Shri Jagdish Prasad Goel, Kolkata V. DCIT, Circle - 43, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 2121/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6625 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PINAKI MUKHERJEE AD DL
• Assessee Lawyers: MIRAJ D. SHAH
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM] I.T.A NO. 2121/KOL/20 17 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-0 9 SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD GOEL -VS- DCI T, CIRCLE-43, KOLKATA [PAN: AFFPG 1693 B] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI MIRAJ D SHAH, AR FOR THE REVENUE : SHRI PINAKI MUKHERJEE, AD DL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 16.04.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : .06.2018 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, KOLKATA [ IN SHORT THE LD CITA] DATED 18.07.2017 PASSED UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE FOLLOWING G ROUNDS : 1. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITIO N OF LABOUR CHARGES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 3,60,000/- OUT OF ESTIMATED ADDITIO N ON ACCOUNT OF CUTTING CHARGES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT STAGE. 2. FOR THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE DEVELOPMENT COST OF RS. 10,81,200/- IN THE COMPUTAT ION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALES OF LAND AND IN THAT WAY, IN COMPUTIN G THE SAID SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 19,06,360/- INSTEAD OF AT RS. 10,81,200/- IN THE COMPUTATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALES OF LAND AND IN THAT WAY, IN COMPUTING THE SAID SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 19,06,360/- INSTEAD OF AT RS. 8,25,160/- AS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. 2 ITA NO.2121/KOL/2017 SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD GOEL A.YR .2008-09 2 3. FOR THAT FURTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL MAY BE SUBMITTED OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS: A) FOR THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THAT THE TWO PLOTS OF LANDS WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND THEREFORE WERE NOT CAPI TAL ASSETS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. B) FOR THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE NO CAPITAL GAIN AROSE FROM THE SALES OF LANDS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS I HOLD THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS HAVE TO BE ADMITTED, AS THEY ARE LEGAL GROUNDS AND AS ALL THE FACTS ARE ON RECORD BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF JUTE CORPORATI ON OF INDIA LTD. VS. CIT 187 ITR 688 AND IN THE CASE OF NTPC VS. CIT 222 ITR 383. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDI VIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IRON AND STEEL UNDER THE NAME OF M/S J.P. UDYOG. HE ALSO EARNED INCOME ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED U/S 133A OF THE ACT ON 17.02.2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUP PRESSED INCOME EARNED ON CUTTING CHARGES. HE ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM CUTTING CHARG ES OF RS. 7,20,000/- FURTHER THE AO DISALLOWED DEVELOPMENT COST OF LAND CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 10,81,218/-. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRYING THE MATTER IN APPEA L. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ON THE ISSUE OF SUPPRESSION OF CUTTING CHARGES, RE DUCED THE ESTIMATED INCOME TO RS. 2,60,000/-. ON THE ISSUE OF PROFIT OF SALE OF LAND HE DISMISSED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL BEFORE US . 5. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSING TH E PAPERS ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED I HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 3 ITA NO.2121/KOL/2017 SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD GOEL A.YR .2008-09 3 6. THE FIRST ISSUE OF CUTTING CHARGES, THE LD. CIT( A) AT PAGE 6 AND 7 OF HIS ORDER STATES THAT AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLAN T. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS ADDED RS. 7,20,000/- ON PRESUMPTION BASIS IN RESPEC T OF CUTTING CHARGES. THE AO HAS PRESUMED THAT CUTTING CHARGES ARE NOT MENTIONED AGAINST THE2400 MT OF CR/GR COIL. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT T HE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS, THE AO HAS FOUND THAT CUTTING CHARGES HAVE BEEN CHARGES ON AFORESAID QUANTITY. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT FEW CUSTOMER PURCHASES COI LS WITHOUT ANY CUTTING. IN THIS REGARD, THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED CONFIRMATI ON RECEIVED FROM M/S PSPL STEEL PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. WHO HAS CONFIRMED THAT T HE QUANTITY MENTIONED IN THE BILL DATED 05.01.2008, 01.02.2008 AND 18.12.2017 HA S BEEN RETURNED BACK TO THE PARTY WITHOUT ANY CUTTING BILL DONE ON THE SALE. TH E APPELLANT SAYS THAT NO CUTTING WAS DONE THEREFORE, NO CUTTING CHARGES MENTIONED TO BE RECEIVED. THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ENQUIRY FROM THE CUSTOMERS OR THE LABOUR C ONTRACTORS AND SIMPLY ASSUMED THAT PAYMENTS MUST HAVE BEEN RECEIVED WHERE AS NOTHING WAS FOUND IN THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED ALTERNATIVELY BY THE APPELLA NT THAT THE AO HAS TAKEN HIGHEST VALUE FOR CUTTING CHARGES WHEREAS THE MEAN (AVERAGE) RATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED. PERUSAL OF ASSESSMEN T ORDER SHOWS THAT THE CUTTING CHARGES VARIES FROM 100 TO 300 FOR ESTIMATI ON OF CUTTING CHARGES AND THE APPLIED RS. 300/-. IN THIS CASE, IT IS ALSO SEEN TH AT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT SUBMIT CONFIRMATION AND BREAK-UP OF THE DETAILS OF COIL WH ICH WERE WITHOUT CUTTING IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT CUTTING CHARGES WERE NOT RECEIV ED BY HIM, THOUGH HE CONTENDED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS THAT HE WILL FILE SO. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH DETAIL SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLA NT IN RESPECT OF NO CUTTING CHARGES RECEIVED, THE MEAN RATE OF CUTTING CHARGE S IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO APPLYING ON 2400 MT CR/G R COILS AND ACCORDINGLY R S. 3,60,000/- IS TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AND REMAINING R S. 3,60,000/- IS HEREBY DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. (EMPHASIS OURS) 7. FROM THE ABOVE IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE LD. CIT(A ) CLEARLY HELD THAT THE ADDITION IS MADE ON PRESUMPTION BASIS AND WITHOUT ENQUIRY. EVEN THEN, THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED AND 50% OF THE INCOME WAS REDUCED. TO MY MIND, WHEN A FACTUAL FINDING IS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ADDITION IS MADE ON PRESUMPTION AND THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND IN THE IMPOUNDED MATERIA L THAT CUTTING CHARGES HAVE BEEN LEVIED ON THE QUANTITY OF 2400 MT AND WHEN THE ASS ESSEE HAS FURNISHED CONFIRMATIONS FROM THREE PARTIES TO THAT EFFECT., THE QUESTION O F MAKING OF ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE DOES 4 ITA NO.2121/KOL/2017 SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD GOEL A.YR .2008-09 4 NOT ARISE. HENCE THE ENTIRE ADDITION SHOULD HAVE B EEN DELETED . HENCE THE ADDITION IS DELETED AND THE GROUND IS ALLOWED. 8. GROUND NO. 2 AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE ON THE I SSUE OF COMPUTATION OF PROFIT OF SALE OF LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGE 3 HAS GIVEN FOLLOWING FACTUAL FINDINGS. I) THE NATURE OF LAND AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE ON 25 .04.2007 WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH IS ALSO CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF PURCHASE D EED FILED. II) THE NATURE OF LAND AT THE TIME OF SALE ON 15.10 .2007 WAS AS SAME AS ON THE DATE OF PURCHASE ON 25.04.2007. IT IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE SALE DEED THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL. III) FROM PARA 1 & 2 AS ABOVE, IT IS CLEARLY UNDERS TOOD THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO DEVELOPMENT/CHANGE IN THE LAND. AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL AND ALSO AT THE TIME OF SALE THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT IS WORTHY TO NOTE THAT IF SOMEBODY INCURS AN EXPENDITURE AROUND RS. 10.81 LAK H ON A LAND COSTING RS. AROUND 12.47 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT, THERE MUST BE THE CHANGE IN THE NATURES OF THE LAND. IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO CHANGE IN NATURE OF L AND IS SEEN. (EMPHASIS OURS) THESE FINDINGS OF THE FACT ARE NOT DISTURBED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT WHAT IS PURCHASED AND SOLD IS AGRICULT URAL LAND. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANUBHAI A.SHETH V. NIRGUDKAR (2ND ITO [1981] 128 ITR 87) (SUPRA) HELD AS FOLLOWS :- THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF LAND S ITUATED IN INDIA, WHICH LAND IS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, WOULD BE REVENUE DE RIVED FROM SUCH LAND AND, THEREFORE, AGRICULTURAL INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING O F SECTION 2(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF S. MUTYAM REDDY V. ITO [1988] 169 ITR 174 HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE CAPITAL G AINS ARISING FROM SALE OF LAND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES CONSTITUTED REVENUE DERIVED FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEREFORE AGRICULTURAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 2(1 A) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE NOT CHARGEABLE TO CENTRAL INCOME-TAX. APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW I HOLD THAT THE P ROFIT ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME AND BROUGHT TO TAX UNDE R THE INCOME TAX ACT. 9. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A RETURN DISCLOSI NG THE PROFIT AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THE SAME CANNOT BE UPHELD FOR THE REASON THAT THERE IS NO ESTOPPLE AGAINST LAW. 5 ITA NO.2121/KOL/2017 SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD GOEL A.YR .2008-09 5 A) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DKB & CO. REPORTED IN 243 ITR 618, THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT HELD THAT 'IT IS THE SETTLED POSITION IN LAW THAT THERE CANNOT BE ESTOPPELS AGAINST A STATUTE. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE STATUTE WHICH PERMITS A COMPROMISE ASSESSMENT. THE ABOVE POSITION WAS INDICATED BY THE APEX COURT IN UOI VS. BANWARI LAL AGARWAL (1999) 238 ITR 461. IT CANNOT BE LAID DOWN AS A PR INCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL APPLICATION THAT WHENEVER AN ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN CO MPLETED BY ACCEPTING THE OFFER OF AN ASSESSEE, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED. IT HAS NOT BEEN SO OBSERVED BY THE APEX ITA NO.6076/DEL/2012 AY 2009-10 SH. HARIPAL SINGH COURT IN SIR SHADILAL SUGAR AND GENERAL MILLS LJTD. VS. CIT (1987) REPORTED IN 168 ITR 705, AS THE TRIBUNAL HELD. ITS CONCLUSION HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT BY A CLEAR MISAPPREC IATION OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE SAID CASE.' (B) IN THE CASE OF MAYANK PODDAR (HUF) VS. WTO REPO RTED IN 262 ITR 633 THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER. 'EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAD INCLUDED THE SAME IN HIS RETURN, THAT WOULD NOT PRECLUDE THE ASSESSEE FROM CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF LAW. THERE CA NNOT BE ANY ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE STATUTE. A PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOT OTHERWISE TAXABLE , CANNOT BECOME TAXABLE BECAUSE OF MISUNDERSTANDING OR WRONG UNDERSTANDING OF LAW BY T HE ASSESSEE OR BECAUSE OF HIS ADMISSION OR ON HIS MISAPPREHENSION. IF IN LAW AN I TEM IS NOT TAXABLE, NO AMOUNT OF ADMISSION OR MISAPPREHENSION CAN MAKE IT TAXABLE. T HE TAXABILITY OR THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE TAX IS INDEPENDENT OF ADMISSION. EITHER THER E CAN BE ANY WAIVER OF THE RIGHT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT RELY UPON ANY S UCH ADMISSION OR MISAPPREHENSION IF IT IS NOT OTHERWISE TAXABLE. (EMPHASIS OURS) THI S QUESTION WAS DEALT WITH BY THIS COURT IN BHASKAR MITTER'S CASE [1994] 73 TAXMAN 437, AT P ARAGRAPH 8 AT PAGE 442. IN THIS DECISION, THIS COURT OBSERVED: 'AN ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY TAX ONLY UPON SUCH IN COME AS CAN BE IN LAW INCLUDED IN HIS TOTAL INCOME AND WHICH CAN BE LAWFULLY ASSESSED UND ER THE ACT. THE LAW EMPOWERS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF AN ASSES SEE ACCORDING TO LAW AND DETERMINE THE TAX PAYABLE THEREON. IN DOING SO, HE CANNOT ASS ESS AN ASSESSEE ON AN AMOUNT, WHICH IS NOT TAXABLE IN LAW, EVEN IF THE SAME IS SHOWN BY AN ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT AGAINST LAW NOR IS THERE ANY WAIVER OF THE LEGAL RIGHT AS MUCH AS THE LEGAL LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED OTHERWISE THAN ACCORDING T O THE MANDATE OF THE LAW (SIC). IT IS ALWAYS OPEN TO AN ASSESSEE TO TAKE THE PLEA THAT TH E FIGURE, THOUGH SHOWN IN HIS RETURN OF TOTAL INCOME, IS NOT TAXABLE IN LAW.' C). IN THE CASE OF NIRMALA L MEHTA VS. A BALASUBRAMANIAM, CIT AND OTHE RS REPORTED IN 269 ITR P.185, THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HE LD AS UNDER. 'THE PROBLEM AROSE BECAUSE THE PETITIONER IN HER RE TURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988- 89 FILED ON JUNE 30, 1988, OFFERED THE PRIZE MONEY OF THE LOTTERY TO TAX RATHER A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF LAW ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E, BUT THAT ERROR OF LAW ONCE DETECTED BY THE PETITIONER, IT WAS URGED BEFORE THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX THAT THE PRIZE MONEY EARNED BY THE PETITIONER COULD NOT BE TAXED U NDER THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. IT IS 6 ITA NO.2121/KOL/2017 SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD GOEL A.YR .2008-09 6 TRUE THAT IT WAS AT A LATER STAGE THAT SUCH CONTENT ION WAS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER, BUT THE SAID CONTENTION WAS A PURE QUESTION OF LAW AND THE CIT OUGHT TO HAVE ENTERTAINED IT ON THE GROUND OF DELAY. THERE CANNOT BE ANY ESTOPPEL A GAINST THE STATUTE, ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN UNMISTAKABLE TERMS PROVIDE S THAT NO TAX SHALL BE LEVIED OR COLLECTED EXCEPT BY AUTHORITY OF LAW. ACQUIESCENCE CANNOT TAKE AWAY FROM A PARTY THE RELIEF THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO WHERE THE TAX IS LEVI ED OR COLLECTED WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW. THE CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT IN AMAL GAMATED COALFIELDS LTD. VS. JANAPADA SABHA, AIR 1961 SC 964, HELD THUS (PAGE 96 5): 'IT MAY BE STATED AT THE OUTSET THAT THE TAX NOW IMPUGNED HAS BEEN IMPOSED B Y THE LOCAL AUTHORITY FROM MARCH 12, 1935, AND THAT THE FIRST OCCASION WHEN ITS VALI DITY WAS ATTACHED WAS IN ONLY 1957, THOUGH IF THE PETITIONERS ARE RIGHT IN THEIR SUBMIS SIONS THEIR ACQUIESCENCE MIGHT NOT ITSELF BE A GROUND FOR DENYING THEM RELIEF. BEFORE HOWEVER WE SET OUT THE POINTS URGED BY THE LD. ATTORNEY GENERAL IN SUPPORT OF THE PETIT ION, IT WOULD BE CONVENIENCE IF WE NARRATE BRIEFLY THE HISTORY OF THE LEVY OF THIS TAX .' THE SUPREME COURT THUS, HELD THAT ACQUIESCENCE TO AN ILLEGAL TAX FOR A LONG TIME IS N OT A GROUND FOR DENYING THE PARTY THE RELIEF THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO.' 14.1. VIDE CIRCULAR NO.5/2001-02(F.NO.142/13/2010-SO- PPL) DT. 3.6.2010, THE BOARD EXPLAINED THE RATIONAL ISATION OF THE PROVISION BY INSERTION OF S.56(2)(VIII). INCOME SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCOR DANCE WITH EITHER CASH OR MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THERE IS NO GAINSAYING THAT THE DEPARTMENT CIRCULARS ARE BINDING ON THE ASSESSE E. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. UNDER THESE CIRCUM STANCES, THE INTEREST INCOME IN QUESTION CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX DURING THE YEAR. APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THIS CASE LAW TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, I HOLD THAT, MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE OFFERED INCO ME OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HENCE, I ALLOW THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27.06.2018 SD/- [ J.SUDHAKAR REDDY] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 27.06.2018 SB, SR. PS 7 ITA NO.2121/KOL/2017 SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD GOEL A.YR .2008-09 7 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD GOEL, PROP. OF M/S J.P. UDYO G, 4, INDIA EXCHANGE PLACE, KOLKATA-700001 2. DCIT, CIRCLE-43, KOLKATA, 3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-711101. 3..C.I.T.(A)- , KOLKATA 4. C.I.T.- KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVAT E SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O., ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHE S