DCIT,CC-XIII , Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s Cement Manufacturing Co.Ltd, Kolkata

ITSSA 38/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0135 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 2

Judgement Text

I.T.(SS)A.NOS.: 38-40-KOL-2012 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 42-43-KOL-2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 TO 2010-11 & 2006-07 TO 2007-08 PAGE 1 TO 6 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA CORAM : SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.(SS)A. NOS.: 38, 39, 40/KOL./ 2012 & 42, 43/KOL /2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2006-07 & 2007-08 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,.............. ..APPELLANT CENTRAL CIRCLE-XIII, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAVAN POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLI, E.M. BYE PASS, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 107 -VS.- M/S. CEMENT MANUFACTURING CO. LIMITED,............. ................RESPONDENT FLAT NO. 9B, 1 ST FLOOR, SATYAM TOWER, 3, ALIPORE ROAD, KOLKATA-700 027 [PAN : AACCC 1465 A] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI A.K. SINGH, CIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI A.KI. GUPTA, A.R., FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : APRIL 01, 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : APRIL 02, 2014 O R D E R PER BENCH: 1. THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINS T RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. SINCE THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON, THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF B Y THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE IS THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DIRECTING THAT THE ASSESSEE I S ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION I.T.(SS)A.NOS.: 38-40-KOL-2012 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 42-43-KOL-2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 TO 2010-11 & 2006-07 TO 2007-08 PAGE 1 TO 6 2 UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON THE AMO UNTS OF SUBSIDIES RECEIVED BY IT. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSI NESS OF MANUFACTURE OF CEMENT AND CEMENT CLINKER IN ITS FACTORY SITUATE D AT LUMSHNONG, JAINTIA HILLS, MEGHALAYA. THE ASSESSEE HAD ESTABLISHED THE SAID NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IN THE YEAR 2004 AND THE COMMERCIAL PRO DUCTION OF CLINKER STATED ON 21.12.2005. IN THE RETURN FILED FOR THE C ONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEARS ASSESSEE SHOWED THE TOTAL INCOME AS NIL CLA IMING THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME WAS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 80IC IN RESPECT OF THE SUBSIDIES RECEIVED BY IT. THIS MATTER HAS TR AVELLED UPTO THE LEVEL OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS AGAIN FRAMED UP ON ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 153A/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND ASSES SING OFFICER HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 80IC IN RESPECT OF TRANSPORT SUBSIDY, INTEREST SUBSIDY, ETC. RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BY ORDER DATED 15.11.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS ARISEN IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- M/S. MEGHALAYA MINERAL PRODUCTS IN ITA NOS. 68 & 48/GAU. OF 2012 & 2013 AND THE TRIBUNAL H AD HELD AS UNDER :- ' 6 . WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DE C ISIONS AS R E LIED O N BV THE LD. A . R . WE NOT E D THAT SO FAR THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ASSESS EE' S APPE ALS AR E CO V E RED BY TH E D E C I S ION O F THE HON ' BL E GUWAHATI HIGH C OURT IN TH E CAS E OR C IT- VS - MEGHALA Y A STEELS LTD . (ITA NO . 0 7/ 2010 AND CIT - VS - PRID E CO KE PVT. LTD . 1 6 / 2011 ) REPORTED IN 356 ITR 2 35 . IN THIS CASE , WH E N TH E ISS U E R E LA T I N G TO TH E C LAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER S E CTION 80IB AND 8 0I C I N R E S PEC T OF TRANSPORT SUBSIDY , POWER SUBSIDY , INTEREST SUBSID Y AND I NS UR ANC E S U BS I DY TRAV E LLED TO THE HON ' BL E HIGH COURT , THE HON ' BL E H I GH C O URT H ELD A S UND E R:- ( HEAD NOTES) I.T.(SS)A.NOS.: 38-40-KOL-2012 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 42-43-KOL-2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 TO 2010-11 & 2006-07 TO 2007-08 PAGE 1 TO 6 3 ' IN ORDER TO CLAIM DEDUCTION EITHER UNDER SECTION 80 -IB O R UN DER S EC T ION 8 0-1C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 , AN ASS ESS EE HAS T O ES T A BL ISH T HAT TH ERE I S A DIRE C T , INTRINSIC AND FIRST DEGREE NEXUS BETWE E N A S UB S I DY , O N TH E ONE HAND, AND THE PROFITS AND GAINS , ON THE OTHER , DERIVED F RO M . OR DERIVED BY , THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING CONCERNED. IF A SUBSIDY GOES TO REDU CE TH E COST OF PRODUCTION OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING , THE RESULTANT PROF I T S AN D GAI N S A R E DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-IB O R S EC TION 80 -I C, AS TH E CASE MAY BE . THE EXPRESSION ' DERIVED FROM ' HAS B EE N U SED IN SEC TI ON 80-IB, WOULD, LOGICALLY EXTENDED , MEAN THAT THE SUBSID Y PR OV I DED B Y [ HE STAT E, DIRECTLY AFFECTS THE BUSINESS ACTIVIT Y OF THE INDUSTRIAL UND E RTAKIN G . THE SUPREME COURT IN MEPCO INDUSTRIES ' CASE H E LD THAT IN EAC H CAS E , TH E NATURE O F SUBSIDY NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE C OURT. CONSEQ U EN T LY, W ITHOUT DETERMINING THE NATUR E OF S UBSIDY , INCLUDING TH E OBJEC T T H E R EOF THE IMPA C T OF THE SUBSID Y ON THE OPERATION O F TH E INDU ST R IAL UND E R T AKIN G C ANN O T B E DET E RMINED. TH E SUPR E ME COU R T IN S AHN EY S T E E L AND PR E S S WO RKS LID . V . CIT [1997} 22 8 ITR 25 3 ( S C) LA Y S DOW N ALL IMMENS E L Y I MPORT A NT ASPE C T OF A SUBSID Y VI S -A-VI S LIA B ILIT Y TO PAY T A X . WHAT TH E S UPREM E COURT C LARIFIES IS THAT WHEN A SUBSID Y I S GIV E N FO R T H E PURPOSE O F SE TTING UP OF AN INDUSTRY , SUCH A SUBSID Y IS A C APIT A L R ECE IPT W H EN, HOWEV E R , THE SUBSID Y IS GI VE N FOR THE PURPOSE OF OP E R A T I N G ON INDUS T R Y MORE PROFITABLY , THE SUBSIDY WOULD BE REVENUE RECEIPT A N D , BEING R EVE N UE RECEIPT, IT HAS TO BE TAXED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW MEANI NG TH ERE B Y T H A T TH E PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM , OR DERIVED B Y , A LL IN DU S TRIA L UND E RTAKING IN A CASE , WHERE OP E RATIONAL COST IS R E DU CED BY PROV I D I NG S UBSID Y, IN ANY FORM , TH E PR O FIT S AN D GAINS E ARN E D , B ECAU SE OF SUCH S UBSID Y, WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDU C TI O N UND E R S E CTI O N 80-IB O R SEC T ION 8 0-IC , A S TH E CASE MA Y B E. TH E PRIN C IPLE DEDUCIBL E F ROM THE ! C ASES OF SAHN EY STEEL AND PR E S S W ORKS LTD . V. C IT {199 7 } 22 8 I T R 253 ( S C) , C IT VS R A JARAM MAI ZE PR O DU C T S [2001] 251 ITR 42 7 ( SC) AND C IT VS . E A S T E RN EL E CTRO CHEMI C AL INDU S TRI ES [1999} 9 SCC 20 I S THAT W H E N A S U BS I DY , GRA NT ED BY T H E GO VERNM E N T IS OPERATIONAL IN NATURE, WHICH HELPS IN GENERATION OF PROFITS FOR ANY IN D U S T R I AL UNDERTAKING, SUCH A PROFIT IS INDEED, COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS EMB OD I ED IN SECT ION 8 0-1 B O R SECTIO N 8 0-IC, AS THE CAS E MAY B E . H E LD, THAT TH E RE W AS CLEAR FINDING OF TH E TRIBUNAL THAT TH E RE WA S A DIR E CT NEXUS BETWEEN THE SUBSIDIES , ON THE ONE HAND. AND THE PROFITS AN D GA IN S DERIVED BY, OR DERIVED FROM , THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNE D T H I S FINDING WAS NOT PURELY A FINDING OF FACT INASMU C H AS THE FINDING HA D BE E N REACHED ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SCHEMES OF SUB SIDIES . THE A SS ES SE E WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION EA RLI ER UNDER S E CTION 80-IB OR UN DER . SECTION 80-IC ON THE TRANSPORT SUBSIDY, INTEREST S UBSIDY, POWER S U B SIDY AND INSURANCE SUBSIDY BECAUSE : \ (A) THE SUBSIDY ON TRANSPORTATION OF R AW MATERIALS AS WELL AS FINI S H E D GOODS , WAS PROMISED TO BE MADE A V AILABLE TO THE INDUSTRIAL UNIT S CO NC E RNED IN A MANN E R WHICH W OULD D IR E CTL Y AFF E CT TH E C O S T OF PRODUCTION INASMUCH AS THE TRANSPORTATION SUBSIDY , ON TH E RAW I.T.(SS)A.NOS.: 38-40-KOL-2012 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 42-43-KOL-2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 TO 2010-11 & 2006-07 TO 2007-08 PAGE 1 TO 6 4 MATERIALS , WAS NOT MEANT TO COVER ALL TH E R AW MAT E RIALS BUT O NLY T HAT PART O R PORTION OF THE RAW MATERIALS , W HI C H W A S ACTUALL Y R E QUI RED AND USED BY AN INDUSTRIAL UNIT IN ITS MANUFA C TU R ING PROGRAMM E AP PRO V ED BY TH E GOVERNMENT CON C ERNED AND SIMILA R L Y, TH E TRANSP O RT SUBS I D Y , 0 1 1 THE FINISHED GOODS , TOO , HELP IN REDUCTION OF TH E C OST OF MANUF ACT U RI N G OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNIT CONCERNED INASMUCH A S S UBSIDY ON TRANSPOR T ATI O N OF THE FINISHED GOODS WAS PROMISED TO BE GIVEN ON T HE FINISHED G O ODS ACTUALLY PRODUCED BY THE INDUSTRIAL UNIT IN ACCORDA NC E W ITH TH E MANUFACTURING PROGRAMME APPROVED BY TH E GOVERNMENT CON CERNED . THUS, IT WAS TRANSPARENT THAT THER E W A S A DIR EC T NEXUS B E T WEE N TH E TRANSPORT SUBSIDY, ON THE ONE HAND, AND TH E PROFITS EARNED AN D GA IN S. MAD E , BY THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS , ON TH E OTHER : SUCH A D I R ECT N E XUS COULD NOT BE TERMED AS THE FIR S T DEGREE NEXUS BETWEEN T HE TWO , NAMELY, THE TRANSPORT SUBSIDY , ON THE ONE HAND , AND TH E RE S ULTAN T PROFITS AND GAINS ON THE OTHER . ( B ) THE INDUSTRIAL POLICY, 1997, AS E X TENDED BY THE INDU S TR IA L POLICY OF ASSA M , 2003 , PROVID E D FOR POW E R S UB S ID Y TO BE GIV E N TO E L I G IBL E INDUSTRIAL UNIT S FOR A P E RIOD O F 5 YEAR S FRO M TH E D A T E OF C O M M E R C IAL PROD U C TI O N , TH E P OWER S U BS ID Y BEI NG AVAIL ABLE IN THE F ORM OF R E IM B UR SE M E NT OF FULL Y PAID P OWE R BIL LS W ITH C E R TAIN C E I LING . WHEN TH E C OST O F PRODUCTION IS R E DU C ED BY G RANT ING S UB S ID Y ON EL EC T R I C IT Y C HARG E S , IT NECESSARILY H E LPS THE INDU ST RY TO RUN MOR E P R O F ITAB L Y . H E R E AG AIN , A DIR E CT NEXUS B E TWEEN THE POW E R SUBSIDY, ON TH E O N E HAND . A N D THE COST OF PRODUCTION, ON THE OTHER STOOD WELL ESTABLI SHED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROFITS EARNED AND THE GAINS MADE FROM THE INDUSTRI AL UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED WILL AMOUNT TO PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM, OR DERIVED BY, THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED ENTITLING THE ASS ESSEE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OR SECTION 80IC AS THE CASE MAY BE. (C) THE SCHEME OF THE INTEREST SUBSIDY CLEARLY SHOW ED THAT IT REDUCED THE INTEREST PAYABLE ON WORKING CAPITAL ADVANCED TO AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING BY A SCHEDULED BANK OR CENTRAL/STATE FINANCIAL INST ITUTIONS. THE INTEREST SUBSIDY AIMED AT REDUCING THE INTEREST PAYABLE ON W ORKING CAPITAL BY AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING HELPED DIRECTLY IN REDUCING THE COST OF MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES AND ESTABLIS HED THEREBY DIRECT AND THE FIRST DEGREE NEXUS BETWEEN THE INDUSTRIAL ACTIV ITIES OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE INTEREST SUBSIDY, ON THE OTHE R, RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, IN CONSEQUENCE THEREOF, SINCE THE INT EREST SUBSIDY RESULTS INTO PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM OR DERIVED BY, AN IN DUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, THERE IS NO REASON AS TO WHY SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS , EARNED BY AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ON THE STRENGTH OF SUCH A SUBSIDY, NAME LY, INTEREST SUBSIDY, BE NOT ALLOWED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. (D) SO FAR AS THE INSURANCE SUBSIDY WAS CONCERNED, IT WAS UNDER THE CENTRAL COMPREHENSIVE INSURANCE SCHEME, 1997. U NDER THE I.T.(SS)A.NOS.: 38-40-KOL-2012 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 42-43-KOL-2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 TO 2010-11 & 2006-07 TO 2007-08 PAGE 1 TO 6 5 SCHEME, THE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID BY THE ELIGIBLE INDUSTRIAL UNITS, SET UP IN THE NORTH EASTERN REGION, WERE REI MBURSED BY THE NODAL INSURANCE COMPANY. THE INSURANCE SUBSIDY HELPED IN REDUCING THE RUNNING COST OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNIT CO NCERNED ESTABLISHING THEREBY DIRECT AND FIRST DEGREE NEXUS BETWEEN THE INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESEE CONCERNED ON T HE ONE HAND, AND THE SUBSIDY IN THE FORM OF INSURANCE SUBSIDY, O N THE OTHER, RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RESULTANT PROFITS AND GAINS, DERIVED FROM, OR DERIVED BY, AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, BEC AUSE OF THE ILNSURANCE SUBSIDY, HAD TO BE TREATED AS DEDUCTIBLE IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IC AS THE CASE MAY BE. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE ALLOW THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AN D DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 8 0IC TREATING ALL THE SUBSIDIES RECEIVED TO BE PART OF THE BUSINESS PROFI T AND GAINS FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THUS , THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. SO FAR AS THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE CONCERNED, WE NOTED THAT BOTH THE ISSUES INVOLV ED IN THE APPEALS ILN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 19.03.2010 AN 05.04.2010 THROUGH WHICH WE HAVE GONE THROUGH. THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY REFUND IS DULY COVERED BY T HE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- MEGHALAYA STEELS LTD. WHILE THE DECISION ON THE ISSUE OF VAT/SALES TAX REMISSION IS DULY COVERED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- SL. NO. ITA NO. DATE OF ORDER ISSUE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE (I) 46/GAU/2009 19/03/2010 CENTRAL EXCISE REFUND MEGHALAYA STEELS LTD. (II) 202/ GAU/2008 19/03/2010 CENTRAL EXCISE REFUND SATYAM ISPAT LTD. (III) 50/GAU/2009 05/04/2010 CENTRAL EXCISE REFUND AND VAT REMISSION PLAST INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. (IV) 43/GAU/2009 05/04/2010 VAT REMISSION G.L. COKE PVT. LTD. (V) 58/GAU/2009 05/04/2010 V AT REMISSION JBB LIME INDUSTRY 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS TRIB UNAL, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE THEREFORE, WE DISM ISS BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE I.T.(SS)A.NOS.: 38-40-KOL-2012 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 42-43-KOL-2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 TO 2010-11 & 2006-07 TO 2007-08 PAGE 1 TO 6 6 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING OUR ORDER DATED 11.11.201 3, WE DISMISS THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 5. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUN AL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, LD. COUNSEL PLEADED THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS CA SE HAS TO BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE IN THIS REGARD FAIRLY ACCEPTED THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ISSUE IS C OVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE. HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT AS ABOVE, WE D O NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDI NGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE STAND DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND DAY OF APRIL, 2014. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR SINGH SHAMIM YAHYA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACC OUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 2 ND DAY OF APRIL, 2014 COPIES TO : (1) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XIII, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAVAN POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLI, E.M. BYE PASS, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 107 (2) M/S. CEMENT MANUFACTURING CO. LIMITED, FLAT NO. 9B, 1 ST FLOOR, SATYAM TOWER, 3, ALIPORE ROAD, KOLKATA-700 027 (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.