M/s Devraj Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata V. CIT, KOLKATA-1I, Kolkata

ITA 975/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6236 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD USMAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 56(2); 147; 68; 148; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA [BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A. NO. 975/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 MS/. DEVRAJ SALES PVT. LTD............APPELLANT C/O SALARPURIA JAJODIA & CO. 7, CHITTARANJAN AVENUE KOLKATA 700 072 [PAN : AADCD 0233 G] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA -II, KOLKATA.......RESPONDENT AYAKAR BHAWAN P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE KOLKATA 700 069 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUJOY SEN, ADVOCATE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. MD. USMAN, CIT, D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JUNE 11 TH , 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JULY 4 TH ,2018 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKARREDDY :- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA, (HEREINAFTER THE LD. CIT), DT. 05/03/2014, PASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT), RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE BROUGHT OUT BY THE LD. CIT AT PAGES 1 & 2 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS EXTRACTED FOR READY REFERENCE:- IN THE INSTANT CASE THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED DECLARING INCOME OF RS.820/-.THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPANY SHOWS SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.9,56,00,000/- AND RESERVE (SHARE PREMIUM) OF RS.9,17,76,000/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER BEFORE THE A.O. ON 23.08.2011 STATING THAT INTIMATION U/S 143(1) HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED AND THAT INCOME OF RS.46,500/-HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME BY MISTAKE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER, ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 AND SUBSEQUENTLY, PASSED ORDER U/S.147/ 143(3) ON 21.12.2011 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.47,320/-. 2 I.T.A. NO. 975/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 MS/. DEVRAJ SALES PVT. LTD IN VIEW OF THE BACKGROUND MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS ORDER A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED VIDE LETTER DATED 27.01.2014. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE IMPUGNED UNDER SECTION U/S 148 NOT BE REVISED U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT REQUISITE AND PROPER INQUIRIES WERE NOT CONDUCTED REGARDING THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE HOLDERS AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED MECHANICALLY WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND WHICH RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 3. THE LD. CIT PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) ON 21/11/2012 BY GIVING THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS:- IN VIEW OF THE SPECIAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL DECISION RELIED UPON, THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S148 IS, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT AND THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO I) EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS AND SOURCE OF SHARE CAPITOL, NOT ON A TEST CHECK BASIS, BUT IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY SHAREHOLDER BY CONDUCTING INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY NOT THROUGH THE ASSESSEE. THE BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD SHOULD BE EXAMINED IN THE COURSE OF VERIFICATION TO FIND OUT THE MONEY TRAIL OF THE SHARE CAPITAL. II) FURTHER THE A.O. SHOULD EXAMINE THE DIRECTORS AS WELL AS EXAMINE THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH NECESSITATED THE CHANGE IN DIRECTORSHIP IF APPLICABLE. HE SHOULD EXAMINE THEM ON OATH TO VERIFY THEIR CREDENTIALS AS DIRECTOR AND REACH A LOGICAL CONCLUSION REGARDING THE CONTROLLING INTEREST. III) THE A.O. IS DIRECTED EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF REALIZATION FROM THE LIQUIDATION OF ASSETS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AFTER THE CHANGE OF DIRECTORS, IF ANY. AFTER CONDUCTING THE INQUIRIES & VERIFICATION AS DIRECTED ABOVE, THE A.O. SHOULD PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 148 IS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE AND ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE DONE AFRESH. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI SUJOY SEN, OBJECTS TO THIS ORDER U/S 263, MAINLY ON TWO GROUNDS. THE FIRST IS THAT PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WERE NOT FOLLOWED AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SECONDLY, HE OBJECTED TO THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE LD. CIT AT PAGE 3 & 4 OF HIS ORDER THAT, BEFORE THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, BROUGHT IN W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, THE ADDITION IN QUESTION I.E. PREMIUM CHARGED ON SHARES ISSUED CAN BE MADE UNDER THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS AGAINST THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. VODAFONE INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD VS. ADDL. CIT REPORTED IN 368 ITR 001(BOM.) AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GAGANDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE LTD (2017) 394 ITR 680. 3 I.T.A. NO. 975/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 MS/. DEVRAJ SALES PVT. LTD THE LD. D/R, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIES ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUBHLAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KOLKATA, IN ITA NO. 1104/KOL/2014, DT. 30.07.2015 AND ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJMANDIR ESTATES PVT. LTD. VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA IN GA NO. 509 OF 2016 WITH ITAT NO. 113 OF 2016 DT. 13 TH MAY, 2016 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND HENCE THE ISSUE IS NO MORE RES-INTEGRA. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT BE UPHELD AND THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BE DISMISSED. 6. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSING THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE-LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS:- IN THE CASE OF M/S. SAPPHIRE VANIJYA PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA, IN ITA NO. 855/KOL/2015, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, ORDER DT. 08/12/2017, THE B BENCH OF THE KOLKATA, ITAT HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT WE HAVE DISPOSED OF MORE THAN 500 CASES INVOLVING SAME ISSUE THROUGH CERTAIN ORDERS WITH THE MAIN ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED IN A GROUP OF CASES LED BY SUBHLAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (ITA NO.1104/KOL/2014) DATED 30.7.2015 FOR THE A.Y. 2009- 10. 6. WE FIND AS HAS ALSO BEEN ADMITTED BY THE LD. DR AND THE AR THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE DECIDED EARLIER. IN OUR AFORESAID ORDER IN SUBHLAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., VS. CIT (ITA NO. 1104/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2009-10), WE HAVE DRAWN THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS: - A . CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO EXAMINE OR MAKE ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF SHARE CAPITAL WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM BEFORE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 68 BY THE FINANCE ACT , 2012 W.E.F. A.Y. 2013-14 AND HENCE THE CIT BY MEANS OF IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 COULD NOT HAVE DIRECTED THE AO TO DO SO, IS UNSUSTAINABLE. B . FAILURE OF THE AO TO GIVE A LOGICAL CONCLUSION TO THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY HIM GIVES POWER TO THE CIT TO REVISE SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDER, BY HOLDING THAT :- I) THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO IN SUCH CASES CAN'T BE CONSTRUED AS A PROPER ENQUIRY; II) CIT U/S 263 CAN SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DIRECT THE AO TO CONDUCT A THOROUGH ENQUIRY, NOTWITHSTANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO IN MAKING ENQUIRIES ON THE ISSUES OR MATTERS AS HE CONSIDERS FIT IN TERMS OF SECTION 142(1) AND 143(2) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS RELEVANT ONLY UP TO THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT ; III) INADEQUATE INQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES IS AS GOOD AS NO ENQUIRY AND AS SUCH, THE CIT WAS EMPOWERED TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ; 4 I.T.A. NO. 975/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 MS/. DEVRAJ SALES PVT. LTD IV) THE ORDER OF THE CIT IS NOT BASED ON IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND FURTHER IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES, HE WAS NOT OBLIGED TO POSITIVELY INDICATE THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON MERITS ON THE QUESTION OF ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL AT A HUGE PREMIUM ; AND V) THE AO IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES CAN'T BE SAID TO HAVE TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW AS THE REVISION IS SOUGHT TO BE DONE ON THE PREMISE THAT THE AO DID NOT MAKE ENQUIRY THEREBY RENDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON THAT SCORE ITSELF. C . IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ALL SUCH CASES, THE NOTICES U/S 263 WERE PROPERLY SERVED THROUGH AFFIXTURE OR OTHERWISE. FURTHER THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 263 STRICTLY AS PER THE TERMS OF SECTION 282 OF THE ACT. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT ENSHRINED IN THE PROVISION IS TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH IN ALL SUCH CASES. D . LIMITATION PERIOD FOR PASSING ORDER IS TO BE COUNTED FROM THE DATE OF PASSING THE ORDER U/S 147 READ WITH SEC. 143(3) AND NOT THE DATE OF INTIMATION ISSUED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS NOT AN ORDER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 263 . IN ALL THE CASES, THE ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT. E . THE CIT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE AO WHO PASSED ORDER U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) , HAS THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO PASS THE ORDER U/S 263 AND NOT OTHER CIT. F . ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF A COMPANY CAN BE MADE U/S 68 IN ITS FIRST YEAR OF INCORPORATION. G . AFTER AMALGAMATION, NO ORDER CAN BE PASSED U/S 263 IN THE NAME OF THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY. BUT, WHERE THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE BY EITHER FILING RETURNS, AFTER AMALGAMATION, IN THE OLD NAME OR OTHERWISE, THEN THE ORDER PASSED IN THE OLD NAME IS VALID. H . ORDER PASSED U/S 263 ON A NON-WORKING DAY DOES NOT BECOME INVALID, WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE PARTICIPATION OF THE ASSESSEE WERE COMPLETED ON AN EARLIER WORKING DAY. I . ORDER U/S 263 CANNOT BE DECLARED AS A NULLITY FOR THE NOTICE HAVING NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE CIT, WHEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS OTHERWISE GIVEN BY THE CIT. J . REFUSAL BY THE REVENUE TO ACCEPT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE SENT AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING CANNOT RENDER THE ORDER VOID AB INITIO. AT ANY RATE, IT IS AN IRREGULARITY. K . SEARCH PROCEEDINGS DO NOT DEBAR THE CIT FROM REVISING ORDER U/S PASSED U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 7. SOME OR ALL OF THE AFORESAID CONCLUSIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ALSO. CONSEQUENTLY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WILL HAVE TO BE DISMISSED AS DEVOID OF MERIT. IT MAY ALSO BE RELEVANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUBHLAKSHMI VANIJYA PVT. LTD VS CIT (SUPRA) WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT. THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJ MANDIR ESTATES (P)LTD. VS PR.CIT 386 ITR 162 (CAL) WAS PLEASED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT AS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AFORESAID SOME OF THE ASSESSEES PREFERRED A PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT BY ITS ORDER DATED 29.11.2017 IN SLP(C) NO.27799/2017 AND OTHER CONNECTED SLPS DISMISSED ALL THE SLPS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERITS IN THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5 I.T.A. NO. 975/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 MS/. DEVRAJ SALES PVT. LTD 7. COMING TO THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN A SHOWCAUSE NOTICE ON 27/01/2014 AND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 19/02/2014 AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT ON 05/03/2014. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SOUGHT ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS OPEN FOR THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT AND MAKE HIS SUBMISSIONS. IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HENCE THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 8. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US IS THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION OF A PROVISO WHICH IS EFFECTIVE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, IS RETROSPECTIVE OR PROSPECTIVE. 8.1. THE LD. CIT HELD THAT IT IS A WELL SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT EVEN BEFORE THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 68 / 56(2) OF THE ACT, EFFECTIVE ONLY FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL IN A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY CAN BE EXAMINED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND IF FOUND TO BE NOT GENUINE THE SAME COULD BE TAXED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THESE STATEMENTS OF THE LD. CIT IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, IS OBJECTED TO BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE OBSERVATIONS, IN OUR VIEW, DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO HOLDING THAT THE AMENDMENT BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION OF PROVISO TO SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, IS RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJMANDIR ESTATES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS FOLLOWS:- WE NEED NOT DECIDE IN THIS CASE AS TO WHETHER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. TO THAT EXTENT THE QUESTION IS KEPT OPEN. THUS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT HAS NOT STATED ANYTHING AGAINST THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GAGANDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. M/S. ORCHID INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 397 ITR 136 AND THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT V. VEEDHATA TOWER PVT. LTD., JUDGMENT DT. APRIL 17 TH , 2018, WHERE IN IT IS HELD THAT THE AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISO TO SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, IS NOT RETROSPECTIVE AND THUS CANNOT BE APPLIED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO THE 6 I.T.A. NO. 975/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 MS/. DEVRAJ SALES PVT. LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SHOULD NOT WHILE FRAMING FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, TAKE A VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. HE IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RAJMANDIR ESTATES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND TRIBUNALS ON THIS ISSUE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. SAPPHIRE VANIJYA PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA, (SUPRA) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. KOLKATA, THE 4 TH DAY OF JULY, 2018. SD/- SD/- [S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI] [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED :04.07.2018 {SC SPS} 7 I.T.A. NO. 975/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 MS/. DEVRAJ SALES PVT. LTD COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. MS/. DEVRAJ SALES PVT. LTD C/O SALARPURIA JAJODIA & CO. 7, CHITTARANJAN AVENUE KOLKATA 700 072 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA -II, KOLKATA AYAKAR BHAWAN P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE KOLKATA 700 069 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/ D.D.O. ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES