Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3352 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
20-01-2016
Appeal Filed By
Department
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
12-11-2012
Judgement Text
1 ITA NO.1658/KOL/2012 BIMAL KR. KHAITAN ., ,A.Y.20 09-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH A KOL KATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI M.B ALAGANESH, AM ] ITA NO.1658/KOL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 I.T.O., WARD-9(1) -VERSUS- BIMAL KUMAR KHAITAN KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN:AESPK 4126 R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI AMITAVA ROY, JCIT, SR. DR FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI V.N.DUTTA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 10.12.2015. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :20.01.2016. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2012 OF CIT(A)-VIII, KOLKATA RELATING TO A.Y.2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE REA DS AS FOLLOWS :- (I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 69,46,102/- AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(22)(E) . (II) LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING WITHOUT ASSI GNING ANY REASON THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED 20,000 SH ARES TRANSFERRED TO HIS ACCOUNT FROM N.K. CREDITS & HOLDING PVT. LTD. ON 30.08.2008 , IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ANNUAL RETURN SUBMITTED BEFORE MCA WHICH, BEING A LEGAL DO CUMENT AND CREATED BY THE COMPANY OF WHICH THE ASSESSE IS THE MANAGING DIRECT OR HAVING HIS FULL ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL, IS A SELF SUFFICIENT AND SELF EVIDENCING D OCUMENT, REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSE HAD RECEIVED 20,000 SHARES TRANSFERRED TO HIS ACCOUNT F ROM N.K. CREDITS & HOLDING PVT LTD. ON 30.04.2008 RESULTING IN TOTAL SHARES TO BE 88,30 0 SHARES OUT OF TOTAL OF 7,06,600 ISSUED SHARES, I.E. 12.05% AS ON 30.06.2008 ON WHIC H THE ASSESSE HAD TAKEN RS. 1 CRORE. (III) . LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ADDIT IONAL DOCUMENTS CONCERNING TRANSFER OF SHARES FILED BEFORE HIM AS CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUM ENTS IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT IN CONFORMITY WI TH THE ANNUAL RETURN WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BEFORE SUBMISSION WI TH THE MCA. 2 ITA NO.1658/KOL/2012 BIMAL KR. KHAITAN ., ,A.Y.20 09-10 (IV) LD. CIT(A), ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES HAS ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT O F RS. 1 CRORE AMOUNTED TO ADVANCE OR LOAN WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(22)(E ) AND IN ASSESSING RS. 69,46,102 AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(22)( E) . 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE WAS THE DIRECT OR OF A COMPANY BY NAME M/S.GENERAL CEMENT PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (GCP). THE AS SESSEE HELD 68300 SHARES OF GCP WHICH CONSTITUTED 9.7% OF THE PAID UP SHARE CAP ITAL OF GCP. AO FOUND FROM THE WEBSITE OF MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS (MCA) THA T THE GCP FILED ANNUAL RETURN OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES MADE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR END ING 31.03.2008 THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FACT HELD 88,300 SHARES OUT OF THE TOTAL PAID UP CA PITAL OF 7,06,600 EQUITY SHARES OF GCP. THE SHARE HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE IN GCP WAS 1 2.05%. AO, THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN GCP B ECAUSE HE WAS HOLDING MORE THAN 10% OF THE PAID SHARES OF GCP. AO FURTHER FOUND THA T IN THE BOOKS OF GCP THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AVA ILED OF ADVANCE OF RS.1 CRORE ON 30.06.2008. AO FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ACCUMULATED P ROFIT OF GCP WERE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.69,46,102/-. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT TO T HE EXTENT GCP POSSESSED ACCUMULATED PROFITS, THE LOANS AND ADVANCES RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE FROM GCP HAD TO BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.22(22 )(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) WERE ATTRACTED. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(2 2)(E) OF THE ACT, READS AS FOLLOWS: ( E ) ANY PAYMENT BY A COMPANY, NOT BEING A COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED, OF ANY SUM (WHETHER A S REPRESENTING A PART OF THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY OR OTHERWISE) MADE AFTER THE 31-5-1987, BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR LOAN TO A SHAREHOLDER, BEING A PERSON WHO IS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES (NOT BEING SHARES ENTITLED TO A FIX ED RATE OF DIVIDEND WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT A RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN P ROFITS) HOLDING NOT LESS THAN TEN PER CENT OF THE VOTING POWER , OR TO ANY CONCERN IN WHICH SUCH SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER OR A PARTNER AND IN WHICH H E HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST (HEREAFTER IN THIS CLAUSE REFERRED TO AS T HE SAID CONCERN) OR ANY PAYMENT BY ANY SUCH COMPANY ON BEHALF, OR FOR THE I NDIVIDUAL BENEFIT, OF ANY SUCH SHAREHOLDER, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE CO MPANY IN EITHER CASE POSSESSES ACCUMULATED PROFITS. 3 ITA NO.1658/KOL/2012 BIMAL KR. KHAITAN ., ,A.Y.20 09-10 4. ACCORDING TO THE AO SINCE THE ASSESSEE HELD 10% OF THE PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL AND THEREBY 10% OF THE VOTING POWER, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WOULD BE ATTRACTED IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN OR ADVANCE AVAI LED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM GCP. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE AO IN THIS REGA RD THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A SUM OF RS.1 CRORE ON 30.06.2008 HAD BEEN REPAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE VERY NEXT DAY TO GCP I.E. 07.07.2008 WITHOUT UTILIZATION. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS LOAN OR ADVANCES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. IT IS RELEVANT TO POINT HERE THAT THE AO HAD NOT CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE WITH THE MATERIAL WHICH HE HAD GATHERED FROM WEBSITE OF MCA. THE AO REJECTED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.69,46 ,102/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTIO N 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. ONLY IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DID THE AO REFER TO THE SHAREHO LDING OF THE ASSESSEE IN GCP AS FOUND OUT BY HIM FROM THE WEBSITE OF MCA. 5. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IT W AS ONLY AFTER THE RECEIPT OF ORDER OF ASSESSMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE AO HAD FROM THE WEBSITE OF MCA SCRUTINISED THE ANNUAL RETURN FILED BY GCP A ND OBTAINED INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HELD 88,300 SHARES AS ON 30.04.2008. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT AS PER THE ANNUAL RETURN BY GCP IN THE MCA 20,000 SHARES IS ST ATED TO HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ON 30.04.2008 AND THE SHAR ES ARE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THE COMPANY BY N.K.CREDIT & HOLDIN GS PVT. LTD. IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF TRANSFER OF 20,000 SHARES AS ON 30.04.2008 PERCENTAGE OF THE SHARE HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE IN GCP HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BY THE AO AS 12.05%. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT BEFORE CIT( A) THAT THE AO NEVER RAISED A QUERY WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2 (22)(E) OF THE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HOLDING MORE THAN 10% OF PA ID UP SHARE CAPITAL IN GCP. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED THAT THE ANNUAL RETURN FIL ED BY GCP WITH MCA IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED 20,000 SH ARES OF GCP ON 30.04.2008 WAS ERRONEOUS. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ACTUAL DATE OF TRANSFER OF 20,000 SHARES IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS 30.08.2008. 4 ITA NO.1658/KOL/2012 BIMAL KR. KHAITAN ., ,A.Y.20 09-10 5.1. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR TRANSFER OF SHARES TO GCP VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 25.08.2008 ONLY, ALONG WI TH TRANSFER DEED DULY STAMPED AND EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHE R POINTED OUT THAT GCP PASSED A RESOLUTION IN ITS BOARD MEETING DATED 30.08.2008 AP PROVING THE SAID TRANSFER OF SHARES IN THE ASSESSEE'S NAME. RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY IN TH IS REGARD WAS FILED BEFORE CIT(A). IT WAS THUS ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT T HE SAID 20,000 SHARES OF GCP WERE TRANSFERRED AND REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSES SEE ONLY ON 30.08.2008 AND NOT ON 30.04.2008, AND THAT IN THE ANNUAL RETURN SUBMITTED BEFORE MCA ON 02.11.2008, THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF TRANSFER OF SHARES WAS WRON GLY MENTIONED AS 30.04.2008 INSTEAD OF 30.08.08. 5.2. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HAVING LEARNT OF THE SAID MISTAKE FROM THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SAID ANNUAL RETURN ISSUED BY THE A.O. T O THE ASSESSEE, GCP TOOK IMMEDIATE STEPS TO RECTIFY THE SAME BY SUBMITTING A REVISED ANNUAL RETURN ON 05.09.2011 TO THE MCA ALONG WITH A COVERING LETTER DT. 02.09.2011 EXPLAINING THE FACTS ALREADY STATED EARLIER, THAT THE DATE OF TRAN SFER OF RELEVANT SHARES WAS NOT 30.04.2008 BUT 30.08.2008 AND AS SUCH GCP WAS FILIN G A REVISED ANNUAL RETURN, RECTIFYING THE SAID MISTAKE. A COPY OF THE SAID COV ERING LETTER DATED 02.09.2011 OF GCP WAS FILED BEFORE CIT(A). THE SAID REVISED ANNUA L RETURN HAD BEEN SUBMITTED ON 05.09.201. COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 05.09.2011 OF FILI NG THE SAID REVISED ANNUAL RETURN AFTER PAYING FEE OF RS.5000/- WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE CIT(A). 5.3. IT WAS REITERATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IS SUE HAD ARISEN BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT INFORM THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD DOWNLOADED THE ASSESSEE'S SAID ANNUAL RETURN AND HAD FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HELD 88,300 SHARES I.E., 12.05% AS ON 30.06.2008 AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM T HAT HE HELD 68300 SHARES ONLY WHICH WAS 9.67% AS ON THE SAID DATE. 5.4. THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE A O. IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 23.07.2012 THE AO HAD NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT TH E INFORMATION GATHERED FROM 5 ITA NO.1658/KOL/2012 BIMAL KR. KHAITAN ., ,A.Y.20 09-10 WEBSITE OF MCA WAS NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO, HOWEVER, EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT FILING OF THE REVISED R ETURN MODIFYING THE DATE OF TRANSFER CANNOT BE BELIEVED AND IT WAS CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSEE TO AVOID APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 5.5. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE TOOK A PLEA THA T SINCE THE ADVANCE IN QUESTION WAS RECEIVED ON 30.6.2008 FOR PURPOSE OF PURCHASE O F PROPERTY AND SINCE THE SAID TRANSACTION DID NOT MATERIALIZE, THE SAME WAS RETUR NED BY THE ASSESSEE TO GCP ON 01.07.2008 WITHOUT UTILISATION, THE PROVISION OF SE CTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED AS IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AVAILED LOANS OR ADVANCES FORM GCP. THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF PRAVEEN BHIMSHI CHHEDA SHIV SADAN VS DC IT 11 ITR 705 (MUMBAI) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 2 (22)(E) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ATTRACTED WHERE THE TRANSACTION WAS CIRCUITOUS TRAN SACTION AND THE MONEY WHICH INITIALLY BELONGED TO THE COMPANY WAS RETURNED TO I T ON THE VERY SAME DAY. 5.6. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVISED ANNUAL RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID RE VISED RETURN THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A PERSON HAVING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN GCP. HE WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEGAL TRANSFER OF SHARES TOOK PLACE ON 30.08.2008 A ND THE CONTENTION OF THE AO THAT THE DATE OF TRANSFER HAS BEEN MANIPULATED BY THE ASSESS EE AND GCP WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 5.7. THE CIT(A) ALSO FOUND THAT SHRI NAVEEN MAHESHW ARI, WHO WAS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF THE SHARES, HAD HANDED OVER THE TRANSFER F ORM DULY SIGNED BY THE REGISTERED SHAREHOLDER N.K.CREDIT HOLDING PVT. LTD TOGETHER WI TH THE SHARE CERTIFICATE TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON 29.07.2008. THE PURCHASE WAS THER EFORE MADE ONLY ON 29.07.2008 AND THE ADVANCE WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SAID PURCH ASE PRICE AS PER THE BILL. AFTER THE PURCHASE OF SAID SHARES ON 29.07.2008, THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR TRANSFER OF SAID SHARES IN HIS NAME WHICH WAS DULY SO TRANSFERRED ON 30.08. 2008 . THE CIT(A) THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS LEGAL TRANSFER OF SHARES O NLY ON 30.8.2008 ON WHICH DATE ON 6 ITA NO.1658/KOL/2012 BIMAL KR. KHAITAN ., ,A.Y.20 09-10 THE BASIS OF THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THE SHARES STO OD REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ON 30.8.2008. THE CIT(A) ALSO HELD THAT IN CORRECT MENTION OF THE CRUCIAL DATE AS 30.4.2008 IN THE ANNUAL RETURN FILED BY GCP INITIALLY DID NOT FALSIFY THE DOCUMENTS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER REQUIREMENT OF THE COMPANY LAW. 5.8. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW T HAT THE ADDITION MADE U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 5.9. CIT(A) ALSO HELD THAT SINCE THE MONEY IN QUEST ION REMANDED WITH THE ASSESSEE ONLY FOR ONE DAY AND WAS RETURNED TO GCP WITHOUT AN Y UTILISATION IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS ADVANCE OR LOAN WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2( 22)(E) OF THE ACT AND CAME TO THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION. CIT(A) PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF PRAVEEN BHIMSHI CHHEDA SHIV SADAN VS DCIT 11 ITR 705 (MUMBAI) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 2 (22)(E) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ATTRACTED WHERE THE TRANSACTION WAS CIRCUITOUS TRAN SACTION AND THE MONEY WHICH INITIALLY BELONGED TO THE COMPANY WAS RETURNED TO I T ON THE VERY SAME DAY. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT LOOKING AT THE TRANSACTIONS FROM THE OBJECTS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS DIVERSION OF DIVIDEND IN THE FORM OF LOANS OR ADVANCES. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION M ADE BY AO. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE REVENUE HA S PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR, WHO REITERATED THE STAND OF THE AO AS PUT FORTH BEFORE CIT(A) IN THE REMAND REPORT. THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HE FURTHER BROUGH T TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE DECISION OF ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF PRAVIN BHIMSHI CH HEDA SHIVSADA (SUPRA) HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PRAVIN BHIMSHI CHHEDA (2014) 48 TAXMANN.COM 151 (BOMBAY). 8. WE HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVA L SUBMISSIONS. FROM THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ACTUAL TRA NSFER OF SHARES TOOK PLACE ONLY ON 7 ITA NO.1658/KOL/2012 BIMAL KR. KHAITAN ., ,A.Y.20 09-10 30.8.2008. THE WRONG MENTION OF DATE IN THE ANNUAL RETURN FILED BY GCP WAS THE ONLY BASIS ON WHICH THE ENTIRE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. THE ANNUAL RETURN HAS SINCE BEEN RECTIFIED BY GCP BY MENTIONING THE CORRECT DATE OF TRANSFER OF 20,000 SHARES IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AS 30.8.2008. THE OTHER DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT THERE WAS LEGAL TRANSFER OF 20000 SHARES OF GCP IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON 30.8.2008. IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MERE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS AND HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE ASSESSEE TO GET OVER THE RIGOU RS OF SEC.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IN THIS REGARD IT IS SEEN THAT EVEN I N THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ENQUIRIES NOR EXAMINED CONCERNED PERSO NS TO ESTABLISH HIS CASE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. THE SAME IS CONFIRMED AND THIS APPEA L BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20.01.2016. SD/- SD/- [M.BALAGANESH ] [ N.V.VASUDEVAN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 20.01.2016. [RG PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.BIMAL KUMAR KHAITAN,14, N.S.ROAD, (4 TH FLOOR), CLIVE ROW, KOLKATA-700001. 2. I.T.O., WARD-9(1), KOLKATA. 3. CIT(A)-VIII, KOLKATA 4. CIT-III, KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES 8 ITA NO.1658/KOL/2012 BIMAL KR. KHAITAN ., ,A.Y.20 09-10
