Smt Sharmilla Bose, Kolkata V. ITO, WD-41(1), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 1091/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1262 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: S MITRA
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Charitable institution; Commercial expediency
• Section: 133(6); 80G

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH (SMC), KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP] I.T.A. NO. 1091/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SMT. SHARMILLA BOSE.............................APPELLANT 49A, SHYAMBAZAR STREET, KOLKATA - 700004 [PAN : AAJPB7004J] INCOME TAX OFFICER..........................RESPONDENT WARD 41(1), KOLKATA, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, PODDAR COURT, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA- 700001. APPEARANCES BY: SHRI S. MITRA, ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI S. BISWAS, ADDL. CIT APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 04, 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 13, 2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (APPEALS) 13, KOLKATA DATED 19.02.2006 AND ALTHOUGH THERE ARE 3 GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRESSED AND ARGUED ONLY ONE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO 1 RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF 7,50,000/- MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF COST OF SERVICES PAID TO A.K. GHOSH & CO. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF MARKETING AND SALES AGENT. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY HER ON 29.10.2007 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,90,930/-. IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS 2 I.T.A. NO. 1091/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 SMT. SHARMILLA BOSE ACCOUNT FILED ALONG WITH THE SAID RETURN, A SUM OF RS. 16,11,407/- WAS DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF SERVICES. SINCE THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF SERVICES PROPORTIONATE TO HIS GROSS RECEIPTS FROM PROFESSION WERE MUCH HIGHER THAN CLAIMED IN THE EARLIER YEAR, THE AO EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPENSES CLAIMED ON COST OF SERVICES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS REGARD, HE FOUND FROM THE RELEVANT DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT A SUM OF RS. 7,50,000/- WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO A.K. GHOSH & CO. AS SUB BROKERAGE FEES. ALTHOUGH SHRI ASIM GHOSH, PROPRIETOR OF A.K. GHOSH & CO. CONFIRMED THE FACT OF HAVING RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 7,50,000/- FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR SERVICES RENDERED CONCERNING THE INSURANCE MATTER IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) BY THE AO, HE ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO FORMAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN HIM AND THE ASSESSEE FOR RENDERING SUCH SERVICES. AO ALSO FOUND THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 7,50,000/- WAS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTLY TO A.K. GHOSH & CO. AND THE SAID PAYMENT WAS MADE BY TWO CHEQUES OF RS. 5 LAC AND RS. 2.5 LAC DRAWN IN THE NAME OF SHREE RAM TRUST AND RANGANATH BANGUR CHARITABLE TRUST. ON FURTHER ENQUIRY, THE ASSESSEE STATED IN A LETTER DATED 08.12.2009 THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT WITH M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO. AND HE WAS LIABLE TO PAY 34% OF THE FEES RECEIVED FROM BAJAJ ALLIANZ CO. TO A.K. GHOSH & CO. AS PER THE SAID AGREEMENT. THIS STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO BY TREATING THE SAME AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT SINCE M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO HAD CLEARLY ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO FORMAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE. HE HELD THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO. TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS BUSINESS AND THE 3 I.T.A. NO. 1091/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 SMT. SHARMILLA BOSE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED TO BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF SERVICES PAID TO THE SAID PARTY WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. 3. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON PAYMENT OF COST OF SERVICES TO M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO. WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THIS CASE ON THIS ISSUE: THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR WAS MARKETING AND SALES SUPPORT CONSULTANT OF M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AS PER LETTER DATED APRIL 1, 2006. HER MAIN RESPONSIBILITY WAS TO PROCURE GENERAL INSURANCE POLICY FROM THE VARIOUS BIG COMPANIES AND CONCERNS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE SAID M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED INCLUDING THE PREMIUM PAYMENT IN FAVOUR OF M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. AS PER CONSULTANCY ASSIGNMENT M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED OUTLINED CONSULTANCY SERVICES TO BE RENDERED BEING NOT EXHAUSTIVE PUT PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES WHICH WOULD INCLUDE: 1. PROVIDING OFFICE SPACE, COMMUNICATION AND OTHER FACILITIES FOR OUR USE. 2. ASSISTING IN DEVELOPING MARKETING STRATEGIES FOR THE VARIOUS PRODUCTS OF THE COMPANY AND PARTICULAR MARKET SEGMENTS LIKE THE SME & CORPORATE BUSINESS IN THE LOCAL MARKET. 3. ASSISTING IN DISTRIBUTING PUBLICITY MATERIAL, POINT OF PURCHASE DISPLAYS ETC. AS REQUIRED/APPROVED BY US. 4. ORGANIZING CUSTOMER AWARENESS PROGRAMMES AS REQUIRED/APPROVED BY US. 5. PROVIDING OF AFTER SALES SERVICES IN RESPECT OF ANY BUSINESS/CLIENTS OF THE COMPANY AS REFERRED TO YOU FROM TIME TO TIME. 6. PROVIDING MARKET FEEDBACK TO US. 4 I.T.A. NO. 1091/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 SMT. SHARMILLA BOSE 7. ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTION AND INSTRUCTION GIVEN BY THE COMPANY FROM TIME TO TIME. THE DETAILED NORMS WOULD BE ASSIGNED BY OUR MANAGER MARKETING (THE ABOVE LIST IS ILLUSTRIOUS AND NOT EXHAUSTIVE). HOWEVER, THE COMPANY DURING THE PERIOD OF THE CONSULTANCY CONTRACT MAY ENTRUST WITH OTHER ASSIGNMENTS, IN SO FAR AS SUCH ASSIGNMENTS ARE JUST, REASONABLE AND WITHIN YOUR COMPETENCIES AS A CONSULTANT. KEEPING IN VIEW, THE ASSESSEE RENDERED SERVICES BY HERSELF AND THROUGH ITS ASSOCIATES AND APPOINTED PERSONS AND ACHIEVED A CONSIDERABLE VOLUME OF BUSINESS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL COMPANY LTD. AND RECEIVED SERVICES FEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 22,69,323/- AND INCURRED PAYMENTS OF COST OF SERVICES AMOUNTING TO RS. 16,11,407.49/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS EXPLAINED AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE SERVICES OF VARIOUS PERSONS IN ACCOMPLISHING THE SERVICES ENTRUSTED THE CONSIDERATION IN THE SAME MODE AND MANNER, THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. PAID THE SERVICE FEE TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE WERE ENGAGEMENT LETTER FOR TENDERING SERVICES. M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO. WAS ENGAGED TO RENDER SERVICES AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS IN RECEIPT OF SUB-SERVICE FEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,50,000/- WHICH WAS PAID TO M/S. SHREE RAM TRUST AND RANGANATH BANGUR CHARITABLE TRUST AT THE INSTANCE OF M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO. SUPPORTED BY WRITTEN REQUEST. ALL THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS RELATED TO PAYMENT OF SERVICE FEE AS STATED HEREIN THESE PARAGRAPHS ARE ENCLOSED RECORD AND READY REFERENCE. SUCH PAYMENTS WERE APPLICATION OF INCOME OF M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO. IT HAS BEEN ALLEGED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT SUCH PAYMENTS WAS NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS AND IT WAS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO. AND ALSO THERE WAS NO DIRECT NEXUS AND ABSENCE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. 5 I.T.A. NO. 1091/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 SMT. SHARMILLA BOSE IT IS ABSOLUTELY STRANGE THAT M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO. ADMITTED THE FACT AS TO THE RENDERING OF SERVICES AND ACCRUALITY OF INCOME IN A REPLY UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HOW COULD THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED SUCH PAYMENTS ON THE ALLEGED GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO DIRECT NEXUS AND COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ALLEGED THAT M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO. IN HIS CONFIRMATION ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO FORMAL AGREEMENT AND WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT WITH M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO DATED 25.04.2006 WHICH IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MIS UNDERSTOOD THE ENGAGEMENT LETTER AS AGREEMENT. THE FORMAL AGREEMENT SHOULD BE ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPAL AND RULES OF DRAFTING HAVING WITNESSES ETC. M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO. THAT IS WHY STATED THAT FORMAL AGREEMENT WAS NOT THERE. IN THIS CONTEST A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.12.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED ITO IS ENCLOSED, THE TEXT OF WHICH IS SELF EXPLANATORY AND WHY THE PAYMENT OF RS. 7,50,000/- MUST BE ALLOWED AND THE UNDERSIGNED REITERATE THE SAME, WHICH HAS BEEN IGNORED ALL TOGETHER. 4. THE LD. CIT (A) DID NOT MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, HE FOUND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION CLAIMED TO BE PAID TO M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO. WAS MADE BY THE AO AFTER RECORDING THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: I. THE SUB BROKERAGE RECEIVER M/S. A.K. GHOSH & COMPANY IS IN CONTRACTING BUSINESS. II. THAT THE SO CALLED SUB BROKER M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO. IS GOVT. CONTRACTOR & DESIGNER. II. THERE WAS NO BASIS PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT FOR WORKING OUT COMMISSION OR SUB BROKERAGE OF COST OF SERVICE. IV. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT ESTABLISHED THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE SERVICES RENDERED AND PAYMENT MADE. V. THE AO OBSERVED THAT INITIALLY THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN M/S. A.K. GHOSH AND THE APPELLANT, BUT AT LATER STAGE A CONTRACT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. (WHERE IN IT IS STATED THAT YOUR FEE FOR PROVIDING SERVICE INCLUDING YOUR OFFICIAL EXPENDITURE AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES SHALL BE BASES ON YOUR PERFORMANCE AS EVALUATED TO MAXIMUM 34% OF THE FEES THAT I WILL BE RECEIVING FROM M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ). THE PERUSAL OF AFORESAID AGREEMENT CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE AGREEMENT IS NOT SPECIFIC AND VERY VAGUE. 6 I.T.A. NO. 1091/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 SMT. SHARMILLA BOSE VI. THE SUB BROKER DID NOT RAISE ANY BILL AND THE LUMP SUM PAYMENT WERE CLAIMED TO BE MADE TO THE SO CALLED SUB BROKER. VII. THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE TO THE SUB BROKER, IT WAS MADE TO THE TRUST STATED TO BE ON BEHALF OF THE SUB BROKER. VII. IT WAS NOT PAID THROUGHOUT THE YEAR OR UP TO THE MARCH RATHER IT WAS PAID AT ONE GO AND DETAILS OF SERVICES RENDERED WERE NOT PROVIDED AND BUSINESS EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO AFORESAID PAYMENT WERE ALSO NOT SUBMITTED. 5. AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE ABOVE FACTS RECORDED BY THE AO AS WELL AS MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT COMMISSION CLAIMED TO BE PAID TO M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER: THE AFORESAID ACTIVITY WERE NEVER PROVED BY THE APPELLANT EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR AT APPELLATE STAGE. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT SHRI SOMNATH BOSE IS RELATIVE OF THE APPELLANT WHO ALSO DEALS WITH THE INSURANCE WORK OF BAJAJ ALLIANZ AND RECEIVES COMMISSION, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE DEALING WITH THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ IN INSURANCE WORK IS FAMILY BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT NO WHERE THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT M/S. A.K. GHOSH HAS SHOWN IT INCOME FROM COMMISSION BUSINESS. THE PAN AND RETURN IT DETAILS ARE NOT FILLED. THE BASIS OF WORKING OF COMMISSION HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN. THERE ARE NO PERIODIC PAYMENT AGAINST THE COMMISSION. EVEN PAYMENT IS MADE UP TO THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER ONLY, THAT TOO ON TWO DATES I.E. 17.10.2006 AND 19.11.2005. HOW THE APPELLANT WAS SURE ABOUT HER ENTIRE RECEIPT UP TO THE MONTH OF MARCH AND PAID 34% IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER ITSELF. THIS SHOWS THAT THESE ACTIONS ARE AFTER THOUGHT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A CASE WHERE ASSESSEE TRIED TO OBTAIN 80G BENEFIT BY WAY OF REDUCING THE TAXABLE INCOME AND LATER ON AT SECOND THOUGHT CREDITED THE ACCOUNT OF MR. A.K. GHOSH & CO AND DEBITED ENTIRE 7,50,000 AS EXPENSES AND M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO. WAS BROUGHT IN TO CONDITION OF GETTING BENEFIT OF 80G PROVISIONS. THE TREATMENT OF THE AFORESAID INCOME IN THE HANDS OF M/S. A.K. GHOSH HAS NOT BEEN INFORMED AT ANY STAGE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS IT IS HELD THAT THE TRANSACTION SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IS NO GENUINE, NON ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS AND IT S ARTIFICIALLY CREATED TO REDUCE THE TAXABLE PROFIT. HENCE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 7 I.T.A. NO. 1091/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 SMT. SHARMILLA BOSE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINLY REITERATED BEFORE ME, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE HOWEVER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH ON EVIDENCE THE FACTUM AS WELL AS QUANTUM OF SERVICES CLAIMED TO BE RENDERED BY A.K. GHOSH & CO. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. AS POINTED OUT BY THE AO, M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO. WAS IN CONTRACTING BUSINESS AND THERE WAS NO BASIS WHATSOEVER GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WORKING OUT THE COMMISSION OF RS. 7,50,000/- PAID TO THE SAID PARTY. THE SAID PARTY DID NOT RAISE ANY BILL FOR THE SERVICES CLAIMED TO BE RENDERED TO THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 7,50,000/- WAS NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SAID PARTY BUT IT WAS PAID TO TWO TRUST. AS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS SHOWN BY M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO. AS ITS INCOME IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME. ALTHOUGH COMMISSION @ 34% OF THE FEES RECEIVED FROM BAJAJ ALLIANZ WAS CLAIMED TO BE PAID TO M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 7,50,000/- IN QUESTION WAS NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO. REGULARLY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE SAME WAS PAID IN LUMP SUM IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER. AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND AS TO HOW THE COMMISSION OF 34% OF THE FEES RECEIVED FROM BAJAJ ALLIANZ DURING THE 8 I.T.A. NO. 1091/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 SMT. SHARMILLA BOSE ENTIRE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION COULD BE WORKED OUT IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER / NOVEMBER ITSELF. HAVING REGARD TO ALL THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, I FIND MYSELF IN AGREEMENT WITH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION IN QUESTION CLAIMED TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. A.K. GHOSH & CO. CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS AND CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON THIS ISSUE, I DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH OCTOBER, 2017. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 13/10/2017 BISWAJIT, SR. PS COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SMT. SHARMILLA BOSE, 49A, SHYAMBAZAR STREET, KOLKATA 700004. 2. ITO, WARD 41(1), KOLKATA, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, PODDAR COURT, KOLKATA. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. DR TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SR. P.S. / H.O.O. ITAT, KOLKATA