Fairway Distributors (P) Ltd., Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 9(2), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 2244/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6418 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANKAR HELDAR JCITSRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: MIRAJ D. SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 131; 68; 148; 263

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2244 / KOL / 20 17 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 FAIRWAY DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD., 134/4, M.G. ROAD, KOLKATA-700 007 [ PAN NO.AABCF 4883 C ] V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), P-7, CHOWRINIGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-69 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI MIRAJ D SHAH, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HELDAR, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 13-03-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT -05-2019 / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, KOLKATAS O RDER DATED 28.07.2017 PASSED IN CASE NO.590/CIT(A)-3/W-9(2)/15-16/KOL, IN VOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE A CT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. WE NOTICE AT THE OUTSET THAT THE ASSESSEES INST ANT APPEAL SUFFERS FROM 24 DAYS DELAY IN FILING. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED O N RECORD ITS CONDONATION PETITION STATING NON-AVAILABILITY OF ITS DIRECTORS DURING THE PRESCRIBED LIMITATION PERIOD. LEARNED. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS FAI R ENOUGH IN NOT DISPUTING CORRECTNESS OF THE SAID AVERMENTS. WE THEREFORE HOL D THE IMPUGNED DELAY OF ITA NO.2244/KOL/2017 A.Y. 201 2-13 FAIRWAY DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD. VS. ITO WD-9(2), KOL. PAGE 2 24 DAYS TO BE NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR DELIBERATE BU T ON ACCOUNT OF CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND ASSESSEES CONTROL. CASE IS NO W TAKEN UP ON MERITS. 3. ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES; ACTION TREATING ITS SHARE A PPLICATION / PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO 1,92,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT LIABLE TO BE ADDED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. IT TRANSPIRES DURING THE COURSE OF H EARING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE ITS IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDI TWORTHINESS OF THE IMPUGNED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY BY WAY OF GETTING THE SAME FACTUAL VERIFIED IN RESPONSE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SCRUTINY AS WEL L AS SEC. 131 NOTICE(S) DURING THE CURSE OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS IN LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. LEARNED CIT-DR VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS DURING THE COURS E OF HEARING THAT THE CIT(A)S DETAILED FINDINGS UNDER CHALLENGE HAVE RIG HTLY AFFIRMED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEES FAILURE IN PROVI NG THE THREE INGREDIENTS OF ITS SHARE APPLICATION / PREMIUM RECEIPTS IN CASE OF THE SEVEN ENTITIES IN ISSUE. WE FIND NO MERIT IN REVENUES INSTANT ARGUMENTS AS THE CIT(A) HAS NEITHER FRAMED ANY POINTS OF DETERMINATION IN VIEW OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PLACED AT THE ASSESSEES BEHEST ON RECORD NOR HAS HE TAKEN RECOUR SE A DETAILED ADJUDICATION THEREOF AS CONTEMPLATED U/S. 250(6) OF THE ACT. 4. WE NOTICE THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHS DECISION IN ITA 2264/KOL/2016 ITO VS. M/S PRIMELINE SALES PVT. LTD. DECIDED ON 16.01.2019 HAS RESTORED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AC COUNT OF NON-VERIFICATION OF THE NECESSARY FACTS / EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS FOLLOWS:- 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND DURING THE PREVIO US YEAR IT HAS RAISED SHARE CAPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,01,00,000/-, INCLUDING SHARE PREMIUM OF RS. 9,96,00,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITI ON U/S 68 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF TH E ACT AND GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 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 :- ITA NO.2244/KOL/2017 A.Y. 201 2-13 FAIRWAY DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD. VS. ITO WD-9(2), KOL. PAGE 3 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 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 GROUND 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 CASES HAS BEEN RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATIO N. 5. 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. LT D. 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 ADDI TION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION BY TREATIN G THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IS RESTORED BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL TO TH E FILE 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. CI T 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 H AD FURNISHED THE COPY OF FINAL ACCOUNT, I. T. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, B ANK 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 TA KING NOTE OF THE BANK STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTE T HAT AFTER THE INITIAL NOTICE DATED 16.08.2013, THEREAFTER THE AO HAD ISSUED THE NOTICE ON 26.02.2014 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED AT P AGE 3 OF THE REASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN AO REQUIRED THE DIRECTO RS 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 T HE AO TO PROVIDE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING VIDE ITS LETTER DATE D 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 COM PANY 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 S TATED THAT HE HAS ISSUED SUMMONS ON 24.03.2014 TO THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY BEFORE HIM ON 26.03.20 14, 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 CONCLUSION BASICALLY BECAUSE OF NON-A PPEARANCE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT OF THE S HAREHOLDER COMPANIES. WE NOTE THAT INITIALLY THE AO STARTED TH E ENQUIRY ON 16.08.2013 WHICH WAS COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SU BMITTING DOCUMENTS WHICH HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE AO. TH EREAFTER, THE ENQUIRY WAS STARTED ONLY AT THE FAG END OF FEBRUARY 2014 AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD INFORMED THE AO THAT THEIR DIR ECTORS WERE OUT OF STATION TILL 23.03.2014. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFO RESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET FAIR OPPO RTUNITY TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO SO, THERE WAS A LACK OF OPPORTUNITY AS AFORESAID, THEREFORE, IT HAS TO GO BACK TO AO. ITA NO.2244/KOL/2017 A.Y. 201 2-13 FAIRWAY DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD. VS. ITO WD-9(2), KOL. PAGE 4 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 GIVI NG 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 O N 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 SH ARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED ALONG WITH PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS.8 ,06,00,000/- WHICH HAS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE INC OME 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 S IMILAR 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 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 SH OULD HAVE BEEN PROPERLY ENQUIRED INTO AS DIRECTED BY HIM. THE AO O UGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE INVESTIGATING GUIDELINES 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 OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ITSELF, THE ASSESSMENT NEEDS T O BE DONE AFRESH AND THEREBY REVERSED THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, TRIBUN AL 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 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 INFERENCE, 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. ITA NO.2244/KOL/2017 A.Y. 201 2-13 FAIRWAY DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD. VS. ITO WD-9(2), KOL. PAGE 5 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 CASH DEPOSITS OF EQUAL AMOUNTS IN THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS PRECEDING THE TR ANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. THIS NECESSITATED A DETAILED SCRUTINY OF THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO T HE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ISSUED BY THE AO, AS ALSO THE MAT ERIAL 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 CONSEQUENT LY 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 FILE O F AO FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT AND TO DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE T O 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 IS SUE IN DISPUTE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO DECIDE THE SA ME AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE ALREADY AVAI LABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY C HOOSE TO FILE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE ON THE ISSUE. 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 O PPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE ALREADY ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE OR FURTHE R MAY CHOOSE TO FILE 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. A CCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.2244/KOL/2017 A.Y. 201 2-13 FAIRWAY DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD. VS. ITO WD-9(2), KOL. PAGE 6 5. WE ADOPT THE ABOVE DETAILED DISCUSSION MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND RESTORE THE INSTANT ISS UE AS WELL BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NECESSARY FACTUAL VERIFICATIO N AS PER LAW AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING TO THE TAXPAYER. 6. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 08 /05/2019 SD/- SD/- ( %) (' %) (DR.A.L. SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (- 08 / 05 /201 9 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-FAIRWAY DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD. 134/4, M.G . ROAD, KOLKATA-007 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO WARD-9(2), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-69 3. 3 4 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 4- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 7 ''3, 3, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ 3,