A.N.C.Securities Ltd., Kolkata V. JCIT(OSD), Circle -4, Kolkata, Kolkata

CO 34/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9426 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 37(1)

Judgement Text

, B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , /AND . . . . ' '' ''# '#'# '#, $% ) [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, AM] & & & & / I.T.A NO. 1747/KOL/2011 '( )* '( )* '( )* '( )*/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD), VS. ANC SECURITIES LTD. CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA (PAN: AACCA2684B) (,- /APPELLANT ) (./,-/ RESPONDENT ) & C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2012 IN & & & & / I.T.A NO. 1747/KOL/2011 '( )* '( )* '( )* '( )*/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ANC SECURITIES LTD. VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA ( CROSS OBJECTOR ) (./,-/ RESPONDENT ) & & & & & / I.T.A NO. 1720/KOL/2011 '( )* '( )* '( )* '( )*/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD), VS. ANC S ECURITIES LTD. CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA (PAN: AACCA2684B) (,- /APPELLANT ) (./,-/ RESPONDENT ) & C.O. NO. 34/KOL/2012 IN & & & & / I.T.A NO. 1720/KOL/2011 '( )* '( )* '( )* '( )*/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ANC SECURITIES LTD. VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA ( CROSS OBJECTOR ) (./,-/ RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 03.03.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.03.2014 FOR THE REVENUE: SHRI SANJAY MUKHERJEE, JCIT, SR. D R FOR THE ASSESSEE: SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH, ADVOCATE $0 / ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: THESE APPEALS BY REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS BY AS SESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-IV, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 203/CIT( A)-IV/09-10 AND NO.100/CIT(A)-IV/10- 2 ITA NO.1747/K/2011 & ITA NO.1720/K/2011 CO NO.33/K/2012 & C.O. NO.34/K/2012 M/S. ANC SECURITIES LTD., AY:2007-08 & 2008-09 11 DATED 28.07.2011. ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED BY DC IT, CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 VIDE HIS ORDERS DATED 31.12.2009 AND 23.12. 2010 RESPECTIVELY. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO.1747/KOL/2011. THE FIRS T ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF EXCESS PURCHASES AND EXCESS SALES QUA FIGURES PROVIDED IN FORM NO.10DB O F THE ACT. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.1: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,29,088/- ON ACCOUNT O F DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNTS OF EXCESS PURCHASE AND EXCESS SALES STATING THAT FIGURES AND SALES AS PROVIDED IN FORM 10DB ARE NOT RECONCILABLE WITH THE FIGURES OF PURCHASE AND S ALES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FINAL ACCOUNTS SINCE ACCORDING TO PRINCIPLE OF ACCOUNTING THESE ARE RECONCILABLE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE AO MADE THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS SALE S AS WELL AS EXCESS PURCHASES AS DECLARED IN FORM NO. 10DB BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALS O FILED RECONCILIATION STATEMENT BUT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION BY STATING THAT THE SAID SALE-PURCHASE INCLUDES SALE PURCHASE TOWAR DS SQUARED OFF TRANSACTION AND THE A/R RECONCILED THE FIGURE. WHILE RECONCILING THE STATEMENT, ASSESSEE HAS INCORPORATED CERTAIN TRANSACTION IN PU RCHASE/SALE WHICH WERE NOT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ROUTED THROUGH THE EXCHANGE. THE AMOUNT OF SU CH DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASE WAS RS.230897/- AND IN THE CASE OF SALE THE DIFFERENCE WAS RS.19819 1/-. HOWEVER, NO BILLS AND IDENTITY OF THE BUYERS OR SUPPLIERS COULD BE FURNISHED ALONG WITH I DENTITY. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS NOT ACCEPTED. HENCE, RS.429088/- BEING DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNTS IS ADDED BACK. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO DELETED THE ADD ITION AFTER CONSIDERING THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT VIDE PARA 3.3 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER AS U NDER: 3.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE AR AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FAC TS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FIGURES OF PURCHASES AND SALES AS PRO VIDED IN FORM 1ODB ARE NOT RECONCILABLE WITH THE FGURES OF THE PURCHASES AND SALES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FINAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE VARIOUS REASONS ENUMERATED HERE AB OVE. AND ALSO AFTER CONSIDERING THE MODE OF COMPUTATION FOR STT (AS PASSED BY FINANCE ( NO:2) ACT, 2004) AND NOTIFICATON NO: S.O.1059(E) ON SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX RULES , 2004, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE FIGURES OF SALES AND PURCHASES SHOWN IN FORM 1ODB A RE BASED ON VOLUME WEIHTED AVERAGE PRCE, WHICH ARE NOT DECISIVE AND MISLEADIN G, WHILE THE ASSESSEE SHOWS PURCHASES AND SALES ON THE BASIS OF VALUE OF EACH T RANSACTION IT HAS ENTERED INTO TO DERIVE TRUE PROFIT OR LOSS ON SUCH TRANSACTION. SECONDLY T HE FIGURES OF PURCHASES AND SALES IN FORM 1ODB ARE WITHOUT BROKERAGE WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE TRANSACTIONS NET OF BROKERAGE. THERE IS A CONSIDERA BLE FORCE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE. ABOVE ALL THE A O DID NOT REBUT THE EXPLANATIONS MADE BY THE AR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO, ON THIS ACCOUNT STANDS DELETED. 3 ITA NO.1747/K/2011 & ITA NO.1720/K/2011 CO NO.33/K/2012 & C.O. NO.34/K/2012 M/S. ANC SECURITIES LTD., AY:2007-08 & 2008-09 AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE US 4. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE RECO NCILIATION STATEMENT WHICH WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE AO BUT HE HAS NOT CONSIDERED FACT THAT THERE IS BROKERAGE WHICH HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR SALES AS WELL AS PURCHASES ON THE BASIS OF NET OF BROKERAGE. ONCE THIS FACT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY T HE CIT(A) AND EVEN NOW REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE RECONCILIATION STATEMEN T, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. THIS IS SUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. COMING TO ITA NO.1720/K/2011. THE SECOND ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AS REGARDS TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALLOWING DEDUCTIO N ON ACCOUNT OF SETTLEMENT GUARANTEE FUND DEPOSITED WITH CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.2: 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS.4,09,380/- FROM SETTLEMENT GUARANTEE FUND DEPOSITED WITH THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FAC T THAT AO DISALLOWED THE SAID DEDUCTION AS THE ASSESSEE WAS DEFAULTER IN PAYMENT IN MARCH. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT AO DISALLOWED GUARANTEE FUND DEPOSITED BY ASSESSEE WITH CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.4, 09,380/-. THE AO HELD THE PAYMENT AS FALLING UNDER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) OF THE A CT BEING PENALTY FOR AN OFFENCE WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED A PPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY STATING THAT THE SETTLEMENT GUAR ANTEE FUND AND PAYMENT MADE ON THAT ACCOUNT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF PENALTY. HENCE HE ALLOWED T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4.2.1. IT WAS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT-ASSE SSEE WAS NEVER BEEN DECLARED DEFAULTER BY THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. AT AN Y POINT OF TIME. I ALSO PERUSED LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE (REFERENCE NO. CS E/ACCT/2010-11/008) OF THE EXCHANGE WHEREIN, AT THE LAST LINE, IT IS STATED TH AT FURTHER WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT YOU NEVER DECLARED DEFAULTER IN THE EXCHANGE. 4.2.2. THEREFORE, THE AOS PERCEPTION ABOUT THE EXP ENSES OF SETTLEMENT GUARANTEE FUND IS UNFOUNDED AND HYPOCRITICAL. FROM NO ANGLE THE P AYMENT IS IN THE NATURE OF PENALTY. HENCE THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED ON THIS COUNT. THE ASS ESSEE GETS RELIEF OF RS.409380/-. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. WE FIND THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.4,09,380/- ON ACC OUNT OF PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENT GUARANTEE FUND BY THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. WAS BORNE BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE VIDE RULES AND REGULATION OF THE EXC HANGE. THE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION 4 ITA NO.1747/K/2011 & ITA NO.1720/K/2011 CO NO.33/K/2012 & C.O. NO.34/K/2012 M/S. ANC SECURITIES LTD., AY:2007-08 & 2008-09 COMPULSORILY COLLECTED BY STOCK EXCHANGE OF WHICH A SSESSEE IS A MEMBER AND WHO IS ALSO GOVERNED BY RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CALCUTTA S TOCK EXCHANGE IS NOT PENALTY. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT ASSESSEE NEVER DEFAULTED IN CALCUTTA STOCK EXC HANGE AT ANY POINT OF TIME AND THIS PAYMENT MADE WAS FOR THE BETTER FUNCTIONING OF CALCUTTA STO CK EXCHANGE, WHICH IN NO WAY CAN BE CALLED AS PENALTY IN NATURE. ONCE THIS IS THE POSITION, T HE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 8. COMING TO NEXT COMMON ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS OF REVENUE AND BOTH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS REGARDS TO DISALLO WANCE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT R.W.R 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE RULES). FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.2 IN ITA NO.1747/K/2011 AND ASS ESSEE IN ITS CO NO. 33/K/2012 HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF RESTRICTION OF 1%: 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE A.O. THAT 1% OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME U PTO RS.8130/- BE ADDED U/S. 14A INSTEAD OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.18,72,516/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT HIS DECISION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY JUDICIAL PRONO UNCEMENT CITED OR GOVERNED BY RULE- 8D. SIMILARLY, IN ITA NO.1720/K/2011 REVENUE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE BY CIT(A) UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) VIDE GROUND NO.1 AS UND ER: 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS.4,09,380/- FROM SETTLEMENT GUARANTEE FUND DEPOSITED WITH THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FAC T THAT AO DISALLOWED THE SAID DEDUCTION AS THE ASSESSEE WAS DEFAULTER IN PAYMENT IN MARCH. AND ASSESSEE IN CO NO. 34/K/2012 HAS RAISED THE ISS UE OF SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE AT RS.85,402/- VIDE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. FOR THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) IV, KOLKATA FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT NONE OF THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FO R THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH R. 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 EXISTED AND/OR HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND/OR FULFILLED IN T HE INSTANT CASE BY THE LD. DEPUTY CORNMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, KOLKATA AND THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED IN THE SUM OF RS. 85,402/- WITHOUT ANY IN FRINGEMENT ON THAT BEHALF IS AB INITIO VOID, ULTRA VIRES AND EX-FACIE NULL IN LAW. 2. FOR THAT THE IMPUGNED FINDING OF THE LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IV, KOLKATA IN UPHOLDING THE ERRONEOUS ADDITION RES ORTED TO BY THE LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, KOLKATA TO TH E EXTENT OF RS. 85,402/- UNDER THE SPECIOUS INVOCATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH R. 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 IS ABSOLUTELY FLAW ED, WRONG AND UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW. 3. FOR THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) IV, KOLKATA MISCONSTRUED THE POSITION IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE P URPORTED DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT 5 ITA NO.1747/K/2011 & ITA NO.1720/K/2011 CO NO.33/K/2012 & C.O. NO.34/K/2012 M/S. ANC SECURITIES LTD., AY:2007-08 & 2008-09 OF RS. 85,402/- RESORTED TO BY THE LD. DEPUTY COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, KOLKATA U/S. 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ W ITH R. 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RU1ES, 1962 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE AND THE PURPORTED FINDINGS ON THAT BEHALF ARE ENTIRELY CAPRICIOUS, FLAWED AND ERR ONEOUS. 9. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT IN BOTH THE YEARS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE LOANS WERE NOT UTILISED FOR INVESTMEMT PURPOSES BUT IT WAS UTI LISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND AS SUCH INTEREST ON LOAN IS IN EXPENDITURE TOWARDS EARNING OF TAXABLE INCOME. THE AO EXAMINED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND NOTED THAT IT IS NOT MAIN TAINING SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR EXTRA AND NON-EXTRA INCOME AND ALSO NOTED THAT LOANS WERE TAKEN IN EARLIER YEARS WHICH WERE UTILISED FOR TRADING PURPOSES. THE AO ACCORDINGLY NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D AND PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WILL BE APPLICABLE AND ACCORDINGLY, HE WORKED OUT DISALLOWA NCE. THE CIT(A) NOTED THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THAT INTEREST BEARING FUN DS WERE NOT UTILISED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT AND FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE AO COULD NOT PROVE VI CE VERSA. THE CIT(A) RECORDED THE FINDING IN PARA 3.3.3 AS UNDER: 3.3.3. IT WAS ALSO SEEN THAT NO DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN INTEREST FREE FUND POSITIONS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE OR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH COULD PROVE THAT ANY BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENTS. THE AO ALSO DID NOT REBUT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM EITHER T HAT THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE NOT USED FOR PURPOSE OF INVESTMENTS IN SHARES. THE ONUS WAS ON THE AO TO ESTABLISH THAT EXPENDITUE AND INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS WERE INCU RRED TO EARN TAX FREE INCOME. THIS ONUS HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED. S. 14A REQUIRES A CLA RAR FINDING OF INCURRENCE OF EXPENDITURE AND NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTIONS. ONCE THIS FINDING IS RECORDED BY CIT(A) THAT ASSESS EES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE CLEAR AND NO DEFECT IS POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE INTEREST FRE E FUND POSITION EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE OR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH PROVES T HAT BORROWED FUNDS WERE NOT USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING THE INVESTMENTS, THE DISALLOWAN CE CANNOT BE MADE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BFORE US NOW ARGUED THAT NO SATISFACTI ON WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE AO REGARDING CORRECTNESS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE N O DIWSALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES. HOWEVER, F OR THE AY 2007-08 CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY RESTRICTED THE ADDITION AT 1% OF EXEMPTED INCOME. WE CONFIRM THE SAME. AS REGARDS TO AY 2008-09, THE CIT(A) SPECIFICALLY MADE DISALLOWANCE OF DEMAT CHARGES AND 0.50% ON AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT AT RS.20,775/- AND RS.64,627/- RESPECTIVELY AGGREGATING TO RS.85,402/-. ONCE THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THERE IS NO DEFECT POINTE D OUT BY AO AND THERE IS NO SATISFACTION THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT, THE DISALLOWANCE IS UNWARRANTED. WE DELETE THE SAME. 6 ITA NO.1747/K/2011 & ITA NO.1720/K/2011 CO NO.33/K/2012 & C.O. NO.34/K/2012 M/S. ANC SECURITIES LTD., AY:2007-08 & 2008-09 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISM ISSED AND CROSS OBJECTION NO. 33/K/2012 OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AND C.O. NO. 34/K/2013 IS ALLOWED. 11. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.03. 2014 SD/- SD/- . . . . ' '' ''# '#'# '# , $% , (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 13TH MARCH, 2014 12 '3' 4 JD.(SR.P.S.) $0 5 . 6$ )7- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . ,- / APPELLANT- JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA. 2 ./,- / RESPONDENT ANC SECURITIES LTD., 7, LYONS RANGE, 3 RD FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 001. 3 . 0' ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. 0' / CIT KOLKATA <= .' / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / ./ TRUE COPY, $0'>/ BY ORDER, ' /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .