Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
M/S. Banktesh Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., , ... vs Acit, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata on 24 April, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B", BENCH
KOLKATA
BEFORE Shri A.T. Varkey, JM & Dr.A.L.Saini, AM
IT(SS) No. 142/Kol/2018
(A.Y: 2010-11)
M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd Vs. ACIT, C.C-3(2), Kolkata
PAN: AABCB2052M
(अपीलाथ /Assessee) .. ( थ / Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Adv. ld.AR
Department by : Shri A.K. Singh, CIT, ld.DR
सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 07-03-2019
घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/04/2019
आदे श / O R D E R
Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:
The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2010-11, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata, in Appeal No. 10851/DCIT,CC-3(2)/CIT(A)-21/KOL/2017- 18, dated 02-11-2018, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 153A/143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act'), dated 31- 12-2017.
2. Although, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11, contains a multiple ground of appeals. However, at the time of hearing we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the assessee. Most of the grounds raised by the assessee are either academic in nature or contentious in nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of the assessee. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the assessee as follows:
1IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd
(i). Ground Nos. 1 to 8 raised by the assessee are interlinked and common, which relate to addition made by assessing officer of Rs.50 lakhs under section 68 of the Act, whereas no proceedings were pending before the assessing officer on the date of search and no incrementing material was found/unearthed by the search team
(ii). Ground No.9 relates to the commission charged @ .5% on (such share application money of Rs.50 lakhs), transaction at Rs.25,000/- u/s.69C of the Act.
3. Now, we shall take summarize and concise ground raised by the assessee, which reads as follows:
(i). Ground Nos. 1 to 8 raised by the assessee are interlinked and common, which relate to addition made by assessing officer of Rs.50 lakhs under section 68 of the Act, whereas no proceedings were pending before the assessing officer on the date of search and no incrementing material was found/unearthed by the search team.
4. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The assessee is a Limited company engaged in textile business. It is one of the group companies of Banktesh Group. The original return of income u/s. 139 of the Act was submitted by the assessee company on 12.10.2010, declaring total income of Rs.5,98,546/-. Return of income of the assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 14.04.2011, on a total income of Rs.5,98,550/-. A search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Banktesh Group on 29.05.2012 and the assessee company was covered in the search warrant. Consequent upon the said search operation, assessment u/s 153A r/w.s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30.03.2015 and no adverse inference was drawn in the said assessment order regarding the share capital raised during the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2010-11. Thereafter, again on 02.03.2016, a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Banktesh Group and the assessee company's name was covered in the search warrant. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that no incriminating material was 2 IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd found and seized during the said search operation conducted on 02.03.2016. Pursuant to the search operation, a notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 and in response, the assessee filed the Return of Income on 10.12.2016, declaring a total income of Rs. 5,98,550/-. Thereafter, an assessment u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act was completed on 31.12.2017 assessing the total income at Rs. 56,23,550/-. In the Assessment Order, the Ld ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata (AO) made addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of share capital, to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The assessing officer also made addition u/s 69C of the Act of alleged expenditure on commission paid to the tune of Rs.25,000/- on account of raising the share capital.
5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid additions made by the Ld AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld CIT(A)-21, Kolkata. During the appellate proceeding before the Ld CIT(A), an exhaustive submission was filed by the assessee along with supporting details and documents in support of each claim stating the following:
(a) On the basis of the search conducted on 29.05.2012, the assessee's assessment stood completed U/s 153A/ 143(3) of the Act, on 30.03.2015.
(b) Again, during the course of second search operation conducted on 02.03.2016, no documents pertaining to the assessee was found and/or seized, let alone the fact as to whether they were incriminating or not. Therefore, in absence of any incriminating material being found in connection to the assessee, the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- in garb of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, made by the ld AO in the impugned assessment order is wholly untenable in law and on facts of the case.
(c) It was also specifically submitted by the assessee that in absence of any incriminating material or document found during the course of search, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions/disallowances in the assessments u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act for the unabated years, that is, assessments were completed before the date of search. Based on these submissions, the assessee prayed before the ld CIT(A) that additions made by assessing officer should be deleted.3
IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd However, ld CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee and upheld the additions made by the Ld AO u/s 68 and 69C of the Act by stating that the assessee had raised objections only on technical grounds, that is, the additions were not based on incriminating materials.
6. Aggrieved by the order of ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
7. Before us, ld Counsel for the assessee begins by pointing out that during both the search operations conducted in the case of Banktesh Group, no document or incriminating material was found or seized pertaining to the assessee company. The assessee's assessment under section 143(3) of the Act also stood completed for the relevant assessment year and in absence of any incriminating material, found/ unearthed during the course of search u/s 132 of the Act, the ld AO had no jurisdiction to make such additions. The incriminating material is the sine qua non for making addition u/s l53A of the Act, which is absent in the assessee`s case under consideration. Therefore, according to the well settled principles of law, that is, in absence of any incriminating material, making additions to the assessee's income already assessed u/s 143(3)/153A/ 143(1) of the Act for unabated years, is not only without jurisdiction but also erroneous. Therefore, addition made by AO under section 68 of the Act, to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- is not sustainable in law and may be deleted.
8. On the other hand, ld DR for the Revenue, furnished before the Bench, a copy of written submissions and paper book. The written submissions of ld DR is reproduced below:
1.The assessee is a limited company engaged in textile business. It is one of the group companies of Banktesh Group.
2.A search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Banktesh Group on 29/05/2012 and the assessee company was covered in the search warrant.
3.Thereafter again on 02/03/2016 a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Banktesh Group and the assessee company's name was covered in the search warrant.4
IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd
4.Pursuant to the search operation a notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 and in response the assessee filed the Return of Income on 10/12/2016 declaring a total income of Rs.5,98,550/-
5.Assessment u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act was completed on 31/12/2017 assessing the total income at Rs. 56,23,550/- and raised consequential demand of Rs. 28,25,940/-. In the assessment order the ld. ACIT, Central Circle--3(2), Kolkata (A.O.) made the following additions to the assessee's income.
a. Addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of share capital- Rs. 50,00,000/- b. Addition of alleged expenditure on commission paid - Rs. 25,000/- For raising the share capital u/s 69C.
Total Rs. 50,25,000/-
6) Mr. Keshav Kumar Bubna, the Director of the assessee company (BSL) and is the prima donna of the Bubna Group. He had admitted on oath that the assessee company was not having any business, earlier they were into textiles. (7)Company had issued shares (F.V.10+30 Premium) to two shares subscribing companies (SSCO), thus the premium of Rs. 30 is not based on commercial expediency, in which no prudent person/ company would invest.
As on 31/03/2010 Banktesh Synthetic limited, the assessee co. had allotted shares to two (2) share subscribing companies with face value of Rs. 10 with Premium of Rs. 30 total Rs 40 each per share.
It is against the human probability that anyone will invest and Pay Rs 10/- along with share premium of Rs. 30/- per share without having any future prospect of the earning by the company. It would be pertinent that assessee company BSL had discontinued its earlier business as mentioned by the director of assessee company Mr. Keshav Kumar Bubna (KKB), The current directors haven't been able to justify, why the shares were priced at high premium of Rs. 30/- per share, without corresponding valuation of the company, which was already experiencing down turn in business prospect. In the normal circumstances it is not possible until unless all the two (2) companies are being controlled remotely by one person. All the circumstances manifests that these are all paper companies not having sufficient worth and created for providing entries of share application money or share capital or loans by way of accommodation entries.
(8) The accommodation entry provider (AEP) Mr. Bhagwan Das Agarwal in multiple statement recorded u/s 131, 133(1), 132(4) and 132(3) read with 132(4). On 5 IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd 10/012014 has replied to question no.8, "Please state the name of companies managed / operated by you and also state who are the directors in these companies" :
Ans: as far as my knowledge is concerned, I am having control of few companies, such as West Well Tie up Pvt. Ltd, Well Plan Tie up Pvt. Ltd, Malinath Tradecon Pvt. Ltd, And also names Shantanu Bose (DIN 01116428), Dinesh Kumar Patwari (DIN 00511386), Loknath Sen (DIN 01363525).
9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, we note that the original return of income under section 139 (1) of the Act was submitted by the assessee company on 12.10.2010. The said Return of income of the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 14.04.2011.
Before us, the assessee is in appeal for assessment year 2010-11, which was completed on 14.04.2011.
We note that after completion of original assessment dated 14.04.2011, for A.Y.2010- 11, a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Banktesh Group on 29.05.2012 (first search) and the assessee company was covered in the search warrant, therefore, A.Y.2010-11 is an unabated assessment. Consequent upon the said search operation, assessment u/s 153A r/w 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30.03.2015 and no adverse inference was drawn in the said assessment order regarding the share capital raised during the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2010-11.
Thereafter, again on 02.03.2016, a search and seizure operation (second search) was conducted in the case of Banktesh Group and the assessee company's name was covered in the search warrant. Pursuant to the search operation, a notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 and in response, the assessee filed the Return of Income on 10.12.2016, declaring a total income of Rs. 5,98,550/-. Thereafter, an assessment u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act was completed on 31.12.2017 assessing the total income at Rs. 56,23,550/-. In the Assessment Order, the Ld ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata (AO) made addition u/s 68 of the Act on account of share capital, to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/-.
6IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd We note that on the basis of the search conducted on 29.05.2012, the assessee's assessment stood completed u/s 153A/ 143(3) of the Act, on 30.03.2015. We note that again, during the course of second search operation conducted on 02.03.2016, no documents pertaining to the assessee was found and/or seized, that is, there were no any incriminating material found or unearthed during the search. Therefore, in absence of any incriminating material being found in connection to the assessee, the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- in garb of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, made by the ld AO in the impugned assessment order is wholly untenable in law and on facts of the case. Thus, we note that in absence of any incriminating material or document found during the course of search, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions/disallowances in the assessments u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act for the unabated assessment years.
10. Based on the factual position narrated in para No.9 of this order, now we shall proceed to examine the judicial precedents applicable to the facts of the assesssee. We note that section 153A of the Act is titled "Assessment in case of search or requisition". It is connected to section 132 which deals with 'search and seizure'. Both these provisions, therefore, have to be read together. Section 153A is indeed an extremely potent power which enables the Revenue to re-open at least six years of assessments earlier to the year of search. It is not to be exercised lightly. It is only if during the course of search under section 132 incriminating material justifying the re- opening of the assessments for six previous years is found that the invocation of Section 153A qua each of the assessment year`s would be justified We note that assessee's case under consideration squarely covered under the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT, Central IT, New Delhi vs Meeta Gutgutia reported in (2018) 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC) wherein it was held as follows:
"I. Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure (General principles) Assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 and 2004-05 - High Court in impugned order held that invocation of section 153A to re-open concluded assessments of assessment years earlier to year of search was not justified in absence of incriminating material found during search qua each such earlier assessment year 7 IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd
- Whether SLP against said decision was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 2] [In favour of assesse] II. Section 69 read with sections 132 and 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investment (Franchise fees) - Assessment years 2001-02 to 2004-05 - During course of search, assessee made a disclosure on account of change in method of accounting of franchise fee and undisclosed franchise fees for relevant year - On basis of said statement, Assessing Officer opined that number of outlets for which franchise fee was received had more or less remained same in all assessment years from 2001-02 to 2006-07 and estimated undisclosed income at a certain percentage of amount of disclosure made by assessee in her statement under section 132(4) - High Court in impugned order held that since no incriminating material was unearthed to show that there was failure by assessee to disclose franchise income, addition made by Assessing Officer was unjustified - Whether SLP against said decision was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 2[ [In favour of assesse]. "
We note that it is by now well settled that in absence of any incriminating material or document found in the course of search, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions/disallowances in the assessment u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act of the years for which assessments did not abate. It is submitted by ld counsel before us that the earlier assessment of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11, was earlier made u/s 143(3)/153A of the Act. As such assessment for that year did not abate. The Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Kolkata carried out search operations under Section 132 on the Bankatesh Group on 01.03.2016. In the course of search documents bearing identification mark BC/l to BC/6, BUL/1 to BUL/5 and AB/l were seized and impounded by the Investigating Authorities. From the said statement it shall be observed that none of documents seized by the Investigating Authorities pertained to the assessee, that is, there were no incriminating material. From the details placed on record it is crystal clear that no documents belonging to or relating to the assessee was either seized or impounded in the course of search. In the circumstances when there was no material incriminating or not in connection with the assessee, the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- made in the impugned assessment was wholly untenable and deserves to be deleted.
8IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd
11. We note from perusal of the notice u/s 142(1) as well as the subsequent replies furnished by the assessee, it shall be noted that no incriminating document or paper was found by the Department in the course of search in relation to the unabated income-tax assessment of A.Y. 2010-11 of the assessee; particularly nothing incriminating whatsoever was found in the course of search in relation to the investments held by the assessee. In fact, no material whatsoever impounded in the course of search which even remotely related to the assessee. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned addition made in the absence of any incriminating material found in the course of search was wholly unsustainable and deserves to be deleted.
Our view is fortified by the following judgments, wherein similar issue has been decided by holding that in case of unabated assessments, without incrementing material addition should not be made. That is, following judgments of the various judicial forums wherein it has been time and again held that where no incriminating material is found in the course of search pertaining to the assessee then it is not permissible to make addition:
CIT vsVeerprabhu Marketing Ltd [73 taxmann.com 149] (Cal HC) CIT vs Kabul Chawla reported in [380 ITR 573]( Delhi HC) Jai Steel (India) Vs ACIT [259 CTR 281] (Raj HC) ChetandasLakshmandas [254 CITR 392] (Del HC) CIT Vs Continental Warehousing Corpn [58 taxmann.com 78] All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd Vs DCIT [18 ITR (Trib) 106] (Mum ITAT) LMJ International Ltd Vs DCIT [119 IT] 214] (Kol ITAT) ACIT VsPratibha Industries [141 ITD 151] (Mum ITAT) DCIT Vs Merlin Project Ltd [ITA No. 381 of 2011] (Kol ITAT) 9 IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd ACIT VsBudhiya Marketing Ltd [ITA No. 1545 of 2012] (Kol ITAT) BiswanathGarodia vs DCIT (76 taxmann.com 81) (Kol ITAT)
11. On similar facts, we also rely on the judgment of the coordinate Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Mridul Commodities Pvt Ltd Vs Dy.CIT [IT(SS) No. 14 & 15/KoI/2015] dated 07.10.2016, which was also cited by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. In this case there was a search operation u/s 132 on the assessee company. Thereafter notices u/s 153A were issued inter alia including for AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09, whose assessments had not abated on the date of search. In the assessments framed u/s 143(3)/153A for A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09, the AO made additions u/s 68 with regard to share capital raised by the assessee in those respective years. The AO observed that the assessee had inflated expenses by making bogus payments and these unaccounted monies were thereafter routed back into the company in form of share application monies. On appeal, the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment framed u/s 153A in absence of any incriminating material found in the course of search. The CIT(A) remanded the matter to the AO and required him to clarify as to whether the addition was made with reference to any incriminating material. After perusing the remand report, the CIT(A) observed that although no direct evidences were found in the course of search but the fact that evidences were found that assessee had inflated expenses could be treated as indirect evidences with regard to addition made on account of share application monies. The CIT(A) therefore rejected the appeal of the assessee. On further appeal however the ITAT observed that the original returns for AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09 were processed u/s 143(1) and that the time limit for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) had expired and therefore since the assessments for these years did not abate, the AO could have framed assessment and made addition only if any incriminating material found in the course of search. Having regard to the facts and the remand report, the ITAT deleted the additions made towards share application monies in AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10, which were 10 IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd unabated/ concluded assessments, on the date of search, in the absence of any incriminating material found in the course of search.
For the reasons set out in the foregoing and in view of the above cited judgments, we note that apart from the fact that the assessee was not even a person searched u/s 132 of the Act, since no incriminating material whatsoever was found or seized from the assessee's premises or the Bankatesh Group in the course of search operations which would have any bearing or relation to the income-tax assessment for the relevant assessment year 2010-11, hence no addition should be made.
12. We note that without prejudice to the above and on the merits as well, the ld counsel for the assessee submits that the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was unsustainable on facts and in law. During the year under consideration the assessee had received share application from 2 applicants, On reference to the assessment records of the proceedings u/s 143(3), it would be noted that in compliance to the AO's requisition, the A/R of the assessee had furnished various documentary evidences substantiating the share application monies paid by the respective share applicants. The documents so furnished inter alia included copies of share application forms, letters of allotment, copies of the relevant bank statements in respect of accounts from which share application monies were paid, PAN and address of the share subscribers for the year ended 31st March 2010. The documents furnished before the AO substantiated that each of the share applicant company was regularly assessed to tax and the payments towards share application monies was made through their respective bank accounts. These documentary evidences proved the identity of the share applicants, the genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of transaction with each share applicant. In the circumstances the impugned addition made by the AO was wholly untenable and deserves to be deleted.
13. We note that assessee`s issue under consideration is also covered by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of M/s Garg brothers Pvt Ld & others, in ITA No. 2519, 2520 & 2521/Kol/2017, for A.Y.2009-10, order dated 11 IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd 18.04.2018, wherein a search and seizure operation under the provisions of section 132(1) of the Act was conducted on Banktesh Group on 29.05.2012 and subsequent dates. The assessee is part of the Banktesh Group. On similar facts, the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata, quashed the order of Pr.CIT under section 263 of the Act. The detailed findings of the coordinate Bench are given below:
"51. We note that on 02.03.2016 another search and seizure operation was conducted on assessee (hereinafter termed as "second search"). Thereafter, impugned action of Pr. CIT started by issuance of a show-cause notice dated 04/09.11.2016 calling upon the assessee as to why the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 30.03.2015 u/s 153A/143(3) should not be interfered by invoking his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. According to the ld. Principal CIT, the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 30.03.2015 (which is the assessment framed u/s 153A/143(3) as a fallout of first search) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue because the Assessing Officer has not conducted proper investigation in respect of share capital and premium to the tune of Rs.10.40 crores. In the SCN the ld. Principal CIT, has mentioned about certain statement recorded by the Investigation Wing during search and seizure dated 02.03.2016 (second search) wherein the statement of certain purported entry operators were recorded against the assessee company in respect of the share capital introduced in the assessment year under consideration. Based on the aforesaid reasoning, the ld Principal CIT found fault with the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 153A/143(3) passed on 30.03.2015. The assessee company has challenged in the first place, the very usurpation of jurisdiction by ld. Principal CIT to invoke his revisional powers enjoyed u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, first we have to see whether the requisite jurisdiction necessary to assume revisional jurisdiction is there existing before the Pr. CIT to exercise his power. For that, we have to examine as to whether in the first place the order of the Assessing Officer found fault by the Principal CIT is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. For that, let us take the guidance of judicial precedence laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC) wherein their Lordship have held that twin conditions needs to be satisfied before exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the CIT. The twin conditions are that the order of the Assessing Officer must be erroneous and so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the following circumstances, the order of the AO can be held to be erroneous order, that is (i) if the Assessing Officer's order was passed on incorrect assumption of fact; or (ii) incorrect application of law; or (iii)Assessing Officer's order is in violation of the principle of natural justice; or
(iv) if the order is passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind; (v) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him; then the order passed by the Assessing Officer can be termed as erroneous order. Coming next to the second limb, which is required to be examined as to whether the actions of the AO can be termed as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. When this aspect is examined one has to understand what is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries (supra) held that this phrase i.e. "prejudicial 12 IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd to the interest of the revenue'' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Their Lordship held that it has to be remembered that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. When the Assessing Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss to the revenue, or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue "unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law".
52. Taking note of the aforesaid dictum of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, let us examine whether the Assessing Officer passed order u/s 153A/143(3) dated 30.03.2015 (assessment framed after first search) is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Undisputedly, the assessment year under question i.e. Assessment Year 2009-10 which was not pending before the Assessing Officer on the date of search on 29.05.2012 (first search), therefore, the assessment which is not pending before the Assessing Officer is an unabated proceeding and the Assessing Officer is empowered to make any addition only based on incriminating materials found/unearthed during search. This is a settled position of law and is no longer res integra. The following judgments are given in support of the above proposition of law:-
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla (supra) has laid down the law which spells out the power of the AO while exercising power u/s 153A after search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted by the Revenue. The same is reproduced as under:
"Summary of legal position
37.On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with provisions 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 re-assessments 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 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". 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 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."
13IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd
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 the AO.
vii.Completed assessment can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.
53. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd though in the context of section 153 of the Act has held as under:
"We agree with the view expressed by the Delhi High Court that incriminating material is pre-requisite before power could have been exercise u/s 153(C) R.W. Section 153(A). In the case before us, the AO has made a disallowance of the expenditure, which was held disclosed, for one reason or the order, but such disallowances made by the AO were upheld by the L.D.CIT (A) but the Ld. Tribunal deleted these disallowance. We find no infirmity in the aforesaid Act of the Ld. Tribunal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.
54. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society 397 ITR 344 in the context of section 153 of the Act has held as under:
"18) In this behalf, it was noted by the ITAT that as per the provisions of Section 153C of the Act, incriminating material which was seized had to pertain to the Assessment Years in question and it is an undisputed fact that the documents which were seized did not establish any co-relation, document-wise, with these four Assessment Years. Since this requirement under Section 153C of the Act is essential for assessment under that provision, it becomes a jurisdictional fact. We find this reasoning to be logical and valid, having regard to the provisions of Section 153C of the Act. Para 9 of the order of the ITAT reveals that the ITAT had scanned through the Satisfaction Note and the material which was disclosed therein was culled out and it showed that the same belongs to Assessment Year 2004-05 or thereafter. After taking note of the material in para 9 of the order, the position that emerges therefrom is discussed in para 10. It was specifically recorded that the counsel for the Department could not point out to the contrary.
It is for this reason the High Court has also given its imprimatur to the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal. That apart, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, argued that notice in respect of Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001- 02 was even time barred."
Support, is also drawn from the following judgments:
i) BiswanathGarodiaVs.DCIT (2016) 76 taxmann.com81
ii) CIT Vs.ContinentalWarehousinhg (NhavaSheva) Ltd (2015 374 ITR 645).
14 IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd iii) Jai Steel (India) Jodhpur Vs. ACIT (2013) 259 CTR 281 iv) CIT Vs.Deepak Kumar Aggarwal (2017) 398 ITR 586 v) Principal CIT Vs.DipakJashvantalaPanchal (2017) 397 ITR 253. vi) Principal VIT vs.Lalit Jain (2017) 384 ITR 543 vii) Pr.CIT vs. Dvangi Alias Rupa (2017 394 ITR 184 viii) Chintels India Ltd Vs. DCIT (2017) 397 ITR 416 ix) Smt. Anjli Pandit Vs. ACIT (2017) 157 DTR (Mum) (Tri.) 17 x) Pr.CITVs.MeetaGutgutia (2016)395 ITR 526.
55. In view of the aforesaid ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions cited above, since assessment for Assessment Year 2009-10 was not pending before the Assessing Officer on the date of search i.e. on 29.05.2012 (first search), no addition can be made by the Assessing Officer without the aid of incriminating material unearthed during the search conducted on 29.05.2012. Therefore, we have to examine whether there was any incriminating materials unearthed by the Department during search conducted on 29.05.2012 (first search). We have gone through the assessment order of Assessing Officer in all the counts before us and we find that the Assessing Officer has not made a whisper of any incriminating material which has been unearthed/seized during first search on 29.05.2012. The Assessing Officer having no incriminating materials unearthed during the search on 29.05.2012 against the assessee company, did not make any additions (with the aid of any incriminating material) against the assessees before us for Assessment Year 2009-10.
56. We are aware of the fact that the Assessing Officer's role while framing an assessment is not only an adjudicator. The AO has a dual role to dispense with i.e. he is an investigator as well as an adjudicator; therefore, if he fails in any one of the role as afore-stated, his order will be termed as erroneous. We note that in this case since there was no incriminating material unearthed during the first search, the Assessing Officer has not made any additions in his assessment order dated 30.03.2015 based on incriminating material since there was none unearthed. We take note that it is not the case of ld. Principal CIT that AO failed to made any additions/disallowances based on incriminating material seized/unearthed during search. On this finding of fact by us, we cannot term the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 153A/143(3) dated 30.03.2015 as erroneous.
57. However, we note that the ld. Principal CIT while invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, has taken note of the second search which happened on 02.03.2016 and has referred to the investigation carried out by the investigation wing after the second search on 02.03.2016. In this context, it would be appropriate to reproduce the again the show-cause notice issued by the Principal CIT which is as under:
15IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd OFFICE OF THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, KOLKATA - 2 Aayakar Bhawa Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E M Bye Pass, Kolkata - 700 107. F.No. Pr.CIT/Central II/KOL/263/2016-17/6186 Dated: 04/11/2016 To The Principal Officer, M/s. Cliff Trexim (P) Ltd.
57, Burtolla Street, Kolkata - 700 007.
Sir, Sub: Show Cause Notice u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the case of M/s. Cliff Trexim (P) Ltd..., (PAN-AABCC0961E) for the A.Y 2009-10.
Please refer to the above.
"Assessment for the A.Y 2009-10 u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. which is a part of Banktesh Group was completed on 30.03.2015 by the DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata.
On analysis of assessment records, it is observed that in the year under consideration, the assessee raised share capital and premium to the tune of Rs.10.40 crore. During the assessment proceeding, the assessee furnished the list of investors who subscribed in shares of the assessee company. The assessee furnished the supporting documents regarding share transactions of investor companies. But no detailed investigation was carried out at the time of assessment regarding genuineness of introduction of share capital.
Meanwhile a search operation against Banktesh group was once again conducted on 02.03.2016 by DDIT(lnv.), Unit 2(2),Kol. During the course of search & post search investigation it was found that accommodation entries in the form of bogus share capital have been taken by different group of companies by the said Group with the help of different known accommodation entry operators. The allotment of shares made by the above assessee amounting to Rs.10.40 crore. On 31.09.2009 is one of the transactions found as accommodation entry by the Investigation wing. The allottee companies were found to be bogus and non-existing. The statements of entry operators were also recorded during the search & seizure operation which confirmed the findings of the Investigation Wing. The entry operators admitted to have provided accommodation entry in the form of share capital/premium to the Banktesh Group of Companies in lieu of commission.
In view of the above discussion, the assessment completed on 30.03.2015 may be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. You are, therefore, requested to show cause as to why the Assessment Order passed on 30.03.2015 u/s.153A by the DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata should not be treated as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue as per the provisions of sec.263 of the Income Tax Act."
You are given an opportunity of being heard before the undersigned on 22.11.2016 at 3:00 P.M. at my office chamber of Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Room No.301, 3rd Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata - 700 107 to furnish your explanation in the matter.
Yours faithfully, (ARVIND KUMAR, IRS) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central - 2), Kolkata.
16IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd
58. From a reading of the above show-cause notice of ld. Principal CIT when we analyse the same, what is revealed is the following:
(i) The assessment u/s 153A/143(3) against the assessee being a part of Banktesh Group for A.Y 2009-10 has been completed on 30.03.2015 by the AO.
(ii) The Prin. CIT did an analysis of assessment records and he observed that in the year under consideration, i.e A.Y 2009-10, the assessee has raised share capital and premium to the tune of Rs.10.40 crores.
(iii) During the assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished the list of investors who subscribed in shares of the assessee company.
(iv) The assessee furnished the supporting documents regarding share transactions of investors companies
(v) But no detailed investigation was carried out at the time assessment regarding genuineness of introduction of share capital
(vi) On 02.03.2016 another search was conducted against the Banktesh Group by DDIT(Investigation), Unit-2, Kolkata
(vii) During the search (second search) & post search investigation, it was found that accommodation entries in the form of bogus share capital have been taken by different group of companies by the said group with the help of accommodation entry operators and that the allottee companies are bogus and non-existing.
(viii) The statement of entry operators were also recorded during search and seizure operation which confirmed the finding of the investigation wing that in lieu of commission they provided accommodation entry in the form of share capital/premium to the Banktesh Group of Companies
(ix) In view of the aforesaid facts, the Pr. CIT is of the view that assessment completed on 30.03.2015 may be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
59. Further, we note that pursuant to the aforesaid SCN, the assessee's replied to the Pr. CIT, extracts of which has been reproduced by the Principal CIT in the impugned order before us. In the impugned order, we note that the Principal CIT has added only the list of shareholders to whom the shares were allotted. In other words, other than the factual contents given in the SCN issued by him (supra), only the list of shareholders are reproduced by the Principal CIT in his order. In the impugned order of Principal CIT, after reproducing certain extracts of the reply of the assessee and judicial precedents, we note that the Principal CIT without giving any factual finding or reasoning as to how the order of the AO can be held to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue has simply without adducing any new facts other than what has been stated and reproduced by us in SCN (supra) has simply held that "no enquiry or examination and verification was done at the time assessment regarding the genuineness of introduction of share capital to the tune of Rs.10.40 crores. Therefore, the assessment made is lacking such examination/verification which is necessary to assess the income of the assessee and such omission to make necessary enquiry has made the order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue''. Since, there is nothing new in the impugned order other than what is stated in SCN reproduced above and detailed analysis stated in Para52 above, we note that facts stated in (i) to (v) are that which is relevant to assessment for A.Y 17 IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd 2009-10 after the first search on 29.05.2012 which is reproduced again for better understanding:
(i) The assessment u/s 153A/143(3) against the assessee being a party of Banktesh Group for A.Y 2009-10 has been completed on 30.03.2015 by the AO.
(ii) The Prin. CIT did an analysis of assessment records and he observed that in the year under consideration, i.e A.Y 2009-10, the assessee has raised share capital and premium to the tune of Rs.10.40 crores.
(iii)During the assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished the list of investors who subscribed in shares of the assessee company.
(iv) The assessee furnished the supporting documents regarding share transactions of investors companies
(v) But no detailed investigation was carried out at the time assessment regarding genuineness of introduction of share capital
60. From a perusal of the above facts reveal that ld. Principal CIT is finding fault with the AO in not conducting detailed enquiry about the share capital introduced into the assessee company. Though in the same breath, the Principal CIT admits that assessee has produced all relevant documents before the AO in respect to the share capital. However, the ld. Principal CIT missed the most important fact that A.Y 2009- 10 was not pending before the Assessing Officer on the date of first search on 29.05.2012, so it is an unabated assessment and the AO could have only reiterated the assessment crystallized as per intimation forwarded by the Department u/s 143(1) dated 25.11.2011 wherein the Department accepted the returned income filed by the assessee on 25.09.2009, because there was no incriminating material unearthed/seized during search (first) on 29.05.2012. It is very important to take note of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla case (supra) wherein on a similar situation laid the law as under:
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.
61. So from the aforesaid dictum of law laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during first search on 29.05.2012, we have no hesitations to hold that for A.Y 2009-10, the AO could have only reiterated the assessment intimated u/s 143(1) of the Act, because the time for issuance of scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) expired on 30.09.2010 and the assessment for this relevant assessment year, therefore, was not pending before the AO on the date of search on 29.05.2012 and, therefore, is an unabated assessment. Therefore, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, the AO could not have disturbed the assessment already existing without the aid of incriminating materials seized during search on 29.05.2012 (first search). Therefore, the order of the AO cannot be held to be erroneous order. Therefore, without finding the order of the AO to be erroneous, the ld. Principal CIT lacks jurisdiction to usurp the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act.
18IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd
62. For completeness of the adjudication, when we look at the SCN and the impugned order of ld. Principal CIT, we note that the following facts have influenced him to invoke the section 263 jurisdiction which are (vi) to (ix) which are again reproduced for better understanding.
(vi).On 02.03.2016 another search was conducted against the Banktesh Group by DDIT(Investigation), Unit-2, Kolkata
(vii).During the search (second search) & post search investigation, it was found that accommodation entries in the form of bogus share capital have been taken by different group of companies by the said group with the help of accommodation entry operators and that the allottee companies are bogus and non-existing.
(viii).The statement of entry operators were also recorded during search and seizure operation which confirmed the finding of the investigation wing that in lieu of commission they provided accommodation entry in the form of share capital/premium to the Banktesh Group of Companies
(ix).In view of the aforesaid facts, the Pr. CIT is of the view that assessment completed on 30.03.2015 may be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
63. From the reading of the aforesaid facts taken note by the Principal CIT, it is evident that the sheet anchor on which the Principal CIT based his foundation to find fault with the Assessing Officer is emanating from the second search which happened on 02.03.2016 based on which investigation report has been made wherein the share capital raised by the assessee company for Assessment Year 2009-10 is under suspicion/cloud. So, the Principal CIT refers to the second search which happened on 02.03.2016 and the investigation report thereafter made by the investigation wing which is subsequent and obviously a development after framing the assessment order by the Assessing Officer dated 30.03.2015. The Assessing Officer cannot be said to be a clairvoyant, who could have forecasted or foreseen that a second search would take place on 02.03.2016 and thereby some material/oral/evidence would be collected by the investigation wing a year before i.e. on 30.03.2015 when the assessment order was framed by AO after the fallout of first search conducted on 29.05.2012.
64. From the facts narrated above, we note that it is not the case of the Principal CIT that Assessing Officer failed to take into consideration any incriminating material unearthed during first search on 29.05.2012 and has failed to make any investigation on it or make any additions / disallowances thereon. The case of the Principal CIT is simply that during second search on 02.03.2016, the investigation wing has found fault with the share capital raised by the assessee company for Assessment Year 2009-
10. It should be noted that the Assessing Officer has framed assessment u/s 153A on 30.03.2015 as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) and other High courts/Apex Court as stated above which according to us is the correct view or at the most can be definitely termed as a plausible view. Therefore, the view taken by the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous order and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries vs. CIT (supra). The Assessing Officer's order dated 30.03.2015 at any rate cannot said to be unsustainable in law.
19IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd
65. In any event, we note that the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law and even if it has resulted in loss to the revenue, the said decision of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). Since the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in the facts and circumstances narrated above, the usurpation of jurisdiction exercising revisional jurisdiction by the Principal CIT is ''null'' in the eyes of law and, therefore, we are inclined to quash the very assumption of jurisdiction to invoke revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Principal CIT. Therefore, we quash all the orders of the Principal CIT dated 15.03.2017 being ab initio void.
66. Before we part, we would like to address the contention of ld. CIT (DR), that since intimation u/s 143(1) was only issued by the Department in this case, it cannot be viewed that the assessment was unabated on the date of search. We note that the very same issue was before the Hon'ble Delhi High court in Kabul Chawla (supra) wherein also the issue of 143(1) intimation and the expiry of time to issue 143(2) notice by Assessing Officer before the date of search was also adjudicated and thereafter only the law was laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, so the issue raised by the ld. CIT(DR) is no longer res integra and therefore, has no merit. The Hon'ble Calcutta High court's order in Tata Metaliks Ltd. is distinguishable on facts and pertained to filing of revised return of income in cases where assessee received intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and is not in conflict with the view of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla (supra) which is on 153A proceedings after search is conducted by the Department.
67. Moreover, it has to be remembered that Principal CIT cannot do indirectly what he could have done directly. The said proposition of law has been laid in a similar case by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Ujjal Transport Agency vs. CIT, Central-II in IT(SS) No.58/Kol/2013 Assessment Year 2007-08 wherein it has held as under:
16. Having held that the scope of the proceedings u/s.153A in respect of assessment year for which assessment have already been concluded and which do not abate u/s.153A of the Act, that the assessment will have to be confined to only incriminating material found as a result of search, the question to be decided is as to whether the proceedings u/s.143(1) of the Act can be said to be assessment proceedings concluded that have not abated u/s.153A of the Act" Section l53A of the Act, uses the expressing "pending assessment or reassessment". When a return is filed and acknowledgement or intimation issued u/s.143(1), the proceedings initiated by filing the return are closed, unless a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is issued. In the present case, the period for issuing the notice u/s 143(2) elapsed. Therefore the process has attained the finality which can only be assailed u/s 148 or 263 of the Act. It can thus be concluded that making of an addition in an assessment under section 153A of the Act, without the backing of incriminating material, is unsustainable even in a case where the original assessment on the date of search stood completed under section 143(1) of the Act, 20 IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd thereby resulting in non-abatement of such assessment in terms of the Second Proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act.
17. In the light of the discussion above, our conclusion is that in the present case, the issue with regard to additional depreciation could not and ought not to have been examined by the AO in the assessment proceedings u/s.153A of the Act as the said issue stood concluded with the assessee's return of income being accepted u/s.143(1) of the Act prior to the date of search and no notice having been issued u/s.143(2) of the Act within the time limit laid down in that section which time limit as per the law prevailing on the date when the Assessee filed return of income i.e.,30.10.2007, would expire on 31.12.2008. Such assessment u/s.143(1) of the Act did not abate on the date of search which took place on 15.1.2009.In respect of assessments completed prior to the date of search that have not abated, the scope of proceedings u/s.153A of the Act has to be confined only to material found in the course of search. Since no material whatsoever was found in the course of search, the question of allowing additional depreciation or not could not have been subject matter of proceedings u/.s.153A of the Act. Consequently, the CIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 of the Act ought not to have or could not have directed examination of the said issue afresh by the Assessing Officer. Thus ground no.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. The proceedings u/s 263 of the Act is accordingly quashed. In view of the above conclusion, the other ground of appeal raised bythe assessee does not require any consideration.
18.In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed."
68. Since, we have quashed the Section 263 proceedings; therefore, we are not adjudicating the other arguments of the ld. AR.
69. In the result, these three appeals of the assessee's are allowed."
14. Therefore, based on the facts and legal precedents explained above, undisputedly, the assessment year under question i.e. Assessment Year 2010-11 which was not pending before the Assessing Officer on the date of search on 29.05.2012 (first search), it was also not pending on the date of second search on 02.03.2016 therefore, the assessment which is not pending before the Assessing Officer is an unabated proceeding and the Assessing Officer is empowered to make any addition only based on incriminating materials found/unearthed during search. This is a settled position of law and is no longer res integra. Therefore, we delete the addition made by AO to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs.
15. Ground No.9 relates to the commission charged @ .5% on such genuine (share application money of Rs.50 lakhs) transaction at Rs.25,000/- u/s.69C of the Act.
21IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd Since we have adjudicated the ground Nos. 1 to 8 raised by the assessee and deleted the addition of Rs.50 lakhs. Ground No. 9 raised by the assessee is interlinked with share application money of Rs.50 lakhs, therefore it is consequential in nature and hence we delete the addition of Rs.25,000/-.
16. In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 24/04/2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(A.T Varkey) (A. L. Saini)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
कोलकाता /Kolkata;
Dated:24/04/2019
**PP, Sr.PS
आदे शकी ितिलिपअ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Assessee/Assessee: M/s. BankteshSynthetics 57 Butolla Street, Burrabazar, Kolkata-7.
2. थ / The Respondent/Department : Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), AAykarBhawanPoorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata-107.
3. आयकरआयु (अपील) / The CIT(A)
4. आयकरआयु / CIT
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध,आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,कोलकाता/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata
6. गाडफाईल / Guard file. //True Copy/ By Order Assistant Registrar I.T.A.T, Kolkata Benches,Kolkata.
22IT SS) A No. 142/Kol/2018 A.Y 2010-11 M/s. Banktesh Synthetics Ltd