M/s. Ganraj Vinimay (P) Ltd., , Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 9(2) , Kolkata

ITA 2525/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6171 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MIRAJ D SHAH AR SMT R
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 250; 143(2); 131; 68; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI ABY T. VARKEY, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO. 2525/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. GANRAJ VINIMAY (P) LTD.........................................................APPELLANT 26, P.K. TAGORE STREET BAL SADAN KOLKATA 700 007 [PAN : AAECG 5216 F] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 9(2), 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 : APRIL 6 TH , 2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : APRIL 21 ST , 2021 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) - 3, (HEREINAFTER THE LD. CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 07/09/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28/09/2012, DISCLOSING LOSS OF RS. 31,431/-. THE COMPANY HAD ISSUED SHARES AT A PREMIUM DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SELECTED THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY AND ISSUED NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR. SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHARE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES FOR PERSONAL ATTENDANCE ON 24/02/2015. NONE APPEARED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DREW ADVERSE INFERENCE AND MADE AN ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER. 3. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT, THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ON A WRONG ADDRESS AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICE AND THUS, NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER AND HAS NOT AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND SHARE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES, AS THE SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT, WERE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKES TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO TO FILE ALL NECESSARY EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND HAS BEEN DONE IN CERTAIN CASE- LAW, WHICH WE WOULD BE CONSIDERING DURING THE COURSE OF OUR FINDING. 5. THE LD. D/R, DID NOT OBJECT TO THIS REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD CO ASSESSMENT. 6. 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 B ELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: 7. IN THE CASE OF SRIRAM TIE UP PVT. LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009- 10 ORDER DT. MARCH 21, 2018, 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 SIMILAR ISSUE RELATING TO THE AD 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 NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 16.08.2013 AND HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE COPY OF FINAL ACCOUNT, I. T. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, BAN K 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 TAKING NOTE OF THE BANK STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 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 HI 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 12.03.2014 VIDE NOTICE DATED 10.03.2014. SO, 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 ON 24.03.2014 TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY 2 THE SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT, WERE NOT SERVED ON ANY OF THEM . HE SUBMITTED THAT, THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKES TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES BEFORE THE AND ALSO TO FILE ALL NECESSARY EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND HAS BEEN DONE IN MANY SUCH CASE. HE RELIED ON LAW, WHICH WE WOULD BE CONSIDERING DURING THE COURSE OF OUR FINDING. THE LD. D/R, DID NOT OBJECT TO THIS REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD MAKE IT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD CO - OPERATE WITH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN COMPLETION OF THE 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 ELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: - SRIRAM TIE UP PVT. LTD VS. ITO IN I.T.A. NO. 1104/KOL/2016, 10 ORDER DT. MARCH 21, 2018, 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 THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE SIMILAR ISSUE RELATING TO THE AD DITION 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 NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 16.08.2013 AND HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE COPY OF FINAL ACCOUNT, I. T. K 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 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 HI M 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 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 ON 24.03.2014 TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY ITA NO. 2525/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. GANRAJ VINIMAY (P) LTD. . HE SUBMITTED THAT, THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKES TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE SUBSCRIBER COMPANIES BEFORE THE AND ALSO TO FILE ALL NECESSARY EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH SUCH CASE. HE RELIED ON LAW, WHICH WE WOULD BE CONSIDERING DURING THE COURSE OF OUR FINDING. THE LD. D/R, DID NOT OBJECT TO THIS REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD MAKE IT OPERATE WITH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN COMPLETION OF THE 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 I.T.A. NO. 1104/KOL/2016, 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 ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE DITION 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 WE NOTE THAT THE AO PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT 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 HAD FURNISHED THE COPY OF FINAL ACCOUNT, I. T. K 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 TAKING NOTE OF THE BANK 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 M 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 DATE OF HEARING ON 12.03.2014 VIDE NOTICE DATED 10.03.2014. SO, 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 ASSESSEE COMPANY CONTENDED THAT IT HAS NOT RECEIVED THE SAID SUMMON AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT MAKE THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE. THE AO HAS DRA WN ADVERSE CONCLUSION BASICALLY BECAUSE OF NON OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES. WE NOTE THAT INITIALLY THE AO STARTED THE ENQUIRY ON 16.08.2013 WHICH WAS COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SUBMITTING DOCU THEREAFTER, THE 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 FA 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 THE ORD 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 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 BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE SLP PREFERRED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THEREFORE, SIMILAR ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF TH E ACT HAS BEEN UPHELD. WE NOTE THAT THE AO WHILE GIVING 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 AGAINS T 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 AMOU PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS.8,06,00,000/ ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT AFTER LOOKING INTO THE PERNICIOUS PRACTICE OF CONVERTING BLACK M GUIDELINES TO AO AS TO HOW THE INVESTIGATION 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 THE SLP HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, SIMILAR 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 GUIDE BLACK MONEY MENACE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROPERLY ENQUIRED INTO AS DIRECTED BY HIM. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE INVESTIGATING GUIDELINES AND METHOD AS DIRECTED BY HIM TO UNEARTH THE FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE IDENTITY, GENUIN 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 ASSESS NEEDS TO BE DONE AFRESH AND THEREBY REVERSED THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, TRIBUNAL 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 T HAT 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 W THE EXTENT OF THEIR CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN HAD COME UP WITH SOME PROOF 3 BEFORE 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 WN ADVERSE CONCLUSION BASICALLY BECAUSE OF NON - APPEARANCE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES. WE NOTE THAT INITIALLY THE AO STARTED THE ENQUIRY ON 16.08.2013 WHICH WAS COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SUBMITTING DOCU MENTS WHICH HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE AO. THEREAFTER, THE 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 FA CTS, 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. WE ALSO NOTE THAT LD. CIT WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORD ER 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 BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE SLP PREFERRED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THEREFORE, SIMILAR ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 E ACT HAS BEEN UPHELD. WE NOTE THAT THE AO WHILE GIVING 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 T 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 AMOU NT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED ALONG WITH PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS.8,06,00,000/ - WHICH HAS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT AFTER LOOKING INTO THE PERNICIOUS PRACTICE OF CONVERTING BLACK M ONEY INTO WHITE MONEY HAS GIVEN THE GUIDELINES TO AO AS TO HOW THE INVESTIGATION 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, SIMILAR 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 GUIDE LINES IN THE BACKDROP OF BLACK MONEY MENACE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROPERLY ENQUIRED INTO AS DIRECTED BY HIM. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE INVESTIGATING GUIDELINES AND METHOD AS DIRECTED BY HIM TO UNEARTH THE FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE IDENTITY, GENUIN 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 ASSESS NEEDS TO BE DONE AFRESH AND THEREBY REVERSED THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, TRIBUNAL 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 HAT 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 W ITH THE CIT(APPEALS), AND CONSEQUENTLY WITH ITAT, TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN HAD COME UP WITH SOME PROOF ITA NO. 2525/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. GANRAJ VINIMAY (P) LTD. BEFORE 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 APPEARANCE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT OF THE SHAREHOLDER COMPANIES. WE NOTE THAT INITIALLY THE AO STARTED THE ENQUIRY ON 16.08.2013 WHICH WAS COMPLIED BY THE MENTS WHICH HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE AO. THEREAFTER, THE 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 CTS, 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. ER 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 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 AND THE SLP PREFERRED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THEREFORE, SIMILAR ORDER OF THE LD. CIT PASSED U/S. 263 E ACT HAS BEEN UPHELD. WE NOTE THAT THE AO WHILE GIVING 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 T 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 NT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED ALONG WITH WHICH HAS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT AFTER LOOKING INTO ONEY INTO WHITE MONEY HAS GIVEN THE GUIDELINES TO AO AS TO HOW THE INVESTIGATION 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 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE SLP HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, SIMILAR ORDER OF THE LD. CIT HAS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO AS DIRECTED BY THE LD. CIT. WE TAKE NOTE THAT THE LD. LINES IN THE BACKDROP OF BLACK MONEY MENACE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROPERLY ENQUIRED INTO AS DIRECTED BY HIM. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE INVESTIGATING GUIDELINES AND METHOD AS DIRECTED BY HIM TO UNEARTH THE FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE IDENTITY, GENUIN ENESS 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 ASSESS MENT NEEDS TO BE DONE AFRESH AND THEREBY REVERSED THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, TRIBUNAL 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 HAT 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: ITH 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 T 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 OB INQUIRY TO TAKE THE MATTER TO LOGICAL CONCLUSION. BUT CIT(APPEALS), HAVING NOTICED WANT OF PROPER INQUIRY, COULD NOT HAVE CLOSED THE CHAPTER SIMPLY BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE. IT WAS ALSO THE OBLIGAT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AS INDEED 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 RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS PRECEDING THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. THIS NECESSITATED A DETAILED SCRUTINY OF THE MATERIAL 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 SECTION 250(4). HIS APPROACH NOT HAVING BEEN ADOPTED, THE 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 TH E 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 T HE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT 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 OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WH ON THE ISSUE. 8. THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE ITAT HAS PASSED SIMILAR ORDER SAME ISSUE OF ADDITIONS M ADE U/S 68 OF SHARE CAPITAL AND THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE ALREADY ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY FILE BEFORE HIM AND ADJUDICATE THE I VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN THIS CASE. 9. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH SIDES AND 4 OF IDENTITY OF SOME OF THE ENTRIES IN QUESTION. BUT, FROM THIS INFERENCE, OR FORM THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE T HROUGH 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 OB LIGATION TO CONDUCT A PROPER INQUIRY TO TAKE THE MATTER TO LOGICAL CONCLUSION. BUT CIT(APPEALS), HAVING NOTICED WANT OF PROPER INQUIRY, COULD NOT HAVE CLOSED THE CHAPTER SIMPLY BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE. IT WAS ALSO THE OBLIGAT ION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AS INDEED 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 RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS PRECEDING THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. THIS NECESSITATED A DETAILED SCRUTINY OF THE MATERIAL 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 SECTION 250(4). HIS APPROACH NOT HAVING BEEN ADOPTED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ITAT, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT OF CIT(APPEALS), 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 E 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 HE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT 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 OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WH ICH THE ASSESSEE MAY CHOOSE TO FILE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE ITAT HAS PASSED SIMILAR ORDER S IN MANY CASES ON THE ADE U/S 68 OF SHARE CAPITAL AND HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WITH A DIRECTION THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MAY EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE ALREADY ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY FILE BEFORE HIM AND ADJUDICATE THE I SSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN THIS CASE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH SIDES AND ALSO THE ORDERS OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF TH ITA NO. 2525/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. GANRAJ VINIMAY (P) LTD. OF IDENTITY OF SOME OF THE ENTRIES IN QUESTION. BUT, FROM THIS INFERENCE, OR FORM THE HROUGH 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. LIGATION TO CONDUCT A PROPER INQUIRY TO TAKE THE MATTER TO LOGICAL CONCLUSION. BUT CIT(APPEALS), HAVING NOTICED WANT OF PROPER INQUIRY, COULD NOT HAVE CLOSED THE CHAPTER SIMPLY BY ALLOWING THE ION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AS INDEED 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 TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. THIS NECESSITATED A DETAILED SCRUTINY OF THE MATERIAL 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 SECTION 250(4). HIS APPROACH NOT HAVING BEEN ADOPTED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ITAT, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT OF CIT(APPEALS), 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 E 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 HE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT 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 OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER ICH THE ASSESSEE MAY CHOOSE TO FILE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE IN MANY CASES ON THE HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO WITH A DIRECTION THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MAY EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE ALREADY ON RECORD AS WELL AS OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH SSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THERE IS KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDINATE BENCH OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR MATTERS, WE SET ASIDE THIS ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE KOLKATA, THE SD/- [ ABY T. VARKEY ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21.04.2021 {SC SPS} COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. GANRAJ VINIMAY (P) LTD 26, P.K. TAGORE STREET BAL SADAN KOLKATA 700 007 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 9(2), KOLKATA 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 5 SIMILAR MATTERS, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FR ESH ADJUDICATION IN AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES KOLKATA, THE 21 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2021. [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/S. GANRAJ VINIMAY (P) LTD 9(2), KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 2525/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. GANRAJ VINIMAY (P) LTD. ESH ADJUDICATION IN AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. AL PURPOSES . SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES