Md. Shaifullah Mondal, North 24 Parganas V. I.T.O Wd - 49(1),kolkata., Kolkata

ITA 2217/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4728 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEBASISH LAHIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: M D SHAH
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI M. BALAGAN ESH, AM] I.T.A NOS.2217 & 2218/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 MD. SHAIFULLAH MONDAL VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, W D-49(1), KOLKATA. (PAN: AIPPM0967M) ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 02.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.06.2016 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI M. D. SHAH, AR FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI DEBASISH LAHIRI, JCIT, SR. DR ORDER PER SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM: THESE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF SEPARA TE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-XXXII, KOLKATA VIDE APPEAL NOS. 84 & 152/XXXII/10-11/49(1) /KOL DATED 18.10.2012. ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED BY ITO, WARD-49(1), KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FO R AYS 2008-09 & 2009-10 VIDE HIS SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 26.11.2010 AND 19.12.2011. A S THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THEY ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER A ND DISPOSED OFF BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 2217/KOL/2013- ASST YEAR 2008-09 ASSESSEE APPEAL 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ASST YEAR 2008-09:- 1. FOR THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING AND COMPL ETION OF ASSESSMENT HAVE BEEN BAD-IN- LAW AND VOID AB INITIO. 2. FOR THAT THE COMPLETION OF APPEAL BY LD. CIT ON EXPARTY WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW. 3. FOR THAT THE DETERMINATION OF PROFIT ON THE BASI S OF PERCENTAGE IS BASED ON GUESS WORK WHICH IS BAD-IN- LAW. 4. FOR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF SECURITY DEPOSIT IS BASED ON GUESS WORK WHICH IS BAD-IN- LAW. 5. FOR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSED ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT IS BAD-IN-LAW. 2 ITA NOS.2217 & 2218/K/2013 MD. SHAIFULLAH MONDAL AYS 2008-09 & 2009- 10 6. FOR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF DIFFERENCE OF BANK BALANCE AND JOB CHARGES THE BASIS OF NSDL STATEMENT IS BAD-IN-LAW. 7. FOR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS. 4,39,975.00 IS BASED ON GUESS WORK WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW. 8. FOR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASE OF RS.9,25 ,8L0.00 IS BASED ON GUESS WORK WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW. 9. FOR THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.43,853.00 ON ACCOUNT OF LOW DRAWINGS IS BASED ON GUESS WORK WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW. 10. FOR THAT LD. ITO HAS DETERMINED PROFIT BUT SUBS EQUENTLY HE ADDED BACK SOME EXPENDITURE WHICH IS SELF CONTRADICTORY & BAD-IN-LA W. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A TRADER AS WELL AS CONTRACTOR CARRYING ON BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M /S MONDAL CONSTRUCTION & ELECTRICAL WORKS AND M/S MONDAL BUILDERS. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.8.2008 FOR THE ASST YEAR 2008-09 DECLARING TA XABLE INCOME OF RS. 1,45,030/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 7,290/-. DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED RS. 67,85,600/- IN THE CONCEALED SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH AXIS BANK AND RS. 39,60,200/- IN THE CONCEALED CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH STATE BANK OF I NDIA. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THESE BANK ACCOUNTS REPRESENT SALE PROCEEDS AS WELL AS REDEPOSIT FROM WITHDRAWALS MADE EARLIER. THE LEARNED AO FOUN D THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR REDEPOSIT AND HENCE THE LEARNED AO TREATED THE ENTIRE CREDITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS AS DERIVED FROM SALE PROCEEDS OF THE ASSES SEE. THE LEARNED AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUNDRY DEBTORS OF RS. 2,66,907/- AS NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE SAME AR E SUNDRY DEBTORS. THE LEARNED AO TREATED THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS AS TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,10,12,707/- (67,85,600 + 39,60,200 + 2,66,907) AND THE LEARNED AO DETERMINED THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER AT RS. 71,90,737/- AFTER REDUCING THE DISC LOSED TURNOVER IN THE BOOKS OF RS. 38,21,970/-. HE APPLIED THE PROFIT PERCENTAGE OFFE RED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 8.09% ON THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER AND BROUGHT TO TAX A SUM OF RS . 5,81,730/- (71,90,737*8.09%) AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AO HOWEVER ALLOWED THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON CASH CREDIT TO STATE BAN K OF INDIA AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,92,483/- AS DEDUCTION. 3 ITA NOS.2217 & 2218/K/2013 MD. SHAIFULLAH MONDAL AYS 2008-09 & 2009- 10 3.1. THE LEARNED AO OBTAINED THE LEDGER COPY FROM THE SUPPLIER OF CEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD AND FOUND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD PLACED SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,78,496/- WITH THE SAID COMPANY WHI CH WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.3.2008. THE L EARNED AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 11,447/- ON THE SAID SECURITY DEPOSIT FROM M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD WHICH WAS ALSO NOT OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN. THE LEARNED AO BROUGHT BOTH THE TRANSACTIONS TO TAX AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 3.2. THE LEARNED AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE BANK BALANCE WITH UCO BANK MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUN E OF RS. 9,368/- (19568-10200) FOR WHICH NO PROPER EXPLANATION COULD BE GIVEN BY THE A SSESSEE. HENCE HE BROUGHT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 9,368/- TO TAX AS INCOME FROM UND ISCLOSED SOURCES. 3.3. THE LEARNED AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE RE CEIVED JOB CHARGES OF RS. 20,234/- FROM BASIRHAT MUNICIPALITY WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURNS AND HENCE HE APPLIED THE PROFIT PERCENTAGE OF 8% ON THE SAME AND BROUGHT A SUM OF RS. 1,620/- TO TAX AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 3.4. THE LEARNED AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS. 37,02,949/- IN THE RETURN AND WHEREAS AS PER THE IN FORMATION OBTAINED AND AS PER ASSESSEES SUBMISSION, THE FOLLOWING PURCHASES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE:- M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD RS. 28,27,500 M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD RS. 3,49,880 STONE CHEEPS, SAND ETC RS. 98,303 ROD RS. 13,52,446 ---------------------- RS. 46,28,129 LESS: PURCHASES DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESEE RS. 37, 02,949 ------------------ DIFFERENCE RS. 9,25,180 ------------------ 4 ITA NOS.2217 & 2218/K/2013 MD. SHAIFULLAH MONDAL AYS 2008-09 & 2009- 10 THE LEARNED AO FOUND THAT SINCE NO SATISFACTORY EXP LANATION WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 9,25,180/- AS WO RKED OUT ABOVE, HE BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 3.5. THE LEARNED AO OBSERVED THAT THE LEDGER COPIE S OBTAINED FROM M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD AND M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD REFLECTED THE CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.3.2008 AT RS. 2,53,168/- AND RS. 1,06,887/- RESPECTIVELY, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SUNDRY CREDITORS IN ITS BALANCE SHEET AT RS. 3,50,0 00/- AND RS. 4,50,000/- RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE THE DIFFEREN CE IN THE BALANCES OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, THE LEARNED AO BROUGHT THE DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING BA LANCE OF RS. 4,39,945/- TO TAX AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 3.6. THE LEARNED AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT GOING BY TH E FAMILY SIZE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HEAVY MEDICAL TREATMENT OF PARENTS TO BE UNDERTAKEN , THE DRAWINGS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 52,147/- WAS CONSIDERED VERY LOW AN D HENCE HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 43,853/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE FAMILY MIGHT REQUIR E MINIMUM OF RS. 8,000/- PER MONTH TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. 3.7. THE LEARNED AO ALSO ADDED A SUM OF RS. 5,000/ - TOWARDS DONATION INCLUDED IN THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES FOR WANT OF PROOF. 4. THE LEARNED CITA DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL EX PAR TE FOR WANT OF PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE DESPITE I SSUANCE OF SEVERAL NOTICES AND SINCE NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WERE AVAILABLE ON RECORD WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AO, HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED, TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED AR ARGUED THAT SINCE THE LEARNED AO HAD RESORTED TO ESTIMATION OF PROFIT @ 8.09% ON THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER AND MAD E AN ADDITION OF RS. 5,81,730/- THEREON, THERE IS NO NEED TO MAKE FURTHER ADDITION TOWARDS DIFFERENCE IN THE BALANCE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,39,945/-; AD DITION TOWARDS DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASE OF MATERIALS AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,25,180/- AS THE SA ME WOULD GET COVERED IN THE ADDITION MADE IN THE SUM OF RS. 5,81,730/- ITSELF. HIS ARGU MENT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS BUYING MATERIALS FROM THE SAME SUPPLIERS I.E M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD, M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES 5 ITA NOS.2217 & 2218/K/2013 MD. SHAIFULLAH MONDAL AYS 2008-09 & 2009- 10 LTD ETC FOR BOTH ITS ACCOUNTED AND UNACCOUNTED TRAN SACTIONS. HENCE OBVIOUSLY THERE IS BOUND TO BE DIFFERENCE IN THE CLOSING BALANCE OF TH E SUPPLIERS ACCOUNT. SIMILARLY THERE WILL BE DIFFERENCE IN VALUE OF PURCHASES ALSO. HE ARGUED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUE OF PURCHASES WOULD ONLY GET ATTRIBUTED TOWARDS UNACCOU NTED PURCHASES AND SIMILARLY WITH THE CLOSING BALANCE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. SINCE TH E PROFIT ON UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 5,81,730/- , NO SEPARATE ADDITION NEED TO BE MADE ON THESE ACCOUNTS. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETER MINED AT RS. 5,81,730/- WOULD EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SECURI TY DEPOSIT WITH M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,78,496/- AND ADDITI ON MADE TOWARDS DIFFERENCE IN BANK BALANCE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 9,368/- AND HENCE THE AD DITION OF RS. 5,81,730/- WOULD GET TELESCOPED TO THAT EXTENT AS EXPLAINED. HOWEVER , HE FAIRLY AGREED FOR THE SUSTENANCE OF THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE SUM OF RS. 11,447/ - TOWA RDS INTEREST EARNED ON SECURITY DEPOSIT ; DISALLOWANCE OF DONATION OF RS. 5,000/- A ND ADDITION MADE TOWARDS PROFIT ON JOB CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,620/-. IN RESPONS E TO THIS, THE LEARNED DR ARGUED THAT THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN SECURITY DE POSIT AND DIFFERENCE IN BANK BALANCES WERE MADE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND HENCE THE INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS DETERMINED AT RS. 5,81,730/- W OULD NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR TELESCOPING THEREON. HE ACCORDINGLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO. HE DID NOT ADVANCE ANY SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE O THER ADDITIONS CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND LOT OF FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED AR THAT THE PROFIT DETERMINED AT RS. 5,81,730/- IS NOTHING BUT THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS. THIS RECEIPT IS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. CORRESPONDINGLY, ANY PAYMENTS / INVESTMENTS MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF TH E ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR TELESCOPING AND HENCE WE DIRECT THE LEARNED AO TO D ELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE SUM OF RS. 1,78,496/- TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN SECURITY D EPOSIT WITH M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD AND DIFFERENCE IN BANK BALANCE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 9,368/-. SIMILARLY WE HOLD THAT SINCE THE PROFIT DETERMINED AT RS. 5,81,730/- WOULD BE PR OFIT FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY SEPARATE ADDITIONS MADE TOWARDS E XCESS PURCHASES AND DIFFERENCE IN 6 ITA NOS.2217 & 2218/K/2013 MD. SHAIFULLAH MONDAL AYS 2008-09 & 2009- 10 SUNDRY CREDITORS BALANCES AS THE SAME ARE TO BE CON STRUED ONLY FOR THE UNDISCLOSED BUSINESSES. THE LEARNED DR WAS NOT ABLE TO BRING A NY CONTRARY EVIDENCE TO THIS EFFECT BEFORE US. HENCE WE DIRECT THE LEARNED AO TO DELE TE THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE SUMS OF RS. 9,25,180/- TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES AND RS . 4,39,975/- TOWARDS DIFFERENCE IN SUNDRY CREDITORS BALANCES. WITH REGARD TO THE ADD ITION MADE TOWARDS DRAWINGS IN THE SUM OF RS. 43,853/-, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED AO HA D MADE THIS ADDITION ONLY ON AN ESTIMATION WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND HENCE WE HAVE NO H ESITATION IN DIRECTING THE LEARNED AO TO DELETE THIS ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY , THE GROU NDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NO. 2217/KOL/2013 FOR ASST YEAR 2008-09 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 2218/KOL/2013 ASST YEAR 2009-10 ASSESSE E APPEAL 8. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LEARNED AO IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 19,86,370/- TOWARDS CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT NO. 5480101000 00684 MAINTAINED WITH AXIS BANK, BASIRHAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 BA SED ON AIR INFORMATION. THE LEARNED CITA DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL EX PARTE FOR W ANT OF PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE DESPITE ISSUANCE OF S EVERAL NOTICES AND SINCE NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WERE AVAILABLE ON RECORD WITH REGARD TO T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO, HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. FOR THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING AND COMP LETION OF ASSESSMENT HAVE BEEN BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO. 2. FOR THAT THE COMPLETION OF APPEAL BY LD. CIT ON EX PARTE WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE WHICH IS BAD IN LAW. 3. FOR THAT THE ADDITION OF ENTIRE DEPOSIT OF RS.1 9,86,370.00 ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT TO BANK IS BASED ON GUESS WORK AND BAD IN LAW. 9. THE LEARNED AR ARGUED THAT THE CREDITS IN THE AXIS BANK ACCOUNT HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED AO TO BE PART OF THE SALE P ROCEEDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASST YEAR 2008-09. ACCORDINGLY, HE REQUESTED THE BENCH TO KI NDLY SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF 7 ITA NOS.2217 & 2218/K/2013 MD. SHAIFULLAH MONDAL AYS 2008-09 & 2009- 10 THE LEARNED AO TO COMPARE THE CREDITS WITH THE TURN OVER DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS AND MAKE THE ADDITION TOWARDS NET PROFIT AT A N ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE, IF NECESSARY. THE LEARNED DR FAIRLY CONCEDED FOR THE SAME. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED FOR SETTING ASIDE OF THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED AO. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE LEARNED AO TO COMPARE THE TURNOVER DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REGULAR BOOKS AND IN THE RETURNS AND COMPARE THE SAME WITH THE CASH D EPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK. IF THE TURNOVER DISCLOSED IS MORE THAN THE CASH DEPOSITS WITH AXIS BANK, THEN NO ADDITION NEED TO BE MADE. IF THE TUR NOVER DISCLOSED IS LESS THAN THE CASH DEPOSITS, THEN THE PROFIT PERCENTAGE ON THE DIFFERE NCE AMOUNT IS TO BE ESTIMATED AND TAXED ACCORDINGLY. HENCE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I TA NO. 2217/KOL/2013 FOR ASST YEAR 2008-09 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IN ITA NO. 2218/KOL/2013 FOR ASST YEAR 2009-10 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.06.201 6 SD/- SD/- (N. V. VASUDEVAN) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER DATED : 8 TH JUNE, 2016 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT MD. SHAIFULLAH MONDAL, NEORAH DIGHI ROA D, BHABLA, BASIRHAT, 24 PGS. (N) 2 RESPONDENT ITO, WARD-49(1), KOLKATA. 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .