M/s. Vijaypath Management Pvt. Ltd., , Kolkata V. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata , Kolkata

ITSSA 62/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0213 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S M SURANA
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 143(1); 250; 68; 132; 139

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) IT(SS)A NO. 62/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. VIJAYPATH MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD...................................................APPELLANT FLAT 3C TRINITY BUILDING 226/1, AJC BOSE ROAD KOLKATA -700020 [PAN : AAACV 8930 F] VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), KOLKATA.......................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI S.M. SURANA, ADVOCATE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . SHRI A.K. SINGH, CIT, D/R. APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : FEBRUARY 13 TH , 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MARCH 27 TH , 2019 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-21, KOLKATA, (LD. CIT(A)) PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, (THE ACT), DT. 02/07/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 U/S 139 OF THE ACT, DECLARING INCOME OF RS.3,38,474/-, ON 23/09/2010. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON M/S. PATNI GROUP OF CASES ON 08/03/2016. NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN ON 26/10/2016 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.3,50,170/-, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 153A/143(3) OF THE ACT, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,03,50,170/-, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 INTERALIA MAKING ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT, BEING SHARE CAPITAL RECEIVED WITH PREMIUM. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL WITHOUT SUCCESS. 5. FURTHER AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2 IT(SS)A NO. 62/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. VIJAYPATH MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RAISED ONLY ONE ARGUMENT I.E., THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS NOT ABATED, AS THE TIME FOR ISSUAL OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR HAD EXPIRED AND AS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN AN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN AN ASSESSMENT U/S 153A/143(3) OF THE ACT. HE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE STATEMENT OF ONE MR. AKHILESH JAIN AND POINTED OUT THAT HE WAS NOT A DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND HENCE HIS STATEMENT HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY FROM THIRD PARTIES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY DISCLOSURE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. HE RELIED ON A NUMBER OF CASE-LAW INCLUDING DECISIONS OF THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. GRADE TRADERS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN IT(SS)A NO. 58/KOL/2018; ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 & M/S. CONSISTENT VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. IN IT(SS)A NOS. 65 & 66/KOL/2018; ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2013-14 & 2014- 15. 7. THE LD. D/R, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT CERTAIN MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BASED ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH TO POINT OUT THE PARTICULAR MATERIAL BASED ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, THE LD. D/R REFERRED TO THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS AND OTHER STATEMENTS WHICH ARE PART OF THE RECORD IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. HE REFERRED TO PAGE 4 OF THE PANCHANAMA , WHERE AT SERIAL NO. 1 TO 8, WERE REFERENCE WAS MADE TO CERTAIN BUNCH OF LOOSE SHEETS, MISCELLANEOUS PRINTED DOCUMENTS ETC. AND SUBMITTED THAT THESE ARE SEIZED MATERIAL. ON A FURTHER QUERY FROM THE BENCH AS TO WHICH OF THESE MATERIAL WAS THE BASIS ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, THE LD. D/R COULD NOT POINT OUT TO ANY SPECIFIC DOCUMENT. NEVERTHELESS, HE RELIED ON ANNEXURE 2 TO THE PANCHANAMA WHICH IS AT PAGE 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND ARGUED THAT A NUMBER OF BANK ACCOUNTS ARE REFERRED THEREIN WHICH DEMONSTRATE THAT THESE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CIRCULATING UNACCOUNTED MONEY. HE REFERRED TO 3 IT(SS)A NO. 62/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. VIJAYPATH MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD PAGE 79 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT AT THE REVERSE OF PAGE 79 WHICH IS A NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT AND TOOK US THROUGH REVERSE OF ANNEXURE TO THIS NOTICE WHICH IS FROM PAGES 2 TO 12 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF LAYERING. HE ARGUED THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE DEPARTMENT COULD PROVE THE ROUND TRIPPING OF FUNDS AND THAT THE SHARES WERE ULTIMATELY PURCHASED AT LOW PRICES. HE ARGUED THAT IN NONE OF THE CASE-LAW CITED, SUCH PROOF OF THIS ROUND TRIPPING OF FUNDS, ISSUAL OF SHARE CAPITAL AT A PARTICULAR RATE AND THEREAFTER PURCHASING THEM AT A LOWER RATES, IS BROUGHT ON RECORD. HENCE HE ARGUED THAT THE CASE-LAW CITED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT APPLY. HE RELIED ON THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. NDR PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 49/2018, JUDGEMENT DT. 07/01/2019 , FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THOUGH THE PAPER WORK IS EXCELLENT TO CAMOUFLAGE THE BOGUS NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION, THE ADDITION HAS TO BE SUSTAINED. HE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 7.1. IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED HIS CONTENTION THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HE REFERRED TO ANNEXURE TO THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT, DT. 06/12/2017 AND TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH THE SAME, TO DEMONSTRATE HIS POINT THAT, NONE OF THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE BASED ON ANY MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HE RELIED ON A NUMBER OF CASE-LAW FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 153A OF THE ACT, AND THAT STATEMENTS RECORDED ARE NOT INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. 8. 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:- 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PANCHANAMA AND THE ANNEXURE TO THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT DT. 06/12/2017. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT BASE THE ADDITION IN QUESTION NOR THE LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION IN QUESTION ON ANY MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THIS FACT COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. D/R. THOUGHT HE LD. D/R HAS REFERRED TO SEIZURE OF SOME PAPER DURING THE COURSE OF 4 IT(SS)A NO. 62/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. VIJAYPATH MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD SEARCH, HE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY PARTICULAR PAPER OR EVIDENCE WHICH WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH BASED ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE. THIS IS THE SHORT POINT ARGUED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LAW IN THIS REGARD IS CLEAR. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENTS IN QUESTION HAVE NOT ABATED AND THIS FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. D/R. IN SUCH SITUATION, THE LAW IN THIS REGARD IS WELL SETTLED IN THE FOLLOWING CASE-LAW:- (I) CIT, KOLKATA-III VS. VEERPRABHU MARKETING LIMITED [2016] 73 TAXMANN.COM 149 (CALCUTTA): IN THIS CASE THE HONOURABLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT EXPRESSED THE FOLLOWING VIEWS: 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. (II) 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. (III) 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 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. 5 IT(SS)A NO. 62/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. VIJAYPATH MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD 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. 10. THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT APPLIED THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (2016) 380 ITR 573 (DEL) . THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AT PARA 37 & 38 HELD AS FOLLOWS: 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 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 6 IT(SS)A NO. 62/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. VIJAYPATH MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD 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. 38. THE PRESENT APPEALS CONCERN AYS, 2002-03, 2005-06 AND 2006-07.ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH THE SAID ASSESSMENTS ALREADY STOOD COMPLETED. SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH, NO ADDITIONS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INCOME ALREADY ASSESSED. 11. RESPECTFULLY APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASE-LAW TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WE UPHOLD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOLD THAT THE ADDITION IN QUESTION ARE BAD IN LAW AS THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE NOT ABATED AND AS THE ADDITION IN THIS ASSESSMENT IS NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. NDR PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LD. D/R IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. THE CLAIM OF THE LD. D/R, THAT ROUND TRIPPING IS PROVED IS NOT EXAMINED BY US, FOR THE REASON THAT, WE HAVE TO DELETE THE ADDITION AS IT IS NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. OTHER ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES ARE NOT ADJUDICATED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE 27 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019. SD/- SD/- [S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI] [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 27.03.2019 {SC SPS} 7 IT(SS)A NO. 62/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. VIJAYPATH MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. VIJAYPATH MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD FLAT 3C TRINITY BUILDING 226/1, AJC BOSE ROAD KOLKATA -700020 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), KOLKATA 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES