DCIT,Circle-1, Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Shivam India Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1300/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4525 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT SUBHRA BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: K K CHHAPARIA; NIRAV SHETH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation
• Section: 131; 68

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 1300/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1300/KOL/ 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,................. .......................APPELLANT CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 -VS.- M/S. SHIVAM INDIA LIMITED,......................... ................................RESPONDENT FLAT NO. 1, 2 ND FLOOR, GOVIND MAHAL, 3, WOOD STREET, KOLKATA-700 071 [PAN : AAECS 8326 A] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI RAJAT SUBHRA BISWAS, CIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI K.K. CHHAPARIA, FCA & SHRI NIRAV SHETH, ACA, F OR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MAY 25, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JULY 8, 2016 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP :- THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, KOLKATA DAT ED 14.06.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED IN GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 OF THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE DELETION BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OF THE ADDI TION OF RS.27,59,435/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY RESTRICTING THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION OF 15% ON ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION TO 1 0%. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY, W HICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF M.S. BILLET, T.M.T . BAR & COKE. THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 30.09.2009 WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED BY IT ON 04.06. 2010 DECLARING TOTAL I.T.A. NO. 1300/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 2 OF 8 INCOME OF RS.4,41,86,790/-. DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 15% ON ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION. ACCO RDING TO HIM, THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE ON ELECTRICAL FITTINGS AS PE R PART A OF DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE READ WITH RULE 5 OF INCOME TA X RULES WAS @ 10%. ACCORDINGLY, HE RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E FOR DEPRECIATION ON ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION TO 10%, WHICH RESULTED IN A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.27,59,435/-. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DEL ETED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION ON ELECTRICAL FITTINGS AT 15% BY RELYING ON THE ORDERS OF HIS PREDECESSORS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AN D 2008-09 WHEREBY THE SIMILAR CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION AT 15% ON ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION WAS ALLOWED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS AGREED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES, THIS ISSUE IS SQ UARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE B ENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.YS. 2006-07 A ND 2008-09 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.01.2015 PASSED IN ITA NOS. 945 & 946 /KOL/2012, WHEREIN THE SIMILAR CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION @ 15% WAS ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY HOLDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUE STION INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION REPRESENTED EXP ENDITURE ON ELECTRICAL PANEL CONTROL, CONVERTER PANEL, POWER DISTRIBUTION BOARD, CONTROL CABIN AND OTHER ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS, WHICH WERE INTE GRAL PART OF THE PLANT. IT WAS HELD THAT THE SAME, THEREFORE, WAS TO BE TREATE D AS PLANT AND MACHINERY WITHIN THE MEANING OF RELEVANT INCOME TAX RULES AND DEPRECIATION TO BE ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY @ 15%. RESPE CTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBU NAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND 2008-09, WE UPHOLD THE IM PUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION AT 15% ON ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION AND DISMISS GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. I.T.A. NO. 1300/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 3 OF 8 5. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,03,5 0,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 ON THE GROUND TH AT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALLOWED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE BY ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A O F THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 6. ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE-SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM HAVE INCREASED BY RS.2.16 70 CRORES AND RS.11.8680 CRORES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. IN THIS REGARD, THE NAMES, ADDRESSES AND PERMANENT ACCOUNT NOS. OF THE CONCERNED SHAREHOLDERS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, COULD NOT FURNISH THE COPIES OF RETURNS OF INCOME, BALANCE-SHEETS AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNTS AND RELEV ANT BANK STATEMENTS OF THE CONCERNED CREDITORS AS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ALSO REVEALED THAT MOST OF THE COMPANIES CONTRIBUTING THE SHARE CAPITA L AND SHARE PREMIUM WERE BEING RUN FROM THE SAME ADDRESS AND THEY WERE ALSO HAVING COMMON DIRECTORS. HE, THEREFORE, ISSUED SUMMONS UNDER SECT ION 131 TO THE CONCERNED SHAREHOLDERS BUT THE SAME REMAINED UN-COM PLIED WITH. WHEN THIS ASPECT WAS CONFRONTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE AND FINAL OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN FOR COMPLIANCE, THERE W AS NO REPLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE ASSESSEE. HE, THE REFORE, PROCEEDED TO TREAT THE ENTIRE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM AG GREGATING TO RS.14,03,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AND T HE SAID AMOUNT WAS ADDED BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UN DER SECTION 68. 7. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(APPEALS), A WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STATIN G, INTER ALIA, THAT THE I.T.A. NO. 1300/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 4 OF 8 NOTICE REQUIRING COMPLIANCE IN THE MATTER ON OR BEF ORE 27.12.2011 WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY ON 22.12.2011 AND SINCE 24.12.2011 AND 25.12.2011 WERE HOLIDAYS, THE ASSESSEE GOT EFFE CTIVELY ONLY TWO WORKING DAYS TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, SOMEHOW M ANAGED TO COLLECT THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE, SUCH AS INC OME TAX RETURNS, BALANCE-SHEETS AND BANK STATEMENTS OF THE CONCERNED SHAREHOLDERS AND APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 27.12.2011 IN THE EVENING HOURS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, REFUSED TO TAKE THE HEARING AND THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WAS L EFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO SUBMIT THE ENTIRE DOCUMENTS IN THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 28.12.2011. KEEPING IN VIEW THIS SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OTHER SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED TH AT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREM IUM WAS ENTIRELY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY BY ACCOUNT PAYEE C HEQUES. HE ALSO NOTED THAT ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE BODY CORPO RATE AND THEIR DETAILS SUCH AS NAMES, ADDRESSES AND P.A. NOS. WERE DULY FU RNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THESE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 68 AS WELL AS THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE AS DIS CUSSED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL AND SHAR E PREMIUM AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS NOT THE MONEY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS, BUT THE SAME WAS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPAN Y. HE HELD THAT THIS ONUS, HOWEVER, WAS NOT DULY DISCHARGED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER BY BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ADDITION UN DER SECTION 68 WAS MADE BY HIM ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. ACCORDINGL Y, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 WAS DELET ED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 8. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF SOME INFORMA TION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE CONCERNED SHAREHOLDER S, SUCH AS NAMES, ADDRESSES, ETC., BUT THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER UNDER I.T.A. NO. 1300/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 5 OF 8 SECTION 131 TO THE SHAREHOLDERS IN ORDER TO CROSS V ERIFY THE SAME HAD REMAINED UN-COMPLIED WITH. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN MORE DETAILS IN THE FORM OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS, BALANCE-SHEETS AND BANK STATEMENTS OF THE CONCERNED SHAREHOLDERS BY 27.12.2011, BUT THE A SSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE SAME BY THE GIVEN DATE. HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE SAID DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 28.12.2011 BUT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THAT T IME WAS FINALIZED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR HI M TO EXAMINE OR VERIFY THE SAME. HE CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), H OWEVER, TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE SAID DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS WHILE GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER UNDER SECTION 68 WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO VERIFY THE SAME, WHICH IS IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF IN COME TAX RULES, 1962. HE CONTENDED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON T HIS ISSUE THUS IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH IN THE INTEREST OF JUS TICE. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, SUBMITTED THAT THE RELEVANT DETAILS IN THE FORM OF NAMES, ADDRESSE S AND PANS OF THE CONCERNED SHAREHOLDERS WERE DULY GIVEN BY THE ASSES SEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND THE ONUS THAT LAY ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE RELEVA NT CASH CREDIT REPRESENTING SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM IN TER MS OF SECTION 68 WAS DULY DISCHARGED. HE CONTENDED THAT EVEN THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 BY RELYING ON THESE DETAILS AND DO CUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E UNDER A LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE OFFICE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ON 28.12.2011. HE CONTENDED THAT THERE IS THUS NO VIOL ATION OF RULE 46A BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THE REVENUES GROUND ON TH IS ISSUE HAS NO MERIT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SUFFICIENT TIME WAS NOT GIVE N BY THE ASSESSING I.T.A. NO. 1300/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 6 OF 8 OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE FURTHER INFO RMATION REQUIRED BY HIM AND SINCE THE INFORMATION ALREADY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON RECORD WAS SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS THAT LAY ON TH E ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE AD DITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 ON ACCOUNT OF SH ARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF PRABHAVATI S. SHAH VS.- CIT [231 ITR 1] AND THAT O F THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTHAN TEA TRADING CO . LIMITED VS.- CIT [263 ITR 289] AND IN THE CASE OF EXOIMP RESOURCES ( INDIA) LIMITED VS.- CIT [276 ITR 87]. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PE RUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS TRUE THAT THE R ELEVANT INFORMATION IN THE FORM OF NAMES, ADDRESSES AND P.A. NOS. OF THE C ONCERNED SHAREHOLDERS WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAME WAS SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARG E THE PRIMARY ONUS THAT LAY ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE RELEVANT CA SH CREDITS REPRESENTING SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM IN TERMS OF SECTION 68, AS HELD INTER ALIA, IN THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED BY THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT ONUS UNDER SECTION 68 IS A SHIFTING ONUS. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ATTEMPT TO CROSS VERIFY THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE CONCERNED SHAREHOLDERS BY ISSUING SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE CONCERNED SHAREHOLDERS, INASMUCH AS, THEY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE SAME. IN THIS SITUATION, THE ONUS A GAIN WAS SHIFTED BACK TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE THE SAME, CERTAIN INFORMATION AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FORM OF IN COME TAX RETURNS, BALANCE-SHEETS AND BANK STATEMENTS OF THE CONCERNED SHAREHOLDERS WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO DOUBT, THI S INFORMATION WAS ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT ONLY AFTER FINALISATION OF ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT AFFORDED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO THE I.T.A. NO. 1300/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 7 OF 8 ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE SAID INFORMATION. HOWEVER, KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), IN OUR OPINION, SHOULD HAVE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE A SSESSEE SINCE THE SAME WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE C OMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. HE, HOWEVER, DID NOT GIVE SUCH OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PROCEEDED TO ALLOW RELIEF TO THE ASSESS EE ON THIS ISSUE BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SAID DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH, IN OUR OPINION, CLEARLY AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSU E AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DEC IDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DETAILS AND DOC UMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28.12.2011. NEEDLESS TO OBSERVE THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL AFFORD PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 3 I S ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS TRE ATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JULY 8, 2016. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 8 TH DAY OF JULY, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 (2) M/S. SHIVAM INDIA LIMITED, FLAT NO. 1, 2 ND FLOOR, GOVIND MAHAL, 3, WOOD STREET, KOLKATA-700 071 I.T.A. NO. 1300/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 8 OF 8 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-1, KOLKAT A (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.