M/S. Leftinens Merchandise (P) Ltd., Kolkata V. ACIT, CC-XXIV, KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITSSA 28/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4166 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI TULSIYAN FCA SHRI G
• Assessee Lawyers: E PASS KOLKTA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Block assessment
• Section: 68; 6; 132; 144

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (SS) A NO. 28 / KOL / 20 15 BLOCK PERIOD FROM 01.04.1996 TO 07.05.2002 M/S LEFTINENS MERCHANDISE (P) LTD., 133, CANNING STREET, 3 RD FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 001 [ PAN NO.AAACL 5017 D ] V/S . ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- XXIV 110, SHANTIPALLY, E.M. BYE PASS, KOLKTA-107 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI RAVI TULSIYAN, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI G. MALLIKARJUNA, CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 08-10-2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12-10-2018 / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD FROM 01.04.1996 TO 07.05.2002 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)-CENTAL- 1 KOLKATAS ORDER DATED 03.11.2014, PASSED IN CASE NO.178/CIT(A)C-I/CC- XXIV/2006-07, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 158BD/144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEAD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND RAISED AT THE TIME OF FILING CHALLENGES THE CIT(A)S ACTION AFFIRMING ASSESSMENT FINDINGS MAKING SEC. 68 OF 3 LAC. IT HAS ALSO RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND IN THE INSTANT APPEAL CHALLENGING VALIDITY OF SEC. 158BD PROCEEDINGS FOR WANT OF NECESSARY SATISFACTION THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN ISSUE B ELONGS TO AN ASSESSEE OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED ASSESSEE. LEARNED COUNSEL QUOTES HON'BLE APEX COURTS IT(SS)A NO.28/KOL/2015 B.P. 01.04. 96 TO 07.05.02 M/S LEFTINENS MERCHNDISE (P) LTD. VS. ACIT, CC-XXIV, KOL. PAGE 2 JUDGMENT AS NTPCS CASE 229 ITR 383 (SC) SETTLING THE LAW THAT SUCH AN ADDITIONAL GROUND CAN BE RAISED IN TRIBUNAL IN ORDE R TO DETERMINE CREDIT TAX DISABILITY IN CASE NECESSARY FACTS ARE ALREADY ON R ECOD. WE THEREFORE ADMIT THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED AT ASSESSEES BEHEST. 3. WE NOW ADVERT TO CIT(A)S DISCUSSION THAT ABOVE LEGAL ISSUE AS FOLLOWS:- 2. IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CO NTESTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE PROCEEDING INITIATED UNDER SECTION 158B D IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION INASMUCH AS NO MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY, VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED AND W AS NOT LIKELY TO BE DISCLOSED WAS FOUND RELATING TO THE APPELLANT COMPA NY IN COURSE OF ANY SEARCH. 2. THAT THE LD AO ERRED IN HAVING PROCEEDED WITH TH E ASSESSMENT IN SPITE OF ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF THE RECEIPTS DULY CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY WAY OF PROCEED FOR THE SALE OF INVESTME NT. 3. THAT THE LD AO ERRED IN INVOKING SECTION 668 WHE N THE SOURCE OF CREDIT WAS DULY EXPLAINED. 4. THAT THE LD AO FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS BENAMDAR FOR JAJODIA GROUP OF COMPANIES WARRANTING ADDITION OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT SUBSTANTIVELY IN THE HANDS OF JAJOD IAS AND PROTECTIVELY IN THE HAND OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 5. THAT THE LD AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT NO PROT ECTIVE ASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT AND HENCE HIS ACTION IS UN WARRANTED AND ILLEGAL. 6. THAT THE LD AO FURTHER ERRED IN HAVING ADDED A S UM OF RS.3000/- AS JAMA KARCHI COMMISSION WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL OR INFORMATI ON. 7. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD AO SHOULD ACCORDINGLY B E QUASHED BOTH ON JURISDICTION AND MERIT AND YOUR APPELLANT BE GIVEN SUCH RELIEF(S) AS PRAYED FOR. 8. THAT FURTHER GROUND OR GROUND OF APPEAL MAY BE T AKEN ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH U/S. 132 WAS CONDUCTED ON 07- 05-2002 AT THE PREMISES OF THE UIC GROUP. THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL FOUND IN RESPECT TO THE SEARCH INITIATED P ROCEEDINGS U/S. 158BD IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT WAS M ADE ON 30-11-2006 AT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.3,03,000/-. IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE LEGAL VALIDITY OF THE P ROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD AND ALSO THE ADDITIONS OF RS.3,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 6 8 ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND RS.3,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION. THE LD AR HAS FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE ALREADY COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE LD CIT(A) C-III, KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF M/S S K S MER CANTILE (P) LTD IN APPEAL NO. 477/CC-XXIV/CIT(A) C-III/2006-07 KOL. THE COPY OF THE SAID APPELLATE ORDER WAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD IN COURSE OF THE AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THEE ASSESSEE AN D PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. I FIND THAT THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THE SAME AS IN THE CASE OF M/S S K S MERCANTILE (P) LTD. I THEREFORE FIND THAT THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION BEING THE SAME, THE DECISIONS OF THE LD CIT(A) C-III, KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF M/S S K S MERCANTILE (P) LTD IN APPEAL NO.477/CC-XXIV/CIT(A) C-III/2006-07 KOL ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE LD C IT(A) C-III, KOLKATA IN THE IT(SS)A NO.28/KOL/2015 B.P. 01.04. 96 TO 07.05.02 M/S LEFTINENS MERCHNDISE (P) LTD. VS. ACIT, CC-XXIV, KOL. PAGE 3 ABOVE CASE, THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/- MADE UNDE R SECTION 68 IS CONFIRMED AND THAT OF RS.3,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION IS DELETED. THE LEGAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. IN EF FECT, GROUND NO 1 TO 5 AND 7 ARE DISMISSED. GROUND NO 6 IS ALLOWED. GROUND NO 8 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE IS DISMISSED. 4. IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOW ED HIS ORDER IN CASE OF M/S S.K.S. MERCANTILE (P) LTD. IN AFFIRMING THE IMPUGNE D ADDITION. CASE FILE SUGGESTS THAT A CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN M/S S.K.S. MERCANTILE PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT , IT(SS)A NO.80/KOL/2013 DECIDED ON 13.07.2018 HAS QU ASHED THE SIMILAR SEC. 158BD PROCEEDINGS FOR LACK OF NECESSARY SATISFACTIO N AS FOLLOWS:- 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF TRADING/DEALING IN SHARES. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPE RATION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE UIC GROUP OF COMPANIES ON 7.5.2002. PURSUANT TO THE SAID SEARCH, SHARE SCRIPS OF UIC COMPANIES ALLOTTED IN THE NAME OF TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE FOUND IN THEIR PREMISES AND THEY WERE SEIZED DURING SEARCH OPERATION. THEREAFTER, THE AO NOTES THAT DURING POST SEARCH EN QUIRY, CONDUCTED FOR ASCERTAINING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESS EE COMPANY, THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED THE FUNDS FROM 4 BANK ACCOUNTS VIZ, A/C NOS.4886, 4914, 4933 & 4934 MAINTAINED WIT H FEDERAL BANK OF INDIA. BURRA BAZAR BRANCH KOLKATA WHICH WERE STANDING IN T HE NAMES OF THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: I. RAJENDRA KUMAR SURANA II. SUNIL KR. JAIN III. SURENDRA KUMAR HIRAWAT IV. SHANKARLAL GODH THE AO AFTER EXAMINING THE AFORESAID FOUR PERSONS A ND THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CONCLUDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,21,65,000/- WHICH HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE AFORESAID FOUR PERSONS TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SHARES SOLD BY IT TO THE FOUR PERS ONS IS NOT THE ASSESSSEES ACTUAL INCOME BECAUSE THE ULTIMATE BENEFICIARY FINA LLY THE UIC GROUP. THEREFORE, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF SHARES SALE AND PURCHASE BY THE THREE LAYERS OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKE N BY THE COMPANY CONTROLLED BY MR. SANDIP KR. SINGHI AND MR. RAJESH JAJODIA IS A CLEAR COVERT AND CONNIVANCE OPERATION TO CHANNELING THE UIC GROU PS UNACCOUNTED MONEY BACK TO ITSELF THROUGH THE MAIZE OF CASH DEPOSITS A ND SHARE TRANSACTIONS, WHERE THERE WAS NO ACTUAL SHARE TRANSACTIONS BUT ON LY ACCOMMODATING BOOK ENTRIES OF THE RESPECTIVE INTERMEDIARY COMPANIES. T HEREFORE, THE AO TAXED THE RS. 1,21,65,000/- ON A PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE UIC GROUP. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS PLEASED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE A ND TO CHANGE ASSESSMENT FROM PROTECTIVE TO SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMEN T IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT(SS)A NO.28/KOL/2015 B.P. 01.04. 96 TO 07.05.02 M/S LEFTINENS MERCHNDISE (P) LTD. VS. ACIT, CC-XXIV, KOL. PAGE 4 10. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS T HAT SEC. 158BD PROCEEDING COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INITIATED AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY BECAUSE THE SHARES SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF UIC GROUP DID NOT BELONG TO IT, WHEN THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 07.05.2002. A CCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SCRIPS IN QUESTION HAD ALREADY BEEN SOLD DURING YEARS 1999, 2000 AND 2001, SO ON THE DATE OF SEARCH THE SCRIPS FOUND AND SEIZED DOES NOT BELONG TO IT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY , WHEN THE SEARCH HAPPENED ON 07.05.2000, IT HAD ALREADY SOLD THE SHA RES WHICH IT HAD PURCHASED DURING OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER, 1999 AND FEB RUARY, 2000 TO THE AFORESAID FOUR PERSONS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.L, 21,65,000/-. IN CONNECTION WITH AMOUNT OF RS.L,21,65,000/- THE LD. AR OF THE A SSESSEE-COMPANY DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING FACTS : I. THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD SOLD ITS INVESTMENTS IN S HARES OF UIC COMPANIES BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH ON 07.05.2000 A ND THEREFORE, THE SEIZED SHARES DOES NOT BELONG TO IT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. II. THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,21,65,000/- WAS DULY RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES III. THE CHEQUES RECEIVED AS CONSIDERATION HAVE BEE N DULY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IV. THE ABOVE-MENTIONED SALE TRANSACTION WAS DULY R ECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS V. INCOME TAX RETURNS INCORPORATING THE ABOVE DETAI LS HAVE BEEN DULY FILED IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 11. WE NOTE THAT IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S L58BD/ 144 WAS COMPLETED BY THE A.O. VIDE ORDER DATED 30.11.2006 MAKING PROTECT IVE ADDITION OF RS.1,21,65,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE AFORE-MENTIONED RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AGAINST SALE OF ITS SHARES AND ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AN ADDITION OF RS.L2,16,501/- BEI NG L% COMMISSION ON THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.L,21,65,000/- WAS PASSED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 12. THE LEGAL ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS TO WHETHER THE A.O. IS CORRECT IN INITIATING THE BLOCK ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS U/S L58BD OF THE ACT. FOR THAT LET US EXAMINE THE VALIDITY OF TH E IMPUGNED BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION L58BD CLEARLY READ AS UND ER : SECTION 158BD. UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERS ON,--'WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO W HOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 OR WHOSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS WERE REQUISITIONED UNDER SE CTION 132A, THEN, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEI ZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESS ING OFFICER SHALL IT(SS)A NO.28/KOL/2015 B.P. 01.04. 96 TO 07.05.02 M/S LEFTINENS MERCHNDISE (P) LTD. VS. ACIT, CC-XXIV, KOL. PAGE 5 PROCEED UNDER SECTION 158BC AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERS ON AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY. ' A BARE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SECTION INDICATES THAT BEFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION L58BD ARE INVOKED AGAINST A PERSON OTHER TH AN THE SEARCHED PERSON , TWO CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED : I. FOR ASSESSING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ANY OTHE R PERSON I.E., OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO SUCH PERSON I.E., THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHE D PERSON . THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT PROCEED AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON, WITHOUT HAVING THE REQUIRED SATISFACTION. THE REQUIREMENT OF SATIS FACTION IS, THEREFORE, A PRE- REQUISITE CONDITION FOR INITIATING ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS AGAINST ANY OTHER PERSON, UNDER SECTION 158BD. THE WORD ' SATISFACTION ' APPEARING IN SECTION 158BD CLEARLY DENOTES THAT IT SHOULD BE BASED UPON THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SUCH SATISFACTION SHOULD B E BROUGHT ON RECORD. II. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST HAND OVER THE SEIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND ASSETS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH SA TISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED, TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICT ION OVER SUCH PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON. 13. THE ABOVE VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI VS ACIT [289 ITR 034].NOW THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER THE ABOVE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN FULFIL LED IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. 14. WE NOTE THAT THERE WAS NO SEARCH WARRANT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL FROM THE PREMISES OF UIC GROUP WHICH WAS SEARCHED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT THA T BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH DISCLOSES UNDISCLOSED INCOME, THEN O NLY THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COULD BE COVERED UNDER SECTION L58BD AND N OTICE UNDER SECTION L58BD CAN BE VALIDLY ISSUED. THEREFORE, EXISTENCE O F MATERIAL BELONGING TO ASSESSEE MUST BE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WHICH IS A SINE QUA NON FOR TAKING ACTION UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. S O, THE JURISDICTIONAL FACT TO INVOKE SEC. 158BD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IS THE SEIZU RE OF MATERIAL BELONGING TO ASSESSEE FOUND DURING SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 07.05. 2002. NOW THE QUESTION IS, CAN THE SEIZED SHARES FOUND DURING SEARCH ON 07 .05.2002 AT UIC GROUP CAN BE SAID TO BE BELONGING TO ASSESSEE-COMPANY. F ROM THE FACTS EMERGING AS NOTED BY US THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THOUGH HAD PURC HASED THE SHARES OF CERTAIN UIC GROUP COMPANIES IN OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, 1 999 AND FEBRUARY, 2000, IT HAD BEEN SOLD TO THE FOUR PERSONS NAMED AB OVE BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH ON 07.05.2002 AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS R ECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,21,65,000/- THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND H AS DEPOSITED IT IN BANK ACCOUNT AND HAVE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT AND INCORPORATED THE ABOVE DETAILS IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL FACT FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION IS ABSENT AND, THEREFORE, THE AO COULD NOT HAVE INVOKED JURISDICTION U/S158BD OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE AO ERRED IN INVOK ING SEC.158BD PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND, THERE FORE, THE ORDER OF AO PASSED AFTER INVOKING SECTION 158BD IS NULL IN THE EYES OF LAW AND SO HAS TO BE QUASHED. IT(SS)A NO.28/KOL/2015 B.P. 01.04. 96 TO 07.05.02 M/S LEFTINENS MERCHNDISE (P) LTD. VS. ACIT, CC-XXIV, KOL. PAGE 6 15. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE JURISDICTIONAL FACT WHICH IS THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION U /S. 158BD IS ABSENT, THE VERY INVOCATION AND FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT U/S.158BD IS A B INITIO VOID AND CONSEQUENTLY IS NULL IN THE EYES OF LAW AND IS QUAS HED. 16. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE OTHER FOUR APPEALS ARE I DENTICAL AND ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED WITHOUT SATISFYING THE JURISDICTIONAL F ACT FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION U/S. 158BD OF THE ACT, THE AO LACKS JURISDICTION TO INITIATE AND PASS ORDERS IN CONSEQUENCE TO SEC. 158BD OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, TH E IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO ARE NULL IN THE EYES OF LAW AND AR E, THEREFORE, QUASHED. 5. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO DIS PUTE ALL THESE INTERVENING DEVELOPMENTS HAVING TAKEN PLACE DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE INSTANT APPEAL. WE THEREFORE ACCEPT ASSESSEES ADDI TIONAL GROUND CHALLENGING VALIDITY OF THE IMPUGNED SEC. 158BD ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS FRAMED IN THE INSTANT CASE SEC. 158BD PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHALLENGE ARE QUASHED ACCORDINGLY. 6. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 12/10/2018 SD/- SD/- ( %) (' %) (DR. A.L. SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (- 12 / 10 /201 8 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-M/S LEFTINES MERCHANDISE (P) LTD., 133, CA NNING ST, 3 RD FL. KOL-001 2. /RESPONDENT-ACIT, CC-XXIV, 110, SHANTIPALLY, E.M.BYE PASS, KOLKATA-107 3. 3 4 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 4- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 7 ''3, 3, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO 3,