Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Rajesh Kumar
Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 11th May, 2023 passed for Assessment Year 2012-13.
(A.Y. 2012-2013) M/s. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited 2. The assessee has taken five grounds of appeal, but its grievances revolve around a single issue, namely ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,79,44,500/-, which was added by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
3. The assessee has filed an application for permission to adduce additional evidences. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has received share capital amounting to Rs.8,30,000/- plus premium of Rs.4,71,14,500/- from ten share applicants. This share capital including premium received by the assessee has been treated as an unexplained cash credit and added with the aid of section 68 of the Income Tax Act by the ld. Assessing Officer. Out of ten share applicants, assessments were made under section 143(3) in the cases of seven (7) share applicants under section 143(3) in this very assessment year. Therefore, assessee wants to place on record copies of those assessment orders in order to prove the identity of these share applicants.
The ld. D.R., on the other hand, submitted that the assessee did not participate the hearing seriously with the ld. Assessing Officer. Before the ld. CIT(Appeals), it has filed written submission, which has duly been reproduced by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in the impugned order, which would goad to us to construe that these submissions have been considered by the ld. 1st Appellate Authority. The assessment orders were passed in these cases way back in 2015. The appeal was also instituted before the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 28.05.2015. The assessee has neither applied
We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Rule 29 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 do authorize the Tribunal to permit parties to the appeal for production of additional evidences. Such Rule reads as under:- “29. The parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined or any affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, or, if the income tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence either on points specified by them or not specified by them, the Tribunal, for reasons to be recorded, may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined or affidavit to be filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced”.
A perusal of the above Rule would indicate that it does not authorize the parties to produce any additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal. It only empowers the Tribunal to take on record any evidence, which can help the Tribunal to decide the appeal judiciously. Therefore, taking into consideration the pleadings of the assessee and the nature of evidence, it sought to produce. We deem it appropriate to take it on the record because such evidences will not be required to cross verify by the ld. Assessing Officer. These are the assessment orders passed in the case of share applicants and, therefore, their genuineness cannot be doubted. We allow this application and take these evidences on record for our consideration.
(A.Y. 2012-2013) M/s. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited 7. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 25.03.2013 declaring ‘NIL’ income. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was duly issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter issued notice under section 142(1). On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed that the assessee has taken share application money from ten Companies, whose details have been tabulated by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the written submission. Such details read as under:- SHAREHOLDER PREMIUM NO. OF FACE Total SHARES VALUE Capital Promoter 50000 1 0 50000 Promoter 50000 1 0 50000 M/s. Green and shine 325000 1 0 325000 Trading (P) Ltd M/s. Hanumanth 325000 1 0 325000 Dealcom (P) Ltd. M/s. Rankini 9000 1 589 5310000 Tracom (P) Ltd. M/s. Hariom 12000 1 589 7080000 Vincom (P) Ltd. M/s. Natraj 8000 1 589 4720000 Mercantile (P) Ltd. M/s. Gangotri Sales (P) 10000 1 589 5900000 Ltd. M/s. Kushal 11000 1 589 6490000 Commodities (P) Ltd. M/s. Energy 12000 1 589 7080000 Distributors (P) Ltd. M/s. Swarnalaxmi 13000 1 589 7670000 Dealcom (P) Ltd. M/s. Monitor 5000 1 589 2950000 Suppliers (P) Ltd,
TOTAL 830000 47950000 (A.Y. 2012-2013) M/s. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited 8. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed written submissions and we deem it appropriate to take note of these submissions also:-
“At the outset we would like to submit that all the grounds of appeal are in connection to addition of Rs. 47944500/- made towards increase in share capital invoking the provision of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the total income of the appellant by the Ld. A.O. Your Honour, for the sake of convenience we would like to recite the provision of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961;
68. Cash Credits “Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited maybe charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year” Your Honour, from the plain reading of the above section it is crystal clear that for the applicability of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following conditions must be satisfied- (A) there must be cash credited in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee during the year under consideration, AND (B) the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof; OR the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the assessing officer satisfactory. Your Honour, the present facts of the case, the appellant had not received a single sum of money from any of the share subscribers, except the promoters at the time of incorporation of the company. Therefore, sine qua non condition for the applicability of section 68 i.e. sum credited in the books of accounts maintained for any previous year, is not satisfied in the present case. Hence, the invoked provision is not suitable in the present case and the addition made therein is liable to be deleted.
(A.Y. 2012-2013) M/s. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited In this regard we would also like to submit that the provision reads as ‘sum credited in the books of accounts’, and the word sum is not defined in the Act. Therefore, one has to consider a meaningful meaning of the word “SUM”, which in the present case clearly inclines towards cash or cash equivalent as the heading of the section suggests the same. Moreover, Your Honour, if any amount of money is not received/receivable by the appellant then, by no stretch of imagination, the appellant could be treated as have being earned taxable income. In the present facts of the case, the Ld. A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the appellant is not having any bank account and has not received a single sum of money from any of the shareholder. Moreover, both the lower authorities have failed to note that major of the shares were issued without any premium and at face value. There was no proper application of mind, before making the addition and from the perusal of the orders passed by the lower authorities, it is found that the addition is being made with a biased mind, without any verification and logical reasoning. Such additions made on surmises and conjunctures are liable to be deleted and should not sustained. Your Honour, the appellant had provided complete details of the share subscribers to the Ld. A.O. at the time of assessment and also to the Ld. CIT(A) at the time of first appellate proceedings. However, the Ld. A.O. had not mentioned any points about the details of the share subscribers. It is a mechanical finding, without proper application of mind, that the Ld. A.O. has made an addition of Rs.4,79,44,500/- towards share capital including premium. Your Honour, the total value of share capital including premium is Rs.4,79,50,000/-. However, the Ld. A.O. without making any verification of the books of accounts, or the submission made by the appellant, has passed a stereotype order, relying only on certain decisions, which are not applicable in the present facts of the case. This shows that the Id. A.O. has not lend any credence to the submission made by the appellant and had made the addition with a biased mind. Your Honour, it was also mentioned to the Id. CIT(A) about the quantum of capital, however, the Id. CIT(A) also failed to note the same and had passed an order merely on the basis of certain case laws which are not identical to the present facts of the case. Your Honour, no verification of any nature is done by the lower authorities in the present case and the addition is made on whimsical basis, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be deleted.
(A.Y. 2012-2013) M/s. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited In this regard, we would like to rely on the following case laws, which holds that in case amount of money is not received in cash or bank, provision of section 68 is not applicable and no addition can be made; (1) In the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. V.R. GIobal Energy (P) Ltd. SLP was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex court. [113 taxmann.com 31] (2) In the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. M/s. Anand enterprises Ltd. divisional bench of Kolkata ITAT, dismissed the appeal of revenue [I.T.A No. 1614/Kol/2016 dated 26.09.2018] (3) In the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. Trilokpati Exim (P) Ltd. Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT dismissed the appeal of the revenue [I.T.A No. 477/Kol/2019] In light of the decision given in the above case laws and the facts of the present case, the addition of Rs.47944500/- made by the Id. A.O. invoking the provision of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, unsustainable and liable to be deleted. Your Honour, we would also like to submit that the appellant had provided complete details of the shareholders with their PAN and address, books of accounts, copy. All the shareholders (except promoters) are private limited companies and are having valid corporate identification number and are also assessed to income tax. It is pertinent to mention here that the share subscribers to whom shares were allotted on premium are all assessed to income tax u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Copy of the assessment orders are enclosed herewith for your kind consideration as Annexure B). Your Honour, the Ld. A.O. was having the PAN details of all the share subscribers, could have verified from the assessing officers of the share subscribers. However, no pain was taken by the Ld. A.O. to verify the details submitted by the appellant. Your Honour, as all the share subscribers are assessed by Income Tax Officer for the same assessment year, identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction could not be disputed by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, the appellant had submitted all the details to substantiate the nature and source of the share capital. Your Honour, the Ld. A.O. has not pointed out any infirmity in the details provided by the appellant. Also, the Ld. A.O. failed to mention what further details was required by him, which could satisfy him about the nature and source.
(A.Y. 2012-2013) M/s. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited Your Honour the Ld. A.O. insisted for personal appearance of the directors of the subscriber companies without even going through and discussing about the discrepancies, if any, in the documents furnished by the appellant as well as by the share subscriber companies to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the subscribers and the genuineness of the transaction. Your Honour without examining those documents how could the Ld. A.O. came to a conclusion that the transactions in question were not genuine. The Ld. A.O. has not pointed out in the assessment order as to what further enquiries he wanted to make from the directors of the subscribers to insist for their personal presence. Your Honour there are plethora of judgements that non- appearance of directors cannot be ground to make the additions once all documentary evidences w.r.t genuineness, creditworthiness etc. filed on record. In this regard we would like to place reliance of the decision held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Crystal Networks (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [35 taxmann.com 432 dated 29.07.2010]. We would also like to place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. Cygnus Developers (I) (P) Ltd. [I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2012 dated 02.03.2016] In light of the above case laws, the addition made by the Ld. A.O. is not sustainable and is liable to be deleted. In light of the above submission, we would like to pray before Your Honour that the order of the Id. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O. to the tune of Rs. 4,79,44,500/- invoking the provision of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law and the addition should be deleted. Last but not the least, we would like to pray before your honour that if any further, clarification in this regard is required then kindly provide an opportunity of being heard. The appellant, as duty bound, shall be ever praying for this act of kindness”.
The ld. D.R., on the other hand, submitted that though the ld. Assessing Officer has devoted much energy towards jurisprudence, but ld. 1st Appellate Authority has examined the facts in details. He further contended that a perusal of accounts of the assessee, i.e. balance-sheet, it would reveal that it has shown (A.Y. 2012-2013) M/s. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited shareholders fund including reserve and surplus at Rs.4,79,44,500/-. It’s total revenue is zero. It has debited expenditure of only Rs.5,500/-. It has not paid any taxes. It has issued subscribed and fully paid-up equity shares of 8,30,000 of Rs.1/- each. It has not been doing any business. It is also a paper company and misusing the procedure by receiving the huge premium. As far as the assessment orders of other share applicants placed on record by the assessee are concerned, each applicant is not doing any genuine business, rather indulging themselves in accommodation entries by making investment in a Company, like the present one or some identical paper companies. There is no real business in the hands of any of the applicants.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that the assessee-company has received the shares under the barter system and, therefore, no addition under section 68 would be made. He put reliance on the order of ITAT dated 20th May, 2024 in in the case of M/s. Vishnu Distributors Pvt. Limited, wherein after putting reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court under similar circumstances, additions have been deleted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and such an order has been upheld by the ITAT.
We have duly considered the written submission of the assessee as well as the submission of the ld. D.R., before we embark upon an inquiry on the facts of the present appeal, in order to find out whether the share capital and share premium money received by the assessee during the year is required to be treated (A.Y. 2012-2013) M/s. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited as its unexplained credit and deserves to be added under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, we deem it appropriate to bear in mind certain basic principles/tests propounded in various authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court. We take cognizance of some of them. It is pertinent to observe that in so far as companies incorporated under Indian Companies Act are concerned, whether Private Limited or Public Limited Companies, they raise their share capital through shares, though manner of raising share capital in Private Limited Company on one hand and Public Limited Company on other hand, would be different. The share capital and share premium are basically irreversible receipts or credits in the hands of the companies. Share capital is considered to be cost of shares on equivalent amount issued and premium is considered as extra amount charged by the company for issue of that capital. In the case of Private Limited Company, normally shares are subscribed by family members or persons known/close to the promoters. Public Limited Company, on the other hand, generally raised by public issue inviting general public at large for subscription of these shares. Yet, it is also possible that in the case of Public Limited Company, the share capital is issued in close-circuit. When companies incorporated under the Companies Act raise their capital through shares, various persons would apply for shares and then give share application money. This amount received from such share holder would naturally be credited in the books of accounts of the assessee. Once the alleged share capital is credited to the accounts of the assessee, then role of section 68 (A.Y. 2012-2013) M/s. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited would come. It is pertinent to take note of this section. It reads as under: "Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the officer, satisfactory the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year."
A perusal of the section would indicate that basically this section contemplates three conditions required to be fulfilled by an assessee. In other words, the assessee is required to give explanation which will exhibit nature of transaction and also explain the source of such credit. The explanation should be to the satisfaction of the AO. In order to give such type of explanation which could satisfy the AO, the assessee should fulfill three ingredients viz. (a) identity of the share applicants, (b) genuineness of the transaction, and (c) credit-worthiness of share applicants. As far as construction of section 68 and to understand its meaning is concerned, there is no much difficulty. Difficulty arises when we apply the conditions formulated in this section on the given facts and circumstances. In other words, it has been propounded in various decisions that section 68 contemplates that there should be a credit of amounts in the books of an assessee maintained by the assessee, (b) such amount has to be a sum received during the previous year, (c) the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credit found in the books, or (d) the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Novadaya Castles (P.) Ltd. 367 ITR 306 has 11 (A.Y. 2012-2013) M/s. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited considered a large number of decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). According to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, basically there are two sets of judgments. In one set of cases, the assessee produced necessary documents/evidence to show and establish identity of the shareholder and bank account from which payment was made. The fact that payment was received through bank channels, filed necessary affidavit of the shareholders or confirmations of the directors of the shareholder company. But thereafter no further inquiry was made by the AO. The second set of cases are those where there was evidence and material to show that the shareholder company was only a paper company having no source of income, but had made substantial and huge investments in the form of share application money. The Assessing Officer has referred to the bank statement, financial position of the recipient and beneficiary assessee and surrounding circumstances.
Let us take into consideration observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Softline Creations P. Ltd. (supra) while taking note of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Fair Finvest Ltd., 357 ITR 146 (Delhi). Hon'ble Delhi High Court made following observations:
"………This court has considered the concurrent order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Both these authorities primarily went by the fact that the assessee had provided sufficient indication by way of permanent account numbers, to highlight the identity of the share applicants, as well as produced 12 (A.Y. 2012-2013) M/s. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited the affidavits of the directors. Furthermore, the bank details of the share applicants too had been provided. In the circumstances, it was held that the assessee had established the identity of the share applicants, the genuineness of transactions and their creditworthiness; The Assessing Officer chose to proceed no further but merely added the amounts because of the absence of the directors to physically present themselves before him.
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has relied upon a decision of this court in CIT v. fair Finvest Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 146 (Delhi), where in somewhat similar circumstances, it was stated as follows (page 152):
"This court has considered the submissions of the parties. In this case the discussion by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) would reveal that the assessee has filed documents including certified copies issued by the Registrar of Companies in relation to the share application, affidavits of the directors, Form 2 filed with the Registrar of Companies by such applicants confirmations by the applicant for company's shares, certificates by auditors etc. Unfortunately, the Assessing Officer chose to base himself merely on the general inference to be drawn from the reading of the investigation report and the statement of Mr. Mahesh Garg. To elevate the inference which can be drawn on the basis of reading of such material into judicial conclusions would be improper, more so when the assessee produced material. The least that the Assessing Officer ought to have done was to enquire into the matter by, if necessary, invoking his powers under section 131 summoning the share applicants or directors. No effort was made in that regard. In the absence of any such finding that the material disclosed was untrustworthy or lacked credibility the Assessing Officer merely concluded on the basis of enquiry report, which collected certain facts and the 13 (A.Y. 2012-2013) M/s. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited statements of Mr. Mahesh Garg that the income sought to be added fell within the description of section 68. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances, the court is satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal in this case accords with the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Lovely Exports (supra)"
We also deem it appropriate to take note of some of observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court from the decision of Fair Finvest Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Court has noticed proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd., 329 ITR 271 (Delhi) regarding non-production of share applicants before the AO. The following observations are worth to note:
“...In this connection the observation of the jurisdictional High Court in case of Dwarkadhish Investment (Supra) are quite relevant where the court has observed that it is the revenue which has all the power and wherewithal to trace any person. Further in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd. 329 ITR 271 it has been held that there is no legal obligation on the assessee to produce some Director or other representative of the Director or other representative of the applicant companies before the A.O. Therefore, failure on part of the assessee to produce the Directors of the share applicant companies could not by itself have justified the additions made by the AO particularly when the seven share applicant companies through their present Directors have now again filed fresh affidavits confirming the application and allotment of shares with respect to the total amount of Rs.45 Lacs. It is observed that no attempt was made by the AO to summon the Directors of the share applicant companies. Moreover, it is settled law that the assessee need not prove the "source of source". Accordingly, it was (A.Y. 2012-2013) M/s. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited incumbent upon the department to have enforced attendance of Shri Mahesh Garg or the erstwhile Directors of the share applicant companies and confronted them with the evidences & affidavits relied upon by the appellant and thereupon given opportunity to the assessee to cross examine these applicants."
In the light of above, we have examined the facts and circumstances. One of the share applicants is M/s. Kushal Commodities Pvt. Limited. Copy of the assessment order of this company is available on page no. 22. Apart from this copy of the assessment order, no other paper has been placed on record by the assessee except computation of income. In this case, ld. Assessing Officer has treated this company as a paper company, who is not doing any real business. There is no evidence placed on record that the assessee has sold its shares by swapping the shares of some other company. Perusal of this assessment order would reveal that this assessee has also raised huge share capital and ld. Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.5,60,36,170/-. Though the ld. Counsel for the assessee has tried to draw a parity from the order of ITAT in the case of M/s. Vishnu Distributors Pvt. Limited, but on facts, there is no reconciliation which could exhibit that this contribution of Rs.64,90,000/- is by way of certain shares whose ownership has been transferred in favour of the assessee. The next applicant is M/s. Swarnalaxmi Dealcom Pvt. Limited, whose assessment order is available on page no. 27. This assessee has also raised huge share premium. Addition has been made in its hand. Nothing is available on the record that there is any exchange of ownership of shares between this and the assessee. The finding of the ld. Assessing Officer in the scrutiny assessment (A.Y. 2012-2013) M/s. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited of assessee’s case is that it is a paper company not doing any business. It has also declared taxable income of Rs.22,430/- only but gave a huge share premium to the assessee. The value of the shares is only Rs.13,000/- and on each share, it paid a premium of Rs.589/- and thus purchased the shares of assessee at Rs.76,70,000/-. We are unable to understand what is the source of this premium and for what purpose, it has been given. Why investment is being made in a company, which has no business plan. We have minutely examined each and every assessment order placed before us including the details of the assessee and we arrived at a conclusion that these are only just make belief story on the basis of some sort of documents. The assessee has not produced Directors of any of the share applicant companies before the ld. Assessing Officer. He has not demonstrated as to how this company can command a huge share premium of Rs.589/- per share having value of Rs.1/- each. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation in holding that it is bogus share application money received by the assessee for the purpose of ulterior motive to system. The case law relied upon by the assessee, namely judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 5th November, 2019 in the case of ITO -vs.- V.R. Global Energy (P.) Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 31 (SC), judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court dated 17th November, 2023 in the case of PCIT -vs.- M/s. Abhijeet Enterprise Limited [ITAT/187 of 2023 (IA No. GA/1/2023, GA/2/2023)] and the decision of ITAT dated May 20, 2024 in the case of ITO -vs.- M/s. Vishnu Distributors Pvt. Limited, has no bearing on the facts of the present case. The decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s. Abhijeet Enterprise (A.Y. 2012-2013) M/s. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited Limited and of ITAT in the case of M/s. Vishnu Distributors Pvt. Limited were put for buttressing the contention that these are the shares which have been sold by the assessee in lieu of certain other shares of other companies, but factually it has not been demonstrated before us. No exchange notes have been placed on the record. It has not been discernable which company’s shares are being owned by the assessee as an investor. Therefore, no parity be claimed with the facts of these decisions. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/09/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) (Rajpal Yadav) Accountant Member Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 24th day of September, 2024 Copies to :(1) M/s. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Limited, 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-700001 (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 (3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; 17