D.C.I.T Cir - 12,kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s Medicare Services (I) Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 258/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100062 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DIPAK KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY; BIS
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 258/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 258/KOL/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,................. ......................APPELLANT CIRCLE-12, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 7 TH FLOOR, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 -VS.- M/S. MEDICARE SERVICES (I) PVT. LIMITED,........... .....................RESPONDENT 2, PAUL MANSION ROAD, 6, BISHOP LEFROY ROAD, KOLKATA-700 020 [PAN : AACCM 0631 Q] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUBHRAJYOTI BHATTACHARJEE, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT SRI DIPAK KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, FCA, & SRI BISWAJIT BASU, FCA. , FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 05, 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 20 TH , 2015 O R D E R PER SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI :- THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XII, KOLKATA D ATED 20.11.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELET ING THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS.79,21,273/- MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, WHICH IS ENGAGED MAINLY IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING BACK- I.T.A. NO. 258/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 2 OF 9 OFFICE AND BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES CONNECTED WITH MEDICAL INSURANCE. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 22.09.2009 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.46,18,000/- AND CLAIMING RS.349/- AS REFUND. THE ROI WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON 01.09.2010 WITH TOTAL INCOME OF RS.46,18,000/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2 ) OF THE I.T. ACT WAS ISSUED ON 19.08.2010 AND SERVED ON 25.08.2010. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MARKETED AND PROVIDED MEDICAL INSURANCE SERVICES PR IMARILY TO EMPLOYEES OF LARGE CORPORATE. FOR PROVIDING MEDICAL INSURANCE SERVICES, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY EARNS ITS REMUNERATION AS BY W AY OF MEMBERSHIP FEES/SUBSCRIPTION. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY PROCURES ME DICAL INSURANCE POLICIES FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANIES, ASSIST S THE MEMBERS IN PROCESSING THEIR CLAIMS, SETTLES BILLS AND PROVIDES BACK-OFFICE SUPPORT TO THE CORPORATE BY PROVIDING MEDICAL INSURANCE FACILI TIES TO THEIR EMPLOYEES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY PAID COMMIS SION TO FIVE PERSONS, WHICH IS DETAILED AS BELOW:- NAME, PAN AND ADDRESS OF PERSON TO COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID AMOUNT (RS.) JURISDICTION UNIQUE EXPRESSION SHRI GEORGE ARNOLD ADSHEAD ADVPA9664 L 115, SAGAR APARTMENT, 926, SYNAGOGUE STREET, PUNE-411001 44,30,902/ - ITO - 5(2), PUNE ULINE SHAW BCAPS 8579 K 115, SAGAR APARTMENT, 926, SYNAGOGUE STREET, PUNE-411001 300,000/ - ITO - 4(5), PUNE JAY ADSHEAD AGFPA9213J 115, SAGAR APARTMENT, 926, SYNAGOGUE STREET, PUNE-411001 7,50,000/ - NOT KNOWN STANLEY QUINLEY AADPQ8627N 7,51,859/ - IT O - 4(5), PUNE I.T.A. NO. 258/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 3 OF 9 115, SAGAR APARTMENT, 926, SYNAGOGUE STREET, PUNE-411001 ANGELA FERNANDES AAKPF9350Q KWALITY OPAL, FLAT-203, NI WING, NIBM KONDHWA, PUNE-411046 7,81,892/ - ITO - 2(2), PUNE ALWIN FERNANDES, AAKPF9336Q ANUSYA ENCLAVE, FLAT-202, 2 ND FLOOR, A3 WING, NEAR JAGTAP CHOWK WAR, PUME-411040 9,06,620/ - ITO - 2(2) , PUNE FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED COMMISSION TO DDIT (INV.), UNIT- II(2), PUNE TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF SERVICES R ENDERED BY THE AFORESAID PERSONS, WHEREBY SHRI GEORGE AMOLD ADSHEA D WAS EXAMINED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND ALL OTH ERS REMAINED ABSENT TO THE SUMMONS. BRIEF STATEMENT OF SHRI GEORGE AMOL D ADSHEAD WAS THAT HE IS A PROPRIETOR OF UNIQUE EXPRESSION DEALING WIT H BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP, CLAIM PROCESSING AND NEW RECRUITMENT FOR HIS CLIENTS. HIS MAJOR CLIENT IS THERMAX INDIA LIMITED. HE ALSO ADMI TTED THAT FOR NEW ASSESSEE-COMPANY HE PROVIDED SERVICES OF CLIENT REL ATIONSHIP, CLAIMED PROCESSING AND NEW RECRUITMENT AND INTERACTED WITH MR. VIJAY DUTTA, EXECUTIVE OF ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR BUSINESS. FURTHER, HE ALSO MAINTAINED CLIENT LIAISON FOR THE INTEREST OF ASSESSEE- COMPANY AND ALSO DOES BACK OFFICE SUPPORT WORK IN T HE FORM OF CLAIMS PROCESSING. HE ALSO STATED THAT HIS INABILITY TO PR OVIDE NUMBER OF CLAIMS PROCESSED FOR THERMAX INDIA LIMITED AND DETERMINATI ON WORK OUT MARGIN OF COMMISSION BUT HOWEVER, STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY BESIDES THE COMMISSION BASING ON THE NUMBER OF CLAIMS AND EXTEN T OF VOLUME OF WORK AND SHOWN NET PROFIT OF RS.33,60,091/- AGAINST THE RECEIPT OF RS.44,30,938/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. I.T.A. NO. 258/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 4 OF 9 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING NOT SATISFIED WITH T HE EXPLANATION ADVANCED BY THE SAID SHRI GEORGE AMOLD ADSHEAD ISSU ED A SHEET NOTING TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY STATING HOW THE SAID COMMISSIO N WAS NOT CONSIDERED BOGUS, ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY SUB MITTED A REPLY IN BRIEF THAT IT HAS PAID A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.98,02,6 07/- TO VARIOUS PARTIES AS COMMISSION. THE SAID COMMISSION WAS PAID TO THE VARIOUS PARITIES TO PROCURE, RETAIN AND MAINTAIN BUSINESS FOR MEDICAL H EALTH INSURANCE AND TO LIAISE WITH THE CORPORATE CLIENTS. HE ALSO SUBMITTE D THE STATEMENT OF THE SAID GEORGE AMOLD ADSHEAD, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. UNIQU E EXPRESSION TO SHOW THAT THE COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPA NY FOR SERVICES RENDERED AND THE SAID COMMISSION WAS RECEIVED BY TH E SAID PERSONS AND ALSO THEY DREW ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O THE STATEMENT MADE BY SHRI GEORGE AMOLD ADSHEAD THAT THE STATEMENT SHO WED THE SAID PERSON HAD GIVEN THE SERVICES IN THE NATURE OF CLIENT RELA TIONSHIP, LIAISON WORK AND NEW BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND RELIED ON THE JUDG MENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- DELHI SAFE DEPOSIT CO. LIMITED REPORTED I N (1982) 133 ITR 756 (SC), WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TRIED TO APPLY T HE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE JUDGMENT THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN LAID OUT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND IT IS I NCURRED AS INCIDENTAL TO BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING THE BUSINESS GO ING. THE ASSESSE- COMPANY ALSO FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT MAY BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI GEORG E AMOLD ADSHEAD VIDE LETTER DATED 15.12.2011. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE SAID SHRI G EORGE AMOLD ADSHEAD COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SPECIFIC SERVICES, WH ICH WERE PROVIDED TO M/S. THERMAX LIMITED AND ALSO COULD NOT PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF HOW MANY CLIENTS WERE PROCESSED AND DID NOT PROVIDE ANY OBJE CTIVE CRITERIA TO JUSTIFY IT. BASING ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER C ONCLUDED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE FOR BUSINESS EXPENSES AND RS .79,21,273/- IS DISALLOWED. I.T.A. NO. 258/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 5 OF 9 6. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (1) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AO WAS UNJUSTIFIED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISAL LOWING COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS.79,21,273/-. (2) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AO WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS I N MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAID ON WHOLLY EXTRA NEOUS AND IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS, REASONING AND WITHOU T GIVING OPPORTUNLTV OF CROSS EXAMINING THE PERSON WH OSE STATEMENT WAS USED IN EVIDENCE FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE. (3) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AO BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION FOR COMMI SSION PAID AMOUNTING TO RS.79,21,273/- SINCE THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED AND LAID OUT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPELLANT'S OWN BUSI NESS. (4) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AO WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING RS. 1,98,000/ - BEING EXPENDITURE ON HEARING AID. (5) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,98,000/- BE DELETED. 7. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE-COM PANY HAS UTILIZED SERVICES OF SHRI GEORGE AMOLD ADSHEAD AND OTHERS AN D M/S. UNIQUE EXPRESSIONS SEEMS LOGICAL AND GENUINE AND ALSO FOUN D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT COMMISSION PAYMENT TO SHRI GEORGE AMOLD ADSHEAD AND OTHERS FOR ACCOMMODATION ENTRY ONLY. HE CONVINCED BY THE ARGUMENTS LAID BY T HE LD. A.R. THUS GROUNDS NO. 1, 2 & 3 ARE ALLOWED JUSTIFYING THE EXP ENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MAKING THE PAYMENT TO SHRI GEORGE A MOLD ADSHEAD AND OTHERS. THE GROUNDS NO. 4 & 5 ARE NOT PRESSED BY TH E LD. A.R., THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S) ON THESE GROUNDS. I.T.A. NO. 258/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 6 OF 9 8. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. D.R. STATE D THAT SHRI GEORGE AMOLD ADSHEAD DID NOT PRODUCE ANY DETAILS WITH REGA RD TO THE SERVICES WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND ALSO RE LIED ON PARA 3 OF PAGE 5 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE STATEM ENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN P RESS EXCHANGE LIMITED VS.- CIT REPORTED IN 138 ITR 594 AND THE HONBLE M ADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANAND JYOTI PRINTERS PVT. LIMI TED VS.- CIT REPORTED IN 165 ITR 771 AND ALSO REFERRED TO PAGE 15 OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)S ORDER WHERE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE LD. A.R. WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE-C OMPANY AND M/S. UNIQUE EXPRESSIONS REPRESENTED BY SHRI GEORGE AMOLD ADSHEAD AS PROPRIETOR AND THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS SUBMITTED C OPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND M/S . UNIQUE EXPRESSIONS. NO DOUBT IN THE 131 STATEMENT, SHRI GE ORGE AMOLD ADSHEAD HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE SERVICES RE NDERED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT WHILE PROCESSING THEIR CLAIMS HE WAS I NTERACTING WITH THE CONCERNED PERSON SHRI VIJAY DUTTA. IT IS ALSO AN AD MITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ADMITTED THE INCOME BUT DISA LLOWED THE CLAIM. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE SAID GEORGE AMOLD ADSHEAD OFFERE D TO TAX OF RS.33,60,091/- AS NET PROFIT AGAINST THE RECEIPT OF RS.44,30,938/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AS COMMISSION. THE REMAINING S AID FIVE PERSONS ALSO OFFERED TO TAX. THEIR INCOME AS PER THE RETURN ALSO COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING THE COURSE OF ARG UMENTS, LD. D.R. CONTENDED THAT THE SAID GEORGE AMOLD ADSHEAD DID NO T PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENT TO SHOW THAT HE RENDERED SERVICES TO THE A SSESSEE-COMPANY IN PURSUANCE OF ANY AGREEMENT AND RELIED ON THE JUDGME NT OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANAND JYOT I PRINTERS PVT. LIMITED VS.- CIT, WHICH WAS REPORTED IN 165 ITR 77 1 AND DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT PARA THAT THE SAID GEORGE AMOLD ADSHEAD HAS NO EXTRA TECHNICAL QUALIFICATION TO RENDER HIS SERVICE S TO THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE HUGE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION P AID BY THE I.T.A. NO. 258/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 7 OF 9 ASSESSEE-COMPANY APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PAID FOR ACCO MMODATION ONLY AND ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN PRESS EXCHANGE LIMITED VS.- CIT REPORTED IN 138 ITR 594 OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA, WHER EIN HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT PARA WHERE IT STATES THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY WRITTEN AGREEMENT ENT ERED INTO BETWEEN ITSELF AND THESE PERSONS AND THERE IS NO CORRESPOND ENCE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THESE PERSONS DID, IN FACT, RENDER ANY SERVICE TO THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY AND ALSO ARGUED THAT THE TRANSACTION HAS BE EN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ESPECIALLY IN THE DOCUMENT THAT THERE WAS NO WRITTE N AGREEMENT AS SUCH PRODUCED AS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESEE-COMPAN Y AND THOSE SIX PERSONS. HE ALSO RELIED ON ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- PRECISION FINAN CE (P) LIMITED REPORTED IN 208 ITR 465, WHEREIN HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO T HE PARA NO. 6, WHERE HE FOUND THE SAID PARAGRAPH MEANT TO APPLY THE FACT S OF THE CASE ON HAND. 9. LD. D.R. AT THE TIME OF HEARING TRIED TO DRAW OU R ATTENTION BY STATING THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY NOR SHRI GEORGE A MOLD ADSHEAD AND OTHERS DID PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENT TO SHOW THAT THEY E NTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO RENDER SERVICES AND IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH, THE APPEAL HAS TO BE ALLOWED. IN TURN, LD. A.R. CONTENDED THAT THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 131 CLEARLY SHOWS THE DETAILS OF SERVICES RENDERED AND WHILE RENDERING SERVICES HE WAS IN CONTACT WITH THE PERSONS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND THUS THERE WAS NO DOUBT OF GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS ACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND GEORGE AMOLD ADSHEAD AND OTHER S. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND AL SO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ALTHOUGH IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CONCERNED AGENT SHRI GEORGE AMOLD ADSHEAD HAD ACCEPTED OF HAVING RENDERED THE SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF AGREEMENT, C ORRESPONDENCE WITH THE PARTIES, ETC. PRODUCED BY HIM BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. IT APPEARS FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THA T SUCH EVIDENCE IN THE I.T.A. NO. 258/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 8 OF 9 FORM OF COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE ASSESS EE-COMPANY AND THE AGENT, HOWEVER, WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR COMMISSION PAID TO THE SAID AGE NT WAS ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BY RELYING ON THE SAID DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE HIM WITHOUT GIVI NG ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAME. THE RELIE F GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE BY HIS I MPUGNED ORDER THUS IS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1 962 AND HIS ORDER, THEREFORE, IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR GIVING HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE FRESH EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME B EFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN THE FORM OF COPIES OF CORRESPON DENCE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND THE AGENT AND AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON NOVEMBER 20 TH , 2015. SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 20 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015 COPIES TO : (1) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 7 TH FLOOR, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 (2) M/S. MEDICARE SERVICES (I) PVT. LIMITED, 2, PAUL MANSION ROAD, 6, BISHOP LEFROY ROAD, KOLKATA-700 020 I.T.A. NO. 258/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 9 OF 9 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- XII, 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.