AME INTO PLAY. SURPRISINGLY THIS HAS NOT DRAWN THE ATTENTION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE SHOWS THAT MOST O F THE DEBITS INTO THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT IS BY CASH CHEQUE. COMING T O THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ORIGINALLY PASSED SHOWS THAT IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, TDS CERTIFICATES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.35,380/- HAD B EEN PRODUCED. THE RETURN FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR CAME TO BE FILED ON 18.09.2008. ON 03.05.2010, THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN A LETTER IN TIMATING THAT THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) HAS NOT BEEN RECEIV ED. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED ON 05.05.2010 THE ASSESSEE R ESPONDED THAT THE I.T.A. NO. 1244/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 11 OF 15 RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED WAS TO BE TREATED AS THE RE TURN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142( 1) WAS ISSUED ON 10.05.2010 AND THE ASSESSMENT CAME TO BE COMPLETED ON 07.07.2010. IN SHORT WITHIN TWO MONTHS AND TWO DAYS OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 BEING ISSUED, THE ASSESSMENT IS ALSO COMPLETED. THO UGH 133(6) NOTICES HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY RESPONDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER INSTEAD OF DOING ANY VERIFICATION, THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN CLOSED. T HIS ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED IN A VERY HURRIED MANN ER WITHOUT DOING ANY INVESTIGATION IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. A PE RUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS IN THE PRESENT CASE SHOWS THAT I N THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT THE PAN DETAILS OF BOTH THE THE N DIRECTORS BEING SUBODH KUMAR TODY AND GANPAT JAIN WAS PRODUCED. HOW EVER, NO ATTENTION WAS DRAWN ON THE PERSON WHO HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN AFTER THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, HAS FOUND THE SOURCE FOR S TARTING A COMPANY DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND HOW A COMPAN Y WHICH HAS GOT NO BUSINESS COULD SELL ITS SHARES ON PRIVATE PLACEMENT AT A PREMIUM AND THAT TOO TO COMPANIES WHO DO NOT RESPOND TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6). OBVIOUSLY THIS NEEDED DETAILED INVESTIGATION. A PER USAL OF THE ORDER SHEET RECORDING IN THE PRESENT CASE AS MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER SHOWS NO SPECIFIC INVESTIGATION HAVING BEEN DONE ON THE SHAR E APPLICATION, NOR OF THE RECEIPT OF THE REPLIES TO THE 133(6) NOTICES. . HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE REPLIES TO THE 133(6) TH EN ISSUED ARE SEEN TO HAVE THE RUBBER SEAL OF VARIOUS DATES OF FILING AND ARE CONSPICUOUS BY THE FACT THAT THEY ARE ALL IN A SEPARATE FOLDER AND NOT IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 07.07.2010 DOES NOT SPEAK OF ANY INVESTIGATION HAVING BEEN DONE. TH E ABSENCE OF THE COMPLETE INFORMATION AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 133(6) ALSO SHOULD HAVE DRAWN THE ATTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER FACT THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 263, NO REPLY WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN REC EIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) WHICH HAS BEEN SEN T BY POST CLEARLY I.T.A. NO. 1244/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 12 OF 15 SHOWS THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) RE AD WITH SECTION 147 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 07.07.2010 WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THE LD. CIT, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED REVISIONARY POWERS UNDER SECTIO N 263. THIS VIEW OF OURS ALSO FIND SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE FULL BENCH OF THE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAWAHAR BHATTACH ARJEE REPORTED IN 341 ITR 434 (GAU.)(FB), WHEREIN THE HONBLE FULL BENCH HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD NOT HOLDING SUCH ENQUIRY AS IS NORMAL AND NOT APPL YING MIND TO THE RELEVANT MATERIAL IN MAKING AN ASSESSMENT WOULD CER TAINLY BE ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENT WARRANTING EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISD ICTION. 10. FURTHER THE ABOVE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE R EQUISITE AND PROPER INQUIRIES WERE NOT DONE IN RESPECT OF THE SHARE APP LICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 07.07.2010 NOR HAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN V IEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUST RIAL COMPANY LIMITED VS.- CIT REPORTED IN (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) AS ALS O THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK LEYL AND LIMITED VS.- CIT REPORTED IN (2003) 260 ITR 599, THE ACTION OF THE L D. CIT IN SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 148/ 143( 3) ON 07.07.2010 CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH. CONSEQUENTLY IN THE APPEAL FILED THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AND WE DO SO. WE MAY ALSO MENTION HERE THAT ORIGINALLY THE APPEA L HAS BEEN FILED ON 14.05.2013. THIS APPEAL WAS SIGNED BY ONE SHRI A RIHANT JAIN. A DEFECT NOTICE HAD BEEN ISSUED INTIMATING THAT THE APPEAL I S DEFECTIVE IN SO FAR AS THE APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE MANAGING DIRE CTOR. THIS DEFECTIVE MEMO CAME TO BE REPLIED TO BY LETTER DATED 15.05.20 13. THE LETTER IS SIGNED BY THE SAID SHRI ARIHANT JAIN. SUBSEQUENTLY ON 31.07.2014, A LETTER HAS BEEN FILED INTIMATING A CHANGE OF ADDRESS BY ON E MR. JHUMAR MALL SARAOGI. THIS LETTER WAS FILED ON 04.08.2014. ON 05 .08.2014 LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A LETTER INTIMATING THAT THE DIR ECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE- I.T.A. NO. 1244/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 13 OF 15 COMPANY ARE SHRI JHUMAR MALL SARAOGI AND SHRI ANAND KUMAR JAIN. THERE IS NO INTIMATION AS TO WHEN THE ORIGINAL DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY SHRI GANPAT JAIN AND SHRI SUBODH TODY WERE REPLACED OR WHEN SHRI ARIHANT JAIN BECAME A DIRECTOR. THERE IS NO IN FORMATION TO SHOW WHEN SHRI ARIHANT JAIN, SHRI SUBODH TODY AND SHRI G ANPAT JAIN WERE REPLACED BY THE DIRECTORS SHRI JHUMAR MALL SARAOGI AND SHRI ANAND KUMAR JAIN. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A FRESH APPEAL MEMO AND FORM 36 DATED 31.07.2014 SIGNED BY SHRI JHUMAR MALL SARAOGI . IT IS NOT SHOWN AS TO HOW SHRI JHUMAR MALL SARAOGI WAS A DIRECTOR AS O N 14.05.2013 WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE FACTS A RE BEING BROUGHT OUT BECAUSE IF SHRI ARIHANT JAIN IS THE DIRECTOR THEN T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 14.05.2013 IS WITHIN TIME. HOWEVER, IF SHRI ARIHANT JAIN WAS NOT THE DIRECTOR THEN THE APPEAL PRIMARILY FILED IT SELF WOULD BE DEFECTIVE AND WOULD BE LIABLE FOR BEING DISMISSED. IN SUCH A SITUATION, AS SHRI JHUMAR MALL SARAOGI HAS SIGNED THE FORM 36 AND GROU NDS OF APPEAL ONLY ON 31.07.2014 AND IF HE IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE DIRECTOR, THEN THE APPEAL WOULD BE BELATED IN SO FAR AS THE APPEAL HAS BEEN SIGNED AND VERIFIED ONLY ON 31.07.2014. THUS CLEARLY EVEN BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE IS ATTEMPTING EVASIVE METHOD AND NO FACTS ARE BEING PLACED. HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT DECIDING THIS ISSUE AS WE HAVE ALREADY ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT. 11. COMING TO THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. D .R. THAT THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND MUST BE DIS MISSED AS SUCH. WE MAY MENTION HERE THAT THE DECISION OF THE COORDINAT E BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JET AGE SECURITIES PVT. LTD . REFERRED TO SUPRA WAS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SAME CORAM AND THAT THE ORD ER WAS PASSED ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE LD. AR IN THAT CASE HAD AGRE ED TO LET THE APPEAL BE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS AS HE WAS SURE OF GETTING RELIEF ON MERITS. COMING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF KAILASH PRASAD JAIN, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE HONBLE I.T.A. NO. 1244/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 14 OF 15 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD TH AT THE APPEAL FACTUALLY HAD BECOME INFRUCTUOUS BUT NOT LEGALLY IN THE SAID CASE. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT CONSIDERING ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE MATTER NO DECISION SHOULD BE RENDERED AS IF THEY DI D THEN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SUBSEQUENT OR DER OF THE ASSESSMENT WILL HAVE TO BE HEARD ON MERIT AND IN THAT CASE THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION CANNOT BE RAISED. IT WAS BECAUSE OF TH IS THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THAT CASE HAD KEPT ALL POINTS OPEN SINCE THE REGULAR APPEAL HAD ALREADY BEEN PREFERRED AND THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT HAD HELD THE APPEAL AGAINST THE 263 ORDER TO HAVE B ECOME INFRUCTUOUS. THOUGH IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED AND APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE APPRO PRIATE AUTHORITIES, STILL THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 WOULD NOT BECOME INFRUCTUOUS IN SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSIONE R TO PASS AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 IN THESE APPEALS. IT IS ONLY ON T HE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE THAT WE HAVE DECIDED THESE APPEALS. WE HAVE NOT GON E INTO THE FACTS AS THOSE ARE IN THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST WHICH THE APPEALS ARE PENDING BEFORE THE AP PROPRIATE AUTHORITIES. CONSEQUENTLY THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. CIT, D.R. STA NDS REJECTED. IN THE RESULT, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT U NDER SECTION 263. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH AUGUST, 2014. SD/- SD/- SHAMIM YAHYA GEORGE MATHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JU DICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 14 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 I.T.A. NO. 1244/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 15 OF 15 COPIES TO : (1) STAR GRIHA PVT. LTD. 96, GARDEN REACH ROAD, KOLKATA-700 023 (2) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.