ITO, Ward - 12(1), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. A.K. House Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1285/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48262 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C NAYAK
• Assessee Lawyers: M TIWARI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Peak credit; Source of fund
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEN CH A, KOLKATA () BEFORE , , , , SMT.DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER. /AND ! ! ! ! !' !' !' !' , #$ SHRI AKBER BASHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % % % % / ITA NO . 1285/KOL/2010 &' ()/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 (+, / APPELLANT ) I.T.O., WARD-12(1), KOLKATA - & - - VERSUS - . (./+,/ RESPONDENT ) M/S. A.K.HOUSE, KOLKATA (PAN: AACCA 1966 E) +, 0 1 #/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI P.C.NAYAK ./+, 0 1 #/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI M.TIWARI #' / ORDER ( (( ( ) )) ), ,, , PER SMT.DIVA SINGH, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XXXII, KOLKATA DATED 22.01.2010 PERTAINING TO A.YR.2005-06 WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING THREE GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE IN UNDISC LOSED INVESTMENT U/S 69 AMOUNTING TO RS.35,00,000/- SIMPLY ON THE BASIS THA T TRANSACTIONS ROUTED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. 2.WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE PERTAINING TO PURCHASE OF SAND AND STONE CHIPS AMOUNTING TO RS.85 ,000/- DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE OF RS.25,000/- DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. 2 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS PERTAINING TO GROUND NO.1 WHI CH ARE SET OUT IN PARA-2 PAGE-6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE AS UNDER :- 6. FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED IT WAS OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE SOME INVESTMENT DURING THE YEAR IN MUTUAL FUND S WHICH WERE MOSTLY SQUARED OFF I.E. PURCHASED AND SOLD OUT, RESULTING INTO A CLOSING STOCK OF RS.200.462 UNITS VALUING RS.3587.89. BEING ASKED, T HE ASSESSEE VIDE A LETTER DATED 24-12-2007 REPLIED THAT INADVERTENTLY THE ASS ESSEE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSES SEE COMPANY. IT IS ASTONISHING TO NOTE THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS S HOWN THE CLOSING STOCK OR TRANSACTION IN MUTUAL FUND RESULTING INTO ANY PROFI T OR LOSS NOR ANY OF ITS AUDITED ACCOUNTS WAS FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME REFLECTING ANY TRANSACTION OF THIS MUTUAL FUND. IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES AND BEING A TAX AUDIT CASE, THE DEFAULT OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED BY APPLYING THE VALUE OF PEAK CREDIT OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISC LOSED INVESTMENT, WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE DETAILS FILED. ACCORDINGLY, AN AM OUNT OF RS.35,00,000/- INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 03-09-2004 WITH J.M. MUTUAL FUND IS CONSIDERED AS PEAK CREDIT INVESTMENT WHICH WAS NOT REFLECTED I N ITS ACCOUNTS AND THUS CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT UNDER THE PROV ISIONS OF SEC.69 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2.1. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY , IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SECTION 69 OF THE ACT IS NOT APPL ICABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT FOR MAKING THE DEDUCTION IT WAS NECESSARY THAT INVESTME NTS ARE DETECTED WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN REGARD TO THEREOF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION REGARDI NG SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED ARE FOUND NOT SATISFACTORY. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED AND THE TRANSACTIONS IN UNIT S OF MUTUAL FUND WHICH WERE PURCHASED AND SOLD RESULTING IN CLOSING STOCK OF 20 0.462 UNITS WERE RECORDED THEREIN AS SUCH THE FACTS WERE OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE AO IN REGARD TO THE QUERY THERETO IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT GENERAL LEDGER SHOWING INVESTMENT IN SAID MUTUAL FU ND WERE FURNISHED ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT WAS SHOWN TO THE AO THAT ON 03.9.2004 WHIC H WAS PARTLY REDEEMED ON 11.9.2004 AND AGAIN ON 13.09.2004 AND FINALLY ON 16 .09.2004. ALL SUCH PURCHASES AND REDEMPTIONS WERE PASSED THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH CITI BANK WHICH WAS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE OMISSION TO SHOW CLOSING VALUE FOR 200.462 UNITS IN THE BOOKS WHICH WERE DUE TO INADVE RTENCE IF ANY ADDITION IS NECESSARY 3 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WOULD NOT EXCEED RS.3,588/ - AS SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF MUTUAL FUND. 2.2. CONSIDERING THESE SUBMISSIONS THE CIT(A) ALLOW ED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE HOLDING AS UNDER :- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE CON TENTION OF THE A/R AS WELL AS THE PROVISIONS OF LAW ON THIS POINT. IT APPEARS FROM THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE MUTUAL FUND THAT THE REDEMPTION OF U NITS FROM TIME TO TIME WAS MADE AT PAR AND HENCE THERE WAS NO ELEMENT OF PROFI T ON SUCH REDEMPTION. IT IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION AS TO HOW THE INVESTMENT IN SU CH TRANSACTIONS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED SINCE SUCH INVESTMENT WAS MADE THROUGH A BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, ALL SUCH TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE UNITS OF MUTUAL FUND WERE MADE THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNEL AND SUCH BANK ACCOUN T WAS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE FINAL ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ANY UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE REASONS F OR MAKING ADDITION OF RS.35,00,000/- ARE FOUND TO BE MISCONCEIVED AND CON SEQUENT ADDITION TO BE UNJUSTIFIED, THEREFORE, THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DEL ETED. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE VALUE OF 200.462 UNITS REMAINING IN STOCK AS ON 31.03.2005, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,5 88/-, BEING THE VALUE OF SUCH UNITS, IS SUSTAINED. AS A RESULT, ADDITION TO THE E XTENT OF RS.3,588/- IS UPHELD AND THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.34,96,412/- (35,00, 000-3,588). HENCE THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 2.3. AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD DR RELYING UPON THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 6 THAT THE ADDITION HAD BEEN RIGHTLY MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO AND THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING RELIEF. 4. THE LD. AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDED THAT SE CTION 69 OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE WAS NOT ATTRACTED AS UNDISPUTEDLY THE T RANSACTIONS TOOK PLACE THROUGH THE DISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ALL THE FAC TS AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE BEFORE THE AO. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAD BEEN PRODUC ED AND THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THROUGH THE BANK AC COUNT AND IT WAS REDEEMED ON THREE SEPARATE DATES AND DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED WERE FOUND ADVANCED ON ACCOUN T OF UNSOLD SPACE ETC. AND AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS WAS NOT DOUBTED AND IT WAS RO UTED THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT 4 WHICH WAS A DISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS SUCH THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) WAS FULLY SUPPORTED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE O F THE AO TO EXAMINE THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FROM THE ADVANCES RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF UNSO LD SPACE. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAID ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE CIT(A). THE AO OBSERVED THE CLOSING STOCK OF 200.462 UNITS OF SOME MUTUAL FUND. NO DOUBT INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS HAVE TO BE MADE THROUGH BANK ACCOUNTS, HOWEVER, THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT HAS NOT B EEN ADDRESSED BY THE CIT(A), WHO HAS GONE ON THE REASONING THAT THERE IS NO PROFIT E LEMENT AS REDEMPTION IS AT PAR. SINCE THE ISSUE IS BEING EXAMINED UNDER SECTION 69 FOR TH E SAID PURPOSE, IT IS NECESSARY TO FIRST ADDRESS THE SOURCE OF FUNDS ON THE BASIS OF I T, IT CAN THEN BE CONCLUDED WHETHER SECTION 69 IS APPLICABLE OR NOT. DERIVING PROFIT FR OM THE ACTIVITY OR NOT IS NOT RELEVANT. THE FACTS ARE THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT RECORDED I N ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT EXCEPT FOR THE CLOSING STOCK, THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS SUCH IS SET ASIDE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT TH E AO SHALL DECIDE THE SAME BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESS EE SHALL BE AFFORDED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE AO SHALL ALLOW THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD FRESH EVIDENCE IF NEED BE IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. THE REVENUES GROUND AS SUCH IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. THE FACTS PERTAINING TO GROUND NO.2 ARE FOUND RE CORDED IN PAGE-2 PAR-3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN FOR RE ADY REFERENCE : 3. FROM THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FILED DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT SOME OF THE EXPENSES LIKE SAND AN D STONE CHIPS ARE NOT FULLY DETAILED FOR THOUGH MAJOR PORTION OF THE SAME WERE DETAILED FOR. BEING ASKED, ASSESSEES A/R STATED THAT THE PETTY PORTION UNDER THIS HEAD ARE NOT FULLY AND PROPERLY SUPPORTED BY RELATED EVIDENCES. ACCORDINGL Y, AN AMOUNT OF RS.15,000/- AND RS.70,000/- ARE DISALLOWED BEING TH E PART OF EXPENSES WHICH REMAINED NOT DETAILED FOR AS WELL AS ESTABLISHED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ADDITION THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE HIM IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EN GAGED IN CONSTRUCTION AND SALE OF 5 FLATS AND FOLLOWS COMPLETED CONTRACT METHOD OF ACCO UNTING. THE PROJECT AT 23, USTAD ALLADDIN SARANI WAS MOSTLY SOLD IN EARLIER YEAR AND THE REMAINING PART WAS SOLD IN THE CURRENT YEAR FOR WHICH GROSS INCOME OF RS.34,780/- WAS DECLARED. THE PROJECT AT MOULANA ABDUL KALAM AZAD SARANI WAS UNDER CONSTRUCT ION AND THE CONSTRUCTION EXPENSE OF RS.3,73,57,164/- IN RESPECT OF THIS PROJ ECT WERE TRANSFERRED TO WORK-IN- PROGRESS AS SUCH THE AMOUNT WHICH HAD BEEN DISALLOW ED BY THE AO ALREADY STOOD INCLUDED IN THE SAID EXPENDITURE AND NOT DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. CONSIDERING THESE SUBMISSIONS THE CIT(A) DELETED TH E ADDITION MADE OBSERVING AS UNDER :- I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE AR W AS PRODUCED LEDGER EXTRACT FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE ACCOUNTS OF PURCHASE OF SAND AND OF STONE CHIPS. FROM THE PERUSAL OF SUCH A CCOUNTS IT IS OBSERVED THAT ALL SUCH EXPENSES ARE FULLY DETAILED FOR. FURTHER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DULY AUDITED AND A COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE A.R. THE AUDITORS IN THEIR REPORT HAVE NOT POINTED OUT ANY SHORTCOMING OR MISTAKE REGARDING THE DETAILS OF EXP ENSES UNDER CONSIDERATION HERE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I DO NOT FIND JUST IFICATION IN THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. THEREFORE, THE D ISALLOWANCE OF THE SUM OF RS.85,000/- IS DELETED. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS ALLOW ED. 7.1. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. APART FROM THIS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD ALREADY INCL UDED IN THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS ACCOUNT AND IT WAS REVENUES NEUTRAL THAT THE ADDITION CANN OT HAVE BEEN MADE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREF UL CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) ON FACTS A RE JUSTIFIED. BEING JUSTIFIED BY THE REASONS AND FINDINGS ARRIVED AT THEREIN GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 10. THE FACTS PERTAINING TO GROUND NO.3 IN THE DEPA RTMENTAL APPEAL ARE FOUND RECORDED IN PARA 4 PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A ND READ AS UNDER :- 6 4. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN CURRED EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD ADVERTISEMENT WHICH IS NOT ALSO FULLY SUPPOR TED BY RELATED EVIDENCES. ACCORDINGLY, AN AMOUNT OF RS.25,000/- IS DISALLOWED AGAINST THIS HEAD. 11. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL B EFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION MADE HOLDING THAT IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS MISCONCEIVED. IT WAS HIS ARGUMENTS THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DULY AUDITED AND THE AUDITORS HAVE NOT POINTED OUT TO ANY SHORT COMING. 12. CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS, THE CIT(A) DECIDED A S UNDER :- I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A.R. THE A.R. HAD ALSO PRODUCED THE EXTRACT OF ADVERTISE MENT ACCOUNT FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT Y EAR. A PERUSAL OF SUCH ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT MOST OF THE PAYMENTS FOR SUCH EX PENDITURE HAD BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FURTHER, FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE AUDIT REPORT, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE A.R., IT IS SEEN THAT THE AUDITORS IN THEIR REPORT HAVE NOT POINTED OUT ANY SHORTCOMING O R MISTAKE REGARDING THE DETAILS OF SUCH EXPENSES. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE BEEN MADE BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE DI SALLOWANCE OF THE SUM OF RS.25,000/- IS DELETED. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS ALLOW ED. 12.1. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL. 13. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. TH E LD. AR RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 14. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME, WE ARE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION AND THE REASONING OF THE CIT(A) SINCE NO SPECIFIC SHORT COMING IN THE FINDING HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DR. IT IS SEEN THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION AFTER EXAMINING THE EXTRACT OF AD VERTISEMENT ACCOUNT FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNELS. FURTHER, THE AUDITORS REPORT ALSO DOES NOT POINT TO ANY SHORT COMING OR MISTAKE OF THIS NATURE IN REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO GOOD R EASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING 7 ARRIVED AT. BEING SATISFIED WITH THE REASONING AND THE CONCLUSION, GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 08.07.2011. SD/- SD/- ! !' ! !' ! !' ! !', ,, , #$ #$ #$ #$ AKBER BASHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , , , , DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ( (( (2$ 2$ 2$ 2$) )) ) DATE:08.07.2011. ORDER PRONOUNCED BY SD/- SD/- (CDR) (MS) AM JM #' 0 .3 4#3(5- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. A.K.HOUSE PVT. LTD., 2D, QUEENS PARK, KOLKATA- 700019. 2 THE I.T.O., WARD-12(1), KOLKATA 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A)-XXXII, KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA /3 ./ TRUE COPY, #'&;/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES R.G.(.P.S.)