Kirteshwari Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Howrah V. I.T.O.,Ward-13(2), Kolkata

ITA 1961/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4655 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MIRAJ D. SHAH
• Assessee Lawyers: EPASS KOLKATA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 131; 68; 263; 144

Judgement Text

, A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1961/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 KIRTESHWARI VINCOM PVT. LTD.,19, PANNALAL BASAK LANE, GUHA PARK, LILUAH, HOWRAH-711204 [ PAN NO. AAECK 6234 B ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-13(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 110, SHANTI PALLY, EM BYE PASS, KOLKATA-107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI MIRAJ D. SHAH, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SUPRIYA PAL, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 20-09-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18-10-2019 /O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- OUR INSTANT ORDER DISPOSES OF ASSESSEES PETITION SEEKING EARLY HEARING OF THE MAIN APPEAL ITA NO.1961/KOL/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2012-13 ARISING AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) -5 KOLKATAS O RDER DATED 15.07.2019 PASSED IN CASE NO.377/CIT(A)-5/WARD-13(2)/15-16/KOL INVOLVIN G PROCEEDINGS U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE TAKE UP TH E MAIN APPEAL ITSELF FOR ADJUDICATION. 2. IT TRANSPIRES DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(A) HAVE TREATED THE ASSESSEES SHARE APPLICATIO N / PREMIUM AMOUNT OF ITA NO.1961/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 KIRTESHWARI VINCOM PVT. LTD. VS ITO WD-13(2) , KOL. PAGE 2 2,00,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM EIGHT ENTITIES, NAMELY PARANAM VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., JOLLY ENCLAVE PVT. LTD., GROEN ELECTRO PVT. LTD., VISHVES WARA AGENCIES PVT. LTD., NINE FASHION MARKETING PVT. LTD., GREENBERRY HOLDINGS PV T. LTD., TOPFLOW VINIMAY PVT. LTD., & VIHAAN DEALTRADE PVT. LTD., INVOLVING VARYI NG SUMS OF MONEY TO BE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPLETED ASSESSMENT EX PARTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE U/S. 144 OF THE ACT WHILST ADD ING THE IMPUGNED SHARE APPLICATION / PREMIUM SUM. WE FIND FORM THE PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SEC. 131 NOTICE(S) TO SIX INVESTOR ENTITI ES STOOD UNSERVED AS FOUR CASES AND SIXTH ENTITYS DIRECTOR WAS OUT OF STATION ON 09.03 .2015. THIS MADE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INVOKE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT TO ADD THE IMPUGNED SUM OF 2,00,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S. 68 O F THE ACT. . 3. COMING TO THE CIT(A)S ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE, LE ARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF ITS INVESTOR PA RTIES AND THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY CONFIRMED. WE SEE NO MERI T IN REVENUES INSTANT ARGUMENT IN ENTIRETY. THE FACT REMAINS THAT ALL THE THREE PA RAMETERS OF THE INVESTOR PARTIES HAVE NOT BEEN FACTUALLY VERIFIED EITHER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT OR IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. LEARNED COUNSEL STATES THAT THE ASSESS EES INVESTORS ARE NOT JAMA-KARCHI COMPANIES AND THE SAME ARE VERY MUCH GENUINE. WE DE EM IT APPROPRIATE IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS THAT LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE WOUL D BE MET IN CASE THE IMPUGNED ISSUE RAISED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS RESTORED TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH VERIFICATION AS PER LAW. THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BENCHS DECISI ON IN ITA NO. 2264/KOL/2016 IN INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), KOLKATA VS. M/S PRIM ELINE SALES PVT. LTD. DECIDED ON 16.01.2019 ALSO REMANDED SIMILAR ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS FOLLOWS:- 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONS IDERATION 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. D/R, SUBMITS THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS NOT GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE ALL THE DETAILS FIL ED ON RECORD BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THAT NEW EVIDENCE WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD. HE PR AYED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE ITA NO.1961/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 KIRTESHWARI VINCOM PVT. LTD. VS ITO WD-13(2) , KOL. PAGE 3 REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN LIGHT OF ALL THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD. 4.2. THE LD. A/R, THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUN D DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION TO THE MATTER BEING SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. WE FIND THAT THIS BENCH OF THE ITAT IN ALL SUCH CAS ES HAS BEEN RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDIC ATION. 5. IN THE CASE OF SRIRAM TIE UP PVT. LTD. SUPRA A T 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-O RDINATE 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 B Y THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. IN ALMOST SIMILAR SITUATION AF TER RECORDING ITS OBSERVATIONS / FINDINGS AS UNDER: WE NOTE THAT THE AO PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF LD. CI T HAD TAKEN NOTE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT AND ISS UED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 16.08.2013 AND HAS ACKNOWLEDGED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE COPY OF FINAL ACCOUNT, I . T. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, BANK STATEMENT FOR THE RELEVANT PE RIOD EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY F ROM THE SHARE APPLICANTS. THEREAFTER, THE AO MAKES CERTAIN INFERENCES BASED ON THE LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS AND TAKING NOTE O F 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 COMPANY TO BE PRESENT BEFORE HIM ON 06.03.2014. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE ASSESSEE RECE IVED THE NOTICE ONLY ON 07.03.2014 AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSES SEE REQUESTED THE AO TO PROVIDE ANOTHER 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 DIR ECTORS WERE NOT IN STATION TILL 23.03.2014, THE LD. AR HAD REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT TILL THAT TIME. THOUGH THE AO HAS S TATED THAT HE HAS ISSUED SUMMONS ON 24.03.2014 TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY BEF ORE HIM ON 26.03.2014, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CONTENDED THAT IT HAS NOT RECEIVED THE SAID SUMMON AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT MAKE THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE. THE AO HAS DRAWN ADVERSE CONC LUSION BASICALLY BECAUSE OF NON-APPEARANCE OF THE DIRECTOR S OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPAN IES. WE NOTE THAT INITIALLY THE AO STARTED THE ENQUIRY ON 1 6.08.2013 WHICH WAS COMPILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SUBMITTING DO CUMENTS WHICH HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE AO. THEREAFTER, THE ITA NO.1961/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 KIRTESHWARI VINCOM PVT. LTD. VS ITO WD-13(2) , KOL. PAGE 4 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 WHILE SETTING ASIDE TH E ORDER OF THE AO WHICH WAS PASSED U/S. 147/143(3) OF THE ACT, THE LD . CIT GAVE CERTAIN GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW FOR CONDUCTING DEEP INVESTIGAT ION. WE ALSO NOTE THAT SIMILARLY 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 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 HONBL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE SLP PREFERRED AGAINST THE DECISI ON OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THEREFORE, SIMILAR ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASS ED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN UPHELD. WE NOTE THAT THE AO WHILE GIV ING 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 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 TAKING NOTE THAT NONE APPEARED ON 26.03 .2014 CONCLUDED ON THE SAME DAY 26.03.2014 THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF S HARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED ALONG WITH PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS.8 ,06,00,000/- WHICH HAS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT AFTER LOOKI NG INTO THE PERNICIOUS PRACTICE OF CONVERTING BLACK MONEY INTO WHITE MONEY HAS GIVEN THE GUIDELINES TO AO AS TO HOW THE INVESTIGAT ION 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, SIMILA R ORDER OF THE LD. CIT HAS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO AS DIRECTED BY TH E LD. CIT. WE TAKE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT WITH HIS EXPERIENCE AND WISDO M HAS GIVEN CERTAIN GUIDELINES IN THE BACKDROP OF BLACK MONEY M ENACE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROPERLY ENQUIRED INTO AS DIRECTED BY HIM . THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE INVESTIGATING GUIDELINES AND M ETHOD AS DIRECTED BY HIM TO UNEARTH THE FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER TH E IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE SUBSC RIBERS. WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THREE JUDGES BENC H IN THE CASE OF TIN BOX, (SUPRA), HAS HELD THAT SINCE THERE WAS LAC K OF OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ITSELF, THE AS SESSMENT NEEDS TO BE DONE AFRESH AND THEREBY REVERSED THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT, TRIBUNAL AND CIT(A)S ORDERS AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK T O AO FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT. SO, SINCE THERE WAS LACK OF OPPORTUNIT Y AS AFORESTATED IT ITA NO.1961/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 KIRTESHWARI VINCOM PVT. LTD. VS ITO WD-13(2) , KOL. PAGE 5 HAS TO GO BACK TO AO. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MA RKETING 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 CONC LUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN HAD COME UP WITH SOME PROOF OF IDENTITY OF SOME OF THE ENTRIES IN QUESTION. BUT, FROM THIS INF ERENCE, OR FORM THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH BA NKING CHANNELS, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOWING THAT SA TISFACTION AS TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES OR THE GENUI NENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN ESTAB LISHED. 42. THE AO HERE MAY HAVE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS OB LIGATION TO CONDUCT A PROPER INQUIRY TO TAKE THE MATTER TO LOGI CAL CONCLUSION. BUT CIT(APPEALS), HAVING NOTICED WANT O F PROPER INQUIRY, COULD NOT HAVE CLOSED THE CHAPTER SIMPLY B Y ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE. IT WAS ALSO THE OBLIGATION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AS IND EED 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 CA SH DEPOSITS OF EQUAL AMOUNTS IN THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS PRECEDI NG THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. THIS NECESSITATED A DETAI LED SCRUTINY OF THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPON SE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION148 ISSUED BY THE AO, AS ALSO T HE 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 HA VING BEEN ADOPTED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ITAT, AND CONSE QUENTLY THAT OF CIT(APPEALS), CANNOT BE APPROVED OR UPHELD. ' IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID ORDER AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN TIN BOX COMPANY (SUPRA) AND TAK ING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PAS SED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IN SIMILAR CASES BEING UPHELD UP TO THE LEVEL O F APEX COURT, AND TAKING NOTE OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURTS ORDER IN JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE SET A SIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FI LE OF AO FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT AND TO DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDA NCE TO LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT FAIR AND PROPER AND I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE 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 SU FFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION 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. ITA NO.1961/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 KIRTESHWARI VINCOM PVT. LTD. VS ITO WD-13(2) , KOL. PAGE 6 6. THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE ITAT HAS PASSED SIMILAR ORDER IN MANY CASES ON THE SAME ISSUE OF ADDITIONS MADE U/S 68 OF THE SHARE CA PITAL. IT HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICA TION, ON THE LINES STATED IN THE ABOVE ORDER AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN OPPORTU NITY TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE ALREADY ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE OR FURTHER MAY CHOOSE TO FIL E IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE. 7. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES 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. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND RAISED IN TH E INSTANT APPEAL IS RESTORED BACK TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR AFRESH ADJUDICATION AS PER LA W WITHIN THREE EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING. 4. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18/10/2019 SD/- SD/- ( &) (( &) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *DKP-SR.PS ) - 18/10/2019 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-KIRTESHWARI VINCOM PVT. LTD., 19, PANNAL AL BASAK LANE, GUHA PARK, LILU AH, HOWRAH-711204 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO WAR-13(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 110, SHA NTI PALLY, EM BYE PASS, KOLKA TA-107 3. , - / CONCERNED CIT 4. - - / CIT (A) 5. . ((, , , /DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 2 / GUARD FILE. BY ORD ER/ , /TRUE COPY/ ,,