Mayukh Construction Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata V. I.T.O.,Ward-12(2), Kolkata

ITA 378/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6638 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2019
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NICHOLAS MURMUADDL CITSRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: MIRAJ D. SHAH
• Keywords: Transactions in derivatives; Wholly owned subsidiary; Tangible material
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH SMC KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S, GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.378/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 MAYUKH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., 1, R.N.MUKHERJEE ROAD, 5 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.33A, KOLKATA-001 [ PAN NO.AABCM 7596 D ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P- 7,CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 7 TH FL, ROOM NO.11B, KOLKATA-700069 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI MIRAJ D SHAH, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI NICHOLAS MURMU,ADDL. CIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 18-07-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31-07-2019 /O R D E R THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-24, KOLKATAS ORDER DATED 31.12.2018 PASSED IN CASE NO.239(OL/CIT(A)-24/KOL, INVOLVING PROCEED INGS U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE PLEADED IN THE INSTANT CASE ON MERITS IS THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS I N DISALLOWING ITS FUTURE AND OPTION LOSS (F&O) AMOUNTING TO .35,30,565/- AS BOGUS DUE TO BROKER CLINENT CODE MODIFICATION DONE ON 14.10,.2009, 16.10,2009, 26,10 ,2019 AND 16.10.2019 IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. I NOTICE AT THE OUTSET THAT THIS TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ITA NO.457/KOL/2018 IN SUMATI KUMAR LUNIA. VS. ITO WARD-36(4) DECIDED ON 28.02.2019 ITA NO.378/KOL/2019 A.Y.2010-11 MAYUKH CONSTRN. P. LTD. VS. ITO WD-12(2), KOL. PAGE 2 HOLDS SUCH A LOSS TO BE NOT A BOGUS ONE CLIENTS MER ELY BECAUSE ON CLIENT CODE MODIFICATION AS UNDER:- 3. I HAVE GIVEN MY THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IT TRANSPIRES THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THIS CO-ORDINATE BENCHS DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. RATNABALI COMMODITIES PVT. LTD VS. ITO, W 12(3), KO LKATA DECIDED ON 16-06- 2017 HAS DELETED THE IDENTICAL ADDITION VIDE FOLLOWING D ISCUSSION :- 3. SOLE ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THE LOSS OF 19,76,538/- IN THE TRANSACTIONS OF DERIVATIVES AS BOGUS LOSS. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN COMMODITIES. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS INCURRED LOSS OF 45,23,943/- IN DERIVATIVES TRANSACTIONS OF SHARES. THE ABOVE LOSS WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE FAG- END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. FROM 18.03 .2009 TO 26.03.2009. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT THROUGH A BROKER NAMELY M/S RATNABALI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD. (RCML FOR SHORT) A MEMBER OF N ATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE (NSE FOR SHORT). THE DIRECTOR IN THE ASSESSEE-COMPA NY AND RCML WERE COMMON AND THE NAME OF RCML WAS APPEARING IN THE LI ST OF SPECIFIED PERSON AS ENVISAGED U/S. 40(A)(2)(B) OF THE ACT. THE ASSES SEE HAS ALSO PAID BROKERAGE TO RCML FOR 92,566/- ONLY FOR THE ABOVE STATED TRANSACTIONS. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO VERIFY THE VERACITY OF THE LOSS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE HAS CONFIRMED FROM NSE BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE CONFIRMATION RECEIVED FROM NSE, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE NAME OF THE CLIENT AND CODE HAS B EEN MODIFIED DURING THE PROCESS OF SAID TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, THE AO HAD A DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE IMPUGNED LOSS AND THEREFORE HAS SOUGHT THE EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN COMPLIANCE THERETO THE DIRECT OR OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY AND RCML NAMELY, SHRI VIKASH SOMANI IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DATED 22.12.2010 SUBMITTED THAT THE NAME OF THE CLI ENT AND CODE WAS MODIFIED DUE TO PUNCHING ERRORS BY THE CLERICAL STAFF. IT WA S ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE MODIFICATION IN THE NAME OF CLIENT AND ITS CODE WER E CARRIED OUT WITHIN THE TIME PERMITTED BY THE STOCK EXCHANGE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX (STT) WAS PAID IN RESPECT OF ALL THE TRANSACTIONS GIVING RISE TO THE IMPUGNED LOSS. HOWEVER, AO DISAG REED WITH THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF FOLLOWING REASONS:- (A) THE IMPUGNED LOSS WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE FAG-END OF THE YEAR AND SIMILAR LOSS WAS ALSO INCURRED IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING AY 2008-09 AT THE FAG-END OF THE YEAR WHICH WAS ALS O DISALLOWED. (B) THE CLIENT CODE AND NAME WERE MODIFIED BY RCML WITHOUT HAVING INSTRUCTION FROM THE ASSESSEE. (C) THE NATURE OF MODIFICATION CARRIED OUT IN THE C LIENT'S NAME AND CODE DO NOT SUGGEST THAT IT WAS A CLERICAL PUNCHING ERRO R RATHER IT IS SUGGESTING THAT THE LOSS WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO REDUCE ITS PROFIT WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AO TREATED THE IMPUGNED LOSS OF 19,76,538/- AS BOGUS AND ACCORDINGLY ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESS EE. ITA NO.378/KOL/2019 A.Y.2010-11 MAYUKH CONSTRN. P. LTD. VS. ITO WD-12(2), KOL. PAGE 3 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE CLIENT'S NAME AND CODE WERE MODIFIED WITHIN THE TIME PERMITTED BY NATIONAL SECURITIES CL EARING CORPORATION LTD., (NSCCL SHORT) WHICH IS THE WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF NSE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS ALWAYS HUGE RUSH DURIN G THE MARKETING HOURS AND THEREFORE THERE IS HIGH POSSIBILITY OF HUMAN ERRORS DUE TO EXTREMELY HIGH VOLUME OF ORDERS WHICH ARE PLACED ON SCREENS ON REA L TIME BASIS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRI ED OUT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THIS WAS SUPPORTED WITH THE CONTRACT NO TES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED FORM NO.10BB WHICH EVIDENCED THE PAYMENT O F STT ON THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS IN RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE AND CONFIRME D THE ORDER OF AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- '... ... THE FACTS IN THIS CASE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERE D AND IT IS APPREHENDED THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE MODIFICATIONS MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE APPELLANT AS THE BROKER OF THE A PPELLANT WAS A SISTER CONCERN. EVEN THOUGH APPARENTLY IT HAS NOT B EEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE SUCH MODIFICATION HAD BEEN DONE IN VIOLATION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY SEBI AND THE AO HAD PROCE EDED ON SUSPICION, HOWEVER AT THE SAME TIME IT ALSO CANNOT BE CONCLUDED EITHER THAT THE LOSS WOULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THESE ' MODIFICATIONS '. THUS, I FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE AO. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM OF LOSS CANNOT B E ACCEPTABLE AS THE SAME PERTAINED TO THE MODIFIED TRANSACTIONS BEING E NTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT'S SISTER CONCERN WHO WAS THE BROKER AND H ELPED IN MANIPULATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE APPELLANT. I AL SO FIND THAT SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO ON THE SAME GROUND IN T HE PREVIOUS AY 2008-09 AND THE CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA HAS PARTLY CONF IRMED THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO VIDE APPEAL ORDER DATED 23.11.2012. HENCE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO FOR THE LOSS OF R S.19,76,538/- CLAIMED TO BE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS CONFIRMED AS IT WAS DONE WITH THE INTENTION OF REDUCING APPELLANT COMPA NY'S TAXABLE INCOME MANIPULATION OF TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT'S SISTER ITA NO.191/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 M/S RATNABALI COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. VS. ITO WARD-12(3) PAGE 4 CON CERN WHO WAS THE BROKER AND HELPED IN MANIPULATION FOR THE BENEF IT OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS DI SMISSED.' BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSE E CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED PAPER BOOK WHICH I S RUNNING PAGES FROM 1 TO 20 AND CITED CASE LAW. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REIT ERATED THE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE PLACED BEFORE LD. CIT(A). FURTHER, HE ALSO SUB MITTED THE COPIES OF CONTRACT NOTES IN SUPPORT OF THE TRANSACTIONS GIVIN G RISE TO THE IMPUGNED LOSS WHICH ARE PLACED ON PAGES 1 TO 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PAYMENT OF STT ON SUCH TRANSACTION S WHICH IS PLACED ON PAGES 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK. LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED TH E COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND RCML ALONG WITH THE LEDGER COPY OF THE BROKER AND THE ITA NO.378/KOL/2019 A.Y.2010-11 MAYUKH CONSTRN. P. LTD. VS. ITO WD-12(2), KOL. PAGE 4 ASSESSEE IN THE RESPECTIVE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE PLACED ON PAGES 7 TO 20 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD; INCLUD ING THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED AND PLACED RELIANCE UPON. THE ISSUE BEFORE US REVOLVES FOR THE AMOUNT OF LOSS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE FOR 19,76,538/- WHICH WAS TREATED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS BOGUS MAINLY DUE TO THE MODIFICATION CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME AND CODE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE BROKER. THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE BROKER COM PANY LISTED WITH NSE ARE SAME PERSON. THE IMPUGNED LOSS WAS TREATED AS BOGUS DUE TO SEVERAL REASONS SUCH AS IT WAS INCURRED AT THE FAG-END OF THE YEAR, TO REDUCE THE TAXABLE PROFIT EARNED BY ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AND SIMILAR KIND OF LOSS WAS ALSO DISALLOWED IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR. 7.1 FROM THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT IND EED THE CLIENT'S CODE AND NAME WERE MODIFIED IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS CLAIM ED BY ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED TRA NSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND ALL THE SUPPORTING EVID ENCE SUCH AS CONTRACT NOTE, PAYMENT OF STT WERE FILED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE ALSO FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO ON T HE BASIS OF HIS GUESS-WORK AS EVIDENT FROM HIS APPELLATE ORDER WHICH IS REPROD UCED BELOW:- 'THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE MODIFICATIONS MIGH T HAVE BEEN MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE APPELLANT AS THE BROKER OF THE APPE LLANT WAS A SISTER CONCERN.' FURTHER THE LD. CIT-A HAS OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER AS UNDER:- 'EVEN THOUGH APPARENTLY IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE SUCH MODIFICATION HAD BEEN DONE IN VIOLATION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY SEBI AND THE AO HAD PROCEEDED ON SUSPICION, HOWEVER AT THE SAME TIME IT ALSO CANNOT BE CONCLUDED EITHER THAT THE LOSS WOULD NOT BE ATTRIBU TABLE TO THESE ' MODIFICATIONS ' ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HA S CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO ON HIS OWN SURMISE AND CONJECTURE WHICH IS NOT P ERMISSIBLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. LD. DR HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD CONTRARY TO THE ADVANCE ARGUMENTS PLACED BY LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS NO DEFECTS OF WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE DOCUMENTS PR ODUCED BY ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS IMPUGNED LOSS. WE ALSO FIND WHATEVER MODIFICATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE BROKER THEY WERE CARRIED OUT WIT HIN THE TIME PERMITTED BY THE NSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MODIFICATION. THUS, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IS BASED ON SURMISE AND CONJECTURE AND SAME IS NOT BASED ON TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO TREAT THE IMPUGNED LO SS AS BOGUS LOSS. 7.2 MOREOVER, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE DETAILS FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS GIVING RISE TO THE LOSS WERE EXACTLY M ATCHING WITH THE DETAILS ITA NO.378/KOL/2019 A.Y.2010-11 MAYUKH CONSTRN. P. LTD. VS. ITO WD-12(2), KOL. PAGE 5 FURNISHED BY THE NSE. IN NONE OF THE CASE, AUTHORIT IES BELOW HAVE BROUGHT ON RECORD WHERE ANY MISMATCH IS FOUND BETWEEN THE BOOK S OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONFIRMATION RECEIVED FROM NSE. HAD THERE BEEN ANY MANIPULATION IN THE IMPUGNED LOSS THEN IT COULD HAVE BEEN REVEALED FROM THE CONFIRMATION RECEIVED FROM NSE. THEREFORE, THE MODIFICATIONS IN THE CLIENT'S NAME AND CODE CANNOT JUSTIFY THE IMPUGNED LOSS AS BOGUS. THUS, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE BASIS OF SURMISE AND CONJECTURE WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LALCHAND B HAGAT AMBICA RAM VS. CIT BIHAR AND ORISSA (1959) 159 ITR 289 (SC). THERE FORE, WE HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED LOSS CANNOT BE SUBJECT-MATTER OF ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION. IN THIS REGARD WE ALSO RELY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KUNDAN INVESTMENT LTD. REPORTED IN 263 ITR 626 (CAL) WHERE HON'BLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD:- 'THE TRIBUNAL HAD FOUND THAT ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO CONTRACT NOTES, BILLS, THE QUOTED PRICE AND OTHER M ATERIALS WERE PRODUCED. THE TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE THROUGH CHEQUE S. ALL THE SHARES RELATED TO THE REPUTED COMPANIES AND WERE QUOTED SH ARES IN THE STOCK EXCHANGES AND WERE PURCHASED AND SOLD AT THE PREVAL ENT QUOTED MARKET RATES, WHICH WAS VERIFIED FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE STOCK EXCHANGES. ON THESE BASIS, THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE CIT(A) HAD PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME ING ENUINITY IN THE TRANSACTIONS. ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIALS PRODUCE D, THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO A FINDING OF FACT, WHICH DOES NOT SEEM TO BE PER VERSE. WHETHER THE SHARES COULD BE SOLD IMMEDIATELY ON THE DATE OF PUR CHASE OR NOT WAS A QUESTION OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCE. WHETHER THE DECISI ON WAS CORRECT OR WRONG CANNOT BE A QUESTION, WHICH CAN BE A SUBJECT- MATTER OF DECISION IN SUCH A CASE. IN ORDER TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE TR ANSACTION IS GENUINE OR INGENUINE, IT IS NEITHER THE EXPEDIENCE OR CORRE CTNESS OF THE DECISION NOR THE BUSINESS EXPERTISE OF THE PERSON TO BE CONS IDERED. IT IS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIALS THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH TRANSACTION AND THAT THESE SHARE TRANSACTIONS WERE PAPER TRANSACTIONS. THE SUFFERING OF LOSS COULD NOT BE A FACTOR FOR SUC H PURPOSE. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWING SHARE LOSS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE E RRONEOUS OR PERVERSE.-CIT VS. EMERALD COMMERCIAL LTD. & ANR. (2 001) 171 CTR (CAL) 193: (2001) 250 ITR 539 (CAL), CIT VS. DHAWAN INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. LTD. (1999) 238 ITR 486 (CAL) AND CIT V S. CURRENCY INVESTMENT CO. LTD. (2000) 158 CTR (CAL) 361 : (200 0) 241 ITR 494 (CAL) RELIED ON.' RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED LOSS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE IS GENUINE LOSS I N THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THEREFORE ELIGIBL E FOR DEDUCTION. ACCORDINGLY, AO IS DIRECTED. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSE E'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED . 4. I PUT UP A SPECIFIC QUERY TO THE DEPARTMENT AS T O WHETHER ASSESSEES BROKER CARRIED OUT THE RELEVANT CLIENT CODE MODIFICATION AS PER PR ESCRIBED RULES OR NOT. THERE IS NO SUCH VIOLATION POINTED OUT DURING THE COURSE OF HEA RING BEFORE ME. I, THEREFORE, ADOPT THE ABOVE DETAILED DISCUSSION MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO D ELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. ITA NO.378/KOL/2019 A.Y.2010-11 MAYUKH CONSTRN. P. LTD. VS. ITO WD-12(2), KOL. PAGE 6 11,41,737/-. THE ASSESSEES LEGAL GROUND CHALLENGIN G THE RE-OPENING IS TREATED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 3. I ADOPT THE ABOVE DETAILED REASONING MUTATIS MUT ANDIS TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES INSTANT FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND ON MERITS. ALL OT HER PLEADINGS IN SUCH UPON LEGALITY OF 148/147 ARE RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS. 4. THIS ASSESSES APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31/07/2019 SD/- ( S.S. GODARA) JUDICI AL MEMBER KOLKATA, *DKP/SR.PS - 31/07/2019 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-MAYUKH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,1,R.N.MUKH ERJEE ROAD, 5 TH FLOOR, R.NO.33A, KOLKATA-001 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO WD-12(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOW RIINGHEE SQ. 7 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 11B, KOLKATA-69 3. ' % / CONCERNED CIT 4. % - / CIT (A) 5. & ))' , ' / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. + / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ ',