Hoogly Alloy and Steels Co. (P) Ltd, Kolkata V. ACIT, Circle-5(2) Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 2207/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6167 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYANTA KHANRA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Condonation of delay
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT-KZ & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A. NO. 2207/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 HOOGHLY ALLOY AND STEELS CO. (P). LTD..............APPELLANT 19, PRINCIPAL KHUDIRAM BOSE ROAD KOLKATA- 700 006 [PAN: AUDPM 5838 M] VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2), KOLKATA.......................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI JAYANTA KHANRA, JCIT, SR. D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 4 TH , 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 4 TH 2019 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JM :- THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-2, KOLKATA DATED 23/08/2019 WHEREBY AND WHEREUNDER THE PENALTY OF RS. 17,61,000/- IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, HAS BEEN CONFIMED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE CASE IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE, A COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 30.09.2008, DECLARING TOTAL BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.38,81,942/-. SUCH ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 147/143(3) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 14/03/2016; THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY THE AO AT RS. 20,57,940/- AFTER MAKING INTER ALIA THE ADDITION OF RS. 58,70,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) WERE ALSO INITIATED BY THE AO AND SINCE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 14.03.2016 ISSUED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SAID PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY HIM, THE AO IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS. 17,61,000/-, U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAID PENALTY. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 2.1. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THERE WAS 13 DAYS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF PENALTY DT. 26.09.2016. THE JUSTIFICATION TOWARDS SUCH DELAY WAS THE PHYSICAL AILMENT SUFFERED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY, NAMELY, SHRI PREM KUMAR AGARWAL, WHO LOOKS AFTER THE TAXATION MATTER OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY; HE WAS SUFFERING FROM PHYSICAL AILMENT FROM 28.10.2016 TO 11.11.2016. AFTER HIS RECOVERY, THE RELEVANT PAPERS COULD HAVE BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE CONCERN THE LD. CIT(A), AS STATED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF DELAY IN FILING SUCH APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THIS SUBMISSION, IN A POSITIVE MANNER, WH DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT CAUSE AS IS REQUIRED TO CONDONE THE DELAY UNDER LAW OF LIMITATION AND HENCE DELAY WAS NOT CONDONED. FINALLY, ON MERITS, THE MATTER WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMING THE OFFICER U/S 271(C) OF THE ACT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3.1. IT APPEARS THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY B LD. C IT(A) IS GENUINE AND PRACTICAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS MENTIONED THEREIN, WHICH ACCORDING TO US NEEDS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND THE SAME REALLY DEMAN SUCH CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THE DELAY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONDONED BY THE LD. CIT(A). APART FROM THAT, THE L A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION CHALLENGING THE PE GROUND THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEING DEFECTIVE, THE PENALTY IMPOSED IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH DEFECTIVE NOTICE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. HE HAS PLACED ON RECORD, A COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE ISS OUT THAT THE IRRELEVANT PORTION HAVING BEEN NOT STRUCK OFF BY THE A.O. IN THE SAID NOTICE, THE EXACT CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER HE CONCE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUC NOT CLEAR. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE RELIED UP ON THE DECISION OF THE C ACIT RENDERED VIDE ITS ORDER DATED WHEREIN A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN 2 COMPANY, NAMELY, SHRI PREM KUMAR AGARWAL, WHO LOOKS AFTER THE TAXATION MATTER OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY; HE WAS SUFFERING FROM PHYSICAL AILMENT FROM 28.10.2016 TO 11.11.2016. AFTER HIS RECOVERY, THE RELEVANT PAPERS COULD HAVE BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE CONCERN ED ADVOCATE FOR PREPARATION OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), AS STATED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF DELAY IN FILING SUCH APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THIS SUBMISSION, IN A POSITIVE MANNER, WH ICH ACCORDING TO HIM IS VAGUE AND EVASIVE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT CAUSE AS IS REQUIRED TO CONDONE THE DELAY UNDER LAW OF LIMITATION AND HENCE DELAY WAS NOT CONDONED. FINALLY, ON MERITS, THE MATTER WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(C) OF THE ACT. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND ALSO PERUSED AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT APPEARS THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY B IT(A) IS GENUINE AND PRACTICAL TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, THE PHYSICAL AILMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS MENTIONED THEREIN, WHICH ACCORDING TO US NEEDS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND THE SAME REALLY DEMAN SUCH CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THE DELAY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONDONED BY THE LD. CIT(A). L EARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED CHALLENGING THE PE NALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEING DEFECTIVE, THE PENALTY IMPOSED IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH DEFECTIVE NOTICE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. HE HAS PLACED ON RECORD, A COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE ISS UED BY THE A.O. AND POINTED OUT THAT THE IRRELEVANT PORTION HAVING BEEN NOT STRUCK OFF BY THE A.O. IN THE SAID NOTICE, THE EXACT CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER HE CONCE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUC H INCOME WAS NOT CLEAR. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ON THE DECISION OF THE C OORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF JEETMAL CHORARIA VS RENDERED VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 01.12.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO. 956/KOL/2016 HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER TAKING INTO I.T.A. NO. 2207/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 HOOGHLY ALLOY AND STEELS CO. (P). LTD COMPANY, NAMELY, SHRI PREM KUMAR AGARWAL, WHO LOOKS AFTER THE TAXATION MATTER OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY; HE WAS SUFFERING FROM PHYSICAL AILMENT FROM 28.10.2016 TO 11.11.2016. AFTER HIS RECOVERY, THE RELEVANT PAPERS COULD HAVE ED ADVOCATE FOR PREPARATION OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), AS STATED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF DELAY IN FILING SUCH APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THIS ICH ACCORDING TO HIM IS VAGUE AND EVASIVE AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT CAUSE AS IS REQUIRED TO CONDONE THE DELAY UNDER LAW OF LIMITATION AND HENCE DELAY WAS NOT CONDONED. FINALLY, ON MERITS, THE MATTER WAS PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING AND ALSO PERUSED IT APPEARS THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY B EFORE THE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, THE PHYSICAL AILMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS MENTIONED THEREIN, WHICH ACCORDING TO US NEEDS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND THE SAME REALLY DEMAN D SUCH CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED NALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEING DEFECTIVE, THE PENALTY IMPOSED IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH DEFECTIVE NOTICE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. UED BY THE A.O. AND POINTED OUT THAT THE IRRELEVANT PORTION HAVING BEEN NOT STRUCK OFF BY THE A.O. IN THE SAID NOTICE, THE EXACT CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER HE CONCE ALED THE H INCOME WAS EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS JEETMAL CHORARIA VS ITA NO. 956/KOL/2016 DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, THE RELEVANT DECISION OF THE DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS VIDE PARAGRAPH NO. 14 AND 15 OF ITS ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER: FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE LINE OF REASONING OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT IS THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICE FOR INFORMING THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO LEVY PENALTY IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. MERE MISTAKE IN THE LANGUAGE USED OR MERE NON CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHES AT MUMBAI AND PATNA BEING SUBORDINATE TO THE HO BOUND TO FOLLOW THE AFORESAID VIEW. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHES AT BANGALORE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. AS FAR AS BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE CONCERNED, THER ONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE RENDERED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) AND OTHER OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. KAUSHALYA. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSITI TWO VIEWS ARE AVAILABLE ON AN ISSUE, THE VIEW FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. WE, THEREFORE, PREFER TO FOLLOW THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA). WE HAVE AL READY OBSERVED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SHOW CAUSE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS BASED ON THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO IN T ACCEPTED. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED. 4. IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE JEETMAL CHORARIA VS ACIT (SUPRA) EVEN THE L EARNED DR HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IMPUGNED PENALTY I MPOSED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE SD/- [P.M. JAGTAP] VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 14.10.2019 {SC SPS} 3 CONSIDERATION, THE RELEVANT DECISION OF THE DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS VIDE PARAGRAPH NO. 14 AND 15 OF ITS ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER: FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE LINE OF REASONING OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT IS THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICE FOR INFORMING THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. MERE MISTAKE IN THE LANGUAGE USED OR MERE NON - STRIKING OF THE INACCURATE PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHES AT MUMBAI AND PATNA BEING SUBORDINATE TO THE HO NBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND PATNA HIGH COURT ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE AFORESAID VIEW. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHES AT BANGALORE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. AS FAR AS BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE CONCERNED, THER E ARE TWO VIEWS ON THE ISSUE, ONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE RENDERED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) AND OTHER OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. KAUSHALYA. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSITI ON THAT WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE AVAILABLE ON AN ISSUE, THE VIEW FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. WE, THEREFORE, PREFER TO FOLLOW THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA). READY OBSERVED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT STRIKE OUT THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS BASED ON THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO IN T HE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED. IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE JEETMAL CHORARIA VS ACIT (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND EARNED DR HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER . WE, THEREFORE, THE SAID DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH MPOSED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AND CONFIRMED BY IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE 4 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019. [MADHUMITA JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2207/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 HOOGHLY ALLOY AND STEELS CO. (P). LTD CONSIDERATION, THE RELEVANT DECISION OF THE DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS VIDE PARAGRAPH NO. FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE LINE OF REASONING OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT IS THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICE FOR INFORMING THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. STRIKING OF THE INACCURATE PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHES AT MUMBAI AND PATNA NBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND PATNA HIGH COURT ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE AFORESAID VIEW. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHES AT BANGALORE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. AS FAR AS BENCHES OF E ARE TWO VIEWS ON THE ISSUE, ONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE RENDERED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) AND OTHER OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY ON THAT WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE AVAILABLE ON AN ISSUE, THE VIEW FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. WE, THEREFORE, PREFER TO FOLLOW THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA). READY OBSERVED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT STRIKE OUT THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS HE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND . WE, THEREFORE, THE SAID DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH QUASH THE MPOSED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AND CONFIRMED BY SD/- [MADHUMITA ROY] JUDICIAL MEMBER C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. HOOGHLY ALLOY AND STEELS CO. (P). LTD C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES SIDDHA GIBSON 1, GIBSON LANE SUITE 213 2 ND FLOOR KOLKATA 700 069 2. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 4 OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: HOOGHLY ALLOY AND STEELS CO. (P). LTD C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5(2), KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES I.T.A. NO. 2207/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 HOOGHLY ALLOY AND STEELS CO. (P). LTD TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES