DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Alishan Steels Pvt. Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2246/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2612 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: IMOKABA JAMIR
• Assessee Lawyers: K M ROY F
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 143(3); 68; 56

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2246/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 M/S. ALISHAN STEELS PVT. LIMITED 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2246/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,................. ......................APPELLANT CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 4 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 19, KOLKATA-700069 -VS.- M/S. ALISHAN STEELS PVT. LIMITED,.................. ............................RESPONDENT MARTIN BUR BUILDING, 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO. 210, 1, R.N. MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA-700001 [PAN: AAACG9883E] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI IMOKABA JAMIR, CIT, FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI K.M. ROY, F.C.A., FOR THE RESPONDEN T DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JANUARY 23, 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MARCH 18, 2020 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT : THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-9, KOLKATA DAT ED 11.07.2017. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF TEN DAYS ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE IN FILING THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, THE REVENUE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION SEEKING CONDON ATION OF THE SAID DELAY AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE REASONS GIVEN THEREIN , WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY OF TEN D AYS ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE IN FILING THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. EVEN THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION IN THIS R EGARD. WE, THEREFORE, ITA NO. 2246/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 M/S. ALISHAN STEELS PVT. LIMITED 2 CONDONE THE SAID DELAY AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF TH IS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON MERIT. 3. GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL INVOL VE A COMMON ISSUE RELATING TO THE DELETION BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OF THE ADDITION OF RS.6,00,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A CCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLA INED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68. 4. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY, W HICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF MS INGOTS. THE RET URN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY IT ON 29.09.2 012 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.92,81,581/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING RECEIVED SHARE CAPITAL AND S HARE PREMIUM AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS.6,00,00,000/- WAS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON SUCH EXAMINATION, HE RECORDED THE FOLLOWING FIND INGS/OBSERVATIONS:- (1) THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENTERED INTO A SHAM TRANSACTION WITH THE INVESTOR TO INTRODUCE THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION/ALLOTMENT. (2) THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT HAVE ANY REGULAR BUSINESS TRANSACTION OR REGULAR ACQUAINTANCE WITH T HE INVESTOR. (3) THE INVESTOR HAS NO REASON TO INVEST SUCH HUGE AMOUNT IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. (4) THE INVESTOR HAS NO BUSINESS TRANSACTION WITH T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN PAST OR FUTURE EXCEPT THIS ONE TIME ENTRY. (5) ASSESSEE CANNOT WITHSTAND THE CROSS EXAMINATION BEFORE AO, IF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS ARISE. (6) ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS WERE DONE TO BEAT THE NEW PROVISION OF INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NO. 2246/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 M/S. ALISHAN STEELS PVT. LIMITED 3 ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS/OBSERVATIONS REC ORDED BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE ENTIRE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS.6,00,00, 000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND AN ADDITION TO THAT EXT ENT WAS MADE BY HIM UNDER SECTION 68 TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 07.03.2015. 5. THE ADDITION OF RS.6,00,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 BY TREATING THE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT WAS CHALLENGED BY THE AS SESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). DURING THE COURS E OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE FOLLOW ING SUBMISSION, INTER ALIA , WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE THAT THERE BEING NO CASH OR CHEQUE PAYMENT RECEIVED AGAINST TH E ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL WITH PREMIUM, SECTION 68 HAD NO APPLICATION :- 3.1. THE APPELLANT COMPANY MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECT FULLY SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHEN THE APPELLANT COMPANY DID NOT RECEIV E ANY STUN OF MONEY FOR ALLOTMENT OF SHARES OF THE FACE V ALUE OF RS.10/- EACH ISSUED AND ALLOTTED AT A PREMIUM OF R S.90/- EACH TO THE AFORESAID TWO SHAREHOLDERS AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF THEIR INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF ZEST MARC OM PRIVATE LTD. VIDE TWO SEPARATE AGREEMENTS BOTH DATE D 27.03.2012 AND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT RE CEIVE ANY SUM OF MONEY FOR SUCH ALLOTMENT OF SHARES. THE ISSUE OF THE SHARES AT PREMIUM OF RS.6,00,00,000/- WAS RE CORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY WAY OF BOOK ENTRY. IT IS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT THE SHARES WERE ISSUED TO TWO CORPORAT E ENTITIES NAMELY M/S. GOKUL REALTORS PVT. LTD AND M/ S. ARMAN ADVISORY PVT LTD AND IN CONSIDERATION OF SUCH ALLOTMENT OF SHARES NO CASH WAS RECEIVED. THE APPEL LANT ASSESSEE COMPANY ISSUED SHARES AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF SHARES FROM THE CORPORATE ENTITIES; THEREFORE, IT I S A BOOK ENTRY. ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF THE LAND PREVAILING DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE OF SHARES WAS NOT IN CASH THEN THE PRO VISION OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CANNOT BE INVOKED. ITA NO. 2246/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 M/S. ALISHAN STEELS PVT. LIMITED 4 6. THE ABOVE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FO RWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIF ICATION. IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSES SING OFFICER ACCEPTED ON VERIFICATION THAT THERE WAS NO PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY AGAINST THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL ALONG WI TH PREMIUM BY CASH OR THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. KEEPING IN VIEW THIS FINDI NG OF FACT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT AND THE RATIO OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE-COMP ANY INCLUDING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JATIA INVESTMENT CO. VS.- CIT [206 ITR 718], THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) H ELD THAT SECTION 68 HAD NO APPLICATION WHEN THE SHARES WERE ALLOTTED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY UNDER A BARTER SYSTEM. HE ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE A DDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS AGREED B Y THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES, THIS ISSUE INVOL VED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESES E, INTER ALIA, BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL R ENDERED IN THE CASE OF ITO VS.- M/S. BHAGWAT MAROM PVT. LIMITED VIDE ITS ORDER DATED JULY 31, 2019, WHEREIN A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TR IBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PAR AGRAPH NO. 6 TO 7 OF ITS ORDER:- 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND AL SO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERV ED THAT ITS SHARES WERE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION AT PREMIUM TO CERTAIN COMPANIES IN LIEU OF THE SHARES HELD BY THE SAID COMPANIES AND THERE WAS THUS NO INFLOW OF CASH INVO LVED IN THESE TRANSACTIONS. THE SAID TRANSACTIONS WERE ENTERED IN TO IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY WAY OF JOURNAL ENTRIES AND IT DID NOT INVOLVE ANY CREDIT TO THE CASH AMOUNT. THE LEARNED DR AT THE TI ME OF HEARING HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO REBUT OR CONTROVERT T HIS POSITION. HE HOWEVER HAS CONTENDED BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V.I.S.P. (P) LTD. (SUPRA) AS W ELL AS THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PANNA S. KHAT AU (SUPRA) THAT SECTION 68 WAS STILL APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE INVOLVING CREDIT TO THE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNT. IT IS HOWEVER OBSERVED TH AT THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF V.I.S.P. (P) LTD. WERE DIFFERENT IN AS MUCH AS THE LIABILITY IN ITA NO. 2246/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 M/S. ALISHAN STEELS PVT. LIMITED 5 QUESTION IN THE SAID CASE REPRESENTED TRADING LIABI LITY OF THE ASSESSEE ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSES SEE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR AND SINCE THE SAID LIABILITY WAS FOUND TO BE A BOGUS LIABILITY, ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS HELD TO BE SUSTAINABLE BY THE HO NBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT. 7. IN THE CASE OF PANNA S. KHATAU (SUPRA) CITED BY THE LEARNED DR, BOTH SECTION 68 AND 56 (2)(VI) WERE HELD TO BE APPLICABL E BY THE TRIBUNAL BUT NO CONCRETE OR COGENT REASONS WERE GIVEN TO JUSTIFY TH E APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 68 TO THE CREDITS NOT INVOLVING ANY RECEIPT OR INFL OW OF CASH IN THE RELEVANT YEAR. MOREOVER, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE SAID CASE IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JATIA INVESTMENT CO. (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO GIVE RELIE F TO THE ASSESSEE ON ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE SAI D CASE, THE THREE NBFCS HAD TAKEN LOANS FROM PROPRIETARY CONCERN BELONGING TO T HE SAME GROUP. SINCE THE SAID LOANS WERE REQUIRED TO BE LIQUIDATED AS PER TH E RBI GUIDELINES AND THERE WAS NO CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE NBFCS TO REPAY THE L OANS, THE SHARES HELD BY THE THREE NBFCS WERE TRANSFERRED TO A PARTNERSHIP F IRM NAMELY JATIA INVESTMENT CO., AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE AGAINST T HE SAID SALE OF SHARES WAS ADJUSTED BY THE NBFCS AGAINST THE LOAN AMOUNT PAYAB LE TO PROPRIETARY CONCERN. THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF M/S. JATIA INVESTM ENT CO. THUS RECEIVED SHARES FROM THE THREE NBFCS AND ALSO TOOK OVER THE LOANS PAYABLE BY THE SAID NBFCS TO THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN. THESE TRANSACTION S WERE ENTERED INTO IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH CA SH BOOK BY DEBITING THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND CREDITING THE LOAN AMOUNT OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN. THIS CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, M/S. JATIA INVESTMENT CO. WAS TREATED BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 AND ON CONFIRMATION OF THE SAME, WHEN THE MATTER REACHED TO THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, IT WAS HELD BY THE IR LORDSHIP THAT WHEN THE CASH DID NOT PASS AT ANY STAGE AND SINCE THE RESPEC TIVE PARTIES DID NOT RECEIVE CASH NOR DID PAY ANY CASH, THERE WAS NO REAL CREDIT OF CASH IN THE CASH BOOK AND THE QUESTION OF INCLUSION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE ENTRY AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT COULD NOT ARISE. IN OUR OPINION, THE RATIO O F THIS DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JATIA INVE STMENT CO. (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CAS E AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO U/S 68 BY HOLDING THAT THE SAID PROVISION WAS NOT APPLICABLE. 8. AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE AS WEL L AS ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT THERETO ARE SIMILAR TO THE CASE OF M /S. BHAGWAT MAROM PVT. LIMITED, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE SAID CASE VIDE ORDER DATED JULY 31, 2019 (SUPRA) AND UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(APPEALS) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,00,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PR EMIUM. GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMIS SED. ITA NO. 2246/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 M/S. ALISHAN STEELS PVT. LIMITED 6 9. IN GROUND NO. 4, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,6 1,21,595/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISIONAL POW ER EXPENDITURE. 10. IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE PROVISION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF POWER CHARGES PAYABLE TO DAMO DAR VALLEY CORPORATION (IN SHORT DVC) FOR THE PERIOD FROM JA NUARY, 2012 TO MARCH, 2012. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS PROV ISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CONTINGENT LIABILITY AND NOT THE ACTUA L LIABILITY. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE POWER EXPENDITURE OF RS.1 ,61,21,595/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESESE ON PROVISIONAL BASIS. 11. THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,61,21,595/- MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION MADE FOR POWER EXPENDITURE WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT( APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY THAT TH E AMOUNT PROVIDED FOR WAS ON ACCOUNT OF ELECTRICITY ACTUALLY USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS AND THE SAME WAS DULY PAID IN THE SUBSEQUE NT YEAR TO THE DVC. THIS SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE-COMP ANY WAS FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R VERIFICATION. IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED ON VERIFICATION THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTIO N WAS ACTUALLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TO DVC TOWARDS ELECTRICITY BIL LS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES O N THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR POWER CHARGE S PAYABLE TO DVC WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND T HAT THE SAID PROVISION ITA NO. 2246/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 M/S. ALISHAN STEELS PVT. LIMITED 7 DID NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF IN THE REMAND PROCEED INGS ON VERIFICATION OF THE RELEVANT BILLS ISSUED BY THE DVC, THE PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY WAS AN ACTUAL LIABILITY PAYABLE TO DVC ON A CCOUNT OF ELECTRICITY USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. AS CLEARLY ST ATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE LD. C IT(APPEALS), THE SAID BILLS WERE ACTUALLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO DVC DUR ING THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. KEEPING IN VIEW THESE CATEGORICAL FINDINGS GI VEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT ON VERIFICATION, THE L D. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER ALLOWING R ELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MARCH 18, 202 0. SD/- SD/- (A.T. VARKEY) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT ) KOLKATA, THE 18 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020 COPIES TO : (1) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 4 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 19, KOLKATA-700069 (2) M/S. ALISHAN STEELS PVT. LIMITED, MARTIN BUR BUILDING, 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO. 210, 1, R.N. MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA-700001 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-9, KO LKATA; (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.