ACIT, CC-XX, Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1369/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4931 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY SHAH ACA; NAVIN VERMA ACA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Speculation loss
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 1369/KOL./2010 & C.O. NO. 105/KOL/2010 (IN ITA NO. 1369/KOL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-2001 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. 1369/KOL/ 2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-2001 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,.............. ...................APPELLANT CENTRAL CIRCLE-XX, KOLKATA, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-700 001 -VS.- M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LIMITED, ............. .................RESPONDENT 8/1/B, DIAMOND HARBOUR ROAD, KOLKATA-700 027 [PAN : AABCP 8017 C] & C.O. NO. 105/KOL/2010 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 1369/KOL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-2001 M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LIMITED, ............. .................CROSS OBJECTOR 8/1/B, DIAMOND HARBOUR ROAD, KOLKATA-700 027 [PAN : AABCP 8017 C] -VS.- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,.............. ...................RESPONDENT CENTRAL CIRCLE-XX, KOLKATA, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-700 001 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SAURABH KUMAR, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI VIJAY SHAH, ACA & SHRI NAVIN VERMA, ACA, FOR T HE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JANUARY 05, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MARCH 02, 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)-XXXII, KOLKATA DATED 22.01.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND THE SAME IS BEI NG DISPOSED OF ALONG I.T.A. NO. 1369/KOL./2010 & C.O. NO. 105/KOL/2010 (IN ITA NO. 1369/KOL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-2001 PAGE 2 OF 8 WITH THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEIN G C.O. NO. 105/KOL/2010. 2. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 OF THE R EVENUES APPEAL RELATES TO THE DELETION BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE BY RESTRICTING ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY, W HICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING, SALE, EXPORT AND REN OVATION OF COOLING TOWERS. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION WAS FILED BY IT ON 30.11.2000 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.10 ,29,77,670/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORIGINALLY COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3 ), THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AT RS.10,47,99,116/-. THE SAID ASSESSMENT WAS SUBSEQUE NTLY REOPENED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLET ED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03 .2005, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY HIM AT RS. 11,11,03,452/- AFTER MAKING ADDITION, INTER ALIA, BY RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CI T(APPEALS) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON FUR THER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 22.02.2007 RESTORED T HE ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 80IA TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE AFRESH THE ASPECT OF ALLOCATION OF CERTAIN EXPENSES, SUCH AS BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION, TRADE A DVERTISEMENT, BANK CHARGES, SALES PROMOTION AND R&D EXPENSES TO BHASA UNIT AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. DUR ING THE COURSE OF SET ASIDE PROCEEDING, IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXPENSES IN QUESTION WER E RELATING TO ITS HEAD OFFICE AND THE SAME WERE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ALLOCAT ED TO BHASA UNIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE PROFIT OF THE SAID UNI T ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA. THIS STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE I.T.A. NO. 1369/KOL./2010 & C.O. NO. 105/KOL/2010 (IN ITA NO. 1369/KOL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-2001 PAGE 3 OF 8 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE BUR DEN OF THE SAID EXPENSES HAD TO BE PASSED TO THE UNIT PRODUCING THE COMPONENTS OTHERWISE THE PROFIT ARRIVED FOR THE UNITS WILL GIV E THE DISTORTED PICTURE. ACCORDINGLY, 30% OF SUCH EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.8 ,46,440/- WERE ALLOCATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BHASA UNIT AN D DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80IA WAS RESTRICTED BY H IM TO THAT EXTENT. 4. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(APPEALS) CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESTRICTING ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE O N RECORD, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT EXPE NSES RELATING TO THE BHASA UNIT HAVING BEEN DULY CONSIDERED WHILE COMPUT ING THE PROFIT OF THE SAID UNIT, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A LLOCATING CORPORATE OFFICE EXPENSES, WHICH DID NOT RELATE TO THE BHASA UNIT, WAS NOT CORRECT. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 5. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRE D BY THE HEAD OFFICE OR CORPORATE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, WHICH ARE COMMON IN NATURE, ARE REQUIRED TO BE ALLOCATED TO COMPUTE THE PROFIT OF BHASA UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ACCEPT THE PROFIT COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE OF BHASA UNIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA WITHOUT ALLOCATING SUCH EXPENSES. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES IN QUESTION ARE RELATING TO THE HEAD O FFICE OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE SAME. REL YING ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD. VS.- DCIT REPORTED IN 140 TTJ 73, HE CO NTENDED THAT SUCH EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE NOT DI RECTLY INCURRED FOR THE I.T.A. NO. 1369/KOL./2010 & C.O. NO. 105/KOL/2010 (IN ITA NO. 1369/KOL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-2001 PAGE 4 OF 8 ELIGIBLE UNIT, CANNOT BE ALLOCATED ON PRO-RATA BASI S FOR COMPUTING THE PROFIT OF SUCH UNIT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F DCIT VS.- SICPA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED RENDERED VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 04.12 .2015 IN ITA NO. 599/KOL/2012. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERV ED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF SICPA INDIA PVT. LIMITED IN THE CONTEXT OF COMPUTATION OF THE PROFIT OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 80IC AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDE R DATED 04.12.2015 (SUPRA) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESESE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 4:- 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ALTHOUGH THE LD. D.R. HAS CONTENDED THAT THE PROFIT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC IS TO BE WORKED OUT AFTER DEDUCT ING ALL THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT EXPENSES, THE DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 80IC, AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IS IN RESPECT OF ANY PROFIT AND GAINS DERIVED BY THE ELIGIBLE UNDERT AKING. AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESESE IN TH IS REGARD, THE WORDS DERIVED FROM HAS A NARROW MEANING, INASMUCH AS IT CONTEMPLATES FIRST DEGREE CONNECTION WITH THE ELIGI BLE UNIT AS HELD, INTER ALIA, BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF PANDIAN CHEMICALS LIMITED REPORTED IN 262 ITR 278 A ND THIS PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF INCOME IS ALSO APPLICABLE FOR THE ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES AS HELD BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF BALARAMPUR CHINI MILLS LIMITED VS.- DCIT REPORTED IN 140 TTJ 73. IN THE SAID CASE, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL T HAT EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESESE UNDER THE GENERAL HEAD OF OFFICE EXPENSES, WHICH ARE NOT DIRECTLY INCURRED FOR THE E LIGIBLE UNIT, CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE FIRST DEGREE CONNECTION WITH SUCH UNIT SO AS TO REDUCE THE SAME ON PRO RATA BASIS FOR COMPUTI NG THE PROFIT OF SUCH UNIT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. IN OUR OPINION , THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE THUS IS SQUARELY COVER ED BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF BALARAMPUR CHINI MILLS LIMITED (SUPRA) AND RESPECTF ULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE . I.T.A. NO. 1369/KOL./2010 & C.O. NO. 105/KOL/2010 (IN ITA NO. 1369/KOL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-2001 PAGE 5 OF 8 IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENC H OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SICPA INDIA PVT. LIMITED (SUPRA) IS SQU ARELY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, W E UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) GIVING RELIE F TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 OF THE REVENUES APPE AL ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE SHARE- BADLA INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS SPECULATIVE INCOME INSTEA D OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER 9. DURING THE COURSE OF SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 254/147/143(3), IT WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED SPECULATION PROFIT OF RS.1,07,44,674/- AND HAS SET OFF THE SAME AGAINST THE CARRIED FORWARD SPECULATION LOSS O F A.Y. 1993-94. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE SAID SPECULATION PROFIT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS INCLUSIVE OF SHARE-BADLA INCOME OF RS.91,53,269/-. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE SAID SHARE-BADLA INCOME WAS ASSESSABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS IT INVOLVED PHYSICAL TRANSFE R OF SHARES. HE ACCORDINGLY ENTERTAINED A BELIEF THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON THIS CO UNT AND IN ORDER TO BRING THE SAME TO TAX, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 W AS ISSUED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE ON 12.09.2006. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE SAID NOTICE BY SUBMITTING THAT ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS OF THE BADLA TRANSACTIONS WERE DULY FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME ORI GINALLY FILED ON 3011.2000. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE SHARE-BADLA INCOME WAS EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES WITHOUT TAKING ACTUAL DELIVERY THEREOF. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BASICAL LY IS AN INVESTOR, WHO MADE INVESTMENT IN SHARE-BADLA TRANSACTIONS. ACCORD INGLY, SOME AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO A SHARE-BROKER, WHO ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE INVESTED THE SAID AMOUNT IN SHARES OF DIFFERENT COMPANIES. THE R ELEVANT TRANSACTIONS I.T.A. NO. 1369/KOL./2010 & C.O. NO. 105/KOL/2010 (IN ITA NO. 1369/KOL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-2001 PAGE 6 OF 8 WERE EITHER SQUARED OFF DURING THE TRADING PERIOD I TSELF OR WERE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE NEXT SETTLEMENT. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF SHARES IN EITHER CASE, HOWEVER, WAS NOT TAKEN AND SINCE THE TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES WERE DONE WITHOUT ANY PHYSIC AL DELIVERY OF SHARES, THE PROFIT EARNED FROM THE TRANSACTIONS WAS IN THE NATURE OF SPECULATION PROFIT. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACC EPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE PROFIT FRO M BADLA TRANSACTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN RATES OF CURRENT SETTLEMEN T OR NEXT SETTLEMENT WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF SPECULATIVE INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY HIM IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE WITHOUT ALLOWING ITS CLAIM FOR SET OFF AGAINST THE SPECULATION LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS. 10. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESESE TO TREAT THE SHARE-BADLA INCOME AS SPECULATIVE INCOME BY RELYING ON THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 IN PURSUANCE OF WHICH THE SIMILAR CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ALTHOUGH THE LD. D.R. HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUPPORT OF TH E REVENUES CASE ON THIS ISSUE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 1994-95 HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SIMILAR CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TREATING THE INCOME FROM BADLA TRANSACTIONS AS SPECULATIVE PROFIT AND TO ADJUST THE SAME AGAINST S PECULATION LOSS VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 15.12.1997 AND WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO T HE SAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 05.02.1998 TREATED THE BADLA TRANSACTIONS INCOME AS SPECULATIO N PROFIT AND ADJUSTED THE SAME AGAINST SPECULATION LOSS. AS POINTED OUT B Y THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DAT ED 15.12.1997 FOR A.Y. 1994-95 ON THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPA RTMENT AND NO APPEAL I.T.A. NO. 1369/KOL./2010 & C.O. NO. 105/KOL/2010 (IN ITA NO. 1369/KOL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-2001 PAGE 7 OF 8 HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE SAME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE FACTS OF THE CASE INCLUDING ESPECIALLY THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS TREATED THE SIMILAR BADLA TRANS ACTIONS PROFIT AS SPECULATION PROFIT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 1994-95, WE FIND NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TRE AT THE SHARE BADLA INCOME AS SPECULATIVE INCOME AND TO ADJUST THE SAME AGAINST THE SPECULATION LOSS. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE IS, THEREFORE, UPHELD AND GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVEN UES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 12. AS A RESULT OF OUR DECISION RENDERED ABOVE UPHO LDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETING BOTH THE ADD ITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECT ION 254/147/143(3), THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJEC TION CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT HAS VIRTUALLY BECOM ES INFRUCTUOUS AS AGREED EVEN BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE , THEREFORE, DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT TO ADJUDICATE UP ON THE SAME AND KEEP IT OPEN WITH A LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PURSUE TH E SAME IF THE SITUATION SO ARISE IN FUTURE. THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CR OSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MARCH 02, 201 6. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 2 ND DAY OF MARCH, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XX, KOLKATA, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-700 001 I.T.A. NO. 1369/KOL./2010 & C.O. NO. 105/KOL/2010 (IN ITA NO. 1369/KOL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-2001 PAGE 8 OF 8 (2) M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LIMITED, 8/1/B, DIAMOND HARBOUR ROAD, KOLKATA-700 027 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XXXII, KO LKATA (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.