Shri Gautam Buchasia, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward-34(4), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1159/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5175 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN CHOWDHURY
• Assessee Lawyers: V N PUROHIT; H V BHARDWAJ
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM ./ITA NO.1159/KOL/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) SHRI GAUTAM BUCHASIA 19, SYNAGOGUE STREET, C.T. CENTRE, ROOM NO.419, KOLKATA- 700001 VS. ITO, WARD-34(4), KOLKATA ./ ./PAN/GIR NO.: AEJPB 5813 P (ASSESSEE) .. (REVENUE) ASSESSEEBY : SHRI V. N. PUROHIT, FCA & SHRI H.V. BHARDWAJ, FCA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ROBIN CHOWDHURY, ADDL. CIT SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 20/06/2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/08/2019 / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERT AINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-10, KOLKATA, WHICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF A N ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 28/01/2016. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-10, CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING AD-HOC / ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE @ 20% OF VARIOUS EXPENSES C LAIMED AS DETAILED BELOW: SHRI GAUTAM BUCHASIA ITA NO.1159/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 2 22 2 I) OUT OF INSPECTION EXPENSES CLAIMED RS. 18,19,3 41/- II) OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES CLAIMED RS. 17,15, 425/- III) OUT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES CLAIMED RS. 18, 37,440/- IV) OUT OF VISITING EXPENSES CLAIMED RS. 17,05,2 55/- V) OUT OF OFFICE EXPENSES CLAIMED RS. 98,136/- VI) OUT OF SALARY & BONUS CLAIMED RS. 7,45,532/- VII) OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES CLAIMED RS. 72,45 0/- 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS, LIKEWISE, FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: I) DEDUCTIONS FROM BILLS RS. 8,98,753/- II) EMPLOYEES P.F. CONTRIBUTION RS. 2,11,852/- III) EMPLOYEES ESI CONTRIBUTION RS. 58,358/- 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS LIKEWISE, FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,89,327/- BEING UNPAID SERVICE TAX. 4. THAT APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO AMEND OR WITHDRAW TO ANY GROUND ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO A D HOC / ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE @ 20% OF VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE T HE DETAILS OF WHICH GIVEN IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 7,24,750/- . THE ASSESSEE EARNED INCOME FROM SALE OF CEMENT BUSINESS. DURING THE SCRUTINY P ROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 90,96,703/- IN ITS P & L ACCOUNT UNDER VARIOUS HEADS (I.E. INSPECTION EXPENS ES RS. 17,15,475/- + TRAVELLING EXPENSES RS. 17,53,452/- + TRANSPORTATION CHARGES R S. 18,37,440/- + VISITING EXPENSES RS. 17,05,255/- + DEDUCTION IN BILL RS. 8, 98,753/- + EMPLOYEE P.F. RS. 2,11,852/- + E.S.I. RS. 58,358/- + OFFICE EXPENSES RS. 98,136/- + SALARY & BONUS RS. 7,45,532/- + TELEPHONE EXPENSES RS. 72,450/-). AFTER GIVING VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS / EVIDENCES OF THE SAID EXPENSES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 16/12/2015 WAS GIVEN FINAL OPPORTUNITY BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCES OF THE ABOVE SAID EXPENSE OR 25% OF THE SAID EXPENSES WILL BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO TOTAL INCOME . STILL T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY SHRI GAUTAM BUCHASIA ITA NO.1159/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 3 33 3 EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES. IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE / DOCUMENTS OF THE EXPENSES, 20% OF THE ABOVE EXPENSES WERE DISALLOWED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. AT THE OUTSET ITSELF, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE ASS ESSING OFFICER THEREFORE THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE SHOULD NOT BE MADE. THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO EXAMINE THE INDIVIDUAL EXPENSES AND THEN OUGHT TO FRAME HIS OPINION TO DISALLOW INDIVIDUAL EXPENSES. PER CONTRA, HOWEVER, THE LD. D R FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT STAGE THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT SUBMITTED EVIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS LIKE BILLS, VOUCHERS AND PAYMENT DETAILS OF THESE EXPENSES THEREFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT EXAMINE THESE EXPEN SES, HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE ASSE SSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. WE NOTE THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT SUBMIT THE REQUIRED EVIDENCE, BILLS AND VOUCHERS TO EXAMINE THE VERACI TY OF THESE EXPENSES THEREFORE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT EXAMINE THEM. THEREFORE , WE THINK IT FIT AND APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE EXPENSES. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE REQUIRED BILLS, EVIDENCE / DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE BONA FIDE OF THESE EXEPNSES. STATISTICAL PURPOSES THE GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS FOL LOWS: 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS, LIKEWISE, FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: I) DEDUCTIONS FROM BILLS RS. 8,98,753/- SHRI GAUTAM BUCHASIA ITA NO.1159/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 4 44 4 II) EMPLOYEES P.F. CONTRIBUTION RS. 2,11,852/- III) EMPLOYEES ESI CONTRIBUTION RS. 58,358/- 9. SO FAR THE FIRST DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 8,98,753/- IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS RELATED TO DEDUCTION FROM BILLS WE NOTE THAT THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BEFORE US THE EVIDENCES, BILLS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE N EITHER EXAMINED BY ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BY LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE WE THINK IT FI T AND PROPER TO REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE TH IS ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJEC TION IF THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMI NATION. THEREFORE WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION FROM BILLS AND ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 10. IN RESPECT OF CONTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES PF AT R S. 2,11,852/- & CONTRIBUTION TO EMPLOYEES ESI FUND AT RS. 58,358/- ARE CONCERNED , WE NOTE THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS PAID THE EMPLOYEES PF AND ESI WITHIN THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1) O F THE ACT. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF THE ESI AND PF CONTRIB UTION BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING INCOME TAX RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT THE REFORE THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD NOT BE MADE. FOR THAT WE RELY ON THE JUDGMENT OF H ONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYSHREE LTD. 43 TAXMANN.COM 393(CAL) .THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGAL POSITION EXPLAINED ABOVE WE ALLOW THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT O F PF CONTRIBUTION AT RS. 2,11,852/- AND ESI CONTRIBUTION AT RS. 58,358/-. T HUS, GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 18,89,327/- BEING UNPAID SERVICE TAX. 12. BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE S CRUTINY PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVE D FROM THE OFFICE OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CENTRAL EXCISE INTELLIGENCE, REGIONAL U NIT, JAMSHEDPUR, M/S ALLIED INDIA (PROP. SHRI GAUTAM BUCHASIA) HAS DEFAULTED IN MAKING PAYMENT OF SERVICE SHRI GAUTAM BUCHASIA ITA NO.1159/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 5 55 5 TAX TO THE TUNE OF RS. 18,89,327/- FOR THE PERIOD O F F.Y. 2009-10 TO 2012-13. DETAILED YEAR WISE BREAKUP IS AS UNDER: F.Y. 2009-10 RS. 21,629/- F.Y. 2010-11 RS. 56,651/- F.Y. 2011-12 RS. 6,28,698/- F.Y. 2012-13 RS. 11,82,349/- TOTAL RS. 18,89,327/- THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BALANCE SHEET SHOWN SERVICE TAX PAYABLE AT RS. 13,03,631/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO RECONCILE THE DISCREPA NCY ALONG WITH EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING SERVICE TAX. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS OF OUTSTANDING SERVICE TAX, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 18,89,327/- A S REPORTED IN THE REPORT RECEIVED FROM DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CENTRAL EXCISE INTELLIGENC E, REGIONAL UNIT, JAMSHEDPUR WAS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS CONF IRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 14 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFOR E US WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: SHRI GAUTAM BUCHASIA ITA NO.1159/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 6 66 6 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS PRIMARILY REITERA TED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED IN OU R EARLIER PARA AND THE SAME IS NOT BEING REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 15. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUAR ELY COVERED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NOBLE & HEW ITT (I)(P) LTD. IN [2008]166 TAXMAN 48 (DEL) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER DATED 17- 11-2006 PASSED BY THE INCOME- TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ('TRIBUNAL'), DELHI BENCH 'D ', NEW DELHI IN ITA NO. 2910/DELHI/2004 RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 99-2000. 2. THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS A MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCO UNTING. IT HAD COLLECTED SERVICE TAX DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESS MENT YEAR IN QUESTION. OUT OF THE SERVICE TAX SO COLLECTED THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED PART OF THE AMOUNT BUT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 14.40 LAKHS WAS NOT DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSE E WITH THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM ANY DEDUCTION IN THIS RE GARD NOR DID IT DEBIT THE AMOUNT AS AN EXPENDITURE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ['CIT(A)'] NEV ERTHELESS DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT AND ADDED IT BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. 3. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD N OT FOLLOWED THE CORRECT ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE. IF IT HAD DONE SO, THE AMOUNT WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE C OULD CLAIM A DEDUCTION THEREON. THE COMMISSIONER RELIED UPON DECISION OF THE CALCUT TA HIGH COURT IN CHOWRINGHEE SALES BUREAU (P.) LTD. V. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 385 . 4. IN APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ('ACT'), SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED A DEDUCTION THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION WHICH WAS NOT EVEN CLAIMED. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT READS AS FOLLOWS : 'CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS TO BE ONLY ON ACTUAL PAYMENT.N OTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, A DED UCTION OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE UNDER THIS ACT IN RESPECT OF (A) ANY SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF TAX, DUTY , CESS OR FEE, BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED, UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BE ING IN FORCE, (B) TO (F) ** ** SHALL BE ALLOWED (IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE LIABILITY TO PAY SUCH SUM WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ACCORDING TO THE M ETHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY HIM) ONLY IN COMPUTING THE INCOME REFER RED TO IN SECTION 28 OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SUM IS ACTUALLY PAID BY HIM.' 5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE URGES THAT THE DEC ISION OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN CHOWRINGHEE SALES BUREAU (P.) LTD.'S CASE (SUPRA) COVERS THE POINT IN ITS SHRI GAUTAM BUCHASIA ITA NO.1159/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 7 77 7 FAVOUR. WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE. IN THAT CASE IT WAS HELD THAT THE LIABILITY TO PAY SALES TAX AROSE THE MOMENT A SALE OR PURCHASE WAS EFFECTE D AND IF AN ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING ACCOUNTS ON THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM IT WO ULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF THE ESTIMATED LIABILITY OF SALES TAX, EVEN THOUGH S UCH SALES TAX HAD NOT BEEN PAID TO THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES. THE QUESTION THERE CONCE RNED WAS THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIONS 10(1) AND 10(2 )(XV) OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922. THE DECISION IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT CASE. HERE WE ARE CONCERNED WITH AN ASSESSEE WHO HA S NOT EVEN CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND OF SERVICE TAX AND HAS NOT DEBITED THE AMOUNT TO ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. MOREOVER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43 B OF THE ACT ARE QUITE CLEAR IN THIS REGARD. THE DECISION OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COUR T IN CHOWRINGHEE SALES BUREAU (P.) LTD.'S CASE (SUPRA) WAS NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. 6. IN OUR OPINION SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEBIT TH E AMOUNT TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS AN EXPENDITURE NOR DID THE ASSESSEE CLAI M ANY DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT AND CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWI NG THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTI ON NOT CLAIMED WOULD NOT ARISE. 7. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO EVADE TAX UNDER THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOT FOR THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO TELL THE ASSESSEE HOW TO MAI NTAIN ITS ACCOUNTS. 8. WE CANNOT FIND ANY FAULT IN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL AND FIND NO MERIT IN THIS APPEAL. 9. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 10. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 16. AS THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI (SUPRA), THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AS EXPLAINED ABOVE WE DELETED THE AD DITION OF RS. 18,89,327/-. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23.08.2019 SD/- ( A.T. VARKEY ) SD/- (A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATE: 23/08/2019 ( SB, SR.PS ) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI GAUTAM BUCHASIA 2. ITO, WARD-34(4), KOLKATA SHRI GAUTAM BUCHASIA ITA NO.1159/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 8 88 8 3. C.I.T(A)- 4. C.I.T.- KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKA TA BENCHES