D.C.I.T CC - XXV,kolkata, Kolkata V. Sri Jugal Kajaria (HUF), Howrah

ITSSA 43/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5618 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TIBREWAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Non-deduction of tax; Assessment record; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 40(a)(ia); 143(1); 250; 132

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(SS).A. NO. 43/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 & I.T(SS).A. NO. 44/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXV, KOLKATA...........................APPELLANT VS. SRI JUGAL KAJARIA (HUF).....................................................RESPONDENT DUPLEX NO. 2A VIVINE VALLY LAKE LAND COUNTRY CLUB CAMPUS P/O:- MUNSHIDANGA DIST:- HOWRAH 711 403 [PAN : AAEHJ 5909D] C.O. NO. 65/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 & C.O. NO. 66/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SRI JUGAL KAJARIA (HUF)....................................................APPELLANT DUPLEX NO. 2A VIVINE VALLY LAKE LAND COUNTRY CLUB CAMPUS P/O:- MUNSHIDANGA DIST:- HOWRAH 711 403 [PAN : AAEHJ 5909D] VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXV, KOLKATA..........................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI A.K. TIBREWAL, FCA, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI A.K. SINGH, CIT D/R. , APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : APRIL 10 TH, 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MAY 22 ND , 2019 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- BOTH THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CENTRAL - III, KOLKATA, (HEREINAFTER THE LD.CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE 2 I.T(SS).A. NO. 43/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 I.T(SS).A. NO. 44/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 C.O. NO. 65/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 C.O. NO. 66/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SRI JUGAL KAJARIA (HUF) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 27/12/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN HUF AND IS A PROPRIETOR OF KAJARIA CONSTRUCTIONS. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 16/12/2010 AT THE RESIDENCE OF JUGAL KISHORE (INDIVIDUAL). AT PAGE 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LISTED OUT THE VARIOUS ASSETS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE WHICH IS EXTRACTED FOR READY REFERENCE:- S.I NO PREMISES/NAME ASSETS FOUND & VALUE IN RUPEES ASSETS SEIZED AND VALUE IN RUPEES 1, DUPLEX NO. 2A, VIVINE VALLEY LAKE LAND COUNTRY CLUB CAMPUS POST: MUNSHIDANGA DIST:- HOWRAH 711 403 (W.B.) CASH JEWELLERY OTHERS CASH JEWELLERY OTHERS RS.1,17,650/- RS.3,17,604/- --NIL-- RS.1,17,650/- RS.3,17,604/ - --NIL-- 2.1. A NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 15/06/2010. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED, TO THE ISSUE TO THIS NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT AS NO SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AGAINST THE HUF AND HENCE, NO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT, CAN BE ISSUED TO THE HUF. WE NOTE THAT THIS NOTICE WAS GIVEN ADDRESSED TO JUGAL KAJARIA. FOLLOWING THE OBJECTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON 21/12/2011, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATES THAT HE DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT AD ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT ON THE SAME DATE, REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A RETURN OF INCOME ON 26/12/2011. 2.1.1. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE FOUND AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PARTY I.E., JUGAL KAJARIA (INDIVIDUAL). THIS FACT IS EVIDENT FROM THE REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 9 IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE BOOKS ARE BEING MAINTAINED BY A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT I.E., SHRI SANDEEP NAWALGARIA, IN HIS COMPUTER. SHRI SANDEEP NAWALGARIA, LATER BROUGHT THE PRINTOUT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF KAJARIA CONSTRUCTIONS PROP. JUGAL KAJARIA HUF, FROM HIS COMPUTER IN THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OFFICE AND HANDED OVER THE SAME TO THE DEPARTMENT, AS IS CLEAR FROM REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 12, AND THE REPLY IN THE 3 I.T(SS).A. NO. 43/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 I.T(SS).A. NO. 44/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 C.O. NO. 65/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 C.O. NO. 66/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SRI JUGAL KAJARIA (HUF) STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. THUS, NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AND THE PRINT OUT OF THE BOOKS MAINTAINED ON THE COMPUTER BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WERE REQUISITIONED AND SEIZED AS PART OF THE SEARCH MATERIAL. 2.1.2. IN REPLY TO THE NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/12/2011, WHEREIN THE INCOME RETURNED WAS SAME AS THAT WHICH WAS DECLARED BY IT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ORIGINALLY U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 30/12/2011, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.95,57,126/- INTERALIA MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.67,05,235/- U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE U/S 194I OF THE ACT AND AN ADDITION OF RS.21,79,531/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 2.1.3. SIMILARLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME, IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT, DECLARING THE SAME INCOME AS WAS DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT AT RS.93,44,076/- INTERALIA, MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, OF RS.74,69,406/-, ADDITION OF RS.11,81,770/-FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S 194I OF THE ACT, FOR FAILING TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT TOWARDS HIRE CHARGES PAID. 2.2. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE RAISED A NUMBER OF GROUNDS INCLUDING JURISDICTIONAL GROUND AGAINST THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION FILE U/S 127 OF THE ACT, GROUND AGAINST THE MISTAKE IN THE SPELLING OF NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, GROUND AGAINST NON-RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IN THE FILE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON PRIOR TO ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT AND ALSO THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE BAD IN LAW AS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND OR SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE ABATED. THE LD. 4 I.T(SS).A. NO. 43/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 I.T(SS).A. NO. 44/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 C.O. NO. 65/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 C.O. NO. 66/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SRI JUGAL KAJARIA (HUF) CIT(A), CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT. THEREAFTER HE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT HOLDING AS FOLLOWS:- A) THAT THE CIT(A), DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO EXAMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH. B) THAT HE HAS NO POWERS TO DECIDE ON THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDERS PASSED U/S 127(2) OF THE ACT, TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, RANCHI AND THEREAFTER TO THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, KOLKATA. C) THAT THE MISTAKE IN THE SPELLING OF THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS A CURABLE MISTAKE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS U/S 292 B OF THE ACT. D) THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT, INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE NOT PROCEEDED WITH AND HENCE THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY IN INITIATING OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE ACT. E) THAT EVEN WHEN NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS NOTICE CAN BE ISSUED U/S 153A OR UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, AS HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA [2012] 211 TAXMAN 453. F) THAT THE IMPUGNED NOTICES U/S 153C OF THE ACT, ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ASSESSING SHRI JUGAL KAJARIA HUF, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY WHO WAS THE SEARCHED PERSON AS REQUIRED BY LAW. THE LD. CIT(A) RECORDED A FINDING OF FACT THAT SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED IN THE FILE OF M/S JUGAL KAJARIA HUF, BUT NOT IN THE FILE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON SHRI JUGAL KAJARIA (INDIVIDUAL) AS REQUIRED BY LAW. HENCE, HE CANCELLED THE ASSESSMENTS AS BAD IN LAW. 3. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CONFIDENTIAL FOLDER OF MR. JUGAL KAJARIA,(THE PERSON SEARCHED) AND EXAMINING THE SATISFACTION NOTE KEPT THEREIN. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SATISFACTION NOTE FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE I.T. 5 I.T(SS).A. NO. 43/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 I.T(SS).A. NO. 44/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 C.O. NO. 65/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 C.O. NO. 66/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SRI JUGAL KAJARIA (HUF) ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, CITING THAT THE SATISFACTION NOTE IS TO BE RECORDED IN THE FILE OF THE PERSON SEARCHED AND THE SAME WAS NOT DONE, WHEREAS, THE SATISFACTION NOTE HAS BEEN WRITTEN .BY THE A.O. ON THE PERSON SEARCHED AND KEPT IN THE CONFIDENTIAL FOLDER, WHICH IS OVERLOOKED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3. THAT THE DEPARTMENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ALTER, AMEND AND/OR MODIFY ANY OR ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS-OBJECTION ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10:- 1) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT HE DID NOT HAVE POWERS UNDER SECTION 246A OF THE ACT TO PASS AN ORDER ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH RESULTED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153C OF THE ACT. 2) THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT HE DID NOT HAVE POWERS U/S 246A OF THE ACT TO DECIDE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD THE VALID JURISDICTION TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WHEN THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 127(2) OF THE ACT PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PATNA WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE, ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO. 3) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153C OF THE ACT WERE LEGAL WHEN NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT AND NO PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 4) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.74,69,406 UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF HIRE CHARGES PAID FOR HIRING OF EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENTS ACTUALLY USED BY OTHER PARTIES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194 I OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE TO DEDUCT SUCH TAX AT SOURCE. 5) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11 ,81 ,770 OUT OF HIRE CHARGES ON THE ALLEGED GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT DETAILS OF SUCH HIRE CHARGES ALTHOUGH THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SEC. 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 43(2), KOLKATA AND NEITHER ANY PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH NOR ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND. 6) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATING TO CHARGING OF INTEREST OF RS.8,80,914 UNDER SECTION 2348 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 6 I.T(SS).A. NO. 43/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 I.T(SS).A. NO. 44/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 C.O. NO. 65/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 C.O. NO. 66/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SRI JUGAL KAJARIA (HUF) 4.1. AS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE GROUNDS OF THE CROSS-OBJECTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ARE IDENTICAL, WITH VARIANCE IN FIGURES, THEY ARE NOT EXTRACTED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 5. THE LD. D/R ARGUED THAT IT WAS WRONG ON THE PART OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE REASON THAT, NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT OR THEREAFTER OF THE PERSON SEARCHED I.E., JUGAL KAJARIA (INDIVIDUAL). HE ARGUED THAT SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED AND KEPT IN A CONFIDENTIAL FOLDER OF SHRI JUGAL KAJARIA (INDIVIDUAL), THE PERSON SEARCHED. HE FILED COPIES OF THE SAID SATISFACTION NOTE SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED ON 21/12/2011. THE LD. D/R, SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN ADVERSE INFERENCE SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE IS NO MENTION OF THIS FACT IN THE REMAND REPORT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT, DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND HE SENT THE ENTIRE SET OF ARGUMENTS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS RESPONSE AND ON THE ISSUE OF RECORDING SATISFACTION, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT OR IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT CONTROVERTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE REFERRED TO THE COPY OF THE SAID ALLEGED SATISFACTION NOTE SAID TO HAVE BEEN KEPT IN THE CONFIDENTIAL FOLDER OF SHRI JUGAL KAJARIA AND FILED NOW BEFORE THE BENCH AND TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH THE SAME AND SUBMITTED THAT ON A PLAIN READING OF THIS NOTE TAKES ONE TO A CONCLUSION THAT IT IS NOTHING BUT A CARBON COPY OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE EARLIER GIVEN AS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI JUGAL KAJARIA HUF. THE OPENING LINES OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE WAS REFERRED TO, IN SUPPORT OF THESE ARGUMENTS. HE RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONOURABLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CANYON FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. ITO [2017] 84 TAXMANN.COM 71 (DELHI), FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IDENTICALLY WORDED CARBON COPY SATISFACTION NOTE, DOES NOT SATISFY THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. HE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE FACTS SHOW THAT, NO SATISFACTION WAS EVER RECORDED IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. HE RELIED 7 I.T(SS).A. NO. 43/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 I.T(SS).A. NO. 44/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 C.O. NO. 65/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 C.O. NO. 66/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SRI JUGAL KAJARIA (HUF) ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 24/2015 DT. 31/12/2015, WHICH EXPLAINED THE LAW ON THE ISSUE OF RECORDING SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 158BB AND 153C OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON A NUMBER OF CASE LAW IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS. WE WOULD DEAL WITH THESE CASE-LAW AS AND WHEN NECESSARY. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS:- 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS CONTENTION THAT NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT, WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFACTION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR THEREAFTER OF THE SEARCHED PARTY I.E., JUGAL KAJARIA (INDIVIDUAL). IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE POWER TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT, ARISES ONLY AFTER RECORDING A SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR THEREAFTER IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCHED PARTY AND HANDING OVER THE MATERIAL SEIZED, TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSING THE OTHER PERSON. THIS IS CLEAR FROM THE MANDATE OF CBDT CIRCULAR NUMBER 24/2015 DT. 31/12/2015. THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. ACIT AND ANOTHER, (2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC) HAS EXPLAINED THE LAW ON THE ISSUE. THE LD. D/R, DOES NOT DISPUTE THIS LEGAL POSITION. 