M/s Crony Enterprise, Burdwan V. I.T.O Wd - 1(3),Asansol, Asansol

ITA 2084/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4729 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: U DASGUPTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Question of law
• Section: 40A(3); 133(6); 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2084/KOL/ 2013 A.Y: 2006-07 M/S. CRONY ENTERPRISE CHAKDOLA MORE DIST. BURDWAN ............... ................APPELLANT [PAN: AAFFC 0939H] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER, .............. ........RESPONDENT WARD-1(3), ASANSOL, SAHANA APARTMENT, LOWER CHELIDANGA, ASANSOL 713304. APPEARANCES BY: SHRI U. DASGUPTA, ADVOCATE., FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI M.K. BISWAS, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 02-06- 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 12 -08-2016 O R D E R PER SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI :- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ASANSOL DATED 15.05.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GR OUNDS:- 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), ASANSO L IS ARBITRARY, EXCESSIVE, HENCE BAD IN LAW. 2. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.18,88,560/- U/S. 40A( 3) OF THE ACT, 61, WHEN THE SAID PAYMENT MADE IN CASH IS COVERED BY EXCEPTION TO RULE 6DD OF THE INCOME TAX RULES62, A ND A SUCH THE ADDITION MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WA S NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,050/- ON A/C OF TANKER RENT, AND THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 4. FOR THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND ANY FURTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND REQUIRES N O ADJUDICATION. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED GROUND NO.3. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED 5. GROUND 2 IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) AMOU NTING TO RS.18,88,560/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM FILED ENGAGED IN THE BUSI NESS OF ACTING AS DEALER IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF KEROSENE OIL. IN THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED LIST OF PERSONS/CONCERNS FROM WHOM P URCHASE OF KEROSENE OIL WERE MADE ALONG WITH LIST OF PERSONS TO WHOM THE SA LES WERE MADE. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 (ACT) TO VERIFY THE ENTRIES IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASS ESSEE EFFECTED PURCHASES AND SALES AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE . THE REPLIES ALONG COPY OF PARTY LEDGER OBTAINED FROM THE PARTIES FROM WHOM TH E PURCHASE AND SALES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE NOTICES U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED FOR CHECKING AND VERIFICATION W.R.T BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS, VOUCHER S AS PRODUCED BY THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSE. ON PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AND COPY OF CASH MEMO FURNISHED W.R.T 133(6) BY THE DISTRIBUTORS NAMELY GENERAL MER CANTILE CORPORATION, M/S. RUPNARAYAN SUPPLY AGENCY, KANHAILAL MATADIN SHARMA, M/S. B.N OJHA, PHULCHAND OMPRAKASH, MURARILAL JUGALKISHORE REGARDI NG PURCHASE OF K.OIL BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM, THE AO FOUND THAT PAYMENTS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE FIRM TO ITS DISTRIBUTORS IN CASH EXCEEDED RS.20,000/- IN ALL OC CASIONS. ON VERIFICATION OF CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO , IT WAS OBSERVED THAT DATE WISE ENTRIES OF CASH PAYMENT MADE TO DIFFERENT DIS TRIBUTORS HAS BEEN REFLECTED AT RS.20,000/- AND LESS IN ALL OCCASIONS. THUS, THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY DETECTED IN RESPECT OF QUANTUM CASH PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSES SEE FIRM TO ITS DIFFERENT PARTIES/DISTRIBUTORS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF K.OIL. THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENT IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, 20% OF TOTAL CASH PAYMENT OF RS.94,42,806/- I.E RS. 18,88,560/- WAS DISALLOWED U/S. 40A(3) AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 7. AGGRIEVED BY SUCH ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL BY STATING AS UNDER:- 'THE APPELLANT PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS A BIG DEALER OF KEROSENE OIL IN THE CHAIN OF PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM , AND FUNCTIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, .1955 '. IT IS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL AS A BIG DEALER IN THE PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION S YSTEM FOR DISTRIBUTION OF KEROSENE OIL IN THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL. IN THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL THERE IS A CHAIN, I.E., AGENT - BIG DEALER - M.R. DEALER FOR EFFICIENT RUNNING OF PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (PDS) OF KEROSENE OIL. THE APPELLANT IS A BIG DEALER IN SUCH CHAIN. THE DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND SUPPLIES ISSUES ALLOTMEN T MEMO TO THE APPELLANT FOR PURCHASE OF KEROSENE OIL OF A SPECIFIED QUANTITY FR OM A SPECIFIED AGENT. SIMILARLY, ALLOTMENT MEMOS ARE ALSO ISSUED, TO THE APPELLANT FOR SUPPLY OF KEROSENE OIL TO THE SPECIFIED M. R. THE PURCHASE PRICE TO BE PAID TO THE AGENT AS ALSO THE SALE PRICE TO BE CHARGED FROM M.R. DEALER IS PERIODICALLY DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND SUPPLIES. AS PER THE ALLOTMENT MEMO ISSUED TO THE A PPELLANT ( IN THIS CASE CRONY ENTERPRISE), BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND SUPPLIES FOR THE PURCHASE OF KEROSENE OIL, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO MAKE THE PAYMENT I N CASH. (SAMPLE COPIES OF ALLOTMENT LETTERS ISSUED BY SUB-DIVISIONAL CONTROLL ER, FOOD AND SUPPLY, ASANSOL , IS ALREADY ON RECORD HAS BEEN DULY VERIFIED BY THE AO AND FOUND CORRECT) IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER, THERE IS CLEAR DIRECTION T O THE AGENT TO DELIVER THE SPECIFIED QUANTITY OF KEROSENE OIL TO THE APPELLANT ( BIG DEALER ) ON CASH PAYMENT. THEREFORE, WHEN THE APPELLANT IS WORKING AS A LICEN SEE BEING A PART OF THE PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OF THE GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGA L, IT IS BOUND TO MAKE THE PAYMENT AS DIRECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGA L. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE NEITHER THE IDENTITY OF THE SELLER NOR THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE IS DOUBT FUL. MOREOVER, THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE AS PER THE RATE FIXED BY THE GOVERNMENT O F WEST BENGAL. AGAINST THE ABOVE BACK DROP, CERTAIN FACTS ARE ADMI TTED AND UNCONTROVERTED: 1) THE APPELLANT IS A RESIDENT OF CHAKDOLA VILLAGE AND HE CARRIES OUT HIS BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTION OF KEROSENE OIL, FROM THE SAID VILLAGE, DISTRIBUTING THE SAME TO VARIOUS M R SHOPS IN THE REGION. 2) THE SAID CHAKDOLA VII/AGE IS LOCATED IN A REMOTE CORNER S OF THE DISTRICT OF BURDWAN, NEAREST TOWN BEING JAMURIA S SITUATED ABOU T 5 KM AWAY , AND THE NEAREST 'BANK LOCATED AT JAMURIA TOWN. 3) IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06, THERE WAS NO BANK ING FACILITY AT CHAKDOLA VILLAGE . NOW IN THE YEAR 2013, ALSO THERE ARE NO BANKS AT CHAKDOLA VILLAGE. 4) PAYMENTS IN CASH ARE MADE BY THE APPELLANT FOR P URCHASE OF GOODS AT GOVT. FIXED RATES, AT CHAKDOLA VILLAGE. 5) KEROSENE OIL ARE TRANSPORTED IN OIL TANKERS, TO CHAKDOLA VILLAGE, AND STORED IN OIL DRUMS FOR FURTHER DISTRIBUTION, DOWN THE LINE, AND TANK ARE ALSO PAID BY THE APPELLANT. 6) EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS A BANK NC AT JAMUR IA TOWN , IT IS MOSTLY INOPERATIVE, BECAUSE IT IS PRACTICALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO PAY BY A/C PAYEE CHEQUES, BECAUSE A SINGLE CHEQUE WILL TAKE 15 DAYS TIME FOR CLEARANCE, AND THE ENTIRE CHAIN OF DISTRIBUTION WILL BREAK DOWN. 7) AFTER CONSIDERING ALL PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THE S UB DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER FOOD AND SUPPLY, GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL, HAS ISSUED S PECIFIC WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS FOR PAYMENTS TO BE MADE IN CASH. 8) IN THIS CASE NEITHER THE IDENTITY OF THE SELLER NOR THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE IS DOUBTFUL AND THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE AS PER TH E RATE FIXED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL. 9) UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPELLANT CANNOT UNI LATERALLY DECIDE THE MODE OF PAYMENT TO THE GOVT. AGENT. THE ABOVE FACTUAL ASPECT ARE UNDISPUTED. NOW OUR ARGUMENTS ARE TWO FOLD : FIRST, THE CASH PAYMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT ARE COVERED BY EXCEPTION TO RULE 6 DD (H) OF THE I. T. RULES, 62, WHICH EXEMPT CASH PAYMENT AT A PLACE NOT SERVED BY A BANK AND IN THIS CASE PAYMENTS MADE AT CHAKDOLA V ILLAGE, IS CERTAINLY COVERED. WE ARE ALSO RELYING IN THE CASE OF BASUDEV SETH V C IT ITA NO. 1460 (KOL) 2006, WHERE THE HON'BLE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH, HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE HONB'LE CALCUTTA HI GH COURT IN 386 OF 2007 ( CAL) , HAS DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL. (COPIES OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IS ENCLOSED) SECONDLY, PAYMENTS MADE IN CASH BY THE APPELLANT IS ALSO COVERED BY EXCEPTION TO RULE 6 00 ( B ) OF THE I. T RULES'62, BECAUSE PAYME NTS MADE TO THE AGENT BEING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL, IS PAYM ENTS MADE TO THE GOVT. ITSELF. FURTHER, ON THIS ISSUE WE WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR N OTICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT'55 . SEC 5 OF THE SAID ACT '55 CLEARLY SPECIFIES THAT POWER TO MAKE ORDERS OR ISSUE NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 3 SHALL, ---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------- ----------------- DIRECTION, BE EXERCISED ALSO BY (A) SUCH OFFICER OR AUTHORITY SUBORDINATE T O THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, OR ( B ) SUCH STATE GOVERNMENT OR SUCH OFFICER OR SUCH AUTHORITY SUBORDINATE TO A STATE GOVERNMENT' , SEC 2 OF THE SAID ACT'55, EMPOWERS THE SUB DIVISION AL OFFICE , WITH DELEGATED POWERS OF COLLECTOR. SEC 6 OF THE SAID ACT: HAS OVERRIDING EFFECT OVER A LL ENACTMENTS : U ANY ORDER MADE UNDER SECTION 3 SHALL HAVE EFFECT NOTWITHSTAND ING ANYTHING INCONSISTENT HEREWITH CONTAINED IN ANY ENACTMENT OTHER THAN THIS ACT OR ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ TH IS ACT'. THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT'55, READ WITH SEC 3 OF THE SAID ACT, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT A DIRECTION ISSUED U/S 3 OF THE EC ACT'5 5, BY THE SUB- DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IS BINDING ON THE APPELLANT AND PROVISIONS OF SEC 6 OF THE SAID ACT, PROVIDES THE OVERRIDING EFFECT. AS CONSIDERING ALL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER J IT IS HU MBLY PRAYED BEFORE YOUR HONOUR, THAT THE ADDITION MADE U/S 40A(3) MAY PLEAS E BE DELETED BECAUSE THE SAME IS COVERED BY EXCEPTIONS UNDER RULE 600, CLAUSE (H) AND ALSO CLAUSE (B) OF THE I. T.RULES '62.' HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN ITA NO. 1460 K 06 A.Y. 2003-04 IN CASE OF SRI BASUDEB SETH VS. ITO, WARD-2(3), HOOGHLY, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE. 5. THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CASE DECISION CITED BY APPELLANT IS FIRST CONSIDERED. THE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH KOLKATA HAS IN I.T.O., WARD-1, M URSHIDABAD VS. MLS KENARAM SAHA AND SUBHASH SA HA IN ITA NO. 1545 (KOL) OF 200 7 FOR A. Y. 2004-05 CONSIDERED THE SAME MATTER. THE CASE DECISION REFER RED BY APPELLANT WAS ALSO CONSIDERED WHILE GIVING THE DECISION. THE EXTRACT F ROM ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW. 15. WHILE REFERRING TO THE SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 40A (3), IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE, LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THIS PROVISO P ROVIDES CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS WHERE SEC. 40A (3) IS NOT APPLICABLE. THE EXEMPTION FROM APPLICABILITY OF SEC.40A (3) IS TO BE ALLOWED HAVING REGARD TO THE (I) NATURE AND E XTENT OF BANKING FACILITIES AVAILABLE, (II) CONSIDERATION OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENC Y, AND (III) OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS. HE STATED THAT THE SECOND TO SEC. 40A (3) IS A PROVISION OF THE LAW, FULL EFFECT OF WHICH SHOULD BE GIVEN. THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE ARE NOT SQUARELY COVERED BY ANY OF THE CLA USES OF RULE 6DD, STILL THE EXEMPTION FROM THE RIGOR OF SEC. 40A(3) CAN BE ALLO WED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECOND PROVISO TO SEE 40A(3). WE ARE UNABLE TO AGRE E WITH THE CONTENTION ON OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL. AT THE COST REPETITION WE REPRODUC E THE SECOND TO 'PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER THIS S UB-SECTION SHALL BE MADE WHERE ANY PAYMENT IN A SUM EXCEEDING TWENTY THOUSAND RUPE ES IS MADE OTHERWISE THAN BY [AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT], IN SUCH CASES AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS MAY BE PRESCR IBED, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF BANKING FACILITIES AVAILABLE, CONSIDERATIONS OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS. 11 [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE MADE WHERE ANY PAYMENT IN A SUM EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- IS MADE OTHERWISE THAN BY A CROSSED CHEQUE/CROSSED BANK DRA FT IN SUCH CASES AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. THUS, THE MANDATE OF THE PROVISO IS TO EXEMPT THE PAYMENT IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SE C. 40A (3) IN SUCH CASES AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE PROVISO, I. E. 'HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF BANKI NG FACILITIES AVAILABLE, CONSIDERATIONS OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND OTHER REL EVANT FACTORS', IS THE GUIDELINE FOR THE AUTHORITY WHO HAS TO PRESCRIBE THE CASES AN D CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A (3) WILL NOT BE MADE DESP ITE THE PAYMENT EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- OTHER THAN BY CROSS CHEQUE/BANK DRAFT. IN PURSUANCE TO THIS PROVISO, RULE 6DD HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO THE STATUTE VIDE I. T. (AMENDMENT) RULES, 1969 W. E.F 1.4. 1969. RULE 6DD PRESCRIBES THE CASES AND T HE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH PAYMENT IN A SUM EXCEEDING RS. 20, 000/- MAY BE MAD E OTHERWISE THAN BY CROSSED, CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK OR A CROSSED BANK DRAFT. THE REAFTER THIS RULE HAS BEEN AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. RULE 6DD, AS APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US, READS AS UNDER:- 'CASES AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH PAYMENT IN A SUM EXCEEDING [TWENTY THOUSAND] RUPEES MAY BE MADE OTHERWISE THAN BY A CR OSSED CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK OR BY A CROSSED BANK DRAFT. // NOT REPRODUCED// IN VIEW .OF THE ABOVE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE WILL GET THE EXEMPTION FROM THE RIGORS OF SEC. 40A(3) IF HE IS ABLE TO EST ABLISH THAT HIS CASE FALLS WITHIN ANY .OF THE CLAUSES .OF (A) TO (M) .OF RULE 6OD. BURDEN WOULD BE UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH UNDER WHICH PARTICULAR CLAUSE HIS CASE FA LLS. 16. NOW WE REVERT BACK TO THE FACTS OF EACH CASE, F IRST WE WILL TAKE UP I T.A. NO. 1545 (KAL)/2007, I.E. ITO VS. KENARAM SAHA & SUBHAS H SAHA. 16.1. THE ASSESSEE IS AN AOP WHICH IS A BIG DEALER IN THE CHAIN OF AGENTS INVOLVED IN THE PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FAR SUPPLY . OF K EROSENE AIL WITHIN THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL. DURING! THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION T HE ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENT OF RS. 1, 34,58, 430/- FAR PURCHASE OF KEROSENE OIL IN CASH EXCEEDING RS. 20,000/-,. AS PER A. 0., THE PAYMENT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE P REVISIONS OF SEC.40A (3). HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED 20% . OF THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 26,91,680/-. ON APPEAL, THE C.I. T (A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CASE I S COVERED UNDER RULE 6DD (K) AS WELL AS RULE 6DD(1) OF I. T RULES. BEFORE US THE AS SESSEE'S LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER CLAIMED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO COVER ED BY RULE 6DD (B). HOWEVER ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE F IND THAT BEFORE THE A. O. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE A SPECIFIC CLAIM UNDER WHICH CLAUSE OF RULE 600 CASE CALLS, THE CLAIM WAS THAT THE PURCHASE WAS MADE FROM THE G OVERNMENT. THE ASSESSEE S EXPLANATION BEFORE THE A. O. WAS OF GENERAL NATURE EXPLAINING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE BUSINESS IS BEING CARRIED ON BY IT. THE C .I. T(A) HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CASE FALLS WITHIN RULE 6DD(K) AND ALSO A LTERNATIVELY UNDER RULE 6DD(1). WE FIND THAT RULE 6DD(K) WOULD BE APPLICABLE WHERE THE PAYMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON A DATE ON WHICH THE BANKS WERE CLOSED EI THER ON ACCOUNT OF HOLIDAY OR STRIKE. THEREFORE IT WOULD BE A MATTER OF FACTUAL V ERIFICATION WITH REFERENCE TO EACH PAYMENT WHETHER THE PAYMENT WAS MADE ON BANK HOLID AY OR NOT. THE DATE-WISE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENTS AND WHETHER ON THOSE DATES IT WAS BANK HOLIDAY OR NOT HAS NOT BEEN PLACED BEFORE US. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO GIVE ANY FINDING WHETHER RULE 6DD(K) IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OR THE ASSESS EE. 16.2. RULE 6DD(1) WOULD BE APPLICABLE WHERE THE PAY MENT IS MADE BY ANY PERSON TO HIS AGENT, WHO IS REQUIRED TO MAKE THE PAYMENT I N CASH FOR GOODS OR SERVICES ON BEHALF OF SUCH PERSON. WHEREAS RULE 600 (B) WOULD B E APPLICABLE 'WHERE THE PAYMENT IS MADE TO GOVT. AND, UNDER THE RULES FRAME D BY IT, SUCH PAYMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN LEGAL TENDER.' IT WAS CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER THE PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN THE STATE OF WEST BEN GAL THERE IS A CHAIN OF PERSONS AS FOLLOWS - 'AGENT - BIG DEALER - M. R. DEALERS.' THE ASSESSEE PURCHASES KEROSENE OIL FROM THE AGENT APPOINTED BY THE GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL AND THE ASSESSEE SUPPLIES KEROSENE O IL TO THE M. R. DEALERS. HOWEVER, WHETHER THE 'AGENT' TO WHOM THE PAYMENT IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO BE AGENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE (1) OF RULE 6DD IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION, BECAUSE RULE 6DD(I) WOULD BE AP PLICABLE ONLY WHERE THE PAYMENT IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS AGENT. WHILE CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER RULE 6OO(B), IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E AGENT IS THE REPRESENTATIVE GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL AND, THEREFORE, PAYMENT MADE T O THE AGENT BEING REPRESENTATIVE OF GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL IS A PAYMENT TO THE GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL. HOWEVER, AS WE HAVE NOTED, NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. IT WAS ALSO STATED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE THAT THE NECESSARY FACTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO EXAMINE THE CO NTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ITS CASE FALLS IN CLAUSES (K), (1) OR (B) OF RULE 6DD. WE AGREE WITH THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE WOULD REQUIRE EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT SO AS TO ASCERTAIN ON WHICH PARTICULAR DATE PAYMENT WAS MADE AND WHETH ER SUCH DATE WAS BANK HOLIDAY OR NOT SO AS TO ASCERTAIN THE APPLICABILITY OF RULE 6DO(K). WITH REGARD TO APPLICABILITY' OF RULE 600 (/) AND RULE 6OO(B) ALSO FURTHER FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE COPY OF THE SUPPLY ORDER ISSUED BY SUB-DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, FOOD & S UPPLIES, JANGIPUR GIVING DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE THE PAYMENT IN CA SH. HOWEVER, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THESE S UPPLY ORDERS ARE DATED 2007 AND, THEREFORE, WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHAT WAS THE EXACT DIRECTION OF THE SUPPLY ORDER IN THE ACCO UNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WOULD REQUIRE TO BE EXAMINED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS POINT AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E A.O. WITH THE DIRECTION THAT HE WILL EX AMINE THE FACTS OF THE CASE AFRESH AND WILL ADJUDICATE UPON THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT ITS CASE FALLS UNDER CLAUSES (B), ( K) AND (I) OF RULE 600. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT HE WILL ALLOW ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE DECISION REFERRED BY THE APPELLANT WAS TAKEN BY C.I.T. TO HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND THE COURT HELD THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTI ON OF LAW IS INVOLVED. GOING BY DECISION OF HON'BLE SPL. BENCH OF IT A T IT IS A M ATTER OF FACT AS TO WHICH OF THE SUB-RULE OF RULE 6DD THE CASE OF APPELLANT FALLS, I F ANY. 7. THE GIST OF FACTUAL SUBMISSION MADE BY APPELLANT ARE AS UNDER: (A) APPELLANT IS BIG DEALER AND HAS TO PAY M.R. DEA LER. (B) PURCHASE PRICE AND SALE PRICE IS FIXED. (C) IN ALLOTMENT LETTER CLEAR DIRECTION IS MADE THA T PAYMENT IS TO BE MADE IN CASH. (D) CHAKDOLA VILLAGE, WHERE APPELLANT STAYS IS NOT HAVING BANKS. (E) CHEQUE PAYMENT FROM HIS ACCOUNT IN JAMURIA WILL TAKE 15 DAYS TO CLEAR. (F) HIS CASE IS COVERED BY RULE 6DD(B). 8. MY VIEWS ON THE (A) TO (F) ABOVE COMMENTS OF ASS ESSING OFFICER IS AS UNDER: (A) MATTER OF FACT. (B) MATTER OF FACT. (C) THE ALLOTMENT LETTER IS A PRINTED ORDER. IN THE ORDER 'ON CASH PAYMENT AT GOVT. FIXED PRICE' IS HAND WRITTEN, DULY AUTHENTICATED BY SUB-DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, ASANSOL. THIS ORDER VALID FOR 7 DAYS IS SIGNED BY TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS IMPLYING THAT THE HAND WRITTEN PART WAS INT RODUCED LATER SINCE AS PER GOVT. RULES, AT A PARTICULAR POINT OF TIME, ONLY ONE PERS ON CAN HOLD CHARGE OF A POST OF OFFICER. (D) THE FACT TO BE CONSIDERED TO DECIDE AVAILABILIT Y OF BANKS IS POINT OF PAYMENT AND NOT POINT OF SALE. AT POINT OF PAYMENT, EVEN IF A PAYER HAS NO BANK ACCOUNT' HAS THE OPTION TO PURCHASE CROSSED DEMAND DRAFT. IT IS NOT PROVED THAT PAYMENT TO M.R. DEALER IS MADE AT A POINT WHERE THE PERSON (HE RE M.R. DEALER) 'ORDINARILY RESIDES, OR IS CARRYING AS ANY BUSINESS, PROFESSION OR VOCATION, IN ANY SUCH VIILLAGE OR TOWN'. M.R. DEALER IN THIS CASE IS NOT LOCATED I N CHAKDOLA. (E) THE MATTER IS COVERED IN (D) ABOVE. THE APPELLA NT HAD OPTION TO PURCHASE CROSSED DEMAND DRAFT (NEED NOT FROM A BANK WHERE HA S AN ACCOUNT AND HENCE HIS DORMANT ACCOUNT IN JAMURIA, NEAR TO CHAKDOLA IS NOT A MATTER OF SIGNIFICANCE). HE HAS BANK ACCOUNT IN JAMURIA JUST 5 KMS FROM CHAKDOL A AND ISSUE OF CROSSED DEMAND DRAFT WILL DO AWAY FEARED LONG PERIOD FOR CH EQUE CLEARANCE. (F) RULE 6DD(B) APPLIES TO PAYMENT TO GOVERNMENT. I N THE INSTANT CASE NO PAYMENT IS MADE TO GOVERNMENT. THE ORDER OF ?UB-DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER CANNOT OVERRIDE PROVISION OF INCOME TAX ACT. THE LINKAGE TO ESSENTI AL COMMODITIES ACT 1955 BROUGHT BY APPELLANT HAS NO BEARING AS SECTION 40A( 3) R.W. RULE 600 DOES NOT IMPEDE THE ADMINISTRATION OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1955 IN ANY MANNER. THE SECTION 40A(3) IN INCOME TAX ACT IS MERELY A SECTIO N ON MANNER OF PAYMENT. FURTHER (A) THE POWER AS PER CLAUSE 3 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1955 IS EXCLUSIVELY WITH CENTRAL GOVT. AND NOT ANY OTHER AU THORITY, (B) NO ORDER HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO PROVE THAT SUB-DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER IS A COLLECTOR TO EXERCISE POWERS WITH REFERENCE TO DEFINITION 2(IIA) OF ESSENTIAL CO MMODITIES ACT 1955 AND (C) NO ORDER OF DELEGATION UNDER RULE 5 OF ESSENTIAL COMMO DITIES ACT 1955 HAS BEEN PRODUCED AUTHORIZING SUB-DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER TO I SSUE DIRECTION SUCH AS TO EFFECT CASH PAYMENTS ARE PRODUCED. IN REGARD TO (B) AND (C ) ABOVE, IF AT ALL ANY SUCH NOTIFICATION HAS BEEN ISSUED IT ORDINARILY SHOULD B E IN FORM OF A GAZETTE PUBLICATION. 9. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THE REQUIREME NT ON PART OF APPELLANT TO PROVE FITTING IN TO ANY OF THE SUB-CLAUSE OF RULE 6DD HAS NOT BEEN MET. IT IS ALSO HELD THAT M.R DEALER IS NOT GOVERNMENT AND SUB-RULE 6DD( B) DOES NOT APPLY TO ASSESSEE AS IT IS THE M.R DEALER WHO PAYS TO GOVERN MENT. HENCE I DISMISS THE GROUND. 8. AGGRIEVED BY SUCH ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), NOW TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US BY RAISING THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 9. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN S USTAINING THE ADDITION, WHEN THE SAID PAYMENT MADE IN CASH IS COVERED BY EXCEPTI ON TO RULE 6DD OF THE I.T RULES 1962 AND SUCH ADDITION MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SEC.40A(3) OF THE ACT AS APPLICABLE FOR AY 2006-07 READS THUS: WHERE THE ASSESSEE INCURS ANY EXPENDITURE** IN RES PECT OF WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE, AFTER SUCH DATE (NOT BEING LATER T HAN 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 1969), AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THIS BEHALF BY THE CE NTRAL GOVERNMENT BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE IN A SUM EXCEE DING ***[TWENTY THOUSAND] RUPEES OTHERWISE THAN BY $[AN ACCOUNT PAY EE CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT] $$[TWENTY PER C ENT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION]: PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE IN T HE ASSESSMENT FOR ANY YEAR NOT BEING AN ASSESSMENT YEA R COMMENCING PRIOR TO THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1969, IN RESPECT OF ANY LI ABILITY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY EXPENDITURE AND SUBSEQUENTLY DURIN G ANY PREVIOUS YEAR THE ASSESSEE MAKES ANY PAYMENT IN RESPECT THEREOF I N A SUM EXCEEDING ***[TWENTY THOUSAND] RUPEES OTHERWISE THAN BY $[AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT] THE ALLOWANCE ORIGINALLY MADE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN WRONGL Y MADE AND THE $$$[ASSESSING OFFICER] MAY RECOMPUTE THE TOTAL INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH LIABILITY WAS I NCURRED AND MAKE THE NECESSARY AMENDMENT, AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY THERETO, THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS SPE CIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (7) OF THAT SECTION BEING RECKONED FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR NEXT FOLLOWING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE PAYMENT WA S SO MADE: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER THIS SU B-SECTION SHALL BE MADE WHERE ANY PAYMENT IN A SUM EXCEEDING ***[TW ENTY THOUSAND] RUPEES IS MADE OTHERWISE THAN BY $[AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT] IN SUCH CASES AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED#, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF BANKING FACILITIES AVAILABLE, CONSIDERATI ONS OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS.' RULE 6DD IS THE RULE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE SECOND PR OVISO TO SEC.40A(3) OF THE ACT AND THE RELEVANT RULE, IN SO FAR AS THIS CASE I S CONCERNED VIZ., RULE 6DD(H) READS THUS: RULE 6DD. CASES AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH PAYMENT IN A SUM EXCEEDING TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES MAY BE MADE OTHERW ISE THAN BY CROSSED CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK OR BY A CROSSED BANK DRAFT.-NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 40A SHALL BE MADE WHERE ANY PAYMENT IN A SUM EXCEEDING TWENTY THOUSAND RUPE ES IS MADE OTHERWISE THAN BY A CROSSED CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK OR BY A CROSSED BANK DRAFT IN THE CASES AND CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIED HEREUNDER, NAMELY: (A) TO (G).. (H) WHERE THE PAYMENT IS MADE IN A VILLAGE OR TOWN , WHICH ON THE DATE OF SUCH PAYMENT IS NOT SERVED BY ANY BANK, TO ANY P ERSON WHO ORDINARILY RESIDES, OR IS CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS, PROFESSION OR VOCATION, IN ANY SUCH VILLAGE OR TOWN; 11. IN CIT V. SRI BASUDEV SETH I.T.A. NO. 386 OF 20 07 (CAL), THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. P ERUSED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE FIND, THAT NO SUBSTANTIA L QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER. HENCE THIS APPEAL BEING I. T. A. NO. 386 OF 2007 IS DISMISSED. 12. THUS THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS APPROVED THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BY DISMISSING THE REV ENUE'S APPEAL, HOLDING THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. THEREFORE, I T WOULD BE RELEVANT TO REFER THE DECISION OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WHIC H IS APPROVED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS. THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID CASE, I.E., SRI BASUDEV SETH V. ITO VIDE I.T.A. NO. 1460 (KOL)/2006 HELD AS UNDER: HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RECORD AND FIN D FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS TO MAKE THIS CASH PAYMENT TO M/S. B.S.K.F3.S LTD. OUT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO BRANCH OF UNITED BANK OF INDIA AT THE PLACE WHERE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS LOCATED. THE ASSESSEE'S CASE ALSO F INDS SUPPORT FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED DECISION IN THE CASE OF ITO V. SHRI BINOD KR. AGANUALA DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUN AL, KOLKATA. WE ARE THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THE INSTANT CASE. 13. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE INCOME-TA X APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT SECTION 40A(3) IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BRANCH OF THE UNITED BANK OF INDIA AT THE PL ACE WHERE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS LOCATED. THOUGH IN THE ORDER IT IS NOT MENTIONED WHICH SPECIFIC CLAUSE OF RULE 6DD WAS APPLICABLE, YET INFERENCE TO CLAUSE (H) WHICH STILL EXEMPT CASH PAYMENT AT A PLACE NOT SERVED BY A BANK CAN EXPLAIN THE DECISION. RULE 6DD(H) PROVIDES: (H) WHERE THE PAYMENT IS MADE IN A VILLAGE OR TOWN, WHICH ON THE DATE OF SUCH PAYMENT IS NOT SERVED BY ANY BANK, TO ANY PERS ON WHO ORDINARILY RESIDES, OR IS CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS, PROFESSION OR VOCATION, IN ANY SUCH VILLAGE OR TOWN; 14. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE NOT DI SPUTED. 1) THE APPELLANT IS A RESIDENT OF CHAKDOLA VILLAGE AND HE CARRIES OUT HIS BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTION OF KEROSENE OIL, FROM THE SAID VILLAGE, DISTRIBUTING T HE SAME TO VARIOUS M R SHOPS IN THE REGION. 2) THE SAID CHAKDOLA VII/AGE IS LOCATED IN A REMOTE CORNER S OF THE DISTRICT OF BURDWAN, NEAREST TOWN B EING JAMURIA S SITUATED ABOUT 5 KM AWAY , AND THE NEARES T 'BANK LOCATED AT JAMURIA TOWN. 3) IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06, THERE WAS NO BANK ING FACILITY AT CHAKDOLA VILLAGE . NOW IN THE YEAR 2013 , ALSO THERE ARE NO BANKS AT CHAKDOLA VILLAGE. 4) PAYMENTS IN CASH ARE MADE BY THE APPELLANT FOR PURCHASE OF GOODS AT GOVT. FIXED RATES, AT CHAKDOLA VILLAGE. 5) KEROSENE OIL ARE TRANSPORTED IN OIL TANKERS, TO CHAKDOLA VILLAGE, AND STORED IN OIL DRUMS FOR FURT HER DISTRIBUTION, DOWN THE LINE, AND TANK ARE ALSO PAID BY THE APPELLANT. 6) EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS A BANK NC AT JAMUR IA TOWN , IT IS MOSTLY INOPERATIVE, BECAUSE IT IS PRAC TICALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO PAY BY A/C PAYEE CHEQUES, BECAUSE A SINGLE CHEQUE WILL TAKE 15 DAYS TIME FOR CLEARANCE, AND THE ENTIRE CHAIN OF DISTRIBUTION WILL BREAK DOWN. 15. IN THE LIGHT OF THE UNDISPUTED FACTS SET OUT AB OVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD FALL WITHIN CLAUSE ( H) OF RULE 6DD OF THE RULES AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MA DE U/S.40A(3) OF THE ACT. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE MADE THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS BEFO RE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDINGS ON THE APPLICABIL ITY OF RULE 6DD(H) OF THE RULES. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT N O DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(3) OF THE ACT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY EXCEPTIONS SET OUT IN RULE 6 DD(H) OF THE RULES. THE DISALLOWANCE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 16. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12 /08 /2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO 1. THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE : M/S. CRONY ENTERPRISE CHAKDOLA MORE DIST BURDWAN 2. THE RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), ASANSOL, SAHANA APARTMENT, LOWER CHELIDA NGA,ASANSOL 713304. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA ** PRADIP SPS SD/- P.M JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI J JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 12 /08/2016