ITO, Ward - 6(2), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. India Infranirman Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2049/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7002 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MADHUMALTI GHOSH CITSRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: S M SURANA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Retrospective amendment; Capital Gains
• Section: 43CA; 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

, B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2049 / KOL / 20 17 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 6 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-69 V/S . M/S INDIA INFRANIRMAN LTD., STEPHEN HOUSE, ROOM NO.45, 4, BBD BAG (EAST), KOLKATA-001 [ PAN NO.AABCI 4966 R ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SMT. MADHU MALTI GHOSH, ADDL CIT-SR-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI S.M.SURANA, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING 16-04-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26-04-2019 / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 A RISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, KOLKATAS O RDER DATED 20.07.2017 PASSED IN CASE NO.11729/CIT(A)-2/16-17, INVOLVING P ROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE REVENUES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE CHALLEN GES CORRECTNESS OF CIT(A)S ACTION DELETING THE SEC. 50C(1) ADDITION O F 59.25 LAC VIDE FOLLOWING DETAILED DISCUSSION:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS ITA NO.2049/KOL/2017 A.Y. 20 14-15 ITO WD-6(2), KOL. VS. M/S INDIA INFRA NIRMAN LTD. PAGE 2 AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE :LSS~'SSIL1G OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO SINGLE ISSUE OF ADD ITION OF RS. 59,25,000/- DENYING THE BENEFIT OR PROVISO TO SECTION 50C( 1) T O THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE SAID PROVISIONS WOULD APPLY WITH EFFECT FROM 0 1.14.2017 AND WOULD NOT APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE DURING THE FINAN CIAL YEAR 2013-14 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2(114-15 THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD LAND TO MZS. URMILA REP PROJECTS PVT LTD. THE AGREEMENT FOR S:LK PR LAND WA S MADE AT RS. 45.00.000/- ON 03.03.2011. THE GOVERNMENT VALUE OF THE LAND WAS RS 41,84,279/- AS ON 03.03.2011. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OFFERED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.2,69,977/- (RS. 45,00,000 - RS, 42,30,023) FOR T AX, CONSIDERING THE INDEX COST OF THE LAND AT RS. 42,30.023/-. HOWEVER, AT TH E TIME OF EXECUTION OF SALE CONVEYANCE ON 07.03.2014, THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHO RITIES HAD ASSESSED THE VALUE AT RS. 1,04,25,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MAD E THE ADDITION OF RS 59,25.000/-. THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER T HE PROVISO TO SECTION 50CCI), THE STAMP VALUE OR THE PROPERTY AS ON THE D ATE OF AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS RS. 41,84,279/-, WILL BE TAKEN AS FULL CONSIDER ATION FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT THE VALUE AS ON THE SUBSEQUEN T DATE OF CONVEYANCE. THE PROVISO TO SECTION 50C (L) STATES THAT: 'PROVID ED THAT WHERE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FIXING THE AMOUNT OR CONSIDERATION AND TH E DATE OF REGISTRATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET ARE NOT THE SAME, THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHO RITY ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT MAY BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTIN G FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR SUCH TRANSFER. THE SAID PROVISO W AS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE BILL 2016 EFFECTIVE FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2017. SINCE THE SAID PROVISIONS ARE CURATIV E IN NATURE, THEY WOULD APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY FROM 01 .04.2003 I.E., THE DATE ON WHICH THE RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS WAS INTRODUCED. THE A.O, REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THE PROVISO T O SECTION 50(C)(I) HAS BEEN INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE BILL 2016 W.E.F. 01- 04-2017. HENCE, THE SAID PROVISO IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. SO THE ONLY ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER TH E PROVISO TO SECTION 50C (L) INSERTED BY THE FINANCE BILL 2016 WITH EFFECT F ROM PI APRIL, 2017 ARE CURATIVE IN NATURE, AND WHETHER IT WOULD APPLY RETROSPECTIVE LY FROM 01.04.2003 I.E., THE DATE ON WHICH THE RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS WAS INTR ODUCED OR NOT. THE AR FURTHER PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE HORI'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF DHARAMSHIBHAI SONANI VS. AC1T IN ITA NO. 1237/AHD/2 013 REPORTED IN 75 TAXMANN.COM 41 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2UOG-09 HAS HELD THAT 'THE PROVISO TO SECTION 50C(I) INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2016 W.E .F. 01 .04.2017 TO PROVIDE THAT THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF PROPERTY ON DATE O F EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL SHOULD BE ADOPTED INSTEAD OF VALU ATION ON DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED IS CURATIVE AND INTENDED TO REMOVE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE ITA NO.2049/KOL/2017 A.Y. 20 14-15 ITO WD-6(2), KOL. VS. M/S INDIA INFRA NIRMAN LTD. PAGE 3 ASSESSEE & AN APPARENT INCONGRUITY. IT SHOULD ACCOR DINGLY HE GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.2013 I.E. THE EFFEC TIVE DATE OF WHEN SECTION 50C (I) WAS INTRODUCED. THIS AMENDMENT WAS EXPLAINED, IN THE MEMORANDUM EXP LAINING THE PROVISIONS OF FINANCE BILL 2016. RATIONALISATION OF SECTION 50C TO PROVIDE RELIEF WH ERE SALE CONSIDERATION FIXED UNDER AGREEMENT TO SELL SECTION 50C MAKES A SPECIAL PROVISION FOR DETERMINI NG THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN CASES OF TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PRO PERTY. IT PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE CONSIDERATION DECLARED TO BE RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMEN T (I.E. 'STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY') FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUT Y IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSES SABLE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION, AND CAPITAL GAINS SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH CONSIDERATION UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE SCOPE OF SECTION 50C WAS EXTENDED W.E.F A. Y. 2 010-11 TO THE TRANSACTION WHICH WERE EXECUTED THROUGH AGREEMENT TO SELL OR PO WER OF ATTORNEY BY INSERTING THE WORD ' ASSESSABLE ' ALONG WITH WORDS 'THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED'. HENCE, SECTION 50C IS NOW ALSO APPLICABL E IN CASE OF SUCH TRANSFERS. THE PRESENT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C DO NOT PROVID E ANY RELIEF WHERE THE SELLER HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL THE AS SET MUCH BEFORE THE ACTUAL DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN FIXED IN SUCH AGREEMENT. A LATER SIMILAR PROVI SION INSERTED BY WAY OF SECTION 43CA DOES TAKE CARE OF SUCH A SITUATION. IT IS THEREFORE PROPOSED TO INSERT THE FOLLOWING PR OVISIONS IN SECTION 50C: (4) WHERE THE DATE OF AN AGREEMENT FIXING THE VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE ASSET AND THE DATE OF REGIS TRATION OF THE TRANSFER 00HE ASSET ARE NOT SAME, THE VALUE REFERRED TO IN S UB-SECTION (1) MAY BE TAKEN AS THE VALUE ASSESSABLE BY ANY AUTHORITY O F A STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER ON THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT. (1) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (4) SHALL APPLY ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE AM OUNT OF CONSIDERATION OR A PART THEREOF HAS BEEN RECEIVED B Y ANY MODE OTHER THAN CASH ON OR BEFORE A DATE OF AGREEMENT FOR TRAN SFER OF THE ASSET. SO FAR AS SECTION 50C IS CONCERNED, THE FINANCE ACT 2016, WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 2017, INSERTED THE FOLLOWING PROVISOS TO SECTION 50C: 'PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FIXI NG THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION AND THE DATE OF REGISTRATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET ARE NOT THE SAME, THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESS ED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY ON THE DATE OF AGR EEMENT MAY BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING FULL VALUE OF C ONSIDERATION FOR SUCH TRANSFER: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL APPLY ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION, OR A PART THEREOF, HAS BEE N RECEIVED BY WAY OF AN ITA NO.2049/KOL/2017 A.Y. 20 14-15 ITO WD-6(2), KOL. VS. M/S INDIA INFRA NIRMAN LTD. PAGE 4 ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT OR BY USE OF ELECTRONIC CLEARING SYSTEM THROUGH A BANK ACCOUNT, ON OR BEFOR E THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER.' THIS AMENDMENT WAS EXPLAINED. IN THE MEMORANDUM EXP LAINING THE PROVISIONS OF FINANCE BILL 2016 AS FOLLOWS: 'RATIONALIZATION OF SECTION 50C IN CASE SALE CONSID ERATION IS FIXED UNDER AGREEMENT EXECUTED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF REGIS TRATION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY UNDER THE EXISTING PROVISIONS CO NTAINED IN SECTION 50C, IN CASE OF TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET BEING L AND OR BUILDING ON BOTH, THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VA LUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY SHALL BE T AKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTAT ION OF CAPITAL GAINS. THE INCOME TAX SIMPLIFICATION COMMITTEE (EASWAR COM MITTEE) HAS IN ITS FIRST REPORT, POINTED OUT THAT THIS PROVISION D OES NOT PROVIDE ANY RELIEF WHERE THE SELLER HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO S ELL THE PROPERTY MUCH BEFORE THE ACTUAL DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE IMMO VABLE PROPERTY AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS FIXED IN SUCH AGREEMENT, WHEREAS SIMILAR PROVISION EXISTS IN SECTION 43CA OF THE ACT I.E. WH EN AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS SOLD AS A STOCK-IN-TRADE. IT IS PROPOSED TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION S OC SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHERE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FIXING THE AMOUNT O F CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND THE DATE OF REGI STRATION ARE NOT THE SAME, THE STAMP DUTY VALUE ON THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT M AY BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATI ON. IT IS FURTHER PROPOSED TO PROVIDE THAT THIS PROVISI ON SHALL APPLY ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION REFERRED TO THERE IN, OR A PART THEREOF, HAS BEEN PAID BY WAY OF AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCO UNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT OR USE OF ELECTRONIC CLEARING SYSTEM THROUGH A BANK AC COUNT, ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FOR THE TRANSFER OF SUCH IMMO VABLE PROPERTY. THESE AMENDMENTS ARE PROPOSED TO BE MADE EFFECTIVE FROM T HE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2017 AND SHALL ACCORDINGLY APPLY IN RELATION TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2017 -18 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS.' THE GOVERNMENT HAS THUS RECOGNIZED THE GENUINE AND INTENDED HARDSHIP IN THE CASES IN WHICH THE DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SELL IS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SALE, AND INTRODUCED AMENDMENTS TO THE STATUE TAKE THE RE MEDIAL MEASURES, THIS BRINGS NO RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE AMENDMENT I S INTRODUCED ONLY WITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 2017, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THIS AMENDMENT IN THE SCHEME OF SECTION 50C HAS BEEN MADE TO REMOVE AN INCONGRUITY, RESULTI NG IN UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE ASSESSEE, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE OBSERVATION IN EASWAR COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE EFFECT THAT 'THE (THEN PREVAILING) PROVISION S OF SECTION 50C DO NOT PROVIDE ANY RELIEF WHERE THE SELLER HAS ENTERED INT O AN AGREEMENT TO SELL THE ASSET MUCH BEFORE THE ACTUAL DATE OF TRANSFER OF TH E IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN FIXED IN SUCH AGREE MENT' RECOGNIZING THE INCONGRUITY THAT THE DATE AGREEMENT OF SELL HAS BEE N IGNORED IN THE STATUTE EVEN THOUGH IT WAS CRUCIAL AS IT WAS AT THIS POINT OF TIME THAT THE SALE ITA NO.2049/KOL/2017 A.Y. 20 14-15 ITO WD-6(2), KOL. VS. M/S INDIA INFRA NIRMAN LTD. PAGE 5 CONSIDERATION IS FINALIZED. THE INCONGRUITY IN THE STATUTE WAS GLARING AND UNDUE HARDSHIP NOT IN DISPUTE. ONCE IT IS NOT IN DI SPUTE THAT A STATUTORY AMENDMENT IS BEING MADE TO REMOVE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE ASSESSEE OR TO REMOVE AN APPARENT INCONGRUITY, SUCH AN AMENDMEN T HAS TO BE TREATED AS EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE LAW, CONTAININ G SUCH AN UNDUE HARDSHIP OR INCONGRUITY, WAS INTRODUCED. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION, I FIND SUPPORT FROM HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNS HIP (P.) LTD. [2015] 377 ITR 635/234 TAXMAN 825/61 TAXMANN.COM 45, AND RAJEE V KUMAR AGARWAL V. ADD!. CIT [2014] 149 ITD 363/45 TAXMANL1.COM 555 (A GRA - TRIB. WHICH CENTRED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHEN LEGISLATURE IS R EASONABLE AND COMPASSIONATE ENOUGH TO UNDO THE UNDUE HARDSHIP CAU SED BY T11E STATUTE 'SUCH AN AMENDMENT IN LAW, IN VIEW OF THE WELL SETT LED LEGAL POSITION TO THE EFFECT THAT A CURATIVE AMENDMENT TO AVOID UNINTENDE D CONSEQUENCES IS TO BE TREATED AS RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE EVEN THOUGH IT M AY NOT STATE SO SPECIFICALLY'. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS SPECIFICALLY OBSERVED. IN ADDI TION TO THE REASONING GIVEN EARLIER IN THIS ORDER, I MAY ALSO REFER TO THE OBSE RVATIONS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, THE CASE OF CLT V. ALOM EXTRUSION LTD. [2009 ] 319 ITR 3061185 TAXMAN 416. THE SAME PRINCIPLE, WHEN APPLIED IN THE PRESENT CON TEXT, LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PRESENT AMENDMENT BEING AN AMEN DMENT TO REMOVE AN APPARENT INCONGRUITY WHICH RESULTED IN UNDUE HARDSH IPS TO THE TAXPAYERS, SHOULD BE TREATED AS RETROSPECTIVE IN EFFECT. QUITE CLEARLY THEREFORE, EVEN WHEN THE STATUTE DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY STATE SO, SU CH AMENDMENTS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DETAILED DISCUSSIONS ABOVE, CAN ONLY BE TREA TED AS RETROSPECTIVE AND EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE RELATED STATUTORY PROVISION S WAS INTRODUCED. VIEWED THUS, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 50C SHOULD ALSO BE TRE ATED AS CURATIVE IN NATURE AND WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 2003, I.E. THE DATE EFFECTIVE FROM WHICH SECTION 50C WAS INTRODUCED. SO FAR AS THE AM ENDMENT TO SECTION 50C BEING RETROSPECTIVE IN EFFECT IS CONCERNED, THERE I S NO DOUBT ABOUT THE LEGAL POSITION. I HOLD THE PROVISO TO SECTION 50C BEING E FFECTIVE FROM 1 ST APRIL 2003. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 3. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY C ONTENDS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION THEREBY GRANTING BEN EFIT OF SEC. 50C(1) PROVISO FROM RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND IGNORING THE CLINCHIN G FACT THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS MADE IT APPLICABLE FROM 01.04.2017 ONWARDS ONLY. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE INSTANT ARGUMENT. IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT THIS T RIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BENCHS DECISION (SUPRA) HAS ALREADY ADJUDICATED TH E VERY ISSUE IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR BY TERMING THE SAID PROVISO AS BENEFICIAL IN NATURE HAVING RETROSPECTIVE ITA NO.2049/KOL/2017 A.Y. 20 14-15 ITO WD-6(2), KOL. VS. M/S INDIA INFRA NIRMAN LTD. PAGE 6 EFFECT. THE REVENUES ARGUMENT THAT THE SAID DECISI ON IS NOT A BINDING PRECEDENT SINCE NOT BY JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IS FOUND TO BE WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANCE IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY DE CISION OF HON'BLE HIGHER FORUMS. WE THEREFORE CONFIRM THE CIT(A)S FINDINGS UNDER CHALLENGE. 4. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 26/ 04/2019 SD/- SD/- ( %) (' %) (DR.A.L. SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (- 26 / 04 /201 9 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-ITO WD-6(2), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQ, 6 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-69 2. /RESPONDENT-M/S INDIA INFRANIRMAN LTD., STEPHEN HOU SE, ROOM NO.45, 4 BBD BAG (EAST), KOLKATA-001 3. 3 4 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 4- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 7 ''3, 3, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ 3,