Basil Express Limited, Kolkata v. DCIT, Central Circle - XXII, Kolkata

ITA 1912/KOL/2009 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 191223514 RSA 2009
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 1912/KOL/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant Basil Express Limited, Kolkata
Respondent DCIT, Central Circle - XXII, Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 21-01-2011
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 16-11-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH : KOLKATA () BEFORE . . . . . . . . !' !' !' !' /AND . .. . . .. .! !! ! # ) [BEFORE HONBLE SRI D. K. TYAGI JM & HONBLE SRI C . D. RAO AM] '$ '$ '$ '$ / I.T.A NOS. 1912 TO 1914/KOL/2009 %&' !() %&' !() %&' !() %&' !()/ // / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 TO 2004-05 & '$ '$ '$ '$ / I.T.A NO. 1915 /KOL/2009 %&' !() %&' !() %&' !() %&' !()/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 & '$ '$ '$ '$ / I.T.A NOS. 1916 & 1917/KOL/2009 %&' %&' %&' %&' !() !() !() !()/ // / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08 BASIL EXPORTS LTD. -VS- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (PA NO.AACCB 2213 R) C.C-XXII KOLKATA ( + /APPELLANT ) (-+ / RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT: SRI A.. K. TIBREWAL FOR THE RESPONDENT : SRI S. C. JAIN . / ORDER PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) KOLKATA DATED 01.09.2009 FOR ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2004-05 AND 2007-08 ON THE GROUND OF CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S. 271D AND 271E OF THE I. T. ACT. SINCE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND GROUNDS ARE COM MON WE DISPOSE OF ALL THE APPEALS BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE . 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED F OUR APPEALS AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S. 271D OF THE I. T. ACT FOR AYS. 2002-03 TO 2004-05 AND 2007-08 CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.25 56 000/ - RS.25 81 000/- RS.7 53 000/- AND RS.3 57 500/- RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS A LSO FILED TWO APPEALS AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S. 271E OF THE I. T. ACT FOR AYS. 2004-05 AND 2007-08 CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.5 15 300/- AND RS. 3 57 500/- RESPECTIVELY. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT HAD CARRIED OUT A SEARCH & SE IZURE OPERATIONS U/S.132 OF THE 2 INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 AGAINST THE BASIL/APPELLINE GR OUP OF CASES OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS PART OF ON 27.12.2006. FOLLOWING THE SEARCH N OTICES U/S. 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 961 HAD BEEN ISSUED AND ON THE BASIS OF THE RE TURNS FILE BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ASSESSMENTS U/S. 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON 14- 07-2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INTIMATED THE AD DL. CIT RANGE VI KOLKATA OF THE FACT OF THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTING MONIES ON ACCOUNT OF PREFERENCE SHARES / DEBENTURES AMOUNTING TO RS.20 000/- OR MORE FROM ANY PARTICULA R PERSON OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. THE ADDL CIT RANGE VI KOLKATA HAD AFTER HEARIN G THE ASSESSEE LEVIED PENALTY U/S. 271D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IN THE SAID ASSESS MENT YEARS ON 31-12-2008. SIMILARLY ON THE INTIMATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER OF THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE REPAYMENT OF MONIES TAKEN ON ACCOUNT OF PREFERENCE SHARES / DEBENTURES AMOUNTING TO RS.20 000/- OR MORE TO ANY PARTICULAR PERSON OTHERW ISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL THE ADDL. CIT RANGE VI. KOLKATA HAD AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE LEVIED PENALTY U/S.271E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL ON 31-12-2008. THE ADDL.CIT IN HIS SIMILAR PENALTY ORDERS UNDER SECTION 271D HAD HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DENIED THE FACT OF RECEIPT OF CASH OVER RS.20 000/- FROM ANY SINGLE PERSON NOR IT OBJECTED TO THE AGGREGATE OF SUCH AMO UNT ACCEPTED IN CASH. SIMILARLY THE ADDL. CIT IN HIS SIMILAR PENALTY ORDERS UNDER SECT ION 271E HAD HELD THAT THE ASSESEE HAD NOT DENIED THE FACT OF REPAYMENT IN CASH OVER R S.20 000/- TO ANY SINGLE PERSON NOR IT OBJECTED TO THE AGGREGATE OF SUCH AMOUNT REPAID IN CASH. AFTER ESTABLISHING THE FACT OF RECEIPT OF PREFERENCE SHARE / DEBENTURE APPLICATION AMOUNTS IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE APPLICANTS AND THE FACT OF REPAYMENT OF PR EFERENCE SHARE/ DEBENTURE IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE APPLICANTS THE ADDL.CIT HAD P LACED RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHA LOTIA ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD VS CIT. 275 ITR 399 TO HOLD THAT SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS A DEPOSIT AND ACCEPTANCE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH IN EXCESS OF RS.20 000/- VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269 SS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND REPAYMENT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH IN EXCESS OF RS.20 000/- VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION.269T OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 19 61. THE GIST OF THE JUDGEMENT IS AS UNDER: 3 SECTION 269S5 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 WAS INSERTED WITH A VIEW TO PREVENT TRANSACTIONS IN BLACK MONEY AND TO ENSURE THAT PAYMENT OF RS.20 000 /- AND ABOVE ARE TRACEABLE TO TRANSACTIONS THROUGH A BANK. IF THE MISCHIEF THAT I S SOUGHT TO BE AVERTED IS KEPT IN MIND IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO HOLD THAT ANY PAYMENT OF RS. 20 000/-OR ABOVE MADE TO A COMPANY AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HOLD BE AS PROVI DED IN SECTION 269SS. EVEN IF SHARE APPLICATION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A LOAN WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC..269 SS IT PARTAKES OF THE CHARACTER OF A DEPOSIT SINCE IT IS REPAYABLE IN SPECIE ON REFUSAL TO ALLOT SHARES AND IS REPAYABLE IF RECALLED BY THE AP PLICANT BEFORE ALLOTMENT OF SHARES AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE CONTRACT. HENCE THE ACCEPTAN CE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.20 000/-. OR MORE VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.269SS. THE ADDL CIT HAD ALSO HELD IN THE CONTEXT OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271E THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT IF THE ACCEPTANCE OF CA SH FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTRIBUTION TO SHARE CAPITAL/DEBENTURE IS HELD AS VIOLATED THE PRO VISIONS OF SEC.269SS OF THE IT ACT IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT THE REPAYMENT OF SUCH MONEY EXCE EDING RS.20 000/- IN CASH TO A PARTICULAR PERSON VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.26 9T OF THE 1 T ACT. FURTHER THE DEBENTURE AS PER THE ADDL. CIT ITSELF MEANS DEBT OR LOAN AND THE REPAYMENT OF THIS MONEY IN CASH WILL DEFINITELY ATTRACT THE PROVISION S OF SEC.269T OF THE I T ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDL.CIT HAD HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.269SS BY ACCEPTING PREFERENCE SHA RE CAPITAL OR DEBENTURE MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS.25 56 000/- RS.25 81 000/- RS.7 53 000/- AND RS.3 57 500/- FOR ASSMT YEARS 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 AND 2007-08 RESPECTIV ELY OTHERWISE THAN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT . THE ADDL .CIT HAD THEREFORE LEVIED PENALTY U/S.271 D OF RS.25 56 000/- RS.25 81 000/- RS.7 53 000/- AND RS.3 57 500/- FOR ASSMT YEARS 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 AND 2007-08 RESPEC TIVELY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDL.CIT HAD ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CO NTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.269T BY REPAYING THE PREFERENCE SHARE CAPITAL O R DEBENTURE MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS.5 15 300/- AND RS.3 57 500/- FOR ASSMT YEARS 200 4-05 AND 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY OTHERWISE THAN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT P AYEE BANK DRAFT . ACCORDINGLY THE ADDL. CIT HAD LEVIED PENALTY U/S.271T OF RS.5 15 30 0/- AND RS.3 57 500/- FOR ASSMT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. BEING FURTHER AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US BOTH THE PARTIE S CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESEE BY THE FOLLOWING S ERIES OF JUDGMENTS : 4 I) M/S. PRAVEZ CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD. VS. ADDL. CI T ITA NO. 1206/K/2005 FOR A.Y. 2002-03 DATED 8.9.2006 II) VLS FOODS (P) LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT (2010) 128 TTJ 1N (TDEL) III) CIT VS. RUGMINI RAM RAGAV SPINNERS P. LTD. (20 08) 304 ITR 0417 IV) PRADIP J. MEHTA VS. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 231 (SC) V) ITO VS. AVADH RUBBER LTD. ITA NO. 1853/K/2008 F OR A.Y. 1999-2000 DT. 28.5.2010 VI) CIT VS. SPEEDWAYS RUBBER PVT. LTD. (2010) 326 I TR 31 (P&H) AND VII) ITO VS. COOKME (SPICE) PVT. LTD. ITA NOS. 999/ K/2008 599/K/2009 AND 42/K/2010 DATE 16.11.2010. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S. AVADH RUBBER LTD. IN ITA NO.1853/K/2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 DATED 28 TH MAY 2010 HAS HELD AS UNDER : 5. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND CASE LAWS CITED BY BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND TH AT THE SOLE DISPUTE IS WHETHER THE CONTRIBUTION OF ABHISEK SARAF IN CASH TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN THE SUM OF RS. 3 LACS SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO BE A DEPOSIT WITH IN THE MEANING OF S. 269SS IN ORDER TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF S. 271D. BEFORE WE EMBARK O N THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THE ONLY ISSUE IT IS APPOSITE TO CONSIDER THE PROVISIO NS WHICH LED TO THE DISPUTE. THE PROVISIONS OF S. 271D READS AS UNDER: PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS. 271D. (1) IF A PERSON TAKES OR ACCEPTS ANY LOAN OR DEPO SIT IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS HE SHALL BE LIA BLE TO PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY A SUM EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF THE LOAN OR DEPOSIT SO T AKEN OR ACCEPTED. (2) ANY PENALTY IMPOSABLE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) SHA LL BE IMPOSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER. THEREFORE THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR IMPOSING PE NALTY U/S. 271D ARE SATISFIED ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTS LOANS OR DEPOSITS IN INFRINGEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 269SS AND NOT OTHERWISE. THE PROVISIONS OF S. 269SS READ AS UNDER: MODE OF TAKING OR ACCEPTING CERTAIN LOANS AND DEPOS ITS. 269SS. NO PERSONS SHALL AFTER THE 30 TH DAY OF JUNE 1984 TAKE OR ACCEPT FROM ANY OTHER PERSON (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS TH E DEPOSITOR) ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUN T PAYEE BANK DRAFT IF - (A) THE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN AND DEPOSIT; OR (B) ON THE DATE OF TAKING OR ACCEPTING SUCH LOAN OR DEP OSIT ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT TAKEN OR ACCEPTED EARLIER BY SUCH PERSON FROM THE DEPOSITOR IS REMAINING UNPAID (WHETHER REPAYMENT HAS FALLEN DUE OR NOT) THE AMOUNT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT REMAINING UNPAID; OR (C) THE AMOUNT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT REFERRED TO IN C LAUSE (A) TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) IS [TWENTY] THOUSAND RUPEES OR MORE: PROVIDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPL Y TO ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT TAKEN OR ACCEPTED FROM OR ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT TAKEN OR A CCEPTED BY - (A) GOVERNMENT; (B) ANY BANKING COMPANY POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK OR CO -OPERATIVE BANK; 5 (C) ANY CORPORATION ESTABLISHED BY A CENTRAL STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT; (D) ANY GOVERNMENT COMPANY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 617 OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 (1 O0F 1956); (E) SUCH OTHER INSTITUTION ASSOCIATION OR BODY OR CLAS S OF INSTITUTIONS ASSOCIATIONS OR BODIES WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDED IN WRITING NOTIFY IN THIS BEHALF IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPL Y TO ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT WHERE THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE LOAN OR DEPOSIT IS T AKEN OR ACCEPTED AND THE PERSON BY WHOM THE LOAN OR DEPOSIT IS TAKEN OR ACCEPTED ARE B OTH HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND NEITHER OR THEM HAS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX UN DER THIS ACT. EXPLANATION. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION - (I) BANKING COMPANY MEANS A COMPANY TO WHICH THE BANK ING REGULATION ACT 1949 (10 OF 1949) APPLIES AND INCLUDES ANY BANK OF BANKING INS TITUTION REFERRED TO IN SECTION 51 OF THAT ACT; (II) CO-OPERATIVE BANK SHALL HAVE THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO IT IN PART V OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT 1949 (10 OF 1949); (III) LOAN OR DEPOSIT MEANS LOAN OR DEPOSIT OF MONEY. IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE OBJECT OF THE ENACTMENT WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE PROVISION IS REQUIRED TO B E UNDERSTOOD IN THE CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ADIT -VS- KUMARI A. B. SHANTI (SUPRA) DEALT WITH THE OBJECT OF INTRODUCTION OF T HE PROVISION OF S. 269SS AS UNDER: THE OBJECT OF INTRODUCING SECTION 269SS IS TO ENSU RE THAT A TAXPAYER IS NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE FALSE EXPLANATION FOR HIS UNACCOUNTED MONEY O R IF HE MAKES SOME FALSE ENTRIES HE SHALL NOT ESCAPE BY GIVING FALSE EXPLANATION FOR TH E SAME. DURING SEARCH AND SEIZURES UNACCOUNTED MONEY IS UNEARTHED AND THE TAXPAYER WOU LD USUALLY GIVE THE EXPLANATION THAT HE HAD BORROWED OR RECEIVED DEPOSITS FROM HIS RELATIVES OR FRIENDS AND IT IS EASY FOR THE SO-CALLED LENDER ALSO TO MANIPULATE HIS RECORDS TO SUIT THE PLEA OF THE TAXPAYER. THE MAIN OBJECT OF SECTION 269SS WAS TO CURB THIS MENAC E OF MAKING FALSE ENTRIES IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS AND LATER GIVING AN EXPLANATION FOR T HE SAME. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES IN CIRCULAR NO. 3 87 DATED 06-07-1984 HAS IN EXPLANATORY NOTES ISSUED AFTER THE FINANCE ACT 198 4 HAS CONSIDERED THE SAME AS UNDER: 32.1 UNACCOUNTED CASH FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCHES CA RRIED OUT BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IS OFTEN EXPLAINED BY TAXPAYERS AS R EPRESENTING LOANS TAKEN FROM OR DEPOSITS MADE BY VARIOUS PERSONS. UNACCOUNTED INCOM E IS ALSO BROUGHT INTO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE FORM OF SUCH LOANS AND DEPOSITS AND TAXPAYERS ARE ALSO ABLE TO GET CONFIRMATORY LETTERS FROM SUCH PERSONS IN SUPPORT O F THEIR EXPLANATION. 32.2 WITH A VIEW TO COUNTERING THIS DEVICE WHICH E NABLES TAXPAYERS TO EXPLAIN AWAY UNACCOUNTED CASH OR UNACCOUNTED DEPOSITS THE FINAN CE ACT HAS INSERTED A NEW SECTION 269SS IN THE INCOME TAX ACT DEBARRING PERSONS FROM TAKING OR ACCEPTING AFTER 30 TH JUNE 1984 FROM ANY OTHER PERSON ANY LOAN OR DEPOS IT OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT IF THE AMO UNT OF SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT OR THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN AND DEPOSITS IS RS. 1 0 000/- OR MORE.. THEREFORE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE PROVISION W AS INTRODUCED TO ELIMINATE THE PROLIFERATION OF BLACK MONEY IN THE SOCIETY AT LARG E AND NOT OTHERWISE. IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE INT ENT BEHIND THE INTRODUCTION OF S. 269SS 6 INASMUCH AS THE TRANSACTION HAS DULY BEEN PROPERLY RECORDED IN THE ACCOUNTS WITH PROPER NARRATION. WE FIND THE ONLY CONFUSION MAY HA VE ARISEN BECAUSE IN THE AUDIT REPORT U/S. 44AB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 SUCH A MOUNT WAS INADVERTENTLY INCLUDED IN THE SCHEDULE OF LOANS. HOWEVER IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUCH MISTAKE WAS CORREC TED AND THE ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AFTER CONSIDERING THE GENUINENESS OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED A COPY OF SUCH ORDER IS ENCLOSED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 2 4 WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE ITAT D BENCH KOLKATA IN I.T.A. NO. 1767 /KOL/ 2003 DAT ED 27/04/2004 A COPY OF WHICH ORDER IS ENCLOSED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 17. IT IS THER EFORE NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY DID NOT PARTAKE OF THE CHARACTER OF EVIL WHICH WAS SOUGHT TO BE ROOTED OUT BY INCORPORATING THE PROVISION OF S. 269 SS AND AS SUCH THERE IS NO MALAFIDE INTENTION IN THIS RESPECT. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THA T THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 3 00 000/- RECEIVED FROM SHRI ABHISEK SARAF IS GENU INE AND THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO DECEIVE THE REVENUE. THEREFORE IN OUR CONSIDERED O PINION THERE IS NO CONTRAVENTION OF THE LAW IF WE READ THE FACTS OF THE CASE KEEPING IN MIND THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. FURTHER IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT T HE PROVISION OF S. 269SS HAS TO BE CONSTRUED BY GIVING EFFECT TO THE MISCHIEF RULE AND ON SUCH PREMISE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF MYSORE SALES INTER NATIONAL LTD. -VS- DCIT SUPRA AND STATE OF BIHAR & ANOTHER -VS- CIT SUPRA. HOWEVER W E FIND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S. 269SS READ WITH S. 271D ARE PENAL IN NATURE. THEREF ORE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE RULE OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION WILL APPLY WHILE INTERP RETING A PENAL STATUTE WHICH CANNOT COVER CASES NOT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED WITHIN ITS LE TTER. THIS FINDING OF OURS IS ALSO FORTIFIED WITH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF GANESH PROPERTIES P. LTD. -VS- CIT (1993) 202 ITR 434 (CAL ) WHEREIN IT WAS SETTLED THAT A PENAL PROVISION MUST BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY IN ACCOR DANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN THEREIN. THEREFORE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVI SION OF S. 269SS READ WITH S. 271D SHOULD BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AND THIS ARGUMENT OF T HE LD. DR IS REJECTED. NOW COMING TO THE ISSUE AT HAND BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE RELIED UPO N THE CATENA OF JUDGMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CLAIMS. THE LD. DR HAS RELIED ON T HE FOLLOWING DECISIONS WHICH ARE DEALT WITH AS UNDER: I) J. J. FOAMS (P) LTD. -VS- CIT SUPRA IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD TREATED THE AMOUNTS RAISED BY IT AS DEPOSITS AND PAID INTEREST THEREUPON WITHOUT SHARES BEING ALLOTTED AN D ON SUCH PREMISE IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S. 40A(8) WERE APPLICABLE. IN THE INS TANT CASE THE ISSUE IS ONE OF PENALTY U/S. 271D READ WITH S. 269SS WHEREIN THE CONTRIBUTI ON IN CASH TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED WHICH WAS CONSIDERED TO BE A DEPOSIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT ENACTMENT. IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE SHARES HAD BE EN ALLOTTED TO THE APPLICANT AND AS SUCH THE FACTS AND THE ISSUES ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERE NT AND HENCE NOT APPLICABLE. II) DHANIJI R. ZALTE -VS- ACIT SUPRA IN THIS CASE A SEARCH OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER PREMISES OF AN ADVOCATE ASSESSEE WHO WAS FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF S. 269SS AND 269T INASMUCH AS LOANS AND DEPOSITS WERE ACCEPTED A ND REPAID IN CASH AND ON SUCH PREMISE PENALTIES IMPOSED U/S. 271D & E RESPECTIVEL Y WERE UPHELD. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ISSUE IS REGARDING THE RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICA TION MONEY IN CASH WHICH WAS NOT A DEPOSIT AND AGAINST WHICH SHARES WERE ISSUED. THERE FORE THE FACTS IN THE CASE CITED ARE TOTALLY DISTINGUISHABLE AND HENCE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. III) KASI CONSULTANT CORPORATION -VS- DCIT SUPRA IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS ACCEPTED DEPOSI TS FROM PUBLIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S. 271D WAS INITIATE D AS IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE 7 HAS CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF S. 269SS AND AS I T HAD FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE SHORTAGE OF CASH IN THE BUSINESS WHICH MADE THE ASS ESSEE ACCEPT THE CASH. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED AND UPHELD. W HEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ISSUE WAS ONE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AGAINST WHICH SH ARES WERE ACTUALLY ISSUED AND THEREFORE THE FACTS HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO THE CASE BEFORE US. IV) THENAMAL CHHARJJER -VS- JCIT SUPRA IN THIS CASE IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECORDED THE CASH TRANSACTIONS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THOSE TRANSACTIONS SURFAC ED ONLY AFTER A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US. V) ITO -VS- SUNIL M. KASLIWAL SUPRA IN THIS CASE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AC CEPTED CASH LOAN FROM HIS MINOR CHILDREN WIFE AND TWO OTHER LADIES WHICH WERE IN C ONTRAVENTION OF S. 269SS AND AS SUCH PENALTY WAS IMPOSED U/S. 271D. IT WAS HELD THAT THE PENALTY COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED IN RESPECT OF THE LOANS TAKEN BY ASSESSEE FROM HIS MIN OR CHILDREN AND WIFE WHEREAS THE PENALTY WAS SUSTAINED IN RESPECT OF LOAN FROM TWO L ADIES IN ABSENCE OF REASONABLE CAUSE. IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE ISSUE IS ENTIRELY DIFFER ENT AND THE RATIO OF THE DECISION IN THE MATTER CITED IS NOT APPLICABLE AT ALL. VI) CIT -VS- SUNIL KUMAR GOEL SUPRA IN THIS CASE THE ISSUE DECIDED WAS THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO GIVE ITS REASONS IN THE ORDER AND THE CONCLUSIONS REACHE D THEREIN. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS A VERY REASONED ORDER AN D HE HAS FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE ITAT C BENCH KOLKATA IN ITA NO. 48 7/KOL/2005 DATED 04/07/2005 IN TOTO. THEREFORE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THERE W AS NO VIOLATION OF THE DICTUM OF SPEAKING ORDER SO THAT THE DECISION RELIED ON HAS N O RELEVANCE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. VII) CHAUBEY OVERSEAS CORPORATION -VS- CIT SUPRA IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CASH FOR SU PPLY OF SILK FABRIC WHICH COULD NOT BE EXECUTED IN TIME AND THE MONEY SO RECEIVED WAS TREA TED TO BE A DEPOSIT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER OBLIGATION TO RETURN IT AND IN SUCH CIRCU MSTANCES THE PENALTY FOR CONTRAVENTION OF S. 269SS WAS LEVIED AND UPHELD. WH EREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM SRI ABHISEK SARAF IN THE SUM OF RS. 3 00 000/- ON 31-03-1999 WAS FULLY ABSORBED AND SET OFF AGAINST THE ISSUE OF SHARES AN D AS SUCH THE VERY CONCEPTION OF DEPOSIT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. VIII) CIT -VS- SHANTA ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES SUPRA IN THIS CASE THE ISSUE INVOLVED WAS THE QUESTION O F APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 271(1(A) CENTERING ON THE QUESTION OF REASONABLE C AUSE. SINCE THE ISSUE OF REASONABLE CAUSE IS NOT RELEVANT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INSTANT CASE THEREFORE THE RATIO OF SUCH JUDGMENT HAS NO APPLICATION. IX) CIT -VS- CAPITAL ELECTRONICS (GARIAHAT) SUPRA THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WAS ALSO ONE OF R EASONABLE CAUSE FOR DEFAULT. SINCE IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US THE ISSUE OF REASONABLE CAUSE HAS NO APPLICATION THE DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THUS THE RATIO AS LAID DOWN IN THE CASE LAWS RELI ED ON BY THE REVENUE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 8 THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DEALT WITH AS UNDER: I) CIT -VS- RUGMINI RAM RAGAV SPINNERS P. LTD. SUPR A IN THIS CASE THE ISSUE WAS REGARDING LEVY OF PENA LTY UNDER S. 271E FOR CASH PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO REFUND OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE IT WAS HELD THAT THE MONEY RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NEITHER DEPOSIT NOR LOAN BECAUSE THE SAME WAS RECEIVED TOWA RDS ALLOTMENT OF SHARES FROM SIXTEEN PERSONS. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE PROVISIO NS OF SS. 269SS AND 269T HAVE APPLICATION ONLY IN LIMITED WAY IN RESPECT OF DEPOS ITS OR LOANS AND WHEN IT IS NEITHER DEPOSIT NOR LOAN THE PROVISIONS OF SS. 269SS AND 2 69T HAVE NO APPLICATION AT ALL. IT WAS HELD THAT NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED UNDER S. 271D A LSO BECAUSE ONCE IT IS HELD THAT THE RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS NEITHER LOAN NOR DEPOSIT THE PROVISIONS OF SS. 269SS AND 271D ARE NOT ATTRACTED BECAUSE THESE PRO VISIONS ARE APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES LOAN OR DEPOSIT IN CASH. II) JAGVIJAY AUTO FINANCE P. LTD. -VS- ACIT SUPRA IN THIS CASE THE ISSUE WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE RECE IVED CASH CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND IN SUCH SCENARIO IT WAS HELD THAT IT WOULD BE INCORRECT TO CONSTRUE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS LOAN OR DEPOSIT INASMUCH EVEN AFTER ENLARGEMENT OF MEANING OF DEPOSIT BY DIRECT TAX (AMENDMENT) ACT 1987 TO INCLUDE DEPOSIT OF ANY NATURE FOR THE PURPOSES OF INTERPRETING S. 269SS. III) CIT -VS- VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. SUPRA IT WAS SETTLED THAT IF THE COURT FINDS THAT THE LA NGUAGE OF A TAXING PROVISION IS AMBIGUOUS OR CAPABLE OF MORE MEANING THAN ONE THEN THE COURT HAS TO ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH FAVOURS THE ASSESSEE MORE PAR TICULARLY SO WHERE THE PROVISION RELATES TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. IV) VLS FOODS (P) LTD. -VS- ADDL. CIT SUPRA IN THIS CASE THE ISSUE IS MORE APPOSITE TO THE ON E AT HAND. IN FACT THE SAID DECISION HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE RATIOS OF THE DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE CASES OF BHALOTIA ENGINEERING WORKS SUPRA RELIED ON BY TH E REVENUE AND RUGMINI RAM RAGAV SUPRA RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SO HELD AS UNDER: WE FIND THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT IN T HE PRESENT CASE THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS. 8.55 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE IN CASH AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. IN THE CASE OF RUGMINI RAM RAGAV (SUPRA) THE ISSUE BEFORE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT WAS REGARDING LEVY OF PEN ALTY UNDER S. 271E FOR CASH PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO RE FUND OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE IT WAS HELD BY HO NBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT THAT THE MONEY RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NEITHER DEPOSIT NOR LOAN BECAUSE THE SAME WAS RECEIVED TOWARDS ALLOTMENT OF SHARES FROM SIXTEEN PERSONS. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SS . 269SS AND 269T HAVE APPLICATION ONLY IN LIMITED WAY IN RESPECT OF DEPOS ITS OR LOANS AND WHEN IT IS NEITHER DEPOSIT NOR LOAN THE PROVISIONS OF SS. 269 SS AND 269T HAVE NO APPLICATION AT ALL. AS PER THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED UNDER S. 271D ALSO BECAUSE O NCE IT IS HELD THAT THE RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS NEITHER LOAN NOR DEPOSIT THE PROVISIONS OF SS. 269SS AND 271D ARE ALSO NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THESE PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES LOAN OR DEPOSIT IN CASH. THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT RENDERED I N THE CASE OF BHALOTIA ENGINEERING WORKS (SUPRA) IS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE IT WAS HELD BY 9 THE HONBLE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT THAT SHARE APPLICA TION MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A DEPOSIT AND HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF S . 269SS ARE APPLICABLE. UNDER THIS FACTUAL POSITION WE FIND THAT THERE ARE TWO J UDGMENTS OF TWO DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS AVAILABLE ON THIS ISSUE OUT OF WHICH ONE JUD GMENT OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS THE OTHER JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT IS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE FACTS WE HAVE TO DECIDE AS TO WHICH JUDGMENT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY U S. UNDER THIS SITUATION WE ARE GUIDED BY HONBLE APEX COURT AND AS PER THE JUD GMENT IN THE CASE OF VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA) IT WAS HELD BY HON BLE APEX COURT THAT IF TWO REASONABLE CONSTRUCTIONS OF A TAXING PROVISION ARE POSSIBLE THAT CONSTRUCTION WHICH FAVOURS THE ASSESSEE MUST BE ADOPTED. RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RUGMINI RAM RAGAV (SUPRA) BECAUSE THIS JUDG MENT IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT OR O F HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON THE ISSUE BEFORE US WAS BROUGHT TO OU R NOTICE. IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT THAT RECEIPT OF SHARE APP LICATION MONEY IS NEITHER LOAN NOR DEPOSIT. ONCE WE HOLD AND ACCEPT THAT RECE IPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS NEITHER LOAN NOR DEPOSIT THE PROVISIONS O F SS. 269SS AND 271D ARE NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS OF S. 269SS ARE I N CONNECTION WITH ACCEPTANCE OF THE LOAN AND DEPOSIT AND THE PROVISIONS OF S. 27 1D ARE IN CONNECTION WITH VIOLATION OF S. 269SS. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT SIN CE IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ALLEGED AMOUNT OF RS. 8.55 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN CASH ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY PENALTY UNDER S . 271D CANNOT BE LEVIED BECAUSE THE RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS N EITHER LOAN NOR DEPOSIT AND HENCE THE IMPUGNED RECEIPT OF RS. 8.55 LAKHS IS NOT GOVERNED BY S. 269SS OF THE ACT. IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND THE LEGAL PO SITION ON THIS ISSUE AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT OR OF HONBLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON THE ISSUE BEFORE US WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TH E CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED IN CASH FROM SRI ABHISEK SARAF IN THE SUM OF RS 3 LACS DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE EXPRESSI ON DEPOSIT APPEARING IN THE PROVISIONS OF S. 269SS IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE LEVY PENALTY U/S. 271D AND HENCE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN LAW IN DELETING PENALTY U/S. 271D OF RS. 3 LACS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AFTER DUE DELIBERATIO N WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE SAME. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE ITO VS. COOKME (SPICE) PVT. LTD. IN ITA NOS. 999/K/2008 599/K/2009 AND 42/K/2010 FOR A .Y. 2003-04 DATED 16.11.2010 HAS HELD AS UNDER : 5. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL PARTIES PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT W HILE DELETING THE PENALTY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT THE ISSUE AS UNDER : 10 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER S UBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS 271D 269T 271E OF THE I. T. ACT AND THE DIFFERENT DECISIONS AND CIRCULARS OF CBDT C ITED ABOVE. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT AND M/S. KRISHNA CHANDRA DUTTA (COOKME) PVT. LTD. ARE SISTER CONCERNS. MR. SARBAJIT DUTTA AND MR. SUR OJIT DUTTA HOLD MAJORITY SHARES IN BOTH THE COMPANIES. THE APPELLANT MAINTAI NS A CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH M/S. KRISHNA CHANDRA DUTTA (COOKME) PVT. LTD. IT TA KES ADVANCES FROM SAID M/S. KRISHNA CHANDRA DUTTA (COOKME) PVT. LTD. TIME TO TIME FOR MEETING THE BUSINESS NEEDS. THE ADVANCES RECEIVED DOES NOT BEAR ANY INTEREST AND ALSO DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY STIPULATION WITH RESPECT TO TIME FO R RETURN OF SUCH ADVANCE. AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. G.P.TAPARIA (2004) 84 TTJ (JD) 34 AND MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF KARNATAKA GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY VS. JT. CIT (2001) 72 TTJ (MUMBAI) 307 HAVE HELD THAT THE M ONEY RECEIVED OR PAID IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIALLY BETWEEN SISTER CO NCERNS ARE CURRENT ACCOUNT TRANSACTIONS AND AT BEST CAN BE TREATED IN THE NATU RE OF ADVANCE AND NOT LOAN OR DEPOSIT AS CONTEMPLATED IN SEC.269SS OR 269T. FURTHER THE ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT WERE FROM PROPER SOURCE AND THERE IS NO DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIO NS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES JUDHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. ALFA HYDROMEC PVT. LTD 99 TTJ 405 (JD) HAS HELD THAT PENALTY U/S.271D SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED . IN VIEW OF ABOVE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS CITED ABOVE AN D KEEPING IN MIND THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF INCORPORATING SEC.269SS AND SEC.269T AS EXPLAINED BY CBDT CIRCULAR NO.387 REPORTED IN 152 ITR (ST)1 I DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. U/S.271D AND SEC.271E. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONT RARY MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WE DO NOT FIND ANY NECESSI TY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. BESIDES THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE ITAT AHM EDABAD BENCH MUMBAI BENCH JODHPUR BENCH AND THE CBDT CIRCULAR ALSO. THEREFOR E THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE PENALTY SO SUSTAINED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) U/S. 271D AND 271E ARE HEREBY DELETED. 4. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 5. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.1.20 11 SD/- SD/- . . ! # . . (C. D. RAO) (D. K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( # # # #) )) ) DATED : 21 ST JANUARY 2011 11 !/0 %&12 %3! JD.(SR.P.S.) . 4 -%%5 65(7- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . + / APPELLANT BASIL EXPRESS LIMITED 12A AMRITA BANE RJEE LANE KOLKATA-26 2 -+ / RESPONDENT DCIT C.C.XXII KOLKATA. 3 . %.& / THE CIT KOLKATA 4. %.& ( )/ THE CIT(A) KOLKATA. 5 . !=% -%& / DR KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA 5 -%/ TRUE COPY .&>/ BY ORDER ? '2 /DEPUTY REGISTRAR .