8. BEFORE US, COPY OF A NOTE IS FILED AND IT IS CLAIMED THAT THIS IS THE SATISFACTION RECORDED IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCHED PARTY I.E., THE ASSESSEE SHRI JUGAL KAJARIA (INDIVIDUAL). NOWHERE IN IN THE NOTE, THERE IS ANY INDICATION THAT IT WAS DRAWN UP IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, WHO IS, SHRI JUGAL KAJARIA (INDIVIDUAL). IN FACT THE NOTE IS CLEAR THAT IT WAS DRAWN UP IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER A COPY OF THIS NOTE WAS KEPT IN THE FILE OF THE SEARCHED PARTY. THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN PARA 3 ARE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BANK PASSBOOKS, WHICH ARE ALSO PART OF THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ANNUAL ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE NOT INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. THE LAST PARAGRAPH SUGGESTS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE HONOURABLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CANYON FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT IDENTICAL WORDED CARBON 8 I.T(SS).A. NO. 43/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 I.T(SS).A. NO. 44/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 C.O. NO. 65/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 C.O. NO. 66/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SRI JUGAL KAJARIA (HUF) COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE DOES NOT SATISFY THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF SECTION153C OF THE ACT. THE ALLEGED SATISFACTION NOTE THAT IS FILED BEFORE US IS IDENTICALLY WORDED AS THAT OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI JUGAL KAJARIA (HUF). ON THESE FACTS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A):- HOWEVER, ON THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF IMPUGNED NOTICES U/S 153C IN THE CASE OF JUGAL KAJARIA HUF WITH REGARD TO RECORDING OF SATISFACTION I AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A/R THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE ACT WITHOUT JURISDICTION SINCE NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE AO WHILE ASSESSING SRI JUGAL KAJARIA IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THE A/R HAS REFERRED TO PAGES 133, 135 AND 138 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE SATISFACTION NOTE OF THE AO HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE FILE OF JUGAL KAJARIA HUF. THE SATISFACTION WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE FILE OF JUGAL KAJARIA INDIVIDUAL, THE PERSON WHO WAS SEARCHED U/S 132 OF THE ACT. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT WERE SENT TO THE A.O. IN REMAND VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATE 11.07.2012 FOR HIS COMMENTS. IN HIS REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED ON 23.07.2012 VIDE HIS LETTER NO. ACIT/CC/XXV/KOL/2012-13/REPLY/101, THE A.O. DID NOT CONTRADICT THE FACTS STATED BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD. THAT CONFIRMS THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THAT BEING SO, IT STANDS ESTABLISHED THAT THE SATISFACTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153C IN THIS CASE WAS RECORDED IN THE FILE OF THE APPELLANT AND NOT IN THE FILE OF THE PERSON SEARCHED I.E., SRI JUGAL KAJARIA INDIVIDUAL, AS IS REQUIRED BY LAW. 8.1. THUS, WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF FACT BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT SATISFACTION WAS NEVER RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON SHRI JUGAL KAJARIA (INDIVIDUAL). WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTRADICT THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS BOTH THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. 9. WE NOW TAKE UP THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, DID NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 1 & 2. HENCE THEY ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 11. ON GROUND NO. 3, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, RELIED ON A NUMBER OF CASE LAW FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT NO ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE IN AN ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153C R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL 9 I.T(SS).A. NO. 43/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 I.T(SS).A. NO. 44/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 C.O. NO. 65/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 C.O. NO. 66/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SRI JUGAL KAJARIA (HUF) BEING FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE MADE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE ON THE GROUND THAT NO TDS HAS BEEN MADE AND HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, ARE ATTRACTED AND ON THE GROUND THAT PART OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED WITH EVIDENCE. BOTH THESE DISALLOWANCES ARE NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSMENTS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR HAVE NOT ABATED 11.1. WE FIND THAT THE VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE HELD AS FOLLOWS:- CIT,KOLKATA-III VS. VEERPRABHU MARKETING LIMITED [2016] 73 TAXMANN.COM 149 (CALCUTTA) : WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEWS OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THAT INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS A PRE-REQUISITE BEFORE POWER COULD HAVE BEEN EXERCISED UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCES OF THE EXPENDITURE, WHICH WERE ALREADY DISCLOSED, FOR ONE REASON OR THE OTHER. BUT SUCH DISALLOWANCES WERE NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A. THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) BUT THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL DELETED THOSE DISALLOWANCES. PCIT-2, KOLKATA VS. SALASAR STOCK BROKING LIMITED (ITAT NO. 264 OF 2016) DATED 24.08.2016 : (CALCUTTA) IN THIS CASE, THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT THE LD. ITAT, KOLKATA WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION U/S 153A OF THE I.T. ACT TO REOPEN THE CONCLUDED CASES WHEN THE SEARCH & SEIZURE DID NOT DISCLOSE ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. IN TAKING THE AFORESAID VIEW, THE LD. ITAT RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENTS OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT(A) VS. KABUL CHAWLA IN ITA NO. 707/2014 DATED 28.08.2014 . THE COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT MORE OR LESS AN IDENTICAL VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THIS BENCH IN ITA NO. 661/2008 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VEERPRABHU MARKETING LIMITED. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT DID NOT ADMIT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 10 I.T(SS).A. NO. 43/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 I.T(SS).A. NO. 44/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 C.O. NO. 65/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 C.O. NO. 66/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SRI JUGAL KAJARIA (HUF) THE A BENCH OF THE DELHI ITAT, IN THE CASE OF ANURAG DALMIA VS. DCIT IN ITA NOS. 5395 & 5396/DEL/2017; ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08, DT. 15/02/2018, UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AND THE FINDING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITH RESPECT TO LEGAL ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO.5 BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THIS YEAR ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/S.153A, AS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR; AND THE ASSESSMENT HAD ATTAINED FINALITY AND WAS NOT ABATED IN TERMS OF 2ND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A. AS STATED ABOVE, THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED IN JULY, 2006 AND SAID RETURN WAS DULY ACCEPTED AND PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) VIDE INTIMATION DATED 25.05.2007. SINCE NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED THEREAFTER OR ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN COMMENCED TO DISTURB SAID RETURN OF INCOME, ACCORDINGLY, IT HAD ATTAINED FINALITY MUCH PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH WHICH WAS ON 20.01.2012. HENCE IN TERMS OF 2ND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WAS NOT PENDING AND ACCORDINGLY, HAS TO BE RECKONED AS UNABATED ASSESSMENT. UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT IN CASE OF UNABATED ASSESSMENT, THE ADDITIONS WHICH CAN BE ROPED-IN, IN THE ASSESSMENTS FRAMED U/S.153A, WOULD ONLY BE WITH REGARD TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE UNEARTHED OR FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IF NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THEN NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHERE ASSESSMENTS HAD ATTAINED FINALITY. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN WOULD BE DISCUSSED IN THE LATER PART OF THIS ORDER. 15. NOW COMING TO THE RATIOS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, FIRST OF ALL, IN THE CASE OF KABUL CHAWALA (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE COURT AFTER DISCUSSING THE ISSUE THREADBARE AND ANALYSING THE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING LEGAL PROPOSITION IN TERMS OF SCOPE OF ADDITION WHICH CAN BE MADE U/S. 153A(1) WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 37. ON A CONSPECTUS OF SECTION 153A (1) OF THE ACT, READ WITH THE PROVISOS THERETO, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW EXPLAINED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISIONS, THE LEGAL POSITION THAT EMERGES IS AS UNDER: I. ONCE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 A (1) WILL HAVE TO BE MANDATORILY ISSUED TO THE PERSON SEARCHED REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURNS FOR SIX AYS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. II. ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS PENDING ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH SHALL ABATE. THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SUCH AYS WILL HAVE TO BE COMPUTED BY THE AOS AS A FRESH EXERCISE. III. THE AO WILL EXERCISE NORMAL ASSESSMENT POWERS IN RESPECT OF THE SIX YEARS PREVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT AY IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. THE AO HAS THE POWER TO ASSESS AND REASSESS THE 'TOTAL INCOME' OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SIX YEARS IN SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EACH OF THE SIX YEARS. IN OTHER WORDS THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE 11 I.T(SS).A. NO. 43/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 I.T(SS).A. NO. 44/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 C.O. NO. 65/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 C.O. NO. 66/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SRI JUGAL KAJARIA (HUF) ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX AYS 'IN WHICH BOTH THE DISCLOSED AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX'. IV. ALTHOUGH SECTION 153 A DOES NOT SAY THAT ADDITIONS SHOULD BE STRICTLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, OR OTHER POST-SEARCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO WHICH CAN BE RELATED TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT 'CAN BE ARBITRARY OR MADE WITHOUT ANY RELEVANCE OR NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL. OBVIOUSLY AN ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL.' V. IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE ABATED ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE. THE WORD 'ASSESS' IN SECTION 153 A IS RELATABLE TO ABATED PROCEEDINGS (I.E. THOSE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH) AND THE WORD 'REASSESS' TO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. VI. INSOFAR AS PENDING ASSESSMENTS ARE CONCERNED, THE JURISDICTION TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A MERGES INTO ONE. ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE SEPARATELY FOR EACH AY ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SEARCH AND ANY OTHER MATERIAL EXISTING OR BROUGHT ON THE RECORD OF THE AO. VII. COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153 A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN SEVERAL JUDGMENTS NOT ONLY BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT BUT ALSO BY OTHER HON'BLE HIGH COURT LIKE, PR. CIT VS. SOMAYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 387 ITR 529 (GUJ), CIT VS. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD. 385 ITR 346 (KAR) AND CIT VS. GURINDER SINGH BAWA REPORTED IN 386 ITR 483. IN THE LATEST JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN PR. CIT VS. MEETA GUTGUTIA , THEIR LORDSHIPS REITERATED THE SAME PRINCIPLE AFTER DISCUSSING AND ANALYZING CATENA OF DECISIONS INCLUDING THAT OF ANIL KUMAR BHATIA (SUPRA) AND DAYAWANTI GUPTA. THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURT OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER:- 62. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 V. DEVANGI ALIAS RUPA {SUPRA), ANOTHER BENCH OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT REITERATED THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION FOLLOWING ITS EARLIER DECISION IN PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. {SUPRA) AND OF THIS COURT IN KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA). AS FAR AS KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IS CONCERNED, IT HAS IN CIT V. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK P. LTD. {SUPRA) FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT THERE HAD TO BE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL QUA EACH OF THE AYS IN WHICH ADDITIONS WERE SOUGHT TO BE MADE PURSUANT TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION. THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN CIT-2 V. SALASAR STOCK BROKING LTD. {SUPRA), TOO, FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA). IN CIT V. GURINDER SINGH BAWA {SUPRA), THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT: 6...ONCE AN ASSESSMENT HAS ATTAINED FINALITY FOR A PARTICULAR YEAR, I.E., IT IS NOT PENDING THEN THE SAME CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO TAX IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THIS OF COURSE WOULD NOT APPLY IF INCRIMINATING MATERIALS ARE GATHERED IN THE 12 I.T(SS).A. NO. 43/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 I.T(SS).A. NO. 44/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 C.O. NO. 65/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 C.O. NO. 66/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SRI JUGAL KAJARIA (HUF) COURSE OF SEARCH OR DURING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WHICH ARE CONTRARY TO AND/OR NOT DISCLOSED DURING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 63. EVEN THIS COURT HAS IN CIT V MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA {SUPRA) AND THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 V. RAM AVTAR VERMA {SUPRA) FOLLOWED THE DECISION IN KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA). THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. KURELE PAPER MILLS P. LTD. {SUPRA) WHICH WAS REFERRED TO IN KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT BY THE DISMISSAL OF THE REVENUE'S SLP ON 7 TH DECEMBER, 2015. 12. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THESE CASE-LAW TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND, WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES IN QUESTION ARE BAD IN LAW AS THEY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS THE ASSESSMENTS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR HAVE NOT ABATED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 13. AS WE HAVE ALLOWED THIS GROUND OF CROSS-OBJECTION, WE DO NOT GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE DISALLOWANCE AS IT WOULD BE AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE. 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND THE CROSS- OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED IN PART. KOLKATA, THE 22 ND DAY OF MAY, 2019. SD/- SD/- [S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI] [J. SUDHAKAR REDDY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 22.05.2019 {SC SPS} 13 I.T(SS).A. NO. 43/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 I.T(SS).A. NO. 44/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 C.O. NO. 65/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 C.O. NO. 66/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SRI JUGAL KAJARIA (HUF) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SRI JUGAL KAJARIA (HUF) DUPLEX NO. 2A VIVINE VALLY LAKE LAND COUNTRY CLUB CAMPUS P/O:- MUNSHIDANGA DIST:- HOWRAH 711 403 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXV, KOLKATA 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES