M/s Shah Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Howrah V. I.T.O.,Ward-15(4), Kolkata

ITA 1857/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2366 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 250; 131; 68; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI S.S. GODARA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO. 1857/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. SHAH TRACOM PVT. LTD.............................................................APPELLANT 33/34, RAMLAL MUKHERJEE LANE GOLABARI HOWRAH 711 106 [PAN : AAQCS 0580 E] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(4), KOLKATA................................................................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUNIL SURANA, A/R, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SMT. RANU BISWAS, ADDL. CIT D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 21 ST , 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 25 TH , 2020 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 5, KOLKATA, (HEREINAFTER THE LD. CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 19/07/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IT RAISED SHARE CAPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,85,00,000/-, INCLUDING SHARE PREMIUM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT, OF THIS AMOUNT DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES U/S 131 OF THE ACT, AND HENCE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT COULD NOT BE PROVED. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. FURTHER AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS:- 4.1. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS PRIMARY ONUS BY PRODUCTION OF ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY AND ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT, THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS/HOLDER COMPANIES ASSESSEE COMPANY, HAVE NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM OR MADE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT. HE PRAYED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WITH A DIRECTION TO OFFICER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY 4.2. THE LD . D/R, THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS CASE HAS TO BE RESTO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS NO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSING OFFICER STATES THAT THE SUMMONS WAS ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO RECORD TO SHOW THAT THESE NOTICES THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES THIS IS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF SUCH CASES HAS BEEN RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE ADJUDICATION. 5.1. IN THE CASE OF SRIRAM TIE UP PVT. LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009- 10 ORDER DT. MARCH 21, 2018, 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 SIMILA R ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IS RESTORED BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. IN ALMOST SIMILAR SITUATION AFTER RECORDING ITS OBSERV ATIONS / FINDINGS AS UNDER: WE NOTE THAT THE AO PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT HAD TAKEN NOTE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 16.08.2013 AND HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE COPY OF FINAL ACCOUNT, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, BANK STATEMENT FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THE SHARE APPLICANTS. THEREAFTER, THE AO MAKES CERTAIN INFERENCES BASED ON THE LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS AND TAKING NOTE OF THE BANK STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTE THAT AFTER THE INITIAL NOTICE DATED 16.08.2013, THEREAFTER THE AO HAD ISSUED THE NOTICE ON 26.02.2014 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGE 3 OF THE REASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN AO REQUIRED THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPA ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE NOTICE ONLY ON 07.03.2014 AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE AO TO PROVIDE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING 2 DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS/HOLDER COMPANIES AND DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, HAVE NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM OR , WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT. HE PRAYED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WITH A DIRECTION TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. . D/R, THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN ACCORDANCE AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS CASE HAS TO BE RESTO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS NO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSING OFFICER STATES THAT THE SUMMONS WAS ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO THESE NOTICES WERE SERVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES THAT, THE DIRECTORS IN QUESTION ARE FICTITIOUS IS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WE FIND THAT THIS BENCH OF THE ITAT IN ALL SUCH CASES HAS BEEN RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH SRIRAM TIE UP PVT. LTD VS. ITO IN I.T.A. NO. 1104/KOL/2016, 10 ORDER DT. MARCH 21, 2018, AT PARA 6 AND 7 HELD AS FOLLOWS: 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 BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE R ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IS RESTORED BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. IN ALMOST SIMILAR SITUATION AFTER ATIONS / FINDINGS AS UNDER: WE NOTE THAT THE AO PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT HAD TAKEN NOTE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 16.08.2013 AND HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE COPY OF FINAL ACCOUNT, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, BANK STATEMENT FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THE SHARE APPLICANTS. THEREAFTER, THE AO MAKES CERTAIN INFERENCES BASED ON THE LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS AND TAKING NOTE OF THE BANK FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTE THAT AFTER THE INITIAL NOTICE DATED 16.08.2013, THEREAFTER THE AO HAD ISSUED THE NOTICE ON 26.02.2014 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGE 3 OF THE REASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN AO REQUIRED THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY 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 PROVIDE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING ITA NO. 1857/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. SHAH TRACOM PVT. LTD. AND DIRECTORS OF THE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT. HE PRAYED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING TO THE ASSESSEE. . D/R, THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN ACCORDANCE AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS CASE HAS TO BE RESTO RED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS NO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATES THAT THE SUMMONS WAS ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CONCLUDED, ON ARE FICTITIOUS PERSONS. WE FIND THAT THIS BENCH OF THE ITAT IN ALL FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH I.T.A. NO. 1104/KOL/2016, 6 AND 7 HELD AS FOLLOWS: 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 ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE R ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IS RESTORED BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. IN ALMOST SIMILAR SITUATION AFTER WE NOTE THAT THE AO PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT HAD TAKEN NOTE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 16.08.2013 AND HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE COPY OF FINAL ACCOUNT, I. T. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, BANK STATEMENT FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THE SHARE APPLICANTS. THEREAFTER, THE AO MAKES CERTAIN INFERENCES BASED ON THE LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS AND TAKING NOTE OF THE BANK FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTE THAT AFTER THE INITIAL NOTICE DATED 16.08.2013, THEREAFTER THE AO HAD ISSUED THE NOTICE ON 26.02.2014 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGE 3 OF THE REASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN AO REQUIRED THE DIRECTORS NY 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 PROVIDE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 20.03.2014. THE 12.03.2014 VIDE NOTICE DATED 10.03.2014. SO, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SINCE THE DIRECTORS WERE NOT IN STATION TILL 23.03.2014, THE LD. AR HAD REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT TILL THAT TIME. THOUGH THE AO HAS 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 A HAS DRAWN ADVERSE CONCLUSION BASICALLY BECAUSE OF NON OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES. WE NOTE THAT INITIALLY THE AO STARTED THE ENQUIRY ON 16.08.2013 WHICH WAS COMPLIED BY THE A SSESSEE BY SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS WHICH HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE AO. THEREAFTER, THE ENQUIRY WAS STARTED ONLY AT THE FAG END OF FEBRUARY 2014 AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD INFORMED THE AO THAT 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 OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO SO, THERE WAS A LACK OF OPPORTUNITY AS AFORESAID, THEREFORE, IT HAS TO GO BACK TO AO. 8. WE ALSO NOTE THAT LD. CIT W PASSED U/S. 147/143(3) OF THE ACT, THE LD. CIT GAVE CERTAIN GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW FOR CONDUCTING DEEP INVESTIGATION. WE ALSO NOTE THAT SIMILARLY PLACED ASSESSEES HAD CHALLENGED THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JUR TRIBUNAL 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 UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF 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. 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 HIS NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE AO TO VIEW AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE PLEA THAT THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES HAD NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM ON 26.03.2014 AND T AFTER 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 WITH PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS.8,06,00,000/ ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT AFTER LOOKING INTO THE PERNICIOUS PRAC TICE OF CONVERTING BLACK MONEY INTO WHITE MONEY HAS GIVEN THE GUIDELINES TO AO AS TO HOW THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE CONDUCTED TO FIND OUT THE SOURCE OF SOURCE. SINCE SIMILAR ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THE SLP HAS BEEN DISMISSED 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 WISD BLACK MONEY MENACE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROPERLY ENQUIRED INTO AS DIRECTED BY HIM. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE INVESTIGATING GUIDELINES AND METHOD AS DIRECTED BY HIM TO UNEARTH THE FACTS TO DETERMINE WH CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. 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 OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSESSMEN NEEDS TO BE DONE AFRESH AND THEREBY REVERSED THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, TRIBUNAL AND CIT(A)S ORDERS AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO AO FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT. SO, SINCE THERE WAS LACK OF OPPORTUNITY AS AFORESTATED IT HAS TO GO 3 VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 20.03.2014. THE REAFTER, THE AO FIXED THE DATE OF HEARING ON 12.03.2014 VIDE NOTICE DATED 10.03.2014. SO, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SINCE THE DIRECTORS WERE NOT IN STATION 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 A PPEARANCE. THE AO HAS DRAWN ADVERSE CONCLUSION BASICALLY BECAUSE OF NON - APPEARANCE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES. WE NOTE THAT INITIALLY THE AO STARTED THE ENQUIRY ON 16.08.2013 WHICH WAS COMPLIED BY THE SSESSEE BY SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS WHICH HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE AO. THEREAFTER, THE ENQUIRY WAS STARTED ONLY AT THE FAG END OF FEBRUARY 2014 AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD INFORMED THE AO THAT THEIR DIRECTORS WERE OUT OF STATION TILL LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO SO, THERE WAS A LACK OF OPPORTUNITY AS AFORESAID, THEREFORE, IT HAS TO GO BACK TO AO. WE ALSO NOTE THAT LD. CIT W HILE SETTING ASIDE THE 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 INVESTIGATION. WE ALSO NOTE THAT SIMILARLY PLACED ASSESSEES HAD CHALLENGED THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JUR ISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL 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 UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH WE LEARN 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 HIS NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE AO TO OK THE ADVERSE VIEW AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE PLEA THAT THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES HAD NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM ON 26.03.2014 AND T AFTER TAKING NOTE THAT NONE APPEARED ON 26.03.2014 CONCLUDED ON THE SAME DAY 6.03.2014 THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED ALONG WITH 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. CIT AFTER LOOKING INTO TICE OF CONVERTING BLACK MONEY INTO WHITE MONEY HAS GIVEN THE GUIDELINES TO AO AS TO HOW THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE CONDUCTED TO FIND OUT THE SOURCE OF SOURCE. SINCE SIMILAR ORDER OF THE 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 DISMISSED 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 WISD OM HAS GIVEN CERTAIN GUIDELINES IN THE BACKDROP OF BLACK MONEY MENACE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROPERLY ENQUIRED INTO AS DIRECTED BY HIM. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE INVESTIGATING GUIDELINES AND METHOD AS DIRECTED BY HIM TO UNEARTH THE FACTS TO DETERMINE WH ETHER THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. 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 OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSESSMEN T STAGE ITSELF, THE ASSESSMENT NEEDS TO BE DONE AFRESH AND THEREBY REVERSED THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, TRIBUNAL AND CIT(A)S ORDERS AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO AO FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT. SO, SINCE THERE WAS LACK OF OPPORTUNITY AS AFORESTATED IT HAS TO GO BACK TO AO. WE ALSO ITA NO. 1857/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. SHAH TRACOM PVT. LTD. REAFTER, THE AO FIXED THE DATE OF HEARING ON 12.03.2014 VIDE NOTICE DATED 10.03.2014. SO, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SINCE THE DIRECTORS WERE NOT IN STATION TILL 23.03.2014, THE LD. AR HAD REQUESTED FOR 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 PPEARANCE. THE AO APPEARANCE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES. WE NOTE THAT INITIALLY THE AO STARTED THE ENQUIRY ON 16.08.2013 WHICH WAS COMPLIED BY THE SSESSEE BY SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS WHICH HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE AO. THEREAFTER, THE ENQUIRY WAS STARTED ONLY AT THE FAG END OF FEBRUARY 2014 AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD INFORMED THE AO THAT THEIR DIRECTORS WERE OUT OF STATION TILL LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO SO, THERE WAS A LACK OF OPPORTUNITY AS AFORESAID, THEREFORE, IT HAS TO GO BACK TO AO. HILE SETTING ASIDE THE 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 INVESTIGATION. WE ALSO NOTE THAT SIMILARLY PLACED ASSESSEES HAD ISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL 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 UPHOLD THE ACT, WHICH WE LEARN 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 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 OK THE ADVERSE VIEW AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE PLEA THAT THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES HAD NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM ON 26.03.2014 AND T AFTER TAKING NOTE THAT NONE APPEARED ON 26.03.2014 CONCLUDED ON THE SAME DAY 6.03.2014 THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED ALONG WITH WHICH HAS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT AFTER LOOKING INTO TICE OF CONVERTING BLACK MONEY INTO WHITE MONEY HAS GIVEN THE GUIDELINES TO AO AS TO HOW THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE CONDUCTED TO FIND OUT THE SOURCE OF SOURCE. SINCE SIMILAR ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT HAS AS WELL AS BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE SLP HAS BEEN DISMISSED 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. OM HAS GIVEN CERTAIN GUIDELINES IN THE BACKDROP OF BLACK MONEY MENACE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROPERLY ENQUIRED INTO AS DIRECTED BY HIM. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE INVESTIGATING GUIDELINES AND METHOD AS DIRECTED ETHER THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THREE JUDGES BENCH IN THE CASE OF TIN BOX, (SUPRA), HAS HELD THAT SINCE THERE WAS T STAGE ITSELF, THE ASSESSMENT NEEDS TO BE DONE AFRESH AND THEREBY REVERSED THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, TRIBUNAL AND CIT(A)S ORDERS AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO AO FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT. SO, BACK TO AO. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 525/2014 DATED 11.03.2015 WHEREIN AFTER NOTICING INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BY AUTHORITIES 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 THE 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 TH AT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOWING THAT SATISFACTION AS TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES OR THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. 42. THE AO HERE MAY HAVE INQUIRY TO TAKE THE MATTER TO LOGICAL CONCLUSION. BUT CIT(APPEALS), HAVING NOTICED WANT OF PROPER INQUIRY, COULD NOT HAVE CLOSED THE CHAPTER SIMPLY BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND DELETING THE ADDITIONS MAD APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AS INDEED OF ITAT, TO HAVE ENSURED THAT EFFECTIVE INQUIRY WAS CARRIED OUT, PARTICULARLY IN THE FACT OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ACCOUNT STATEMENTS REVEAL UNIFORM PATTERN OF CASH RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS PRECEDING THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. THIS NECESSITATED A DETAILED SCRUTINY OF THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION148 ISSUED BY THE AO, AS ALSO THE MATERIAL APPEALS, IF DEEMED PROPER BY WAY OF MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE A 'FURTHER INQUIRY IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER UNDER SECTION 250(4). HIS APPROACH NOT HAVING BEEN ADOPTED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ITAT, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT OF CIT(APP 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 TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IN SIMILAR C THE LEVEL OF APEX COURT, AND TAKING NOTE OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURTS ORDER IN JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DE NOVO TO DECIDE 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 THE ISSUE I MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY CHOOSE TO FILE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE ON THE ISSUE. 6. THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE ITAT HAS PASSED SIMILAR ORDER SAME ISSUE OF ADDITIONS M ADE U/S 68 OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE ALREADY ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY FILE BEFORE HIM AND ADJUDICATE THE I 4 NOTE THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 525/2014 DATED 11.03.2015 WHEREIN AFTER NOTICING INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BY AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE HELD AS UNDER: WE ARE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CIT(APPEALS), AND CONSEQUENTLY WITH ITAT, TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN HAD COME UP WITH SOME PROOF OF IDENTITY OF SOME OF THE ENTRIES IN QUESTION. BUT, FROM THIS INFERENCE, OR FORM THE AT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOWING THAT SATISFACTION AS TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES OR THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. 42. THE AO HERE MAY HAVE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATION TO CONDUCT A PROPER INQUIRY TO TAKE THE MATTER TO LOGICAL CONCLUSION. BUT CIT(APPEALS), HAVING NOTICED WANT OF PROPER INQUIRY, COULD NOT HAVE CLOSED THE CHAPTER SIMPLY BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND DELETING THE ADDITIONS MAD E. IT WAS ALSO THE OBLIGATION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AS INDEED OF ITAT, TO HAVE ENSURED THAT EFFECTIVE INQUIRY WAS CARRIED OUT, PARTICULARLY IN THE FACT OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ACCOUNT STATEMENTS REVEAL UNIFORM PATTERN OF CASH DEPOSITS OF EQUAL AMOUNTS IN THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS PRECEDING THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. THIS NECESSITATED A DETAILED SCRUTINY OF THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION148 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 'FURTHER INQUIRY IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER UNDER SECTION 250(4). HIS APPROACH NOT HAVING BEEN ADOPTED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ITAT, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT OF CIT(APP 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 TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IN SIMILAR C ASES BEING UPHELD UP TO THE LEVEL OF APEX COURT, AND TAKING NOTE OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURTS ORDER IN JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT AND TO DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT FAIR AND PROPER AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE ISSUE I N DISPUTE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY CHOOSE TO FILE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE ITAT HAS PASSED SIMILAR ORDER S IN MANY CASES ON THE ADE U/S 68 OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WITH A DIRECTION THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MAY EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE ALREADY ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY FILE BEFORE HIM AND ADJUDICATE THE I SSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ITA NO. 1857/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. SHAH TRACOM PVT. LTD. NOTE THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 525/2014 DATED 11.03.2015 WHEREIN AFTER NOTICING INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BY AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE HELD AS UNDER: WE ARE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CIT(APPEALS), AND CONSEQUENTLY WITH ITAT, TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN HAD COME UP WITH SOME PROOF OF IDENTITY OF SOME OF THE ENTRIES IN QUESTION. BUT, FROM THIS INFERENCE, OR FORM THE AT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOWING THAT SATISFACTION AS TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES OR THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATION TO CONDUCT A PROPER INQUIRY TO TAKE THE MATTER TO LOGICAL CONCLUSION. BUT CIT(APPEALS), HAVING NOTICED WANT OF PROPER INQUIRY, COULD NOT HAVE CLOSED THE CHAPTER SIMPLY BY ALLOWING THE E. IT WAS ALSO THE OBLIGATION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AS INDEED OF ITAT, TO HAVE ENSURED THAT EFFECTIVE INQUIRY WAS CARRIED OUT, PARTICULARLY IN THE FACT OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DEPOSITS OF EQUAL AMOUNTS IN THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS PRECEDING THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. THIS NECESSITATED A DETAILED SCRUTINY OF THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE SUBMITTED AT THE STAGE OF APPEALS, IF DEEMED PROPER BY WAY OF MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE A 'FURTHER INQUIRY IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER UNDER SECTION 250(4). HIS APPROACH NOT HAVING BEEN ADOPTED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ITAT, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT OF CIT(APP EALS), IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID ORDER AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN TIN BOX COMPANY (SUPRA) AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THE ASES BEING UPHELD UP TO THE LEVEL OF APEX COURT, AND TAKING NOTE OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURTS ORDER IN JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT AND TO DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT FAIR AND PROPER AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO SET N DISPUTE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTH ER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY CHOOSE TO FILE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE IN MANY CASES ON THE HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ASSESSING OFFICER MAY EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE ALREADY ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH SSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ORDERS OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR MATTERS, WE SET ASIDE THIS TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FR ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE KOLKATA, THE SD/- [S.S. GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 25.11.2020 {SC SPS} COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. SHAH TRACOM PVT. LTD 33/34, RAMLAL MUKHERJEE LANE GOLABARI HOWRAH 711 106 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 15(4), KOLKATA 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 5 KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO THE ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR MATTERS, WE SET ASIDE THIS TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FR ESH ADJUDICATION I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES KOLKATA, THE 25 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020. [J. SUDHAKAR REDDY] AC COUNTANT MEMBER MUKHERJEE LANE 15(4), KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 1857/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. SHAH TRACOM PVT. LTD. OF THE CASE AND ALSO THE ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR MATTERS, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING THE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . SD/- [J. SUDHAKAR REDDY] COUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES