Sandip Halder, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 41(4), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1333/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48146 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C NAYAK
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TIBREWAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 234B; 133(6)

Judgement Text

, , , , , , ,, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : KOLKATA [ . . . . . .. . , , ! ! ! ! , ,, , , ,, , ] [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, A M & HONBLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] !' !' !' !' / I.T.A NO. 1333/KOL/2010 #$ %& #$ %& #$ %& #$ %&/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SANDIP HALDER -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFI CER/WARD-41(4) KOLKATA. [PAN : ABEPH 6981 Q ] KOLKATA. ()* /APPELLANT ) (,-)*/ RESPONDENT ) )* / FOR THE APPELLANT : . /SHRI A. K. TIBREWAL ,-)* / FOR THE RESPONDENT : . / SHRI P. C. NAYAK / /O R D E R [ . . . . . .. . , ] PER S.V. MEHROTRA, JM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AGAINST ORDER OF CIT(A)- XII, KOLKATA DATED 16.03.2010. 2. THE ASSESSEE, IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, C ARRIED ON THE BUSINESS IN PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM M/S. S & S ENTERPRISE AS DEALER OF BISCUITS. IT HAD FILED ITS RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,23,610/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT A TO TAL INCOME OF RS.6,80,052/- BY MAKING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS :- (I) BOGUS PURCHASES RS.1,77,204/- (II) INFLATED PURCHASES RS.3,73,131/- THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE PARTLY ALLOWING ASSESSEES APP EAL CONFIRMED THE ABOVE IN RESPECT OF BOGUS PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,77,204/-. ITA NO. 1333/KOL/2010 2 3. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- (1) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.1,77,204/- BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT O F ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. (2) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ANY INTE REST U/S. 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHEN HE HAD NO LIABILITY T O PAY ADVANCE TAX FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.32,49,051/- AS PURCHASE IN TRADING AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH INCLUDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,48,849/- FROM THE FOLLOWING THREE PA RTIES :- (1) PROVISION SUPPLY STORES OF 71, B.R.B. ROAD, A- 17, BAGRI MARKET, KOLKATA-1. (2) M/S. JAGADAMBA STORES OF 95, CANNING STREET, KOLKATA-1. (3) SHREE PROVA STORE OF KAJARIA MARKET, 28, AMART ALA STREET, KOLKATA-1. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED CASH MEMO., APPROVAL SLI P AND BILL FORM RESPECTIVELY FOR THE THREE PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ALL THES E WERE CASH PURCHASES. HE POINTED OUT THAT ON ENQUIRY, SHREE PROVA STORE COULD NOT BE LOCATED AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THE OTHER TWO I.E. M/S. JAGADAMBA STORES & PROVISION SUPPLY STORES DENIED A NY TRANSACTION DURING THE YEAR WITH THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSI ONS AND DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, ASSESSING OFFICER TAKING NOTE OF THE DISCREPANCY IN THE DOCUMENTS AS ENUMERATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HELD THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES WAS NOT PROVED. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION, INTER ALI A, OBSERVING THAT EVEN DURING CROSS VERIFICATION ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THESE CASH BILLS WERE NOT FIGURED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES. THUS, THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH PURCHASES REMAIN UNPROV ED. 5. LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PAGES 1 TO 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THE THRE E PARTIES WERE CONTAINED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS GIVEN BY THESE PARTIES WERE DULY RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE. ALTERNATIVELY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE OF RS.1,7 7,204/- WHICH WILL MAKE GROSS PROFIT OF 14.05%, WHICH IS QUITE ABNORMAL IN THE ASSESSEES LINE OF BUSINESS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT OF 8.92% OFFERED WAS MOST REASONABLE. HE REFERRED TO T HE DECISION OF I.T.A.T., KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF ASHOK SINGH VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.1873/KOL/2010 FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. HE SUBMITTED ITA NO. 1333/KOL/2010 3 THAT AT BEST DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOG US PURCHASES BE RESTRICTED TO 25% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE SPECIFIC ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES FROM THE THREE PARTIES. HE NOTICED THAT M/S. PROVISION SUPPLY STORES WAS NO T LOCATED AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS AND THE OTHER TWO PARTIES DENIED ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSE E. ONCE SPECIFIC DENIAL WAS MADE BY THESE TWO PARTIES, ASSESSEE HAD TO ASK FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF THESE PARTIES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ASKED FOR THE SAME. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, DENIA L OF PARTIES ASSUMED SIGNIFICANCE AND, THEREFORE, ASSESSEES CLAIM VIS--VIS DENIAL FROM T HE PARTIES CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF THE LD. C OUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT COULD NOT BE ADDED BECAUSE G.P. W OULD BECOME QUITE ABNORMAL. WE FIND THAT I.T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF ASHOK SINGH (SUPRA) HAS OBS ERVED AT PARA 10 AS UNDER :- 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROU GH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS DECLARED TOTAL PURCHASES AT RS.1,53,43,634/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED F ROM THE LIST, SHOWING THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES, FROM WHOM THE PURCHASES WERE M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOTICES U/S. 133(6) WERE ISSUED TO THE SUPPLIERS OF THE MATERIAL OF ABOVE RS.1 LAC BUT THESE NOTICES RETURNED UNSERVED AS THESE PARTIE S ARE UNTRACEABLE ON THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER SUBMITTED COPIES OF ACCOUNTS OF THE SUPPLIERS BUT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SE PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THESE PARTIES, FROM WHOM THE ASS ESSEE MADE PURCHASES IN CASH, AS LISTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT RS.13,32,306/- , HAD INFLATED THE PURCHASES AND FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THESE PURCHA SES, HE DISALLOWED CASH PAYMENTS OF RS.13,32,306/-. WE FIND THAT THE NATUR E OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUCH, THAT TO EXECUTE THE PROJECT IN RE MOTE ARE, THE SUPPLIERS SUPPLY THE MATERIAL IN CASH PAYMENT ONLY AS THEY DO NOT BELIEV E IN CHEQUE PAYMENTS. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE CASH PURCHASES AS HE IS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES AND THE PAYMENTS ARE ALSO IN CASH. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE S MADE IN CASH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION AND CIT(A) UPHELD THE SAME. IT IS ALSO A FACT, AS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE MA DE ON VARIOUS DATES DURING THE YEAR FOR PURCHASE OF MATERIAL IN CASH, THE ENTI RE PURCHASE IN CASH CANNOT BE THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. HERE, WE HAVE ALREADY P OINTED OUT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE CASE LAW OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITA T AHMEDABAD C BENCH IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. VS ACIT (1996) 58 I TD 428, WHEREIN THE BENCH VIDE PARA 19 REPORTED AT PAGE 470, ON THE SIMILAR F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DECIDED THE ISSUE, AS UNDER: 19. WE WILL NOW CONSIDER AS TO HOW MUCH DEDUCTION S HOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF COST OF PURCH ASE OF OIL CAKES SAID TO HAVE BEEN REALLY RECEIVED BY THEM BUT THE BILLS PRODUCED IN ITA NO. 1333/KOL/2010 4 SUPPORT THEREOF WERE NOT GENUINE BILLS. IT IS ABSOL UTELY CLEAR FROM THE FACTS, MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED FICTITIOUS VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASE OF OIL CAKES SHOWN AS PURCHASED FROM THE 33 BOGUS SUPPLIERS. IT ALSO PRODUCED FICTITIOUS VOUCHERS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF THESE GOO DS. THE GOODS WERE NOT RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES FROM WHOM IT IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BUT SUCH MATERIAL WAS RECEIVED FROM A DIF FERENT SOURCE WHICH IS EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AS SESSEE AND NONE ALSO. EVEN AFTER THE AO BROUGHT ADEQUATE MATERIAL O N RECORD WHICH EXPOSES THE FALSE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COME OUT WITH THE TRUTH AS TO WHERE FROM IT HAD PUR CHASED THE OIL CAKES IN MENTION WHICH ARE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PURCH ASED FROM THE SAID 33 BOGUS PARTIES. 19.1 THERE COULD BE VARIOUS POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE SO URCES WHEREFROM THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE ACQUIRED OIL CAKES FOR PROD UCTION IN THEIR SEP, VIZ., (A) IT IS GENERALLY KNOWN THAT THE OIL MILLS ARE EN GAGED IN CARRYING OUT UNACCOUNTED PRODUCTION OF OIL AS WELL AS OIL CA KES. THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE PURCHASED SUCH OIL CAKES OUT OF UNACCOUN TED PRODUCTION DONE BY VARIOUS OIL MILLS. (B) THE AO IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL IN PART B OF THE PAPER BOOK OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO INDICATED ABOUT ONE MORE POSSIBILITY, VIZ., THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HA VING AN OIL MILL AND IS ALSO PRODUCING THE OIL CAKES. THE BOGUS PURCHASE OF OIL CAKES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ACCORDING TO THE AO MIGHT BE OUT OF THEIR OWN UNACCOUNTED PRODUCTION FOR WHICH THE BILLS HAVE BEE N PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE THEMSELVES IN THE NAMES OF BOGUS CONCE RNS. IN THIS REGARD IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE TO MAKE A REFERENCE T O LETTER DT. 10TH DEC., 1995, SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS BEEN INDICATED THAT THE CRUSHING CAPACITY OF ASSESSEE'S OWN OIL MI LL IS APPROXIMATELY 50 TONS PER DAY AND THE CRUSHING CAPACITY OF THE AS SESSEE'S ASSOCIATE CONCERN IS APPROXIMATELY 62.500 TONS PER DAY. IT HA S BEEN FURTHER STATED THAT CRUSHING WAS CARRIED OUT ONLY FOR 110 D AYS IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN MILL. THE CHART SHOW ING POWER CONSUMPTION VIS-A-VIS CRUSHING IN ASSESSEE'S OWN MI LL HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE LETTER. THE FIGURES OF PRO DUCTION AND THESE DETAILS GIVEN IN THE AFORESAID LETTER SHOW THAT THE INSTALLED CAPACITY OF THE OIL MILL BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN USED ONLY PARTLY. THE RATIO OF CONSUMPTION PER UNIT OF POWER WITH REF ERENCE TO THE PRODUCTION CARRIED OUT IN DIFFERENT MONTHS HAS ALSO NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR DETERMINING THE REASONABLENE SS OF PRODUCTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS OIL MILL. THE POSSIBI LITY INDICATED BY THE AO IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE IN COMPILATION M ARKED AS PART B CANNOT TOTALLY BE RULED OUT BY THE AO WHILE MAKING AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW YIELD IN THE OIL MILL HAS HIMSELF RE STRICTED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTRODUCTION OF OIL CAKES ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3,19,618 APART FROM THE ALLEGED LOW YIELD OF OIL OB TAINED FROM RAPESEEDS. ITA NO. 1333/KOL/2010 5 19.2 IN ANY CASE, THE OIL CAKES SO RECEIVED AND USE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES HAS COME OUT OF THE UNACC OUNTED PRODUCTION OF OIL CAKES OF OTHER MILL OWNERS OR PARTLY FROM OT HER MILL OWNERS AND PARTLY FROM OIL MILLS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEIR ASSOCIATE CONCERNS. NOTHING DEFINITE CAN BE SAID BECAUSE THE TRUE SOURCE WHEREFROM THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED SUCH OIL CAKES SHOW N AS HAVING BEEN PURCHASED FROM 33 BOGUS SUPPLIERS IS KNOWN ONL Y TO THE ASSESSEE AND NONE ELSE. BUT ONE THING IS CERTAIN TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEFINITELY INFLATED THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION BY SHOWING HIGHER AMOUNT OF PURCHASE PRICE THROUGH THE FICTITIOUS INV OICES IN THE NAMES OF 33 BOGUS SUPPLIERS. 19.3 IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT IF PURCHASES ARE MADE FR OM OPEN MARKET WITHOUT INSISTING FROM THE GENUINE BILLS, THE SUPPL IERS MAY BE WILING TO SELL THOSE PRODUCTS AT A MUCH LOWER RATE AS COMP ARED TO THE RATE AT WHICH THEY MAY CHARGE IN CASE THE DEALER HAS TO GIV E A GENUINE SALE INVOICE IN RESPECT OF THAT SALE AND SUPPLY THE GOOD S. THERE MAY BE VARIOUS FACTORS DUE TO WHICH THERE IS BOUND TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PARTY PURCHASE PRICE OF UNAC COUNTED MATERIAL AND RATE OF PURCHASE OF UNACCOUNTED FOR GOODS. THER E MAY BE A SAVING ON ACCOUNT OF SALES-TAX AND OTHER TAXES AND DUTIES WHICH MAY BE LEVIABLE IN RESPECT OF MANUFACTURE OF SALE OF GO ODS IN QUESTION. THE SUPPLIERS OR THE MANUFACTURERS MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL S AVING IN THE INCOME-TAX IN RESPECT OF INCOME FROM SALE OF UNACCO UNTED GOODS PRODUCED AND SOLD BY THEM. THIS MAY ALSO BE ONE OF THE FACTORS DUE TO WHICH THE SELLER MAY BE WILLING TO CHARGE LOWER RAT ES FOR UNACCOUNTED GOODS AS COMPARED TO ACCOUNTED FOR GOOD S. KEEPING ALL THESE FACTORS IN MIND AND ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SANJAY OIL CAKE INDUSTRIES VS. IAC ITA NO. 2653, 2654 AND 2655/AHD/1988, DT. 29TH APRIL, 1994, WE HOLD THAT 25% OF THE PURCHASE PRICE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS THROUGH SUCH FICTITIOUS INVOICES IN THE NAME OF 33 BOGUS PARTIES SHOULD BE DISALLOWED OUT OF THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THOSE 33 BOGUS SUPPLIERS. THE TOTAL PURCHASES SHOWN AS MADE FROM THESE 33 PARTIES WHICH HAVE BEEN DISAL LOWED BY THE AO AS UNDER : RS. (I) BOGUS PURCHASES AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 70,03,826 38 READ WITH PARA 22 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER (II) BOGUS PURCHASE AS DISCUSSED 17,99,788 IN PARA 40 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 17,99,788 WE DIRECT THE AO TO DISALLOW 25% OF THE AFORESAID A MOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATION OF PURCHASE PRICE. THE AMOUNT OF DISAL LOWANCE WOULD ACCORDINGLY COME TO RS. 22,00,903 WHICH MAY BE ROUN DED TO RS. 22 LAKHS. THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE SHOWN BY WAY OF FR EIGHT ON THE AFORESAID PURCHASES HAS BEEN SEPARATELY DISALLOWED BY THE AO TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5,02,752. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT SUCH OIL CAKES WERE RECEIVED FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE, AS SHOWN AS PER THE FICTITIOUS INVOICES, WE AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN B Y THE DEPARTMENTAL ITA NO. 1333/KOL/2010 6 AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE ENTIR E AMOUNT OF FREIGHT IN RELATION TO THE AFORESAID PURCHASES. THE DISALLO WANCE OF RS. 5,02,752 IS ALSO, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. THUS, THE A O IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO AN AGGREGATE SUM OF RS . 27,02,752 (RS. 22 LAKHS PLUS RS. 5,02,752) AS AGAINST THE AGGREGAT E DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 93,06,366 MADE BY THE AO COMPRISING OF RS. 70,0 3,826, RS. 17,99,788 AND RS. 5,02,752. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THE CASE LAW OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. SUPRA, THE FACTS BEING EXACTLY IDENTICAL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE DI SALLOWANCE OF THESE BOGUS PURCHASES AT 25%. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. RESPECTFULLY, BY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE OF THESE BOGUS PURCHASES AT 25% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.1,77,204/-. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. / / / / 0 00 0 1# 1# 1# 1# 2 2 2 2 3 33 3 4 4 4 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31. 0 5. 2011. SD/- SD/- [ ! , ] [ . . , ] [ MAHAVIR SINGH ] [ S.V. MEHROTRA ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 4 4 4 4 / DATED : 31ST MAY, 2011. / 5 , 6 76%8 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. /APPLICANT- SANDIP HALDER, 2/1C, CHANDRA NATH SIM LAI LANE, KOLKATA-700 002. 2 ,-)* / RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER/WARD-41(4), 18, R ABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-700 001. . 3. /# / CIT 4. /# ( )/ CIT(A) 5. 2 , # / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA [ -6 , / TRUE COPY] /#1 / BY ORDER 9 / !: /DEPUTY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR . [KKC ;< #=: > /SR.PS]