I.T.O(E)-II, Kolkata, Kolkata V. Shree Shree Mohanananda Samaj Seva Samity, Kolkata

ITA 205/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5486 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-05-2010
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P KOLHE
• Assessee Lawyers: V N DATTA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Question of law; Corroborative evidences; Capital expenditure
• Section: 144; 11

Judgement Text

1 , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEN CH B, KOLKATA () BEFORE . . . . . . . . , ,, , SHRI B.R.MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ! ! ! ! /AND . .. .'# '#'# '#. .. . , $% SHRI C.D. RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 205 & 206/KOL/2010 &' () / ASST.YEARS : 2002-03 & 2003-04 (+, / APPELLANT ) ITO(E)-II, KOLKATA - & - - VERSUS - (./+,/ RESPONDENT ) SREE SREE MOHANANANDA SAMAJ SEVA SAMITY. (PAN:AADTS 7675N) +, 0 1 $/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI P. KOLHE ./+, 0 1 $ / FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI V.N.DATTA $2 / ORDER ( . .. .'# '#'# '#. .. . ) $% PER SHRI C.D.RAO, A.M . THESE TWO APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST THE ORDERS OF THE C.I.T.(A)-XXXIII, KOLKATA BOTH DATED 30.10.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY. 2. IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND A LSO IN THE QUESTION OF LAW, LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING TH E EXEMPTION U/S 11 WHEN THERE WAS CLEAR VIOLATION OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE EXPENSES UNDER SALARY, DONATION ETC. W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE EVIDE NCE FOR THE EXPENSES. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO IN THE QUESTION OF LAW, LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING TH E EXEMPTION U/S 11 TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT INT ER TRUST DONATION 2 AMONG THE SAME GROUP OF TRUSTS IS A VIOLATION U/S 1 3(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT AS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHAMPA CHARITABLE TRUST V. CIT, 214 ITR 764 [BOM]. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING ACCUMULATION U/S.11(2) OF THE I.T.ACT WITH OUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATION WAS NOT SPECIFIC WHICH IS MANDATORY FOR ACCUMULATION U/S 11(2) OF THE I.T.ACT AS OBSERV ED BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT(EXEMPTION) V .TRUSTEE OF SINGHANIA CHARITABLE TRUST [1993] 199 ITR 819 (CAL) . 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE THAT IN BOTH THE YE ARS, THE ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT BY THE AO BY OBSERVING THAT TIME WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AS PER QUESTIONNAIR E ON 28.3.2005 WHEN A WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS BEEN MADE STATING INTER-ALIA WITH TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE AND DETAILS OF EXPENSES CAN NOT BE FILED. AS PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS ARE NOT PRODUCED BEFO RE THE AO IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BEING PROVIDED AND AS PER THE ORDER SHE ET NOTE OF HIS PREDECESSOR-IN-OFFICE THE SAME WERE NOT PRODUCED IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPO RTUNITIES. THE CASE WAS DECIDED EX PARTE UNDER SECTION 144 ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS A VAILABLE ON RECORD AND DISCUSSING THE VARIOUS ISSUES AS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. FINALL Y, THE AO HAS ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.13,00,211/- ON ACCOUNT OF DONATION TO SREE SREE MOHANANADA MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY, CAPITAL EXPENDITURE NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE H ANDS OF THE AOP RS.8,43,138/- AND RS.2,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED UN DER THE HEAD SALARY, DONATION ETC. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. SIMILARLY, THE AO DISALLOWED EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF KOLKATA OFFICE RS.1,34,538.40, PAID TO SRI SRI BALANANDA TIRTHSHRAM, PURI RS.5,74,545/-, SHRI SRI BALANANDA TIRTHSHRAM BADR INATH RS.3,02,366.05, SRI SRI BALANDA TIRTHSHRAM BARANASI RS.2,86,670.95, SRI SRI BALANANDA TIRTHASHRAM BRINDABAN RS.84,183.00, SRI SRI BALESWARI BHAVAN, DEOGARH- RS.1,92,499.95 AND SRI SRI BALANANDA TIRTHASHRAM, JAMSHEDPUR RS.23,1 93/-. 4. ON APPEAL, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R. AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), IN RESPE CT OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.205/KOL/10 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, HAS DELETED THE SA ME BY OBSERVING THAT I HAVE GONE 3 THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IT IS SEEN THAT T HE TRUST HAS BEEN HELD TO BE A CHARITABLE TRUST IN EARLIER AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS AN D IT WAS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE. IT H AS NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE TRUST. AS RE GARDS DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. OF DONATION TO SHREE SHREE MOHANANANDA MEDICAL WELF ARE TRUST BY HOLDING THAT MAKING AND RECEIVING DONATION FROM SHREE SHREE MOHA NANANDA MEDICAL WELFARE TRUST WAS A COLORABLE DEVICE, IT MAY BE MENTIONED T HAT IN THE APPEAL OF SHREE SHREE MOHANANANDA MEDICAL WELFARE TRUST FOR THE A.Y. 02-0 3, THE SAID TRANSACTION OF MAKING AND RECEIVING DONATION HAS BEEN HELD AS GENU INE AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. THE DONATION MADE TO SHREE SH REE MOHANANANDA MEDICAL WELFARE TRUST IS THEREFORE HELD AS GENUINE AND FOR THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THIS AS APPLICATION OF FUNDS. 4.1 THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER DELETED NEXT ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE OF MISC. EXPENDITURE OUT OF SALARY ETC . FOR NON-VERIFICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED THE DETAILS. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THES E ARE COMPARABLE TO EXPENSES IN EARLIER YEARS. SINCE THE TRUST HAS BEEN HELD TO BE A CHARIT ABLE TRUST ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS OF SEC. 11, THE EXPENSES OF CAPITAL NATURE WILL BE CON SIDERED AS APPLICATION OF FUNDS FOR THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. THEREFORE IN MY OPINION, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS WARRANTED. THESE TWO GROUNDS ARE THEREFORE, ALLOWED TO THE ASS ESSEE. 4.2 THE LD. CIT(A) AGAIN DELETED NEXT ADDITION BY O BSERVING THAT 1 HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC.13, SEC. 11 WILL NOT APPLY IN CASE ANY PART OF ANY PROPERTY OF THE TRUST IS DIREC TLY OR INDIRECTLY USED OR APPLIED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PERSON BEING A TRUSTEE OR MANAGE R. HOWEVER IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST THE TRUSTEE/MANAGER ARE RESIDENT IN THEIR CAP ACITY AS CARETAKER OF THE PROPERTY, FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND DAY TO DAY OPERATION. THE A .O. HAS NOT SHOWN THAT ANY EXPENSES HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY MADE OUT FOR THE TR USTEE. IN MY OPINION A TRUSTEE TAKING RESIDENCE WITHIN A PREMISE OWNED BY THE TRUS T FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION IS A BENEFIT ACCRUING TO THE TRUST A ND NOT TO THE TRUSTEE. IN ANY CASE THE 4 CONCLUSION OF THE A.O. IS BASED ONLY ON ASSUMPTION AND SURMISE AND HE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE THAT BY STAYING IN THE PREMISE S THE TRUSTEE HA OBTAINED ANY BENEFIT FOR HIMSELF. THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION, THER E IS NO VIOLATION OF SEC. 13 AND THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ALLOWED EXEMPTION U/S.1 1. THE A. O. IS THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO ALLOW EXEMPTION AS PER LAW TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 11(1) & 1 1(2). THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS. 5. IN RESPECT OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.206/KOL/10 FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PARTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6.1 THE TRANSACTION OF GIVING DONATION AND RECEIVI NG DONATION TO AND FROM THE TRUST HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY ME IN THE APP EAL OF SHREE SHREE MOHANANANDA BRAHMACHARI MEDICAL WELFARE TRUST FOR A .Y. 2002-03 WHERE I HAVE HELD THE TRANSACTION TO BE GENUINE AND WITHIN THE OBJECT OF THE TRUSTS AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT FACTS. SI NCE THIS IS A MIRROR IMAGE OF A SIMILAR TRANSACTION FOR A.Y. 03-04, THIS TRANSACTION IS ALSO HELD TO BE GENUINE AND THE DONATION MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE TRUST IS ALLOWED AS APPLICATION OF FUND FOR CHARITABLE PURPO SES. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DONATION AS APPLICATION OF FU ND. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 7.1 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON FOR NOT ADMITTING THE SE EXPENSES. I HOWEVER PRESUME THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BECA USE THE A.O. HAD HELD THE TRUST AS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PURPOSE OF SECTI ON 11 AND THEREFORE EXPENSES OF THE NATURE MENTIONED WERE CONSIDERED IN ADMISSIBLE. SINCE I HAVE HELD THAT THE TRUST IS ELIGIBLE FOR PURPOSE OF SECTION 11, THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPENSES HAS TO BE EVALUATED IN TH IS LIGHT. THE EXPENSES FOR POOR, DONATIONS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES, ETC. A RE ALL WITHIN THE OBJECT OF THE TRUSTS AND THEREFORE IT IS HELD THAT THESE E XPENSES ARE APPLICATION OF FUNDS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE. THE A.O. IS DIRECT ED TO ALLOW THESE EXPENSES . 8.1 I HAVE GONE THOUGH THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE A CCOUNT FOR THE SAID UNIT OF THE TRUST AND IT IS SEEN THAT MEDICINES HAV E BEEN PURCHASED. EXPENSES I THE NATURE OF ELECTRICAL CHARGES HAVE BE EN DEBITED AND THE SAMPLE COPY OF BILL PRODUCED WHICH IS IN THE NAME O F THE SETTLOR. THE ASSET SIDE SHOWS MEDICAL APPLIANCES. THE EXISTENCE OF THE HOSPITAL HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE EARLIER YEARS WHEN ALSO THE DE PRECIATED VALUE OF FURNITURE WAS LOW. THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE. IT IS THEREFORE HELD THAT THE HOSPITAL WAS IN EXISTENCE. THE A.O. IS THEREFOR E DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE EXPENSES. THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5 9.1 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE INCOME & EXPENDITURE STATEMENT SUBMITTED WHICH SHOWS THAT MEDICINES HAVE BEEN PURC HASED. THE DISPENSARY HAS BEEN ACCEPTED TO HAVE BEEN IN EXISTE NCE IN ALL EARLIER YEARS. THE A.O. HAS NOT DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES BEC AUSE THE DISPENSARY WAS NOT RUNNING BUT SIMPLY BECAUSE SALARY DETAILS W ERE NOT SUBMITTED. IN MY OPINION THE SAID ACTION F THE A.O. WAS NOT PR OPER. EXISTENCE OF THE DISPENSARY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND WHEREVER N OT SATISFIED THE A.O. COULD HAVE MADE DISALLOWANCE IF HE FOUND EXPEN SES HAS NOT BEEN INCURRED OR INCURRED FOR PURPOSE OTHER THAN OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. DISALLOWING THE TOTAL EXPENSES WITHOUT PROPER FINDI NGS CAN NOT BE UPHELD. HAVING SAID THAT, IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE DETAILS OF SALARY HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. OR BEFORE ME. TH EREFORE IN MY OPINION THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WILL BE MET IF 50% OF T HE SALARY EXPENSES (TOTAL CLAIM RS.68,000/-) ARE DISALLOWED. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO THIS EXTENT. THIS GROUND IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. 10.2 IN MY OPINION THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE NEE DS TO BE ALLOWED. THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE ACCUMULATION HAS BEEN SPECIFICA LLY MENTIONED AS TIRTHASHRAMS. THE PURPOSES ARE WITHIN THE OBJECTS O F THE TRUST AND ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE. IT IS THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR ACCUMULATION UNDER SECTION 11(2). 11. GROUND NO.7 IS WITH REGARD TO THE A.O. NOT ALLO WING CLAIM U/S 11(1) OF RS.8,89,2431- AND ACCUMULATION U/S 11(2) O F RS.7,55,6741-. IT HAS BEEN HEJD BY ME IN GROUND NO.6 THAT THE ASSESSE ES CLAIM U/S 11(2) HAS TO BE ALLOWED. SINCE I HAVE ALSO HELD EARLIER I N THE ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 11, CL AIM U/S 11(1) FOR CREATION OF RESERVE HAS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESS EE AT THE RATES PRESCRIBED. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEALS BEFORE US. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R., APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, BY POINTING OUT THE VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS M ADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AO THAT SINCE TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SIMPL Y ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAILS, THE NATURE OF TRANSACTI ON ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS ISSUES, THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE OR DERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO TH E ASSESSEE TO COOPERATE WITH THE AO. 6 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS POINTED OUT BY REFERRING TO PARA NOS. 3.1 AND 3.2 O F THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS GIV EN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FIL E OF THE AO AND FURTHER HE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REQUESTE D TO UPHOLD THE SAME. 9. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREF UL PERUSAL OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE FACTS MENTIONED BY THE REVENUE, IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS ATTACHED TO THE MEMORANDUM OF AP PEAL, ARE RELEVANT TO DECIDE THESE ISSUES, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST PAID DONATION O F RS. RS.13,00,2111- TO SRI SRI MOHANANANDA BRAHMACHARI MEDICAL WELFARE TRUST. IN BOTH THE TRUSTS THERE ARE COMMON TRUSTEES. IN THE ASSESS MENT IT WAS HELD THAT THIS DONATION IS NOT GENUINE AND NOTHING BUT A COLO URABLE DEVICE TO AVAIL EXEMPTION. LD.CIT(A), IN HIS ORDER HAS HELD THAT TH ERE IS NO BAR ON HAVING COMMON TRUSTEES OR ON MAKING DONATIONS BY ON E TRUST TO THE OTHER. THE ONLY RESTRICTION IS THAT THE DONATION MA DE SHOULD BE FOR THE OBJECT OF THE TRUSTS AND ITS APPLICATION BY THE DON EE SHOULD BE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES WITHIN ITS OBJECTS. HENCE IT WA S HELD THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE AND WITHIN THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS SEEN FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME OF SRI SRI MOHANANANDA BRAHMACHARI MEDICAL WELFARE TRUST (ALSO ASSESSED IN THIS CHARGE) FOR THE A.YR.2002-03 THAT THE TRUST HA S APPLIED IFS INCOME FOR THE YEAR ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.81,8001-. THE TRUST HAS ACCUMULATED RS.54,83,8541- ULS.11(2). HENCE, THIS MAY BE INFERR ED THAT THE TRUST HAS NOT ACTUALLY APPLIED ITS INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURP OSES IN THE YEAR. MOREOVER, IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR THE ASSESSEE R ECEIVED DONATION FROM THE DONEE TRUST SRI SRI MOHANANANDA BRAHMACHAN MEDI CAL WELFARE TRUST TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,22,5151- . 9.1 WHEN THE BENCH POINTED OUT THE ABOVE STATEMENT OF FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE, THE LD. COUNSEL, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE, COULD NOT CONTRADICT THESE FACTS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. AGAIN WHEN TH E BENCH PROPOSED TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATIO N, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS NOT OBJECTED TO IT. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS R EQUIRES FRESH VERIFICATION. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTERS TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO 7 RE-DECIDE THE SAME, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). WE ORDER ACCORDINGL Y. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3 $2 4 5& 6 37 ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.12.2010 SD/- SD/- . . . . . . . . , ,, , B.R.MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER . .. .'# '#'# '#. .. . , $% C.D. RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( (( (#% #% #% #%) )) ) DATE: 10.12.2010 MST(SR.P.S.) $2 0 .8 9$8(:- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SREE SREE MOHANANANDA SAMAJ SEVA SAMITY, AE-467, SA LT LAKE, KOLKATA 700 071. 2. I.T.O.(E)-II, KOLKATA 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5 . DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA /8 ./ TRUE COPY, $2&5/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES