ITO, Ward-1(4), Durgapur, Durgapur V. M/s. Major Singh Transport, Panagarh

ITA 1102/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6510 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P K SRIHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIKESH BANERJEE
• Section: 40(a)(ia); 194C; 250; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. NO. 1102/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), DURGAPUR...............................................APPELLANT VS. M/S. MAJOR SINGH TRANSPORT.................RESPONDENT G.T. ROAD, PANAGARH BAZAR NEAR ICICI BANK ATM (GURUDWARA) PANAGARH 713 148 [PAN : AAPFM 2048 H] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, ADVOCATE & SASWATI MITRA DUTTA, ADVOCATE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. DR.P. K. SRIHARI, JCIT, SR. D/R APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JULY 8 TH , 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JULY 31 ST , 2019 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - DURGAPUR, (HEREINAFTER THE LD. CIT (A)), PASSED U/S 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 27/02/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY FORM 15J AT ALL BEFORE THE PCIT- DURGAPUR WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT AND THEREFORE AO HAD RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE RELEVANT CLAIMS OF EXPENDITURE U/S 40(A)(IA). 2. INORDINATE DELAY OF ABOUT 4(FOUR) YEARS IN APPROACHING THE PCIT, DURGAPUR FOR SUBMISSION OF FORM 15JS PROVES THE ENCLOSED FORM 15IS TO BE BACK DATED AND NON- GENUINE DOCUMENTS AND NO RELIEF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DOCUMENTS. 3. 40 OF THE 90 TRANSPORTERS WERE NOT TRACEABLE AT ADDRESSES MENTIONING FORM 15J AND DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT CLAIMED TO THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED NO RELIEF IN RELATION TO PAYMENTS MADE TO 34 OF TRANSPORT OPERATORS WHOSE PANS WERE NOT MENTIONED AT ALL ON THE FORM 15I SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE FIRST TIME. 2. HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS:- 2 I.T.A. NO. 1102/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. MAJOR SINGH TRANSPORT 3. WHILE ADJUDICATING GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS:- I HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSION OF FACTS OF THE CASE AND A.O'S ORDER. PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT A.O HAS NOT EXAMINED AND INQUIRED THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED VEHICLE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE WHICH CONTAINS THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE TRUCK OWNERS. THE PHOTO COPY OF PAN CARD WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. APART FROM OWNERSHIP OF TRUCK, ITS REGISTRATION AND OWNERS DETAIL, THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED 'WEIGH BRDGE CHALLAN' THE RECIPIENTS GATE PASS AND DETAILS OF AMOUNT. PERUSAL OF RECIPIENT GATE PASS COPY SHOWS THAT IT CONTAINS DETAIL OF VEHICLE NO, SUPPLIERS NAME, DETAIL OF MATERIAL CHALLAN NO. AND DATE OF DELIVERY WITH GROSS WEIGHT OF ITEM. THE A.O,. COULD HAVE EASILY ASCERTAINED THE AFORESAID FACTS FROM THE RECIPIENTS AND THE SUPPLIER. THE RECIPIENTS OF GOODS IS ONLY ONE MAJOR CONCERN NAMELY M/S. D.R.A. INFRACON PVT. LTD. THE GATE PASS COPY OF M/S. D.R.A INFRACON PVT. LTD. IS ATTACHED WITH EVERY TRANSPORT BILLS. THE DETAILS SUBMITTED RELATING TO TRUCK OWNER, REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE, PAN, SAMPLE WEIGH BRDGE CHALLAN AND RECIPIENTS GATE PASS ALONG WITH GATE PASS ALONG WITH AMOUNT PARTYWISE ARE TABULATED AS UNDER:- 3 I.T.A. NO. 1102/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. MAJOR SINGH TRANSPORT THE AFORESAID PAPER SUBMITTED BEFORE A.O. ARE SELF SPEAKING AND VERIFIABLE. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT ARE GENUINE. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE EXPENSES BY THE APPELLANT ARE SUP-PORTED BY ENTRY GATE PASS OF THE RECIPIENT HAVING NARRATION OF TRUCK NO., DATE, QUANTITY ETC. AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT A.O DID NOT ALLOW THE CLAIM OF AFORESAID 40 PARTIES JUST BECAUSE PARTIES WERE NOT AVAILABLE ON THE GIVEN DATE, THE ACTION OF THE A.O CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED. 4. THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A), IS IN LINE WITH THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN BY KOLKATA BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF S S IMPEX, KOLKATA VS. DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, I.T.A NO. 977/KOL/2011 & RAJESH KUMAR GARG,KOLKATA VS. DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX, ITA NO. 532/KOI/ 2011 AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VALIBHAI KHANBHAI MANKAD [2013] 261 CTR 538 (GUJARAT), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE AS WELL AS FOR THE ASSESSEE. SECTION 194C OF THE ACT, AS IS WELL KNOWN, PERTAINS TO PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTORS. SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 194C, AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT TIME, REQUIRED THAT ANY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY SUM TO ANY RESIDENT, CONTRACTOR FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND THE SPECIFIED ENTITIES, SHALL CREDIT SPECIFIED SUM AS INCOME TAX ON INCOME COMPRISED THEREIN. LIKEWISE, SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 194C REQUIRED A PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY SUM TO RESIDENT-SUB-CONTRACTOR TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ORDINARILY THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE SUCH DEDUCTION ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE SUB-CONTRACTORS, UNLESS HE WAS COVERED UNDER THE EXCLUSION CLAUSE CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. SUCH PROVISION, AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT TIME, READ AS UNDER:- 'SECTION 194C(3):- NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) FROM - (I) THE AMOUNT OF ANY SUM CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKELY TO BE CREDITED OR PAID TO THE ACCOUNT OF, OR TO, THE CONTRACTOR OR SUB-CONTRACTOR, IF SUCH SUM DOES NOT EXCEED TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES: PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE AGGREGATE OF THE AMOUNTS OF SUCH SUMS CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKELY TO BE CREDITED OR PAID DURING THE 4 I.T.A. NO. 1102/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. MAJOR SINGH TRANSPORT FINANCIAL YEAR EXCEEDS FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES, THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING SUCH SUMS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SUB-SECTION (2) SHALL BE LIABLE TO DEDUCT INCOME-TAX UNDER THIS SECTION: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB- SECTION (2), FROM THE AMOUNT OF ANY SUM CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKELY TO BE CREDITED OR PAID DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE SUB-CONTRACTOR DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OF PLYING, HIRING OR LEASING GOODS CARRIAGES, ON PRODUCTION OF A DECLARATION TO THE PERSON CONCERNED PAYING OR CREDITING SUCH SUM, IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE P RESCRIBED MANNER AND WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, IF SUCH SUB-CONTRACTOR IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS NOT OWNED MORE THAN TWO GOODS CARRIAGES AT ANY TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR: PROVIDED ALSO THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY SUM AS AFORESAID TO THE SUB-CONTRACTOR REFERRED TO IN THE SECOND PROVISO SHALL FURNISH TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY OR THE PERSON AUTHORISED BY IT SUCH PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED IN SUCH FORM AND WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED; OR (II) ANY SUM CREDITED OR PAID BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 1972; OR (III) ANY SUM CREDITED OR PAID BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 1973, IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY OR IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN SUCH CONTRACTOR AND THE SUB-CONTRACTOR IN RELATION TO ANY WORK (INCLUDING SUPPLY OF LABOUR FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK) UNDERTAKEN BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. EXPLANATION - FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (I), 'GOODS CARRIAGE' SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN THE EXPLANATION TO SUB-SECTION (7) OF SECTION 44AE.' 4. SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, IN TURN, PROVIDES THAT CERTAIN AMOUNTS SHALL NOT BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION', NAMELY, PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS INTEREST, COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE ETC., ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE AND SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED OR, AFTER DEDUCTION, THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, INSOFAR AS IT IS RELEVANT FOR OUR PURPOSE, READS AS UNDER:- 'SECTION 40(A)(IA):- ANY INTEREST, COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE, [RENT, ROYALTY,] FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OR FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES PAYABLE TO A RESIDENT, OR AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO A CONTRACTOR OR SUB-CONTRACTOR, BEING RESIDENT, FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK (INCLUDING SUPPLY OF LABOR FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK), ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE UNDER CHAPTER XVII-B AND SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED OR, AFTER DEDUCTION, [HAS NOT BEEN PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 :]' 5 I.T.A. NO. 1102/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. MAJOR SINGH TRANSPORT 5. FROM THE ABOVE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS INTEREST, COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE ETC. WOULD BE EXCLUDED FOR DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION', WHERE THOUGH TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, IS NOT DEDUCTED OR WHERE AFTER SUCH DEDUCTION, THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE. THUS FOR APPLICATION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, THE FOREMOST REQUIREMENT WOULD BE OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE. 6. SECTION 194C, AS ALREADY NOTICED, MAKES PROVISION WHERE FOR CERTAIN PAYMENTS, LIABILITY OF THE PAYEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ARISES. THEREFORE, IF THERE IS ANY BREACH OF SUCH REQUIREMENT, QUESTION OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) WOULD ARISE. DESPITE SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING, SUB-SECTION (3) MAKES EXCLUSION IN CASES WHERE SUCH LIABILITY WOULD NOT ARISE. WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE FURTHER PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3), WHICH PROVIDES THAT NO DEDUCTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) SHALL BE MADE FROM THE AMOUNT OF ANY SUM CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKELY TO BE CREDITED OR PAID TO THE SUB- CONTRACTOR DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OF PLYING, HIRING OR LEASING GOODS CARRIAGES, ON PRODUCTION OF A DECLARATION TO THE PERSON CONCERNED PAYING OR CREDITING SUCH SUM IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IT IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER WITHIN THE TIME AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, IF SUCH SUB-CONTRACTOR IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS NOT OWNED MORE THAN TWO GOODS CARRIAGES AT ANY TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. 7. THE EXCLUSION PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 194C FROM THE LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) WOULD THUS BE COMPLETE THE MOMENT THE REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED THEREIN ARE SATISFIED. SUCH REQUIREMENTS, PRINCIPALLY, ARE THAT THE SUB-CONTRACTOR, RECIPIENT OF THE PAYMENT PRODUCES A NECESSARY DECLARATION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT AND FURTHER THAT SUCH SUB-CONTRACTOR DOES NOT OWN MORE THAN TWO GOODS CARRIAGES DURING THE ENTIRE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE MOMENT, SUCH REQUIREMENTS ARE FULFILLED, THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX ON THE PAYMENTS MADE OR TO BE MADE TO SUCH SUB-CONTRACTORS WOULD CEASE. IN FACT HE WOULD HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY SUCH DEDUCTION. 8. THE LATER PORTION OF SUB-SECTION (3) WHICH FOLLOW THE FURTHER PROVISO IS A REQUIREMENT WHICH WOULD ARISE AT A MUCH LATER POINT OF TIME. SUCH REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING SUCH SUM TO THE SUB-CONTRACTOR HAS TO FURNISH SUCH PARTICULARS AS PRESCRIBED. WE MAY NOTICE THAT UNDER RULE 29D OF THE RULES, SUCH DECLARATION HAS TO BE MADE BY THE END OF JUNE OF THE NEXT ACCOUNTING YEAR IN QUESTION. 9. IN OUR VIEW, THEREFORE, ONCE THE CONDITIONS OF FURTHER PROVISO OF SECTION 194C(3) ARE SATISFIED, THE LIABILITY OF THE PAYEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE WOULD CEASE. THE REQUIREMENT OF SUCH PAYEE TO FURNISH DETAILS TO THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME WOULD ARISE LATER AND ANY INFRACTION IN SUCH A REQUIREMENT WOULD NOT MAKE THE REQUIREMENT OF DEDUCTION AT SOURCE APPLICABLE UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. IN OUR VIEW, THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE VIEW IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. IT MAY BE THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY SUCH REQUIREMENT BY THE PAYEE MAY RESULT INTO SOME OTHER ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES IF SO PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT. HOWEVER, FULFILMENT OF SUCH REQUIREMENT CANNOT BE LINKED TO THE DECLARATION OF TAX AT SOURCE. ANY SUCH FAILURE THEREFORE CANNOT BE VISUALIZED BY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 10. WHEN ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF FURTHER PROVISO WERE FULFILLED, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE ANY DEDUCTION AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE SUB-CONTRACTORS. IF THAT BE OUR CONCLUSION, APPLICATION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) WOULD NOT ARISE SINCE, AS ALREADY NOTICED, SECTION 40(A)(IA) WOULD APPLY WHEN THERE IS A REQUIREMENT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND SUCH REQUIREMENT 6 I.T.A. NO. 1102/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. MAJOR SINGH TRANSPORT IS EITHER NOT FULFILLED OR HAVING DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE IS NOT DEPOSITED WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME. 11. WITH RESPECT TO THE TRIBUNAL'S EARLIER JUDGMENT IN CASE OF SHREE PRAMUKH TRANSPORT CO. LTD. (SUPRA) , NEITHER SIDE COULD THROW ANY LIGHT WHETHER THE REVENUE HAD CARRIED THE SAME IN APPEAL OR NOT. HOWEVER, WE HAVE EXAMINED THE QUESTION INDEPENDENTLY AND COME TO OUR OWN CONCLUSION RECORDED HEREIN ABOVE. 4.1. RESPECTFULLY APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), HENCE WE UPHOLD THE SAME. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO. 1 & 2 OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 5. GROUND NO. 3 & 4 OF THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF TRANSPORT CHARGES PAID. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT 40 OF THE 90 TRANSPORTERS WERE NOT TRACEABLE AND HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN FORM 15I, SUBMITTED WITH RESPECT TO 34 TRANSPORTERS, PAN NOS. ARE NOT MENTIONED AND HENCE NO RELIEF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5.1. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A), IN HIS ORDER, PART OF WHICH IS EXTRACTED ABOVE, HAS GRANTED RELIEF BASED ON EVIDENCE SUCH AS, VEHICLE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE, WEIGH BRIDGE CHALLAN, GATE PASS ETC. WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), HENCE WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 OF THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. KOLKATA, THE 31 ST DAY OF JULY, 2019. SD/- SD/- [ S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ] [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 31.07.2019 {SC SPS} 7 I.T.A. NO. 1102/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. MAJOR SINGH TRANSPORT COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. MAJOR SINGH TRANSPORT G.T. ROAD, PANAGARH BAZAR NEAR ICICI BANK ATM (GURUDWARA) PANAGARH 713 148 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), DURGAPUR 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES