Asbesco India Private Limited, Kolkata V. DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1278/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7757 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K NAYAK
• Assessee Lawyers: D K KOTHARI
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 68; 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1278/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 ASBESCO INDIA PVT. LIMITED 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1278/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 ASBESCO INDIA PVT. LIMITED,........................ ...........................APPELLANT 1A, KBR COMPLEX, 4, HO CHI MIN SARANI, KOLKATA-700 071 [PAN: AACCA2579D] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,................. .................RESPONDENT CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI D.K. KOTHARI, FCA, FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI A.K. NAYAK, CIT, D.R , FOR THE RESPONDEN T DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JUNE 12, 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JULY 24, 2019 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ):- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA DAT ED 18.03.2017 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY, W HICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT OF ELECTRI CAL EQUIPMENT FOR TRANSMISSION LINES. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY IT ON 29.09.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOM E OF RS.17,60,78,970/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORIGINALLY COMPLETED UNDER SECTIO N 143(3), THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AT ITA NO. 1278/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 ASBESCO INDIA PVT. LIMITED 2 RS.18,00,08,535/- VIDE AN ORDER DATED 31.03.2015. T HE RECORDS OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT CAME TO BE EXAMINED BY THE CONCERNED LD. PRINCIPAL CIT AND ON SUCH EXAMINATION, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE OR DER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS ERRONEOU S AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE ACCO RDINGLY ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 POINTING OUT THE ERRORS IN THE OR DER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE T O SHOW-CAUSE AS TO WHY THE SAID ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT BE REVISED. THE ERRORS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER THE SAID NOTICE WERE AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE HAD INCREASED ITS SHARE CAPITAL TO TH E TUNE OF RS.2,69,25,500/- AND ALLOTTED 1795 NO. OF S HARES TO 10(TEN) PARTIES. THE PREMIUM WAS RS.2,67,45,500/ -. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAD ISSUED LETTERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OF ALL THE INVESTING COMPANIES IN SHARES OF M/S. ASBESCO INDIA (P) LTD. AT HIGH PREMIUM OF RS.14,900/- ON FACE VALUE OF RS.100/- WE RE NOT GENUINE AND APPEARS TO BE THAT OF AN ENTRY OPER ATOR. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE 10 (TEN) PARTI ES WHO HAD INVESTED IN THE SHARES OF M/S. ASBESCO INDI A (P) LTD. OUT OF THE SAID TEN PARTIES SHARES WERE ALLOTT ED TO NINE PARTIES ON CONVERSION OF UNSECURED LOAN AND IN THE CASE OF M/S. KEYNOTE COMMERCIAL (P) LTD., FRESH INVESTMENT OF RS.30,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. HOWEVER, WHILE DETERMIN ING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO DID NOT AD D THE FRESH INVESTMENT OF RS.30,00,000/- DURING THE YEAR BY M/S. KEYNOTE COMMERCIAL (P) LTD. AS SHARE CAPITAL T O THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FELT THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T IN CONV ERTING THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.2,66,25,000/- TO SHARE CAPITA L IN THE CASE OF NINE PARTIES. THUS THERE WAS UNDERASSES SMENT OF INCOME. IN SHORT, THE AO HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT MAKING ENQUIRIES OR VERIFICATION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THIS CA SE. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PRIMA F ACIE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF REVENUE. ITA NO. 1278/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 ASBESCO INDIA PVT. LIMITED 3 3. IN REPLY TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT UNDER SECTION 263, NO SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER IN WRITING OR ORALLY INSPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT IN THIS REGARD. THE LD. PRINCIPAL CI T ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED TO PASS AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE ORDER SO PASSED ON 18.03.2017, HE HE LD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 263 AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON THE F OLLOWING GROUNDS:- (II) IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCREASED IT S SHARE CAPITAL TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,69,25,500/- AND ALLOTTE D 1795 NO. OF SHARES TO 10(TEN) PARTIES. THE PREMIUM WAS RS.2,67,45,500/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS THE A.O. HAD ISSUED LETTERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE RS OF ALL THE INVESTING COMPANIES IN SHARES OF M/S ASBESCO INDIA (P) LTD. AT HIGH PREMIUM OF RS.14,900/- ON FACE VALUE OF RS.100 /- WERE NOT GENUINE AND APPEARS TO BE THAT OF AN ENTRY OPER ATOR. (III) IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE 10(TEN) P ARTIES WHO HAD INVESTED IN THE SHARES OF M/S ABESCO INDIA (P) LTD. OUT OF THE SAID TEN PARTIES SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TO 9(NINE ) PARTIES ON CONVERSION OF UNSECURED LOAN AND IN THE CASE OF M/S KEYNOTE COMMERCIAL (P) LTD. FRESH INVESTMENT OF RS.30,00,00 0/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY . HOWEVER, WHILE DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THE A.O. DID NOT ADD THE FRESH INVESTMENT OF RS.30,00,000/- DURI NG THE YEAR BY M/S. KEYNOTE COMMERCIAL (P) LTD. AS SHARE CAPITA L TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FELT THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T IN CONVERTI NG THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.2,66,25,000/- TO SHARE CAPITAL IN CASE OF THE 9(NINE) PARTIES. THUS, THERE WAS UNDERASSESSMENT OF INCOME. (IV) WHILE THE AO MADE CERTAIN ENQUIRIES, IT WAS RE STRICTED TO ASCERTAINING THE CLAIM OF TRANSACTION. NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED FOR NOR THE ASSESSEE COULD PRODUCE AN Y MATERIAL TO ESTABLISH THAT THE INVESTORS HAD THE CAPACITY TO MAKE IMPUGNED INVESTMENTS AND THAT THE TRANSACTION WERE GENUINE. NO EVIDENCE IS THERE TO RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF THE TRANSACTION BEING COLLUSIVE AND SHAM AND THE ACTIVI TY BEING AN ATTEMPT TO LAUNDER BLACK UNACCOUNTED INCOME. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO TO ESTABLISH THAT T HE INVESTORS HAD SUFFICIENT INCOME OF THEIR OWN TO ENA BLE THEM TO HAVE THE CAPACITY TO MAKE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT. THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM O F THE ASSESSEE REMAINS UNVERIFIED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OR CAPACITY OF TH E INVESTORS. ITA NO. 1278/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 ASBESCO INDIA PVT. LIMITED 4 4. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE AND BY RELYING ON TH E VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS DISCUSSED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) BY HOLDING THE SAME TO BE ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND DIRECTED THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH AFTER CONDUCTING RELEVANT ENQ UIRIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED TO AND DISCUSSED BY HIM IN THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT, TH E ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT NECESSARY ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUES POI NTED OUT BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AND IT WAS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY AS ALLEGED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263. HE CONTENDED THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE WA S NO DISCUSSION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THESE ISSUES IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER, QUERIES WERE MADE BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS AND AFTER HAVING SATISFIED HIMSELF WITH THE SUBMISS IONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE CONCERN ED SHAREHOLDERS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE SH ARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM WAS ACCEPTED BY HIM AS GENUINE APPARENTLY B Y RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS.- LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LIMITED (319 ITR 5). HE CONTENDED THAT THE PRIMARY ONUS THAT LAY ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SHARE CAPITAL AN D SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNT IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 THUS WAS DULY DISCHAR GED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE AS ALLEGED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263. HE ALSO FILED TWO BRIEF NOTICES GIVING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN WRITING AND RELIED ON THE VARIOUS JUDIC IAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED THEREIN. ITA NO. 1278/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 ASBESCO INDIA PVT. LIMITED 5 6. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE SATISFIED HIMSELF ABOUT THE JUSTIFICA TION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL SHARE PREMIUM CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE BY MAKING THE NECESSARY ENQUIRY AND SINCE SUCH ENQUIRY WAS NOT MADE BY HIM AS FOUND BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT FROM THE RELEVANT RECORDS, THE ORDER OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE CALLING FOR REVISION BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT UNDER SECTION 263 . IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED ON THE LATEST DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL CIT VS.- NRA IRON & STEEL PVT. LIMITED (103 TAXMANN.COM 48), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSES SEE IS UNDER A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROVE RECEIPT OF SHARE CAPITAL/PREMIU M TO THE SATISFACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE FAILURE TO DISCHARGE T HIS OBLIGATION WOULD JUSTIFY ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE. HE CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NOTHING EITHER IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER OR EVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS TO SHOW THAT ANY ENQUIRY ON THE ISSUE OF SUBSTANTIAL SHARE PREMIUM CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE-C OMPANY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE CONTENDED THAT EVEN TH E CAPACITY OF THE CONCERNED SHAREHOLDERS TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN THE SH ARES OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY WAS NOT ENQUIRED INTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ERRORS AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT THUS WERE VERY MUCH THERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 263 AND THE LACK OF ENQUIRY BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER CLEARLY MADE HIS ORDER ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTEREST OF THE REVENUE JUSTIFYING ITS REVISION BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT UN DER SECTION 263. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALS O PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE BRIEF NOTES FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED THEREIN AS WELL A S THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE-C OMPANY HAD ISSUED 1795 NO. OF SHARES OF THE FACE VALUE OF RS.100/- AT A VERY HIGH PREMIUM OF RS.14,900/- PER SHARE TO 10 (TEN) PARTIES. OUT OF T HE SAID TEN PARTIES, ITA NO. 1278/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 ASBESCO INDIA PVT. LIMITED 6 SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TO 9 (NINE) PARTIES ON CONVERS ION OF UNSECURED LOAN, WHILE THE 10 TH PARTY NAMELY M/S. KEYNOTE COMMERCIAL (P) LIMITED H AD MADE A FRESH INVESTMENT OF RS.30,00,000/- IN THE SH ARES OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY. SINCE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY FROM M/S. KEYNOTE COMMERCIAL (P) LIMITED DURING THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION TOWARDS SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM REPRESENTED CASH CREDIT, THE PRIMARY ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH ON EV IDENCE THE IDENTITY AS WELL AS THE CAPACITY OF THE CONCERNED INVESTOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE RELEVANT TRANSACTIONS. ON EXAMINATION OF THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT RECORDS, THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT, HOWEVER, FOUND THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY IN RESPECT OF HIGH SHARE PREMIUM C HARGED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TO ASCERTAIN THE CAPACITY OF TH E CONCERNED INVESTOR TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE-C OMPANY. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO DISCUSS ION WHATSOEVER ON THIS ISSUE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A BULKY PAPER BOOK CONTAINING VARIOUS DOCUMENTS INCLU DING THE ORDER-SHEET ENTRIES RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT ANY ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SPECI FICALLY IN RESPECT OF HIGH SHARE PREMIUM CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TO ASCERTAIN THE CREDITWORTHINESS OR CAPACITY OF THE CONCERNED INVES TOR. HAVING REGARD TO ALL THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSES SMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT MAKING THE RELEVANT ENQUIRY, WHICH WAS CALLED FOR IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IT WAS A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY MAKIN G THE SAID ORDER ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE CALLING FOR REVISION BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT UNDER SECTION 263 . 8. IN THE CASE OF NRA IRON & STEEL PVT. LIMITED (SU PRA) CITED BY THE LD. D.R., HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE USE O F THE WORDS ANY SUM FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS IN SECTION 68 INDICATE S THAT THE SECTION IS WIDELY WORDED AND INCLUDES INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE INTRODUCTION OF SHARE CAPITAL OR SHARE PREMIUM. IT WAS HELD THAT TH E INITIAL ONUS AS PER ITA NO. 1278/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 ASBESCO INDIA PVT. LIMITED 7 THE SETTLED LAW IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH BY COGENT EVIDENCE, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTORS UNDER SECTION 68. KEEPING IN VIEW THIS LATEST DECIS ION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NRA IRON & STEEL PVT. LIMITED (SUPRA) AND HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WERE ERRORS IN THE ORDER OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PRIN CIPAL CIT AND THE SAME BEING PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, T HE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO HIM TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRY AND AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE RELEVANT JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTE R, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT UNDE R SECTION 263 AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JULY 24, 201 9. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMBER V ICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) KOLKATA, THE 24 TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 COPIES TO : (1) ASBESCO INDIA PVT. LIMITED, 1A, KBR COMPLEX, 4, HO CHI MIN SARANI, KOLKATA-700 071 (2) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 (3) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKAT A, (4) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (5) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.