L L LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., Kolkata V. ITO, Ward-14(3), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 2300/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5206 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: MIRAJ D. SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 250; 201; 131; 68; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO. 2300/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 L L LOGISTICS PVT. LTD............................................................APPELLANT 42, BROAD STREET KOLKATA 700 019 [PAN : AABCF 1188 N] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), KOLKATA....................................................................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI MIRAJ D. SHAH, A/R, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SMT. RANU BISWAS ADDL. CIT D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JANUARY 31 ST , 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 19 TH , 2020 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) 5, KOLKATA, (HEREINAFTER THE LD.CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 14/08/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IT RAISED SHARE CAPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,39,00,000/-, INCLUDING SHARE PREMIUM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT, OF THIS AMOUNT FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS NON-COMPLIANCE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE OF THE DIRECTORS OF SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES, AS WELL AS THE DIRECTORS, OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES U/S 131 OF THE ACT, AND HENCE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT COULD NOT BE PROVED. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER, CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. FURTHER AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. 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. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A LETTER DT. 26/02/2015 TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES. THEREAFTER SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 26/02/2015 AT THE ADDRESS OF THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR DISCHARGED ITS PRIMARY ONUS BY PRODUCTION OF ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. H SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER GROUND THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS/HOLDERS APPEARED BEFORE HIM NOR WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, MADE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT. HE PRAYED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WITH A DIRECTI 4.2. THE LD. D/R, THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN 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 AS NO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 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 ADJUDICATION. 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 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 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 NOTI 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. THER EAFTER, THE AO MAKES CERTAIN INFERENCES BASED 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 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 RECEIVED THE NOTICE ONLY ON 07.03.2014 AND THEREAFTER 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, 2 WAS ISSUED ON 26/02/2015 AT THE ADDRESS OF THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS PRIMARY ONUS BY PRODUCTION OF ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. H SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY, HAS GROUND THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS/HOLDERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, HAVE NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM NOR WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, MADE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT. HE PRAYED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WITH A DIRECTI ON TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE THE LD. D/R, THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN ACCORDANCE BOTH SIDES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS CASE HAS TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS NO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THIS BENCH OF THE ITAT IN ALL SUCH CASES HAS BEEN RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 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 SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY 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 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. CIT HAD TAKEN NOTE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT AND ISSUED NOTI CE U/S. 142(1) DATED 16.08.2013 AND HAS ACKNOWLEDGED 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 EAFTER, THE AO MAKES CERTAIN INFERENCES BASED 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 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 RECEIVED THE NOTICE ONLY ON 07.03.2014 AND THEREAFTER 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, ITA NO. 2300/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 L L LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. WAS ISSUED ON 26/02/2015 AT THE ADDRESS OF THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS PRIMARY ONUS BY PRODUCTION OF ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. H E WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY, HAS ONLY ON THE AND DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, HAVE NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM NOR WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, MADE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT. HE PRAYED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ON TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE . THE LD. D/R, THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN ACCORDANCE BOTH SIDES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS CASE HAS TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS NO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THIS BENCH OF THE ITAT IN ALL SUCH CASES HAS BEEN RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE 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 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY 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 IS RESTORED BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. IN ALMOST WE NOTE THAT THE AO PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT HAD TAKEN NOTE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CE U/S. 142(1) DATED 16.08.2013 AND HAS ACKNOWLEDGED 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 EAFTER, THE AO MAKES CERTAIN INFERENCES BASED 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 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 RECEIVED THE NOTICE ONLY ON 07.03.2014 AND THEREAFTER , THE ASSESSEE 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 DIRECTORS 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 A THE SAID SUMMON AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT MAKE THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE. THE AO HAS DRAWN ADVERSE CONCLUSION BASICALLY BECAUSE OF NON ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT OF THE SHA 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 201 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, T HERE 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 INVESTIGATION. 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 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 HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE SLP PREFERRED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBL DISMISSED 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 COM 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 APPEARE 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/ REMAINED UNEXPLAINE D 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 S OURCE 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 H 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 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 HELD THAT 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 T 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: 3 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 A SSESSEE 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 - APPEARANCE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT OF THE SHA REHOLDER 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 201 4 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 HERE WAS A LACK OF OPPORTUNITY AS AFORESAID, 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 INVESTIGATION. 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 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 HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE SLP PREFERRED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS BEEN DISMISSED 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 COM PANY 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 APPEARE D 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 SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED ALONG WITH PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS.8,06,00,000/ D 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 OURCE 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 H 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 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 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 T HE 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. 2014 DATED 11.03.2015 WHEREIN AFTER NOTICING INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BY AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO. 2300/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 L L LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. 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 SSESSEE COMPANY CONTENDED THAT IT HAS NOT RECEIVED THE SAID SUMMON AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT MAKE THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE. THE AO HAS APPEARANCE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE REHOLDER 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 4 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 HERE WAS A LACK OF OPPORTUNITY AS AFORESAID, 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 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 HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS BEEN DISMISSED 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 PANY 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 D 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 SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED ALONG WITH PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS.8,06,00,000/ - WHICH HAS D 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 OURCE 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 H AS 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 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 THE CASE OF TIN BOX, (SUPRA), HAS HELD THAT 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, HE 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. 2014 DATED 11.03.2015 WHEREIN AFTER NOTICING INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BY 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 SOME OF THE 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 QUESTION 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 O 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, PARTI ALLEGATIONS OF THE 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 MATER 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 SE 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 FACT 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. (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 I 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 O BEING HEARD AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION 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. 6. THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE I ISSUE OF ADDITIONS M ADE U/S 68 OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ALREADY ON RECORD AS WE LL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH 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 ORDERS OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR MATTERS, WE SET ASIDE THIS 4 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 THE 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 QUESTION 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 O 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, PARTI CULARLY 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 TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. THIS NECESSITATED A DETAILED SCRUTINY OF THE MATER IAL 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 SE CTION 250(4). HIS APPROACH NOT HAVING BEEN ADOPTED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ITAT, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT OF CIT(APPEALS), CANNOT BE APPROVED OR IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID ORDER AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN TIN (SUPRA) AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT 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. (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. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER I T FAIR AND PROPER AND IN 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 SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY O BEING HEARD AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION 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. THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE I TAT HAS PASSED SIMILAR ORDER IN MANY CASES ON THE SAME 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 LL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH 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. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO THE ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR MATTERS, WE SET ASIDE THIS ITA NO. 2300/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 L L LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. 41. WE ARE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CIT(APPEALS), AND CONSEQUENTLY WITH ITAT, TO THE 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 BANKING CHANNELS, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOWING THAT OR THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN 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 O F 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, CULARLY 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 TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. IAL 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 CTION 250(4). HIS APPROACH NOT HAVING BEEN ADOPTED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ITAT, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT OF CIT(APPEALS), CANNOT BE APPROVED OR IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID ORDER AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN TIN (SUPRA) AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT 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 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 T FAIR AND PROPER AND IN 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 SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY CHOOSE TO FILE IN TAT HAS PASSED SIMILAR ORDER IN MANY CASES ON THE SAME HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO THE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE LL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY FILE BEFORE HIM AND ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO THE 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 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE KOLKATA, THE SD/- [S.S. GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 19.02.2020 {SC SPS} COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. L L LOGISTICS PVT. LTD 42, BROAD STREET KOLKATA 700 019 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 14(3), KOLKATA 3.CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 5 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 THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES KOLKATA, THE 19 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 20 20 [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 14(3), KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 2300/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 L L LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING THE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 20 . SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES