M/S. SELVEL MEDIA SERVICES (P) LTD., Kolkata V. Pr. CIT-4, Kolkata

ITA 909/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0464 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Application of stay; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 260A; 263

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 909/KOL/2017 SELVEL MEDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD., AY 2012-13 , A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA ( ) BEFORE . . , /AND . , ) [BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANESH , AM] I.T.A. NO. 909/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SELVEL MEDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD. (PAN: AADCS7951G) VS. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-4, KOLKATA. APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 09.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.09.2018 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE ASSESSEE/CROSS OBJECTOR SHRI SALLONG YADEN, ADDL. CIT, SR. DR ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST TH E REVISION ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT(A)-4, KOLKATA PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) DATED 26.12.2016 FOR AY 2012-13. 2. AT THE OUTSET ITSELF, THE LD. DR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 57 DAYS IN FILING ASSESSEES APPEAL. ON BEING ASKED, THE L D. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONDONATION PETITION FILED WHEREIN WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.12.2016 ON 05.01.2017 AND THE ASSESSEE COM PANY IMMEDIATELY FORWARDED THE ORDER TO SHRI NARESH ROY, ADVOCATE WHO HAS FILED AN AFFI DAVIT WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE ORDER ON 05.01.2017 FROM ASSESSEE, BUT IT GOT MISPLACED AND, THEREAFTER, HE COULD LAY HIS HAND ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER ONLY ON 24 .10.2017 AND, THEN IMMEDIATELY HE FORWARDED THE ORDER TO SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCAT E TO PREPARE AN APPEAL AND THE SAME WAS FILED AND THUS THERE WAS A DELAY OF 57 DAYS. W E NOTE THAT THE DELAY CAUSED IN PREFERRING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT BECAUSE OF THE FAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DELAY WAS CAUSED BECAUSE OF THE OMISSION ON THE PAR T OF THE LD. AR FOR MISPLACING THE 2 ITA NO. 909/KOL/2017 SELVEL MEDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD., AY 2012-13 IMPUGNED ORDER. FOR THE FAULT OF THE AR OF THE ASS ESSEE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED; THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMI T THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. PR. CIT-4, KOLKATA WHEREIN HE HAS INTERFERED WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WHICH WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 17.03.2015. THE LD. PR. CIT ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT DATED 27.08.2015 WHEREIN THE LD. PR. CIT OBSERVED T HE FOLLOWING FAULTS: IN THE INSTANT CASE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 ON 17.03.2015 BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA DETER MINING ASSESSED INCOME AS NIL. 2. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN HIS COMPUTATION OF INCOME & AUDITED ACCOUNTS CLAIMED DE DUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 ON INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY RENDERED IN RESPECT OF B US SHELTER, TOILET BLOCK AND FOOT OVER-BRIDGES INSTALLED WITHIN NO. OF CITIES UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE CONCERNED MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES. 3. ON EXAMINATION OF THE CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR 2011-12 WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF 'OUTDOO R ADVERTISING' WHICH MEANS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS WHICH COU LD BE ADMITTED AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT. MOREOVER, TH E CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE BUS SHELTER, TOILET BLOCK, FOOT OVER-BRIDGES SHOULD NOT BE PRIMA-FACIE TREATED AS 'ROAD' WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION TO SUB-CLAUSE (C) OF CLA USE (I) OF SUB SECTION(4) OF THE SECTION 80IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF HO ARDING STRUCTURE @ 100% BUT SINCE THE HOARDING STRUCTURE IS TREATED AS 'PLANT & MACHINERY ' AND THE SAID STRUCTURE WAS USED FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION @ 7.5%(50% OF 15%) INSTEAD OF 100%. 5. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, I AM SATISFIED THAT PRIMA FACIE THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2015 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUES. YOU ARE, THEREFORE, REQUESTED TO APPEAR P ERSONALLY OR THROUGH YOUR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE ME AT MY ROOM NO. 4, 6TH FLOO R, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 ON 14.09.2015 AT 11.30 AM A LONG WITH YOUR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, IF ANY, TO SHOW AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143( 3) ON 31.03.2015 SHOULD NOT BE REVISED U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAD REPLIED TO THE AFORESAID S HOW CAUSE NOTICE WHICH IS FOUND PLACED AT PAGES 71 TO 78 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE SAME, THE LD. PR. CIT WAS PLEASED TO HOLD THAT THE AOS ORDER DATED 17.03.2015 PASSED U/ S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS ERRONEOUS SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE A ND HE WAS PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER BACK TO THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE AND VERIFY TH E ISSUES RAISED IN THE AFORESAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US . 3 ITA NO. 909/KOL/2017 SELVEL MEDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD., AY 2012-13 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE NOTE THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS FOUND FAULT WITH THE AO IN GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO LD. PR. CIT, THE ASS ESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISEMENT WHICH ACTIVITY ACCORDING TO LD. PR. CIT, WOULD NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT. A ND HE TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANC E OF BUS SHELTER, TOILET BLOCK, FOOT OVER- BRIDGE ETC WHICH ACCORDING TO LD. PR. CIT CANNOT SA ID TO BE CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION TO SUB-CLAUSE (C) OF CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION 4 OF SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT THIS PRECISE ISSU E WAS RAISED BY THE AO IN THE COURSE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND THE ASSESSEE HAD MET ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE AO AND THE SAME WERE PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE THE AO AND DR EW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 79 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH WE NOTE IS THE LETTER OF THE ASSES SEE TO THE AO [ DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-12, KOLKATA] WHEREIN THE ASSESSE E REPLIED TO THE QUERY OF AO IN DETAIL AND JUSTIFIED THE CLAIMS FOR SEEKING DEDUCTION OF A SUM OF RS.1,91,10,791/- U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT (WHICH WE NOTE CONTINUES FROM PAGE 79 TO 82 OF THE PAPER BOOK). AND IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DECIDE D THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2008-09 AND 2010-11 AND IN THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEES SISTER CONCERN NAMELY, M/S SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. AND ALSO THAT THE TRIB UNALS DECISION ON THIS ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2005-06 ONWARDS WHICH WAS HELD IN F AVOUR OF ASSESSEE. WE NOTE THAT SINCE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN ENQUIRED INTO BY THE AO AND AFTE R TAKING NOTE OF THE SUBMISSIONS, DOCUMENTS AND DECISION GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ON THE VERY ISSUE REGARDING JUSTIFICATION FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT, ACCORDING TO US, THE AO HAS TAKEN A VIEW WHICH IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND WHICH ACTION OF THE AO CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. AR THAT THE TRIBUNALS DECISI ON IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ON THE ISSUE FROM AYS 2005-06 TO 2011-12 IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THE SIMILAR ISSUE RAISED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN M/S. SELVEL ADVER TISING PVT. LTD. WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL FOR AY 2004-05 HAS HELD AS UNDER: IT IS CLEAR FROM THIS THAT THERE WAS APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF AO BEFORE HE ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT. IN RESPECT OF AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND PEDESTRIAN FEE BRIDGE THIS VIEW OF THE AO IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RATIO AS LAID DOWN BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF VANTAGE ADVERTISING P VT. LTD. ITA NO.1054 & 1055/KO1/2008 AND SELVEL MEDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 1065/KOL /2008, WHEREIN BUS SHELTERS AND FOOT 4 ITA NO. 909/KOL/2017 SELVEL MEDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD., AY 2012-13 BRIDGES WERE CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF INFRASTRUCTUR AL FACILITIES FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT. THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, T HE AO HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW ON THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT IF A.O HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW AND THE LD. CIT HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION ON THE SAME FACTS PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERR ONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. SINCE THE LD. CIT HAS DONE THE SAME, THE O RDER PASSED BY HIM IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND HENCE, IS HEREBY QUASHED. 5. WE NOTE THAT THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT I N ITAT NO. 49 OF 2010, GA NO. 894 OF 2010 WHEREIN HONBLE HIGH COURT AFTER FRAMING TH E FOLLOWING QUESTION HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL UNDER SECTIO N 260A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.9.2010 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, KOLKATA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE APPELLANT PROPOSED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QU ESTIONS OF LAW;- I) 'WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS CORRECT IN QUASHING THE REVIS ION ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN ONE OF THE POS SIBLE VIEWS WHILE, IN FACT, THE QUESTION IS ONE OF LAW AND NOT FACT AND INCORRECT A PPRECIATION OF LAW BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AMENABLE TO CORRECTION THROUGH THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF REVISION ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT?' II) 'WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT AUTOM ATIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN FOOT BRIDGE WOULD CONSTITUTE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILIT Y DEFINED IN CLAUSE (A) OF EXPLANATION BELOW SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80- IA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 SINCE, WE ARE INCLINED TO TAKE THE VIEW THAT THE TR IBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN FOOT BRIDGE WOULD CONSTITUTE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AS CONTEMPLATED IN CLAUSE (A) OF THE EXPLA NATION TO SUB SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80-IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IT IS NOT NECESS ARY TO ANSWER QUESTION NO. 1. SECTION 80-IA PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL I NCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INCLUDES ANY PROFIT AND GAINS DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING OR AN EN TERPRISE FROM ANY BUSINESS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (4) (SUCH BUSINESS BEING HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS'), THERE SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE WIT H AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, BE ALLOWED, IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE, A DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFI TS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM SUCH BUSINESS FOR TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF SUB-SECTION (4) READS AS UN DER;- '(4) THIS SECTION APPLIES TO- (I) ANY ENTERPRISE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS [ OF (I ) D EVELOPING OR (II) OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OR (III) DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING] ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY WHICH FULFILLS ALL THE FOLL OWING CONDITIONS, NAMELY:- (A) TO (C) . . 5 ITA NO. 909/KOL/2017 SELVEL MEDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD., AY 2012-13 EXPLANATION DEFINES INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AS UNDE R.- '(A) ROAD INCLUDING TOLL ROAD, A BRIDGE OR A RAIL SYSTEM;' THE TRIBUNAL TOOK THE VIE W THAT INSTALLATION OF AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN FOOTBRIDGE WOULD BE A N INTEGRAL PART OF ROAD INCLUDING A BRIDGE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY FAULT WITH THE INTERPR ETATION PLACED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON CLAUSE (A) OF EXPLANATION TO SUB-SECTION (4) OF SEC TION 80- IA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE PROPOSED QUESTION NO. 1 I S ACADEMIC AND, THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ENTERTAIN THIS APPEAL IN RESPECT OF QUESTION NO.1. THE APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, SUMMARILY DISMISSED. THE STAY APPLICATION IS DISPOSED OF. 6. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA AND THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO IS AS PER THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS OR DER, THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE AO CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SO FAR AS PREJUDICIA L TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND, THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT LD. PR. CIT LACKS REVISIONAL JURISDICT ION TO INTERFERE ON THIS ISSUE AND THEREFORE ERRED IN DOING SO. 7. THE NEXT FAULT IS IN RESPECT TO DEPRECIATION OF HOARDING STRUCTURE @ 100%. THE LD. PR. CIT OBSERVED THAT THE SAID STRUCTURE WAS USED F OR LESS THAN 180 DAYS AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION @ 7.5% (50% OF 15%) INSTEAD OF 100%. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. AR THAT THE QUESTION OF DE PRECIATION WAS ALSO DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OW N CASE FOR AY 2005-06. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE TRIBUNAL AGREED WITH THE CLA IM OF THE SISTER CONCERN M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. WHICH CARRIED OUT THE SAME BU SINESS ACTIVITY LIKE THAT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE VIEW THAT THE HOARDINGS ARE TEMPORARY ASSET FOR WHICH 100% DEPRECIATION IS JUSTIFIABLE AND THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO. 820/KOL/2008. IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TH AT THERE WAS NO FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CHALLENGING THE TRIBUNALS DECIS ION THAT THE HOARDINGS BEING TEMPORARY STRUCTURE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR 100% DEPRECIATION. THER EFORE, ACCORDING TO US, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH AND, THEREFORE, THE L D. PR. CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THE AOS ACTION OF ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF 100% DEPRECIATION AS ERRONEOUS SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. SINCE WE NOTE THAT THE HOA RDINGS BEING TEMPORARY STRUCTURES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR 100% DEPRECIATION AS HELD BY THIS TRIB UNAL IN ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN M/S. SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 820/KOL/200 8, THEREFORE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO 6 ITA NO. 909/KOL/2017 SELVEL MEDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD., AY 2012-13 IS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND, THEREFORE, THE LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN INVOKING HIS JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. 7. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THE AOS ORDER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON BOTH THE ISSUES DISCUSSED ABOVE. THEREFORE, LD. PR. CIT LACKS JURISDICTION TO INTERFERE WITH THE OR DER PASSED BY THE AO BY INVOKING HIS JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE QU ASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT. APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/09/201 8 SD/- SD/- (M. BALAGANESH) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT SELVEL MEDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD., 10/1B, DIAMOND HARBOUR ROAD, 1 ST FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 027. 2 RESPONDENT PR. CIT, -4, KOLKATA. 3 4 DCIT, CIRCLE-12(2), KOLKATA. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SR. PVT. SECRETARY