Phoenix Converyor belt India Private Limited (Formerly Known as Phoenix Yule Limited ), Kolkata V. ACIT, Rg-11,Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1613/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87637 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOKE NAG
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHAY RUIA ACA; AMIT PATNI
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Retrospective amendment; Revised return
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOLKATA ( ) BEFORE , /AND , ) [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , AM ] / I.T.A NO. 1613 /KOL/201 2 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 6 - 0 7 PHOENIX CONVEYOR BELT INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, (PAN: AABCP5595P) RANGE - 11, KOLKATA. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 15 . 01 .201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29 . 01 .201 5 FOR THE APPELLANT: S/ SHRI AMIT PATNI & ABHAY RUIA, ACA FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI ALOKE NAG, JCIT, SR. DR / ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM : THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A) - XX I V , KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 976 / CIT(A) - XXI V / R - 11/11 - 12 DATED 0 3 . 09 .201 2 . ASSESSMENT W AS FRAMED BY ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 11, KOLKATA U/S. 1 43(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 200 6 - 0 7 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 1 8 .12.200 9 . 2. THE SOLE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.52,43,154/ - BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TDS . FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1(A) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF R S.52,43,154/ - BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT ). 1(B) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT TAX RELATING TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.52,43,154 DEDUCTED DURING THE LAST MONTH OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005 - 06 HAD BEEN DULY DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT WITHIN THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ACCORDINGLY NO DISALLOWANCE THE DEDUCTION U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT COULD BE LEGALLY INFLICTED. 1(C) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (187 ITR 688 (SC) AND IN NATIONAL THERMAL POWER C O. LTD. (229 ITR 383)(SC) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.52,43,154 2 ITA NO.1613/K/2012 PHOENIX CONVEYOR BELT INDIA PVT. LTD. AY 2006 - 07 U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND FURTHER ERRED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED (284 ITR 323 (SC). 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE RELEVANT AY INVOLVED IS 2006 - 07. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,65,06,448/ - IN ITS REVISED RETURN OF INCOME TO TAX THIS AMOUNT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON THE ABOVE EXPENSES AND THEREBY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ARE INVOKED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 16.08.2008 , BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT WHICH WAS 18.12.2009, POINTED OUT IN VIEW OF THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT TO THE ACT W.E.F. 01.04.2005 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 , REQUESTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED THE TAX ON AN AMOUNT OF EXPENSES OF R S.52,43,154/ - IN THE MONTH OF MARCH BUT PAID THE SAME ON 24.04.2006. ACCORDING TO A SSESSEE S LETTER, THE AO WAS REQUESTED TO CONSIDER THE ALLOWANCE OF THIS DEDUCTION OF R S.52,43,154/ - ON WHICH TDS WAS DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,65,06,448/ - OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE AO WHILE COMPLETING ASSESS MENT VIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.2009 U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT REJECTED THE REPRESENTATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ALLOWED THE ABOVE EXPENSES AS DEDUCTION AMOUNTING TO RS.52,43,154/ - ON WHICH ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED THE TAX DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2006 AND DEPOS ITED ON 24.04.2006. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ACTION OF AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO THAT EVEN IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME THIS CLAIM WAS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THIS WAS MADE BY WAY OF APPLICATION DATED 16.07.2008 AND ACCORDING TO THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDIA) LTD. (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) T HE AO HAS NOT TO ENTERTAIN THE CLAIM AS IT WAS NOT MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE CIT(A) RECORDED HIS FINDING AT PARA 6.3 AS UNDER: 6.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF LD. A/R. THE APPELLANT DID NOT MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FI LED U/S. 139(1) FOR THE AY 2006 - 07. THEN THE APPELLANT HAD OFFERED TO TAX AN AGGREGATE SUM OF RS.1,65,06,448/ - U/S. 40(A)(IA) IN THE REVISED RETURN WHICH WAS FILED ON 20.03.2008. THE LD. A/R HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.1,65,06,448/ - WHICH WA S OFFERED TO TAX ALSO CONTAINED AN AMOUNT OF RS.52,43,154/ - OUT OF WHICH TDS WAS DEDUCTED IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2006 AND DEPOSITED ON 24.04.2006. DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. A/R HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.52,43,1 54/ - IS DEDUCTIBLE U/S. 40(A)(IA) IN THE HAND OF THE APPELLANT AS THE TDS ON THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT ON 20.04.2006. DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPEAL, THE LD. A/R COULD NOT FURNISH ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,65,06,448/ - U/S. 40(A)(IA) WAS NOT MADE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. HE HAS ALSO FAILED TO CLARIFY AS TO WHY THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 40(A)(IA) WAS NOT MADE BY FILING REVISED RETURN FOR THE AY 2006 - 07. THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE 3 ITA NO.1613/K/2012 PHOENIX CONVEYOR BELT INDIA PVT. LTD. AY 2006 - 07 PRESENT CASE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN GOETZE (INDIA) LTD., I HOLD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.52,43,154/ - U/S. 40(A)(IA) WITHOUT FILING A REVISED RETURN CANNOT BE ALLOWED AT THIS STAGE. IN VIEW OF IT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. FIRST OF ALL IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED TH E ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.1,65,06,448/ - INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION, WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TDS UNDER VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT , U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT VIDE LETTER DATED 16.07.2008 POINTED OUT TO THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT IN THE ACT W. R. E.F. 01.04.2005 BY THE FINANCE ACT 2008, THE ASSENT FOR WHICH WAS RECEIVED FROM THE PRESIDENT AFTER EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION OF FILING OF REVISED RETURN FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEREBY THE CLAIM WAS MADE BEFORE THE AO THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED THE TDS DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2006 UNDER VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BUT TAX WAS DEPOSITED ON 24.04.2006. ADMITTEDLY, THE TDS DEDUC TED WAS PAID ON 24.04.2006 WELL BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THIS FACT IS APPARENT FROM THE ANNEXURE K TO FORM NO. 3CD OF THE AUDIT REPORT, WHICH WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO AND EVEN NOW BEFORE US BY ASSESSEE FILED THE SAME IN ITS PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 58. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIRGIN CREATIONS IN ITAT NO.302 OF 2011, GA NO. 3200/2011 DATED 23.11.2011, WHEREIN EVEN AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT 2010 IN SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS HELD TO BE RETROSPECTIVE. HON BLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: WE HAVE HEARD MR. NIZAMUDDIN AND GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE POINT FORMULATED FOR WHICH THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SOUGHT TO BE ADMITTED. IT IS ARGUED BY MR. NIZAMUDDIN THAT THIS COURT NEEDS TO TAKE DECISION AS TO WHETHER SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS HAVING RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION OR NOT. THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL ON FACT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAID CHARGES BETWEEN THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 2005 AND APRIL 28, 2006 AND THE SAME WERE PAID BY THE ASSE SSEE IN JULY AND AUGUST 2006, I.E. WELL BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS FACTUAL POSITION WAS UNDISPUTED. MOREOVER, THE SUPREME COURT, AS HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF ALLIED MOTORS PVT. LTD. AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF ALOM EXTUSIONS LTD., HAS ALREADY DECIDED THAT THE AFORESAID PROVISION HAS RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION. AGAIN, IN THE CASE REPORTED IN 82 ITR 570, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PROVISION, WHICH HAS INSERTED THE REMEDY TO MAKE THE PROVISION WORKABLE, REQUIRES TO BE TREATED WITH 4 ITA NO.1613/K/2012 PHOENIX CONVEYOR BELT INDIA PVT. LTD. AY 2006 - 07 RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION SO THAT REASONABLE DEDUCTION CAN BE GIVEN TO THE SECTION AS WELL. IN VIEW OF THE AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT, THIS COURT CANNOT DECIDE OTHER WISE. HENCE WE DISMISS THE APPEAL WITHOUT ANY ORDER AS TO COSTS. ONCE THE ISSUE IS DECIDED BY HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THAT THE AMENDMENT IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT BY FINANCE ACT, 2010 IS REMEDIAL AND CURATIVE IN NATURE AND TDS PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S. 139(1) OF THE ACT, DEDUCTION IN RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT ON WHICH TDS IS SO PAID, IS ALLOWABLE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED THE TDS DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2006 UNDER VARIOUS P ROVISIONS OF THE ACT BUT TDS WAS DEPOSITED ON 24.04.2006. ADMITTEDLY, THE TDS DEDUCTED WAS PAID ON 24.04.2006 WELL BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THIS FACT IS APPARENT FROM THE ANNEXURE K TO FORM N O. 3CD OF THE AUDIT REPORT, WHICH WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO AND EVEN NOW BEFORE US ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE SAME IN ITS PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 58. HENCE, WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. 6. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN THE CASE GOETZ (INDIA) LTD, SUPRA, HON BLE S UPREME C OURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 2. THE QUESTION RAISED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO WHETHER THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE COULD MAKE A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHER THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION WAS 1995 - 96. THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 3 0 - 11 - 1995, BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. ON 12 - 1 - 1998, THE APPELLANT SOUGHT TO CLAIM A DEDUCTION BY WAY OF A LETTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE DEDUCTION WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT TO MAKE AMENDMENT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY MODIFYING AN APPLICATION AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE WITHOUT REVISING THE RETURN. 3 . THE QUESTION RAISED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO WHETHER THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE COULD MAKE A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHER THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION WAS 1995 - 96. THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 30 - 11 - 1995, BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. ON 12 - 1 - 1998, THE APPELLANT SOUGHT TO CLAIM A DEDUCTION BY WAY OF A LETTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE DEDUCTION WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT TO MAKE AMENDMENT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY MODIFYING AN APPLICATION AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE WIT HOUT REVISING THE RETURN. 4 . THIS APPELLANT'S APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WAS ALLOWED. HOWEVER, THE ORDER OF THE FURTHER APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS ALLOWED. THE APPELLANT HAS APPROACHED THIS COURT AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS WRONG IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ORDER. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN NATIONAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LTD. V. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383, TO CONTEND THAT IT WAS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THE POINTS OF LAW EVEN BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 5 ITA NO.1613/K/2012 PHOENIX CONVEYOR BELT INDIA PVT. LTD. AY 2006 - 07 5 . THIS APPELLANT'S APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WAS ALLOWED. HOWEVER, THE ORDER OF THE FURTHER APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS ALLOWED. THE APPELLANT HAS A PPROACHED THIS COURT AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS WRONG IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ORDER. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN NATIONAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LTD. V. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383, TO CONTEND THAT IT WAS OPEN TO TH E ASSESSEE TO RAISE THE POINTS OF LAW EVEN BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 6 . THE DECISION IN QUESTION IS THAT THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IS TO ENTERTAIN FOR THE FIRST TIME A POINT OF LAW PROVIDED THE FACT ON TH E BASIS OF WHICH THE ISSUE OF LAW CAN BE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE DECISION DOES NOT IN ANY WAY RELATE TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHERWISE THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, WE DISMISS THE CIVIL APPEAL. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND DOES NOT IMPINGE ON THE POWER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. T HERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 7 . THE DECISION IN QUESTION IS THAT THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IS TO ENTERTAIN FOR THE FIRST TIME A POINT OF LAW PROVIDED THE FACT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ISSUE OF LAW CAN BE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE DECISION DOES NOT IN ANY WAY RELATE TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHERWISE THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DISMISS THE CIVIL APPEAL. HOWEVE R, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND DOES NOT IMPINGE ON THE POWER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. F ROM THE ABOVE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETEZ (INDIA) LTD., SUPRA, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DEDUCTION CAN BE MADE BEFORE AO BY WAY OF REVISED RETURN AND NOT OTHERWISE BUT THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO THE POWERS OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA L U/S. 254 OF THE ACT AS IS CLARIFIED BY HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THIS VERY JUDGMENT. HENCE, ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM IS LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND NOW WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE SAME BUT AFTER VERI FICATION OF DATES OF PAYMENTS OF TDS. 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AS DIRECTED ABOVE. 8 . ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 9 . 0 1 . 2 0 1 5 . S D / - S D / - , , ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 2 9 T H JANUARY , 201 5 JD.(SR.P.S.) - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 6 ITA NO.1613/K/2012 PHOENIX CONVEYOR BELT INDIA PVT. LTD. AY 2006 - 07 1 . / A PPELLANT PHOENIX CONVEYOR BELT INDIA PVT. LTD., IDEAL PLAZA, 4 TH FLOOR, 11/1, SARAT BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 020 2 / RESPONDENT ACIT, RANGE - 11, KOLKATA. 3 . ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. / CIT KOLKATA / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .