Nipha Exports Private Limited, Kolkata V. Principal CIT - 1, KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 873/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8774 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TIBREWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Competent authority; Tax effect; Capital receipt; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 14A; 13; 263

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 873/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 013-2014 NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 873/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-2014 NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,..................... ................................APPELLANT 48, GANGA JAMUNA, 28/1, SHAKESPEARE SARANI, KOLKATA-700017 [PAN:AAACN9099H] -VS.- PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA.... ................RESPONDENT AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 7 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700069 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI A.K. TIBREWAL, FCA & SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, ADVOCA TE , FOR THE APPELLA NT SMT. RANU BISWAS, ADDL. CIT, FOR THE RESPONDE NT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : DECEMBER 02, 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JANUARY 17, 2020 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, K OLKATA DATED 16 TH MARCH, 2018 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY, W HICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF COTTON GINNING PLA NT & MACHINERIES, ROLLED PRODUCTS, ENGINEERING GOODS, AGRICULTURAL EQ UIPMENTS AND ALSO IN TRADING. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION WAS FILED BY IT ON 30.09.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3, 03,32,712/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE AN O RDER DATED 15.07.2015, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DE TERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.3,04,27,082/- AFTER MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF I.T.A. NO. 873/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 013-2014 NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED 2 RS.77,369/- AND RS.17,000/- UNDER SECTION 14A AND W EALTH TAX RESPECTIVELY. THE RECORDS OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT CA ME TO BE EXAMINED BY THE CONCERNED LD. PRINCIPAL CIT AND ON SUCH EXAMINA TION, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) SUFFERED FROM THE FOLLOWING ERRORS, WHICH WERE PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE:- (I) FROM NOTE-18 ANNEXED TO THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2013 THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A VAT REFUND RECEIVABLE AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,94,33,275/- AS ON 31. 03.2013 WHICH WAS ONLY RS.4,27,17,261/- AS ON 31.03.2012. T HUS, THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF VAT R EFUND RECEIVABLE BY RS.1,67,16,017/-, THUS, ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED A DEDUCTION OF RS.1,36,96.051/, OUTSIDE THE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIMS FOR VAT REFUND ( N OT YET ADMITTED AND ASSESSABLE IN THE YEAR IT IS ADMITTED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY] DURING COMPUTATION OF INCOME F OR THE A.Y. 201314 WHEREAS THE INCREASE IN AMOUNT ON ACCO UNT OF VAT REFUND RECEIVABLE IN THE BALANCE SHEET DURING T HE A.Y. 2013-14 WAS RS.1,67,16,014/-. THIS RESULTED IN EXCE SS CREDIT OF VAT REFUND RECEIVABLE IN THE BALANCE SHEET BY RS.30,19,963/- (1.67.16.014/- - RS.1,36,96,051/-) D URING THE YEAR WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING CREDIT ENTRY IN THE P& L ACCOUNTS. THIS EXCESS CREDIT OF VAT REFUND RECEIVAB LE IN THE BALANCE SHEET BY RS.30,19.963/- RESULTED IN UNDER A SSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME BY RS. 30,19,963/-. (II) AGAIN, THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN TERMINAL EXCIS E DUTY REFUND RECEIVABLE IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE F.Y. 2012-13 CORRESPONDING TO A.Y, 201314 BY RS.70,63,536/-(1,3 2,92,086 - 62,28,550) WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING CREDIT ENTRY ALTHOUGH DEBIT OF EXCISE DUTY OF RS.1,75,60,778/- WAS MADE I N THE P &. L A/C. THIS EITHER RESULTED IN EXCESS DEBIT OF EXCI SE DUTY BY RS.70,63,536/- OR NON-CREDIT OF TERMINAL EXCISE DUT Y REFUND BY RS.70,63,536/- IN THE P&L A/C FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2013. THIS RESULTED IN UNDER ASSESSMENT OF TO TAL INCOME BY RS,70,63,536/-CONSEQUENT AT TAX EFFECT OF RS.11, 00,299/-. HE ACCORDINGLY ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 TO THE ASSESSEE POINTING OUT THE ABOVE ERRORS AND ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO SHO W-CAUSE AS TO WHY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) SHOULD NOT BE REVISED OR SET ASIDE. I.T.A. NO. 873/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 013-2014 NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED 3 3. IN REPLY, THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSION WAS MADE ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT IN WRITING:- (I) ALLEGED UNDER ASSESSMENT OF INCOME TO THE EXTE NT OF RS.30,19,963/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CREDIT OF VAT R EFUND RECEIVABLE, APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET, WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING CREDIT ENTRY IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACC OUNT: THE ENTIRE AMOUNT INCLUDED UNDER THIS HEAD IS ACTUA LLY AN. EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY OUR CLIENTS ON ACCOUNT OF I NPUT VAT PAID ON THE PURCHASES MADE BY THEM, SUCH INPUT VA.T WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE COST OF PURCHASES DEBITED TO TH EIR PROFIT & LOSS A/C BY TREATING THE SAME TO BE AN ASSET AS T HE SAME WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECOVERABLE BY THEM BY WAY OF ADJU STMENT WITH THE OUTPUT VAT PAYABLE ON THEIR DOMESTIC SALES / CLAIM FOR REFUND IN THE CAPACITY OF AN EXPORTER. SINCE TH E COST OF PURCHASES CHARGED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IS N ET OF INPUT VAT INCURRED ON PURCHASES, THE WHOLE OF THE A MOUNT INCLUDED IN THE VAT REFUND RECEIVABLE APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET STANDS CREDITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS A/ C OF OUR CLIENTS BY WAY OF REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF EXPEND ITURE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS A/CON ACCOUNT OF PURCH ASES. THIS MATTER WAS ALSO EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER D URING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT T O THE ENQUIRY MADE BY HIM U/S. 142(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT VIDE LETTER DATED 6 TH JULY, 2015 ( COPY ENCLOSED: ANNEXURE: B). THE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OUR CLIENTS VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 10 TH JULY, 2015 TOGETHER WITH THE COPY OF THE RELEVANT DETAILS FURNISHED TO HIM IN THIS REGARD IS ATTACHED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND VERIFICAT ION(COPY ENCLOSED: ANNEXURE: C) THE AMOUNT SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD VAT REFUND RECEIVAB LE IS COMPRISED OF VAT REFUNDS CLAIMED AS WELL AS THE UNU TILIZED INPUT VAT. OUT OF THE INCREASE OF RS.1,67,16,014/ - DURING THE YEAR IN THE AMOUNT OF V.A.T REFUND RECEIVABLE APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET, THE VAT REFUND CLAI MED BY OUR CLIENTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE AMOUNTED T O RS.13696501/- ONLY. SINCE THE AMOUNT DEBITED TO VAT REFUND RECEIVABLE A /C IS ACTUALLY AN ITEM OF EXPENDITURE NOT CHARGED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C OF OUR CLIENTS FOR BEING RECOVERABLE AS REFUND/ADJUSTABLE WITH OUTPUT VAT INCURRED ON DOMES TIC SALES AND NOT ANY INCOME EARNED BY THEM, THE QUESTI ON OF ANY UNDER ASSESSMENT OF INCOME ON THIS ACCOUNT DOES NOT ARISE, I.T.A. NO. 873/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 013-2014 NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED 4 II) ALLEGED UNDER ASSESSMENT OF INCOME TO THE EXTEN T OF RS.70,63,536/- ON ACCOUNT OF TERMINAL EXCISE DUTY R EFUND RECEIVABLE APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF OUR CL IENTS WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING CREDIT ENTRY IN THEIR PRO FIT & LOSS ACCOUNT: THE AMOUNT INCLUDED UNDER THIS HEAD REPRESENTS EXCI SE-DUTY PAID BY OUR CLIENTS ON THOSE MANUFACTURED GOODS, WH ICH WERE EXPORTED OUT OF INDIA. SINCE EXCISE DUTY IS NO T CHARGEABLE ON THE GOODS EXPORTED OUT OF INDIA, THE AMOUNT SO PAID BECOMES REFUNDABLE TO THEM. ACCORDINGLY, TH E AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY PAID ON THE GOODS EXPORTED OU T OF INDIA BY OUR CLIENTS IS NOT CONSIDERED BY THEM AS EXPENDITURE AND IS, ACCORDINGLY, NOT CHARGED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THIS AMOUNT IS TREATED BY OUR CLIENTS AS AN ASSET AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE AT THE YEAR END IS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD OTHER CURRENT ASS ETS' AS TERMINAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND RECEIVABLE. AS THE PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY IN RESPECT OF GOODS E XPORTED BY OUR CLIENTS HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED AS EXPENDITURE TO THEIR PROFIT & LOSS A/C, THE QUESTION OF CREDITING THE RE FUND OF THE SAME TO THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C DOES NOT ARISE. FURTH ER, THE AMOUNT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF ANY INCOME EARNED BY OUR CLIENTS AND, HENCE, NOTHING WAS REQUIRED TO BE CRED ITED ON THIS ACCOUNT TO THEIR PROFIT & LOSS A/C. ON RECEIPT OF REFUND, OUR CLIENTS CREDIT THE AMOUNT OF REFUND RECEIVED BY THEM TO THE. TERMINAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND RECEIVABLE AI C., I.E., THE !CCOUNT WHICH THEY DEBITED AT THE TILL OF MAKING P AYMENT OF THE EXCISE- DUTY IN RESPECT OF GOODS EXPORTED. YOUR OBSERVATION APPEARS T6 BE BASED ON A WRONG APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS BY ASSUMING THAT THE ENTI RE AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY PAID BY OUR CLIENTS DURING TH E RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR HAS BEEN DEBITED BY THEM TO THEIR PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. IN FAC T, IT IS ONLY THE AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY PAID OIL THE GOODS SOLD B Y THEM WITHIN INDIA I.E., ON THE DOMESTIC SALES OF OUR CLI ENTS, WHICH HAS BEEN ACTUALLY DEBITED TO THEIR PROFIT & LOSS A/ C. SINCE NO TERMINAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND WAS ALLOWABLE ON ACCOUN T OF SUCH EXCISE DUTY DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ALE I N RESPECT OF THEIR DOMESTIC SALES, THERE IS NOTHING TO BE CRE DITED ON THIS ACCOUNT TO THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C. 4. THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO SET ASIDE T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE I.T.A. NO. 873/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 013-2014 NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED 5 ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 15.07. 2015 WITH A DIRECTION TO HIM TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 5 TO 11 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT BOTH THE ISSUES (I) & ( II) ARE BASICALLY THE SAME AS NO INCOME ARE INVOLVED IN EIT HER CASE. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED ARE EXPENSES SUBSEQUENTLY RECOVERABLE BY WAY OF REFUNDS / ADJUSTMENT WITH VAT PAYABLE ON DOMESTIC SALES. IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FO LLOWED IN PAST YEARS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCEPTED ACCOUNTIN G PRINCIPLES AND THAT WHERE REFUNDS/ADJUSTMENTS ON CE RTAIN ITEM ARE NOT ALLOWED, THE IRRECOVERABLE AMOUNTS ONL Y ARE CHARGED TO P&L A/C IN THE YEAR OF ASSESSMENT, IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT THIS OBSERVATION HAS BEEN RAISED BY DEPARTMENT FOR THE FIRST TIME, WHICH ASSESSEE ITERA TES, IS A NON-UNDERSTANDING OF THE ACTUAL FACTS AND THAT NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS INVOLVED. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE TASK OF A TAXING AUTHORITY I S TO MARSHAL ALL FACTS AND COME TO A CLEAN FINDING SO TH AT PROPER AND CORRECT INCOME IS BROUGHT TO TAX. IN THI S ENDEAVOUR, THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SATISFY T HE AO BY FURNISHING ALL MATERIAL FACTS SUPPORTED BY RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. AS REGARDS, UNUTILISED VAT OF RS.1,36,96 ,051/-, IT APPEARS THAT SEPARATE DEDUCTION WAS TAKEN BY ASS ESSEE IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME WHILE THE INCREASE IN VAT REFUND RECEIVABLE IS RS.1,67,16,014/-, THEREBY THE CORRECTNESS OF EXCESS CREDIT BY RS.30,19,963/- WITH OUT CORRESPONDING CREDIT ENTRY IN P&L ACCOUNT REQUIRED TO E EXAMINED. SIMILARLY, THE REFUNDABLE TERMINAL EXCISE DUTY ON ACCOUNT OF EXPORT SALES PF RS.70,63,536/- SHOULD HAVE BEEN CREDITED ON P&L ACCOUNT TOO AS THE RIGHT TO RE CEIVE THE REFUND HAD ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE Y EAR. THUS EVIDENTLY THERE HAS BEEN LACK OF ENQUIRY ON BO TH THE ISSUES ON THE PART OF THE AO WHO HAS MERELY ACCEPTE D THE ASSERTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREBY MAKING AN ASSES SMENT WHICH IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 6, HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GEE VEE ENTERPRISE VS. ADDL. CIT REPORTED IN 99 ITR 375, 38 6 (DEL) HAS HELD THAT THE ERR MAY CONSIDER THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE ERRONEOUS NOT ONLY IF IT CO NTAIN SOME APPARENT ERROR OF REASONING OR OF LAW OR OF FA CT ON THE FACE OF IT BUT ALSO BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS I.T.A. NO. 873/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 013-2014 NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED 6 FAILED TO MAKE ENQUIRIES WHICH ARE CALLED FOR IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IT IS AN ORDER WHICH SIMPLY ACCEPTED WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON THE SAID ISSUE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR T HE CIT TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRIES BEFORE CANCELLING THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. THE COMMISSIONER CAN REGARD THE ORDER ERRONE OUS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAV E MADE FURTHER ENQUIRIES, 7. HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THAL IBAI F. JAIN VS. ITO 101 ITR 1, 6 (KARN.) HAS HELD THAT WHE RE NO ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE RELE VANT ISSUE, ASSESSMENT MUST BE HELD TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND WHAT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE MUST BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOU S THOUGH THE CONVERSE MAY NOT ALWAYS BE TRUE, 8. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR IND USTRIAL CO. PVT. LTD VS. CIT REPORTED IN {2000} 243 ITR 83, 87- 88(SC) AFFIRMING THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT DECI SION (198 ITR 611) HAS HELD THAT THE PHRASE 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE' IS OF WIDE IMPORT AND IS NOT CONFINED TO ONLY LOSS OF TAXES. IF THE A.O. HAS ACC EPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY ENQUIRIES THEN SU CH ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. WAS HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. 9. IN THIS REGARD IT IS MENTIONED THAT MERE NON ENQ UIRY WOULD ALSO RENDER A PARTICULAR ORDER PASSED BY LOWE R AUTHORITY AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER ESTS OF REVENUE. THIS POSITION HAS BEEN CLEARLY CONFIRMED B Y HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMPYARI DEVI SARAOGI VS. CIT (1968] 67 ITR 84 & SMT. TARA DEV I AGGURWAL-VS.-. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). THE REAS ONING FOR THIS PROPOSITION HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY HON'BIE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GEE VEE ENTERPRISE V. ADD L. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 IN THE FOLLOWING PARA ;- 'IT IS NOT NECESSARY, FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRIES BEFORE CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. THE COMMISSIONER CAN REGARD THE ORDER AS ERRONEOUS ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER SHOULD HAVE MADE FURTHER INQUIRIES BEFORE ACCEPTING THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN. THE REASON IS OBVIOUS. THE POSITION AND FUNCTION OF THE INCOME-TAX I.T.A. NO. 873/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 013-2014 NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED 7 OFFICER IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF CIVIL COURT. THE STATEMENTS MADE IN. THE PLEADING PROVED BY THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE MAY BE ADOPTED BY A CIVIL COURT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REBUTTAL. THE CIVIL COURT IS NEUTRAL. IT SIMPLY GIVES DECISION ON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADING AND EVIDENCE IOHICL: COME BEFORE IT. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS NOT ONLY AN ADJUDICATOR BUT ALSO AN INVESTIGATOR. HE CANNOT REMAIN PASSIVE IN THE FACE OF A RETURN WHICH IS APPARENTLY IN ORDER BUT CALLS FOR FURTHER INQUIRY. IT IS HIS DUTY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE SUCH US TO PROVOKE AN INQUIRY. IT IS BECAUSE IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD MAKE SUCH AN INQUIRY PRUDENT THAT THE WORD 'ERRONEOUS' IN SECTION 263 INCLUDES THE FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH ALL ENQUIRY. THE ORDER BECOMES ERRONEOUS BECAUSE SUCH AN INQUIRY HAS NOT BE MADE AND NOT BECAUSE THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER IF ALL THE FACTS STATED THEREIN ARC ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT. 10. FURTHER TO THIS IT IS NOTICED THAT THERE IS NO APPEAL RIGHT AVAILABLE TO THE REVENUE FROM (HE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND I.E. WHY REVISIONARY POWER HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION ER AND SUCH POWER WERE HELD TO BE OF WIDE AMPLITUDE BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SHREE MANJUNATHESWARE PACKING PRODUCTS & CAMPHOR WORKS [1998] 231 ITR 53/96 TAXMAN 1. THEREFORE, NORMALLY WHEN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY ON A PAR TICULAR ISSUE, THEN SUCH ORDER IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DETAILE D DISCUSSION HAS TO BE CONSTRUED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THEREFOR E, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AS ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FA ILED TO MAKE ANY ENQUIRY. 11. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ILL THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DECISIONS O F HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND HON'BLE HIGH COURTS AND IN ACCORD ANCE WITH THE AMENDMENT MADE IN SECTION-263 OF THE ACT W ITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2015, I HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.07.2015 PASSED BY THE A.O . IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT ERESTS OF I.T.A. NO. 873/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 013-2014 NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED 8 THE REVENUE. I FURTHER HOLD, AFTER GIVING THE ASSES SEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSES SMENT ORDER DATED 15.07.2015 IS LIABLE TO SET-ASIDE. THER EFORE, I SET ASIDE THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER DIRECTING THE P RESENT A.O. TO RE-FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFTER CONSIDERING T HE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND H ON'BLE HIGH COURT DECISIONS AND AS PER LAW. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT PAS SED UNDER SECTION 263, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) IS FINALLY SET ASIDE BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT VIDE HIS IMPUGNED OR DER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 ALLEGEDLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE TWO IS SUES RELATING TO VAT REFUND AND TERMINAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND WERE NOT PRO PERLY INQUIRED INTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS REGARD, HE INVITE D OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF LETTER DATED 06.07.2015 ISSUED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO POINT OUT THAT A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF VAT REFUND AS MADE BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME. HE ALSO INVITED OUR AT TENTION TO THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN THIS REGARD VIDE LETTER DATED 10.07.2015 (COPY PLACED AT PAGE NO. 7 & 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK) TO SHOW THAT THE ACCOUNTING TREATING GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSEE IN CASE OF VAT REFUND WAS DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAVIN G SATISFIED THE SAME, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF VAT REFUND WAS ACCEPTE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF RELEVANT ORDER-SHEET ENTRIES PLACED AT PAGE NO. 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SHOW THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE P RODUCED FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ON VE RIFICATION OF THE SAME, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR VAT REVISION AND TERM INAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE CO NTENDED THAT IT WAS THUS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF INQUIRY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THESE TWO I.T.A. NO. 873/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 013-2014 NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED 9 ISSUES AS ALLEGED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT IN HIS I MPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 AND THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) CALLING FOR REV ISION UNDER SECTION 263 BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT. HE ALSO CONTENDED THA T THE ACCOUNTING OF VAT REFUND AND TERMINAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND WAS DULY EXP LAINED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF REVISION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 BUT WITHOUT TAKING THE SAME INTO CONSIDERATION, THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS SET ASID E BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT ON THE ALLEGED GROUND OF LACK OF INQUIRY WITHOU T POINTING OUT AS TO HOW IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVEN UE. 6. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE ISSUE OF VAT REFUND A ND EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE SAME WAS ALSO DULY OFFERED BY THE AS SESSEE, THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT ANY INQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER SPECIFICALLY ON THE ISSUE OF TERMINAL EXCISE DUTY R EFUND. HE CONTENDED THAT IT WAS THUS A CASE OF LACK OF INQUIRY BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE OF TERMINAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND AND SINCE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE WAS ACCEPTED BY HIM WITHOUT MAKING AN Y INQUIRY WHATSOEVER, THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM UNDER SECTION 1 43(3) WAS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVEN UE AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT WHILE EXERCISING THE POWERS CONFE RRED UPON HIM UNDER SECTION 263. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY HAV E A GOOD CASE ON MERIT ON THIS ISSUE BUT THE FACT REMAINS TO BE SEEN IS THAT NO INQUIRY WHATSOEVER WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF TERMINAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND AND THIS LACK OF INQUIRY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM UNDER SECTION 143(3) ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. I.T.A. NO. 873/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 013-2014 NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED 10 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALS O PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER EST OF THE REVENUE BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER ON TH E GROUND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON TWO ISSUES RELATING TO VAT REFUN D AND TERMINAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND WAS ACCEPTED BY HIM WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRY. AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US ON THE BASIS OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE INQUIRY ON THE ISSUE OF VAT REFUND WAS SPECIFIC ALLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER HAVING SATISFIED HIMSEL F WITH THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THE ACCOUNTING OF V AT REFUND, WHICH WAS DULY VERIFIED BY HIM FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PROD UCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR VAT REFUND WAS ACCEPT ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THIS ISSUE, IT WAS THUS NOT A CASE OF L ACK OF INQUIRY OR LACK OF PROPER AND SUFFICIENT INQUIRY BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AS ALLEGED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AND THIS POSITI ON IS NOT DISPUTED EVEN BY THE LD. D.R. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US. 8. AS REGARDS THE SECOND ERROR ALLEGEDLY POINTED OU T BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. D.R. H AS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NOTHING AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ANY INQ UIRY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF TERMINAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND. IT IS OBSERVED THAT EVEN IN THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESS EE IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID LETTER, THERE IS NO MENTION WHATSOEVER OF THIS ISSUE RELATING TO TERMINAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE A S RECEIVABLE IN THE BALANCE-SHEET. ALTHOUGH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PR ODUCED BY THE I.T.A. NO. 873/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 013-2014 NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED 11 ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPOR T AND SUBSTANTIATE THIS CLAIM. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE RELATIN G TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR TERMINAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) WITHO UT MAKING ANY INQUIRY, WHICH WAS WARRANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THIS LACK OF INQUIRY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, IN OUR OPINION, MADE HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AS RIGHT LY HELD BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT. FOR THIS CONCLUSION, WE DERIVE SUPPO RT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMPYARI D EVI SARAOGI VS.- CIT (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT, WHERE IN THE ITO HAD MADE THE ASSESSMENT IN UNDUE HASTE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OR INQUIRY AND IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT SECTION 33B OF THE 1922 ACT, THE PROVISIONS OF WHICH ARE ANALOGOUS TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE 1961 ACT, COULD BE APPLIED TO SUCH A CASE. IT IS PE RTINENT TO NOTE HERE THAT THE PREJUDICE TO THE REVENUE IN THIS CASE WAS INFER RED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT NOT FROM ANY FINDING THAT THERE IS A LOSS OF REVENUE BUT FROM THE MERE FACT THAT PROCEDURE EMPLOYED WAS DEFE CTIVE. TO THE SIMILAR EFFECT IS THE ANOTHER DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF TARA DEVI AGGARWAL VS.- CIT (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WA S HELD THAT THE LD. CIT CAN REGARD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ER RONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON THE G ROUND THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ITO SHOULD HAVE MADE FUR THER INQUIRIES BEFORE ACCEPTING THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HI S RETURN. 9. WHILE EXPLAINING THE PROPOSITION PROPOUNDED BY T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMPYARI DEVI SARAOGI (SUPRA) AND TARA DEVI AGGARWAL (SUPRA), IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE HONB LE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GEE VEE ENTERPRISE VS.- ADDL. CIT (SUP RA) THAT THE ITO IS NOT ONLY AN ADJUDICATOR BUT ALSO AN INVESTIGATOR AND CA NNOT REMAIN PASSIVE IN THE FACE OF A RETURN WHICH IS APPARENTLY IN ORDER B UT CALLS FOR FURTHER INQUIRY. IT IS HIS DUTY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH OF T HE FACTS STATED IN THE I.T.A. NO. 873/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 013-2014 NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED 12 RETURN WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE SUCH AS TO PROVOKE AN INQUIRY AND THE ORDER BECOMES ERRONEOUS BECAUSE SUC H AN INQUIRY HAS NOT BEEN MADE AND NOT BECAUSE THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG W ITH THE ORDER IF ALL THE FACTS STATED THEREIN ARE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT. 10. FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMPYARI DEVI SARAOGI (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF TA RA DEVI AGGARWAL (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. LAJJA WATI SINGHAL VS.- CIT (226 ITR 527) THA T AN ASSESSMENT MADE ON INCOME SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT MAKIN G ANY INQUIRY WHETHER THE SAME WAS, IN FACT, TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. A USEFUL REFERENCE CAN ALSO BE MADE TO THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADDL. CIT VS.- MUKUL CORPORAT ION (111 ITR 312), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PAS SED BY THE ITO WITHOUT MAKING NECESSARY INQUIRY ON CERTAIN IMPORT ANT POINTS CONNECTED WITH THE ASSESSMENT COULD BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. TO THE SIMILAR EFFECT IS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TA X VS.- RAMNARAYAN BHOJNAGARWALA (194 ITR 489), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD TH AT WHENEVER THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER CORRECT AND PROPER AS SESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE UPON DUE INQUIRY AND IT IS FOUND THAT NO SUCH INQUIRY WAS MADE, THE LD. CIT HAS JURISDICTION IN SUCH A CASE TO SET ASID E THE ASSESSMENT BY INVOKING THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON HIM UNDER SECTIO N 263. IN THE CASE OF ASHOKE LEYLAND LIMITED (260 ITR 599), THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT INQUIRY HAD ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INSURANCE RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF PARTIALLY DAMAGED MACHINERY WERE CAPITAL RECEIPTS AND IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT THAT THE COMM ISSIONER WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING POWER UNDER SECTION 263 AND DIRECTING ITO TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFTER DUE INQUIRY. IN THE CASE OF MANNULAL MATADEEN VS.- CIT (277 ITR 346), IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT THAT WHERE THE ITO HAD NOT MADE NECESSARY INQUIRIES BEFORE ALLOWING I.T.A. NO. 873/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 013-2014 NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED 13 DEDUCTION OF INTEREST ON CREDIT BALANCE OF A PARTY, THE ORDER WOULD BE REGARDED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE ST OF THE REVENUE AND THE COMMISSIONER MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN REVISING THE S AME. IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. PVT. LIMITED (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT, HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD WHILE AFF IRMING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT THAT THE PHRASE PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE IS OF WIDE IMPORT AND IS NOT CONFIN ED TO ONLY LOSS OF TAXES. IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY INQUIRIES THEN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER PASSED BY HIM WOULD BE ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 11. A RESUME OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS DISCUSS ED ABOVE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE VERY FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT PROPER AND SUFFICIENT INQUIRIES, AS WARRANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, MAKES IT ERRONEOUS A ND ALSO CAUSES PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE GIVING JUR ISDICTION TO THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT UNDER SECTION 263 TO REVISE THE SAME. AS ALREADY NOTED, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE TERMINAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRY WHATSOEVER AND SUCH LACK OF INQUIRY MADE HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON THIS ISSUE ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER P ASSED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT UNDER SECTION 263 SETTING ASIDE THE O RDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY ON THE ISSUE RELATING TO TERMINAL EXCI SE DUTY REFUND AND ALLOW PARTLY THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSEESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JANUARY 17, 2 020. SD/- SD/- (A.T. VARKEY) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT KOLKATA, THE 17 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020 I.T.A. NO. 873/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 013-2014 NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED 14 COPIES TO : (1) NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, 48, GANGA JAMUNA, 28/1, SHAKESPEARE SARANI, KOLKATA-700017 (2) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 7 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700069 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , (4) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (5) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.