M/s Waycon Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata V. ITO, Ward-6(4), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1638/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1599 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELL ATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA (BENCH D) BEFORE SHRI ABY. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1638/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH , AM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A)-2, KOLKATA VIDE APPEAL NO.1124/CIT(A)-2/2014-15 DATED 12.05.2016 AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY I.T.O, WARD -6(4), KOLKATA UND ER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 18 .11.2011. 2. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO ADDITIO NAL GROUNDS BEFORE US VIDE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.7 AND 8. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR STATED THAT ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.7 IS NOT PRESSED BY HER. THE SAME IS RECKONED AS A M/S. WAYCON COMMERCE PVT. LTD. [PAN : AAACW2311F] -VS- I.T.O, WARD -6(4), KOLKATA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT SMT. PARNASHREE BANERJEE, ADVOCAT E FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI D. C. MANDOL, JCIT DATE OF HEARING 25.05.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07.07.2017 2 I.T.A. NO.1638/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 M/S. WAYCON COMMERCE PVT. LTD. STATEMENT FROM THE BAR AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIO NAL GROUND NO.7 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.8 HAS BEEN RAISED IN TH E CONTEXT OF DISALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUN TING TO 8,87,000/- IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHEN THE SAID ISSUE WAS A LREADY EXAMINED IN ORIGINAL REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE REBY QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE SAID ADDITION IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.8 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. AO ERRED IN HAVING MADE ADDITIONS OF RS.8,87,000/- DISALLOWING THE APP ELLANTS CLAIM OF BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION PAID WHEN THE SAID ISSUE WAS ALREADY EXAMINED IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 W HICH AMOUNTED TO MERE CHANGE OF OPINION AND NOTHING ELSE 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y 2006-07 ON 21.11.2006. THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND IN THE ORIGINAL SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. A O ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO VARIOUS BROKERS OF THE ASSESSEE INQUIRIN G ABOUT THEIR SERVICES RENDERED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR JUSTIFYING THE PAYMENT OF COMMI SSION / BROKERAGE IN THE SUM OF RS.8,87,000/- BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED BY LD. AO ON 10.06.2008. THE REPLIES WERE DULY FILE D BY BROKERS IN RESPONSE TO U/S 133(6) NOTICES CONFIRMING THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM BY ENCLOSING THEIR COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURNS AND CONFIRMING THE FAC T AND RECEIPT OF BROKERAGE FROM THE ASSESSEE VIDE THEIR LETTERS DATED 12.06.20 08 AND 13.06.2008. THE LD. AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 3 0.06.2008 DISALLOWING PRELIMINARY EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.7,056/- IN THE ASSESSMENT. LATER, A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 04.03.2011 FOR THE A.Y 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE RETURN FILED ALREADY MAY BE TREATE D AS A RETURN IN REPLIES TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE LD. AO AGAIN SOUGHT TO 3 I.T.A. NO.1638/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 M/S. WAYCON COMMERCE PVT. LTD. RE-VERIFY THE ELIGIBILITY OF CLAIM OF COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE IN THE SUM OF RS.8,87,000/- AND ULTIMATELY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASS ESSEE BEING A NON-BANKING FINANCE COMPANY REGISTERED WITH RBI, DERIVING INTER EST INCOME FROM ADVANCING OF LOAN, HAD ADVANCED LOANS TO 18 PARTIES IN TOTO AND OUT OF WHICH 16 PARTIES TO WHOM MONEYS WERE LENT WERE INTEREST FREE. THE LD. AO ALS O OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TOTALLY EARNED INTEREST INCOME ONLY TO THE TUNE OF RS.38,34,158/-. HE STATED THAT FOR EARNING THIS INTEREST INCOME FROM 2 (TWO) PARTIES THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PAY COMMISSION/BROKERAGE IN THE SUM OF RS.8,87,000/- TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES. A.Y 2006-07 DETAILS OF BROKERAGE & COMMISSION PAID AS ON 31.03. 2006 SL. NO. NAME OF THE PARTY GROSS AMOUNT T.D.S 1. INDER CHAND CHAMARIA (HUF) 26/1, NARSINGH BOSE LANE, HOWRAH -711101 110,000.00 6,171.00 2. PRAGATI VANIJYA (P) LTD. 52, WESTON STREET,4TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.415, KOLKATA - 700 012 274,400.00 15,394.00 3. SANDEEP KUMAR SINGHI (HUF), 133, CANNING STREET,3RD FLOOR, ROOM NO.1, KOLKATA - 700 001 115,500.00 6,480.00 4. SAKTIDHAM ENCLAVE (P) LTD. 52, WESTON STREET,4TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.415, KOLKATA -700 012 269,500.00 15,119.00 5. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHI (HUF) 133, CANNING STREET,3RD FLOOR, ROOM NO.1, KOLKATA - 700 001 117,600.00 6597.00 887,000.00 49,761.00 5. THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE DETAILS FILE D IN THE PAPER BOOK AND ARGUED THAT THIS ISSUE OF ELIGIBILITY OF COMMISSION/BROKER AGE HAD BEEN VERIFIED EXTENSIVELY BY THE LD. AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S AND THERE IS NO NEED TO TAKE A DIVERGENT STAND WITH REGARD TO THE SUBJECT MENTIO NED ISSUE IN THE REASSESSMENT 4 I.T.A. NO.1638/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 M/S. WAYCON COMMERCE PVT. LTD. PROCEEDINGS, WHEN THE DOCUMENTS FROM THE PAPER BOOK , WHICH WERE VERY MUCH PLACED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES EXCEPT COPIES O F AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE BROKERS AND COPIES OF COMMUNICATIO N BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE BROKERS (INCLUDED IN PAGES 26 TO 42 OF THE PAPE R BOOK). HE ARGUED THAT THE LD. AO ON VERIFICATION OF THESE DOCUMENTS HAD ARRIVED A T A CONSCIOUS CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION TOWARDS COMM ISSION AND BROKERAGE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AND CHANGING THE S AID CONCLUSION IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MERELY TANTAMOUNT TO CHANG E OF OPINION ON THE PART OF THE LD. AO ON THE VERY SAME SET OF FACTS AND EVIDEN CES. SHE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF OUR CONTENTIONS: INDEX TO CASE LAWS SL. NO. PARTICULARS 01. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. REPORTED [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) 02. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. REPORTED IN [2012] 348 ITR 485 (DEL) 03. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ALLIED STRIPS LTD. VS.ACIT , CC15, WP(C) 2526/2015 04. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASIAN PAINTS LTD.VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN [2009] 308 ITR 195 (BOM) 05. THE HON'BLE ITAT, KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF DCIT V S. E.I.H LTD., ITANO.1742/KOL/2008 6. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY RELIE D ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS INCLUDING THE PAPER BOOK-I AND II SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: 5 I.T.A. NO.1638/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 M/S. WAYCON COMMERCE PVT. LTD. INDEX TO PAPER BOOK - I SL. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO. 01. A COPY OF BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE F.Y. ENDED 31..03.2006 01 02. A COPY OF DETAILS OF BROKER'S AND COMMISSION AN D BROKERAGE PAID 02 03. COPIES OF BILLS RAISED BY THE BROKERS ON THE ASSESSEE 03-07 04. COPIES OF REPLIES TO NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, L96L ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION OF ACC OUNTS OF THE BROKERS AND RETURN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE BROKERS 08-22 5. COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 . 23-25 INDEX TO PAPER BOOK - II SL. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO. 01. COPIES OF NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 10.06.2008 01-05 02. COPY OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE LD. AO 06-07 03. COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 08 7.1. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID COMMISSION/BROK ERAGE IN THE SUM OF RS.8,87,000/- TO THE AFORESAID PARTIES FOR SOURCING THE CUSTOMERS TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVANCING OF LOANS AND DERIVED INTER EST INCOME THEREON. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SAID DETAILS WERE DULY EXAMINED BY THE LD. AO BY ISSUING SEPARATE NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE AFORESAID BROK ERS WHICH WERE DULY REPLIED BY THEM IN WRITING BY ENCLOSING THEIR RESPECTIVE INCOM E TAX RETURN AND CONFIRMATION STATEMENT FOR RECEIPT OF COMMISSION FROM THE ASSESS EE. THE LD. AO, THOUGH, HAD CARRIED OUT THE DUE VERIFICATION OF THE COMMISSION / BROKERAGE IN THE ORIGINAL SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, DID NOT GIVE ANY F INDINGS TO THAT EFFECT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THIS REGARD, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO HAVE CONTROL OVER THE MANNER IN WHICH THE LD. AO RE CORDS HIS FINDINGS IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. AFTER DUE EXAMINATION OF THE DETA ILS FILED BY THE LD. AO, IT IS 6 I.T.A. NO.1638/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 M/S. WAYCON COMMERCE PVT. LTD. THE GENERAL PRACTICE FOR THE LD. AO TO RECORD HIS F INDINGS ONLY ON THE ISSUES ON WHICH HE IS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE. HEN CE, IT WOULD BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE LD. AO DULY AND EXTENSIVELY EXAM INED THE VERACITY OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION TOWARDS COMMISSION / BROKERAGE I N THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 7.2. WE FIND THAT THE LD. AO HAD TRIED TO COMPLETEL Y SHIFT HIS STAND BY CHANGING HIS OPINION BY TAKING A DIVERGENT VIEW ON THE PROPR IETY OF THE INCURRENCE OF EXPENDITURE TOWARDS COMMISSION / BROKERAGE IN THE R EASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY STATING THAT ASSESSEE NEED NOT TO HAVE PAID THIS EX PENDITURE AT ALL FOR EARNING INTEREST INCOME OF RS.38,34,158/-. THIS ACTION OF T HE LD. AO, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, WOULD CLEARLY TANTAMOUNT TO CHANGE OF OPIN ION ON THE VERY SAME SET OF FACTS AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO TANGIBLE MATERIALS AVAILABLE WITH THE LD. AO FOR DRAWING A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION ON THE VERY SAME SET OF FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD PLACED ON THE AFORESAID DECISIONS BY THE LD. AR ARE WELL FOUNDED. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. REPORTED [2010] 320 IT R 561 HELD AS FOLLOWS: THE CONCEPT OF CHANGE OF OPINION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT DOES NOT STAND OBLITERATED AFT ER THE SUBSTITUTION OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, BY THE DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACTS, 1987 AND 1989. AFTER THE AMENDMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS TO HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, BUT THI S DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN REOPEN ON ASSESSMENT ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. THE CONCEPT OF 'CHANGE OF OPINION' MUST BE TREATED AS A N IN-BUILT TEST TO CHECK THE ABUSE OF POWER. HENCE AFTER APRIL 1, 1989, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS POWER TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT, PROVIDED THERE IS 'TANGIBLE M ATERIAL' TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT. REASON MUST HAVE A LINK WITH THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF. 7.2.1 . THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. REPORTED IN [20L2]348 ITR 485 (DEL) HELD THAT 'RE-A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WILL BE INVALID IN CASE AN ISSUE OR QUERY IS RAISED AND ANS WERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT 7 I.T.A. NO.1638/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 M/S. WAYCON COMMERCE PVT. LTD. MAKE ANY ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN SUCH SITUATIONS IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED THAT THE ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BUT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DID NOT FIND ANY GROUND OR REASON TO MAKE ADDITION OR REJECT THE STA ND OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FORMS AN OPINION. THE RE-ASSESSMENT WILL BE INVALID BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FORMED ON OPINION IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THOUG H HE HAD NOT RECORDED HIS REASONS.' THE FOLLOWING WAS THUS OBSERVED BY THE HON'BLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. (SUPRA) : '64. ON THE FIRST QUESTION REFERRED TO THIS FULL BE NCH AS TO THE MEANING OF THE TERM 'CHANGE OF OPINION', I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD TO THE D RAFT PROPOSED. AS TO THE FIRST PART OF THE SECOND QUESTION MY ANSWER WOULD BE THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE VALIDLY REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT EVEN WITHIN FOUR YEARS, IF AN ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED FULL AND TRUE PARTICULARS AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WITH REFERENCE TO THE INCOME ALLEGED TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3). MY ANSWER TO THE SECOND PART OF THE SECOND QUESTION IS THAT THE ISSUE IS CONCLUD ED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE FULL BENCH OF THIS COURT IN KELVINATOR (SUPRA). 65. MY ANSWER TO THE THIRD QUESTION IS THIS. SO LON G AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED FULL AND TRUE PARTICULARS AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT AND SO LONG AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, IT MATTERS LITTLE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ASK ANY QUESTION OR Q UERY WITH RESPECT TO ONE ENTRY OR NOTE BUT HAD RAISED QUERIES AND QUESTIONS ON OTH ER ASPECTS. AGAIN, THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION STANDS CONCLUDED BY THE JUDGMENT O F THE FULL BENCH OF THIS COURT IN KELVINATOR (SUPRA). MY ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. (I V), IN RESPECTFUL AGREEMENT WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE FULL BENCH OF THIS COURT I N KELVINATOR (SUPRA), IS A LIMITED ANSWER. IT IS THAT SECTION 114(E) OF THE EVIDENCE A CT CAN BE APPLIED TO AN ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, PROVIDED THAT THERE HAS BEEN A FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF ALL MATERIAL AND PRIMARY FACTS AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. IN SUCH A CASE IF THE ASSESSME NT IS REOPENED IN RESPECT OF A MATTER COVERED BY THE DISCLOSURE, IT WOULD AMOUNT T O CHANGE OF OPINION. I DO NOT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO ANSWE R THE BROAD QUESTION AS TO WHAT ARE ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SECTION 114(E) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT CAN BE APPLIED.' 7.3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISIONS , WE HOLD THAT THE REASSESSMENT IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LD. AO BY CHANGE OF OPINION WHICH IS IMPERMISSIBLE AS PER LAW FOR DISALLOWANCE OF COMMIS SION / BROKERAGE. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION OR BROKERAG E IN THE SUM OF RS.8,87,000/- 8 I.T.A. NO.1638/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 M/S. WAYCON COMMERCE PVT. LTD. COULD BE MADE IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ACCO RDINGLY, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.8 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. SINCE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.8 RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED, THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUNDS 1 TO 6 ARE MERELY ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 07.07.2017. SD/- SD/- [ABY. T. VARKEY] [M. BALAGANESH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 07.07.2017 {RS SPS} COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT/ASSESSEE M/S WAYCON COMMERCE PVT. LTD., HITEC CHAMBERS, 7 TH FLOOR, 84/1B, TOPASIA ROAD(SOUTH), KOLKATA 700 046. 2. REVENUE/RESPONDENT- I.T.O, WARD-6(4), KOLKATA. 3. CIT(A)- KOLKATA 4. CIT , KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE, DDO, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA.