M/s Modern Forge Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata V. I.T.O.,Ward-4(2), Kolkata

ITA 1859/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1314 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2019
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO. 1859/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. MODERN FORGE PVT. LTD......................................................................................APPELLANT 53, RADHABAZAR LANE 2 ND FLOOR KOLKATA [PAN : AACCM 1141 R] INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), KOLKATA.............................................................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY, ADVOCATE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT SR. D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : AUGUST 23 RD , 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : SEPTEMBER 6 TH , 2019 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) - 7, KOLKATA, (HEREINAFTER THE LD.CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 25/07/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IT RAISED SHARE CAPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,86,00,000/-, INCLUDING SHARE PREMIUM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT, OF THIS AMOUNT FOR THE REASON THAT SUMMONS ISSUED TO CERTAIN PERSONS COULD NOT BE SERVED AND HENCE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT COULD NOT BE VERIFIED.. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY PASSED AND EX-PARTE ORDER AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. 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 AN EX-PARTE ORDER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ACT, NOR SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT, TO THE CREDITORS BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION DIRECTION TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO TH 4.2. THE LD. D /R, THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION TO THE MATTER BEING SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FR ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS CASE HAS TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BEEN RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDI 5.1. IN THE CASE OF SRIRAM TIE UP PVT. LTD. SUPRA AT PARA 6 AND 7 HELD 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 SIMILAR 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 FIL RECORDING ITS OBSERVATIONS / 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 ACKN OWLEDGED 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 BASE 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 REASSES 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 PROVIDE A OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 20.03.2014. THEREAFTER, THE AO FIXED THE DATE OF HEARING ON 12.03.2014 VIDE NOTICE DATED 10.03.2014. SO, ACCORDING TO 2 M/S. MODERN FORGE PVT. LTD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED ORDER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER H ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY AND HAD ALSO NOT EXAMINED ALL THE DETAILS FILED HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEITHER ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, NOR SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT, TO THE CREDITORS . HE PRAYED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION DIRECTION TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO TH E ASSESSEE. /R, THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION TO THE MATTER BEING SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FR ESH ADJUDICATION, IN AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS CASE HAS TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 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 ADJUDI IN THE CASE OF SRIRAM TIE UP PVT. LTD. SUPRA 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 BEEN TAKEN BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE SIMILAR 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 FIL E OF THE A.O. IN ALMOST SIMILAR SITUATION AFTER RECORDING ITS OBSERVATIONS / 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 OWLEDGED 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 BASE D 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 REASSES SMENT ORDER, WHEREIN AO REQUIRED 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 PROVIDE A OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 20.03.2014. THEREAFTER, THE AO FIXED THE DATE OF HEARING ON 12.03.2014 VIDE NOTICE DATED 10.03.2014. SO, ACCORDING TO ITA NO. 1859/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. MODERN FORGE PVT. LTD LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED H AS NOT GIVEN THE ALL THE DETAILS FILED BY THE NEITHER ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF . HE PRAYED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WITH A /R, THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION TO THE ESH ADJUDICATION, IN AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS CASE HAS TO BE RESTORED TO 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 ADJUDI CATION. IN THE CASE OF SRIRAM TIE UP PVT. LTD. SUPRA 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 ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE SIMILAR 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 E 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 OWLEDGED 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 D 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 SMENT ORDER, WHEREIN AO REQUIRED 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 PROVIDE A NOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 20.03.2014. THEREAFTER, 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 RE MAKE THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE. 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 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 THE FAG END OF FEBRUARY 2014 AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD INFORMED THE 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 WHILE 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 SIMI CHALLENGED THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION 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 P 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 DISMISS ED 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 SOU HOWEVER, THE AO TOOK 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 TAKIN 26.03.2014 CONCLUDED ON THE SAME DAY 26.03.2014 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. ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT AFTER LOOKING INTO THE PERNICIOUS PRACTICE 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 WISDOM 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 GUIDELINE THE FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER 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 3 M/S. MODERN FORGE PVT. LTD THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SINCE THE DIRECTORS WERE NOT IN STATION TILL 23.03.2014, THE . 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 RE CEIVED THE SAID SUMMON AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT MAKE THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE. THE AO HAS DRAWN ADVERSE CONCLUSION BASICALLY 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 ASSESSEE 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 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 THEREFORE, IT HAS TO GO BACK TO AO. WE ALSO NOTE THAT LD. CIT WHILE 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 SIMI LARLY PLACED ASSESSEES HAD CHALLENGED THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION 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 P 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 ED 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 SOU GHT BY HIM TO HIS 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 SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES HAD NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM ON 26.03.2014 AND T AFTER TAKIN G NOTE THAT NONE APPEARED ON 26.03.2014 CONCLUDED ON THE SAME DAY 26.03.2014 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. ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT AFTER LOOKING INTO THE PERNICIOUS PRACTICE 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 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 LD. CIT. WE TAKE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT WITH HIS EXPERIENCE AND WISDOM 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 GUIDELINE S AND METHOD AS DIRECTED BY HIM TO UNEARTH THE FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER 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 ITA NO. 1859/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. MODERN FORGE PVT. LTD THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SINCE THE DIRECTORS WERE NOT IN STATION TILL 23.03.2014, THE . 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 CEIVED THE SAID SUMMON AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT MAKE THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE. THE AO HAS DRAWN ADVERSE CONCLUSION BASICALLY APPEARANCE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT OF 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 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 WE ALSO NOTE THAT LD. CIT WHILE 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 LARLY PLACED ASSESSEES HAD CHALLENGED THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION 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 P LEASED 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 ED 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 GHT BY HIM TO HIS 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 SHARE SUBSCRIBING COMPANIES HAD NOT G NOTE THAT NONE APPEARED ON 26.03.2014 CONCLUDED ON THE SAME DAY 26.03.2014 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 THE PERNICIOUS PRACTICE 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 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 LD. CIT. WE TAKE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT WITH HIS EXPERIENCE AND WISDOM 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 S AND METHOD AS DIRECTED BY HIM TO UNEARTH THE FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBERS. WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THREE JUDGES SINCE THERE WAS LACK OF OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSESSMENT 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. 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 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 TH FORM THE FACT THAT 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 Q 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 APPEAL AND DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE. 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 TH 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 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 A DOPTED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ITAT, AND CONSEQUENTLY 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 TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE F ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IN SIMILAR CASES 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 TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT FAIR AND PROPER AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUS SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE ISSUE IN 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 CONSIDER ATION 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. 4 M/S. MODERN FORGE PVT. LTD OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSESSMENT 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. 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 CIT VS. JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 525/2014 DATED 11.03.2015 WHEREIN 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 TH E ENTRIES IN QUESTION. BUT, FROM THIS INFERENCE, OR FORM THE FACT THAT 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 Q UESTION 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 MADE. 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 TH E 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 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 DOPTED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ITAT, AND CONSEQUENTLY 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 TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE F ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IN SIMILAR CASES 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 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 TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT FAIR AND PROPER AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUS SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE ISSUE IN 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 ATION 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 ITA NO. 1859/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. MODERN FORGE PVT. LTD OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSESSMENT 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 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 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 E ENTRIES IN QUESTION. BUT, FROM THIS INFERENCE, OR FORM THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOWING THAT SATISFACTION AS TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES OR UESTION 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 CHAPTER SIMPLY BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE. IT WAS ALSO THE OBLIGATION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AS INDEED OF ITAT, TO HAVE ENSURED THAT EFFECTIVE INQUIRY WAS E 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 DOPTED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ITAT, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT OF 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 F ACT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IN SIMILAR CASES 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 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 WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT FAIR AND PROPER AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUS TICE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE ISSUE IN 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 ATION 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 6. THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE ITAT HAS PASSED SIMILAR ORDER IN MANY CASES O SAME ISSUE OF ADDITIONS M ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE ALREADY ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTA THE ASSESSEE MAY FILE BEFORE HIM AND ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT IN THE ORDER PASSED/S 263 OF THE ACT, IN ALL SUCH CASES. 7. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO THE ORDERS OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR MATTERS, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF T KOLKATA, THE SD/- [S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 06.09.2019 {SC SPS} 5 M/S. MODERN FORGE PVT. LTD THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE ITAT HAS PASSED SIMILAR ORDER IN MANY CASES O SAME ISSUE OF ADDITIONS M ADE U/S 68 OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION . THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE ALREADY ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTA RY EVIDEN BEFORE HIM AND ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT IN THE ORDER PASSED/S 263 OF THE ACT, IN ALL SUCH CASES. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR MATTERS, WE SET ASIDE THIS TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. KOLKATA, THE 6 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019 . [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1859/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. MODERN FORGE PVT. LTD THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE ITAT HAS PASSED SIMILAR ORDER IN MANY CASES O N THE HAS SET ASIDE THE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY RY EVIDEN CES WHICH BEFORE HIM AND ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT IN THE ORDER PASSED/S 263 OF THE ACT, IN ALL SUCH CASES. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR MATTERS, WE SET ASIDE THIS TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING THE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. . SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SEEMA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION (P) LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. GOLDMINE REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED) 604, AMAZE SHOPPING MALL A.T. ROAD GUWAHATI 781 001 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 6 M/S. MODERN FORGE PVT. LTD SEEMA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION (P) LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. GOLDMINE REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED) 9(2), KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 1859/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. MODERN FORGE PVT. LTD TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES