Apeejay Shipping Ltd, Kolkata V. A.C.I.T CC - III,kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 590/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100056 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G MALLIKARJUNA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH TIWARI
• Keywords: Period of limitation
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANES H, AM] I.T.A NO. 590/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX, (PAN: AADCS7605P) CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, KOLKATA. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 16.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20.11.2015 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI MANISH TIWARI, FCA FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI G. MALLIKARJUNA, CIT, D R ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A), CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 198/CC-III/CIT(A)C-1/11-12 DATED 21.01.2 013. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY JCIT(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, KOLKATA U/S. 254/251 /143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR AY 2001- 02 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 08.12.2011. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THAT HE HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION U/S. 153(2A) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.1 : 1. (A) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(2A) OF I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 RESTRICTING TIME LIMIT FOR REFRAMING ASSESSMENT ARE NOT ATTRACTED. (B) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, HAVING ADMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DID NOT SUGGEST ANY DE NOVO ASSESSMENT AND THE ISSUE WAS RESTORED TO THE A.O. FOR VERIFICATION OF CERTAIN FA CTS, LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE HELD THE ORDER AS INVALID FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS O F THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. (C) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, LD. C.I.T. (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ORDER U/S. 254/251/143(3) DATED 08/12/ 2011 IS WITHIN TIME AND THEREBY DISMISSING GROUND NO. 1. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF OPERATION OF SHIPS AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME F OR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ON 29.10.2001. ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO ON 29.03.2004 REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 33AC OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE AMOUNT TRANSFERRED T O RESERVE IN THE P&L ACCOUNT FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THIS MATTER BE FORE CIT(A) AND HE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 21.02.2005. BUT THE REVENUE CONTESTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BEFORE ITAT AND ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 25 .01.2007 IN ITA NO. 1021/K/2005 2 ITA NO. 590/KOL/2013 APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD. AY 2001-02 SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE AND RESTORED BACK THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING AFRESH BY OBSERVING IN PARA 9 AS UNDER: SINCE FROM THE PERUSAL OF SHARE CAPITAL AND RESER VE, IT APPEARS THAT RESERVE AND SURPLUS ARE MORE THAN TWENTY TIMES OF PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL OF ASSESSEE COMPANY, WHEREAS SECTION 33AC CLEARLY DEBARS THE ASSESSEE FROM CLAIMING ANY DEDUCTION IN CASE THE AMOUNT CARRIED TO SUCH RESERVE ACCOUNT EXCEEDS TWICE THE AGGREGATE OF THE AMOUNTS OF THE PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL AND SINCE BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE RELEVANT DETAILS REGARDING THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT TRANSFERRED TO RESER VE ACCOUNT FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 33AC TILL THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE AND FOR THE SAK E OF TRANSPARENCY RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH. WE HEREBY CLARIFY THAT IT WILL BE THE ONUS OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND DO CUMENTS BEFORE THE AO IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT TRANSFERRED TILL THE FINANCIA L YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 33AC DOES NOT EXCEED TWICE THE A GGREGATE OF PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY AND ACCEPT THE GROUND R AISED BY THE REVENUE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. THE AO FRAMED ASSESSMENT U/S. 254/251/143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE DATED 08.12.2011 AND DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 33AC OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THE ISSUE OF LIMI TATION BY OBSERVING IN PARA 3 AS UNDER: 3. IN GROUND NO. 1, APPELLANT HAS CONTESTED THE L EGAL VALIDITY OF THE ORDER U/S. 254/251/143(3) PASSED BY THE AO ON 08.12.2011. THE LD. AR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS NOT PASSED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT AS P RESCRIBED IN SECTION 153(2A). I AM UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE LD. AR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(2A) ARE ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE. THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT S UGGEST ANY DE NOVO ASSESSMENT. THE ISSUE REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S. 33AC REQUIRED VERIFICATION OF CERTAIN FACTS, AND SO, THIS ISSUE WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION THAT THE ORDER WAS NOT PASSED BY THE AO WITHIN THE PRESCRIBE D TIME LIMIT IS NOT CORRECT. GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED, NOW ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND RAISED THIS LIMITATION ISSUE BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ADMITTEDLY, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 25 .01.2007 HAS SET ASIDE THE APPEAL AND RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO D ECIDE THE SAME AFRESH. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 08.12.2011 WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AT PAGE 1, 1 ST PARA, 1 ST THREE LINES READS AS UNDER: IN PURSUANCE OF THE HONBLE ITAT, C BENCH, KOLK ATAS ORDER IN ITA NO.1021/KOL/2005 DATED 25.01.2007, A NOTICE HAD BEEN SERVED TO THE A SSESSEE U/SEC. 142(1) ON 27.03.2007, FOR GIVING EFFECT TO SUCH ORDER.. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US STATED THAT NOTICE U/S. 142(1) ON THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS ISSUED ON 27.03.2007 AND IN TERM OF SECTION 3 ITA NO. 590/KOL/2013 APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD. AY 2001-02 153(2A) I.E. THE TIME LIMITATION FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT AND REASSESSMENT HAS PRESCRIBED THE TIME LIMIT FOR FRAMING ASSESSMENT WA S ONLY NINE MONTHS IN VIEW OF SECOND PROVISO AND IN ANY CASE NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR IN T ERM OF SUB-SECTION 2A OF THE ACT. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF SECTION 153(2A) WHICH READS AS UNDER: 1[(2A) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB- SECTIONS (1) 92[, (1A), (1B)] AND (2), IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON TH E 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1971, AND ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, AN ORDER OF FRESH ASSES SMENT IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OR SECTION 254 OR SECTION 263 OR SECTIO N 264, SETTING ASIDE OR CANCELLING AN ASSESSMENT, MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPI RY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OR SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE , THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER: PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OR SECTION 254 IS RECEI VED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE ORDER UNDE R SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, ON OR AF TER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1999 BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2000, SUCH AN ORDER OF FRESH ASSESSMENT MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME UP TO THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2002 :] 93[PROVID ED FURTHER THAT WHERE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER O R COMMISSIONER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS P ASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2005, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL HAVE EFFECT AS IF FOR THE WORDS ONE YEAR, THE WORDS NINE MONTHS HAD BEEN SUBSTITUTED:] WE FIND THAT RECENTLY A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TR IBUNAL KOLKATA A BENCH IN THE CASE OF MCNALLY BHARAT ENGINEERING CO. LTD. VS. DCIT IN CO NO. 12/KOL/2011, ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 98/KOL/2011 FOR THE AY 2002-03 DATED 09.10. 2015, EXACTLY ON IDENTICAL PROPOSITION OF LAW HELD AS UNDER: 6. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SUB-SECTION (2A) OF SEC TION 153 READ WITH 2ND PROVISO THERETO AND SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 153 REVEALS THAT AN ORDER OF FRESH ASSESSMENT, INTER ALIA, IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254, SETTING ASIDE OR CANCELLING AN ASSESSMENT, IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF NINE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE CONCERNED CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER WHEREAS SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 153 PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMEN T OR RE-COMPUTATION IS TO BE MADE ON THE ASSESSEE OR ANY PERSON IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED, INTER ALIA, IN AN ORDER PASSED BY THE TR IBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254, SAME CAN BE COMPLETED AT ANY TIME WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY TIME LIMIT SPECIFICALLY PRESCRIBED FOR THE SAME. AS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS IMPUGN ED ORDER AND FURTHER SUPPORTED BY THE LD. D.R. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED OF SUB-SECTION (2A) OF SECTION 153 IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN FRESH ASSESSMEN T IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE, INTER ALIA, IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 SETTING ASIDE OR CANCELLING THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT AS A WHOLE. ACCORDING TO THE M, WHEN SEVERAL ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE APPELLATE AUT HORITY SETS ASIDE SOME OF THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT SITUATION W OULD NOT GIVE RISE TO FRESH ASSESSMENT ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(2A) AND IN SUCH CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(3)(II) WOULD APPLY. 7. WE ARE UNABLE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED BY THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN A CONTRARY VIEW IS TAKEN ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ONE OF SUCH CASES DECIDED BY THE AGRA BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF POORAN SINGH VS.- ACIT [7 SOT 126], THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD NOT SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETELY BUT ONLY TWO 4 ITA NO. 590/KOL/2013 APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD. AY 2001-02 ISSUES WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO THAT A SSESSING OFFICER COULD DETERMINE THE INCOME RELATING TO THOSE ISSUES AND THEREBY WORK OU T THE ASSESSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SAID CASE, WHICH ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(2A) WOULD APPLY AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER GIVIN G EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY BEYOND THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED IN SUB-SECTI ON 153(2A) WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. A SIMILAR ISSUE HAD AGAIN AROSE IN THE CASE OF STANDA RD METERS MFG. CO. VS.- ADDL. CIT (ITA NO. 1665/PN/2007 DATED 29.11.2011) CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS HELD BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL THAT THE PO INT OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN SECTION 153(3) AND 153(2A) IS THE FACT THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(3) ARE TO OPERATE ONLY IN A SITUATION WHERE ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT, OR RE-COMPUTATION I S NECESSARY TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN APPELLATE ORDE R. IN THE SAID CASE, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS EARLIER ORDER DATED 28.09.2003 HAD NOT GIVEN ANY FI NDING OR DIRECTION SO AS TO TRIGGER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(3) OF THE ACT AND ONLY ON E ISSUE WAS SET ASIDE AND RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR C ONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEYOND THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SECTION 153(2A) OF THE ACT WAS NOT SAVED BECAUSE OF THE EXTENDED LIMITATION PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 153(3) OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION, TH E RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF POORAN SING H (SUPRA) AND STANDARD METERS MFG. CO. (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT C ASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DATED 31.12.2009 GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15.02.2008 BEYOND THE P ERIOD OF NINE MONTHS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 153(2A) READ WITH SECOND PROVISO THERETO FR OM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS RECEIVED BY THE CONCERNED CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IS INVALID BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CANCEL THE ORDE R DATED 31.12.2009 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE CASE LAW OF C OORDINATE BENCH, CITED SUPRA, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO ASSESSMENT IS POSSIBLE AFTE R THE EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(2A) OF THE ACT ARE ABSOLU TE AND THEY IMPOSE A FETTER ON INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES TO MAKE A SET-ASIDE ASSESSMENT AFTE R THE EXPIRY OF PERIODS MENTIONED IN THIS SUB-SECTION. THIS IS A STATUTORY FETTER WHICH IS NOT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO RELAX OR WAIVE OR VICE VERSA. THE POWER TO MAKE ASSESSMENT LAPSES COMPLETELY UPON THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIODS MENTIONED IN THE SECTION. THE ARGUMENT OF L D. DR THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE FALLS U/S. 153(3), WHICH, INTER ALIA, LAYS DOWN THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION 1 AND 2 OF SECTION 153 SHALL NOT APPLY TO ASSESSMENTS MADE ON THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER U/S. 254 OF THE ACT. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMPLETELY SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE ABOVEMENTIONED ISSUE AND DIRECTED THE AO TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH. THIS PROVISION OF SECTION 153(3), IN THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE, IS SUBJECT TO THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 153(2A) OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, IF A MATTER FALLS U/S. 153(2A) OF THE ACT I.E. IF THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE OR CANCELLED THE ASSESSMENT, THEN THE FRESH ORDER BY T HE AO OF ASSESSMENT SHALL BE PASSED WITHIN THE PERIOD AS PRESCRIBED U/S. 153(2A) OF THE ACT. HERE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, 5 ITA NO. 590/KOL/2013 APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD. AY 2001-02 ASSESSEES CASE CLEARLY FALLS UNDER THE 2 ND PROVISO TO SECTION 153(2A) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, FRAMING OF ORDER OF ASSESSMENT BY THE AO, OF SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT AFTER EXPIRY OF LIMITATION IN TERMS OF S ECTION 153(2A) OF THE ACT IS INVALID. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL ON LIMITATION IS A LLOWED. 7. SINCE WE HAVE ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE ON LIMITATIO N AND ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BEING ASSESSMENT ORDER BARRED BY LIMITATIO N, WE NEED NOT TO ADJUDICATE ISSUES ON MERIT AND THE SAME HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 9. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.11.2 015 SD/- SD/- (M. BALAGANESH) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 20TH NOVEMBER, 2015 JD. SR. P.S COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT APEEJAY SHIPPING LTD., 15, PARK STREET, APEEJAY HOUSE, KOLKATA-700016 2 RESPONDENT ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, KOLKATA. 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .