ITO, Ward - 3(1), Asansol, Asansol V. M/s. MGB Transport, Burdwan

ITA 2280/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2946 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K N JANA
• Assessee Lawyers: ARVIND AGARWAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 194C

Judgement Text

, B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE . . . . . . . . , ! /AND ' #!' , ) [BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, AM & SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] !$ !$ !$ !$ / I.T.A NO. 2280/KOL/2010 #% &' #% &' #% &' #% &'/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-3(1), ASANSOL. VS. M/S. M GB TRANSPORT (PAN: AAOFM1663P) ()* /APPELLANT ) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 14.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15.03.2013 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI K. N. JANA, JCIT, SR . DR FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL, ADVOCATE - / ORDER PER BENCH THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF C IT(A), ASANSOL IN APPEAL NO. 182/CIT(A)/ASL/W- 3(1)/ASL/09-10 DATED 25.10.2010. ASSESSMENT WAS FRA MED BY ITO, WARD-3(1), ASANSOL U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 31.12.2009. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF TRANSPORT CHARGES PAID WITHOU T DEDUCTING TAX. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO. 1:- WHETHER LD. CIT(A), ASANSOL WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELET ING THE ADDITION BY A.O. U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN VIEW O F THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE H AS PAID DUMPER HIRE CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.36,37,815/- TO TEN DIFFERENT PARTIE S. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, NO TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED ON THESE PAYMENTS, THOUGH THESE WERE CONTRACTUAL/SUB- CONTRACTUAL PAYMENT IN NATURE UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, SINCE THERE IS DEFAULT IN NOT DEDUCTING TD S, THE PAYMENTS MADE ATTRACT 2 ITA NO. 2280/K/2010 MGB TRANSPORT A.Y. 2007-08 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHY TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTED, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE DISALLOWANCE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APP EAL BEFORE CIT(APPEALS). CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT, A BENCH, KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF M/S. SAMANWAYA IN ITA NO. 48 4/KOL./2008 DATED 23.04.2009 BY STATING THAT THERE WAS NO CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT BET WEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DUMPER OWNERS AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. J. RAMA VS.- CIT (2 010) 236 CTR (KAR.) 105, WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT LAW DOES NOT STIPULATE THE EXISTENCE OF A WRITTEN C ONTRACT AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 19 4C OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENT OF TDS . HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT CONCLUDED AS UNDER :- IN ORDER TO PROVIDE VEHICLES TO A CUSTOMER AS PER AGREEMENT, ASSESSEE USED TO HIRE VEHICLES FROM OTHERS AND HIRING OF VEH ICLES BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE NATURE OF TRANSPORT CONTRACT AND HENCE, T HE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) WAS JUSTIFIED WHEN NO TAX WAS DED UCTED AT SOURCE FROM PAYMENTS MADE TO THOSE PERSONS. FURTHER, FOLLOWING SMT. J. RAMAS CASE OF HONBLE K ARNATAKA HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WE HAVE TAKEN A DECISION DATED 17.02.2012 OF ITAT, KOL KATA BENCH IN ITA NO. 199/KOL/2010 IN THE CASE OF DCIT, CIRCLE-9 VS.- KA MAL MUKHERJEE & CO. (SHIPPING) (P.) LTD., WHEREIN IT IS HELD AS UNDER :- ( FROM HEAD NOTES) . UNDOUBTEDLY, THESE DECISIONS DO INDICATE THAT THERE IS A WORKMAN EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DOCK WORKERS AND THE STEVEDORES LIKE ASSESSEE WHEN THEY EMPLOY THOSE WORKERS, BUT BE THA T AS IT MAY, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS TO THE CDLB FOR SUPPLY OF LABOUR, EVEN WHEN THIS LABOUR MAY BE TREA TED AS EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 194C ARE CLEARLY ATTRACTED. IN SUCH A SITUATION, I.E. WH EN LABOUR HIRED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH CDLB IS CONSIDERED TO BE IN ASSESS EES EMPLOYMENT, THE PAYMENTS MADE TO CDLB CANNOT BE TREATED AS PAYM ENTS FOR ANY WORK, BUT NEVERTHELESS THESE PAYMENTS COULD STILL B E COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C BECAUSE THESE ARE PAYMEN TS MADE FOR SUPPLY OF LABOUR WHICH ARE SPECIFICALLY COVERED BY SECTION 194C(1). CDLB IS AN AGENT OF THE STEVEDORES LIKE THE ASSESSEE IN THE SE NSE THAT THE LABOUR IS RECRUITED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH CDLB, BUT WHEN TH IS FACT DOES NOT AFFECT THE NATURE OF PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE CDLB WHICH IS ADMITTEDLY IN THE NATURE OF PAYMENT FOR SUPPLY OF L ABOUR. THE REASONING ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THOUGH SOMEW HAT IMPRESSIVE AT FIRST GLANCE, IS FALLACIOUS. THERE IS NO CAUSE A ND EFFECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORKERS ASSIGNED BY THE CDLB HAVING EMPLOYE R WORKMAN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ASSESSEE, AND THE PAYMENTS BE ING MADE BY THE 3 ITA NO. 2280/K/2010 MGB TRANSPORT A.Y. 2007-08 ASSESSEE TO CDLB BEING NOT IN THE NATURE OF PAYMEN T FOR SUPPLY OF LABOUR. 4. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE EXACTLY ID ENTICAL, WHAT WAS BEFORE US IN KAMAL MUKHJERJEE & CO. (SHIPPING) (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) AND ALSO THAT IN THE CASE OF SMT. J. RAMA OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (SUPRA), RE SPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT EVEN ORAL CONTRACT IS SUFFICIE NT AND ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE DUMPERS ON HIRE AND HE HAS PAID CHARGES F OR THE SAME. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REVERSE THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). HOWEVER, AS REGA RD TO ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENTS MADE BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REGARDING APPLICABI LITY OF THE DECISION OF ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH, VISHAKHAPATNAM IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPI NG & TRANSPORTS VS. ADDL. CIT (VISAKHAPATNAM) (SB) REPORTED IN (2012) 136 ITD 23 (SB), WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WILL BE RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT PAYAB LE AT THE END OF YEAR AND NOT ON THE AMOUNT ALREADY PAID DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US STATED THAT THIS PAYMENT WAS MADE WITHIN THE DUE DA TE AND NOTHING REMAINS PAYABLE AND HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS VS. ADDL. CIT (VISAKHAPATNAM) (SB) REPORTED IN (2012) 136 ITD 23 (SB), WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE TDS IS TO BE DEDUCTED ONLY IN RELATION TO PAYMENTS WHICH REMAINS PAYABLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR I.E. 31 ST MARCH OF THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. IT WAS POINTED OUT TO LD . COUNSEL THAT THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER OF SPECIA L BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS (SUPRA), IS STAYED BY HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN I.T.T.A.M.P. NO.908 OF 2012 I N I.T.T.A. NO.384 OF 2012 WHEREIN HONBLE HIGH COUR T OBSERVED, INTERIM SUSPENSION. NOTICE. VIDE DATED 8 TH OCTOBER, 2012. 5. ON THIS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT EFFECT OF THE ORDER STAYING A PENDING APPEAL BEFORE ANY HIGH COURT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ANY DECLAR ATION OF LAW BUT IS ONLY BINDING UPON THE PARTIES T O THAT PROCEEDINGS AND SUCH INTERIM ORDER DOES NOT DE STROY THE BINDING EFFECT OF THE PRINCIPALS AS LAID DOWN IN THE ORDER AS A PRECEDENT BECAUSE THE INTERIM ORD ER HAD NO OCCASION TO LAY DOWN ANY PROPOSITION OF L AW. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE CASE LAW OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PIJUSH K ANTI CHOWDHURY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS (2007) 2 C ALLT 577 DATED 14 TH MAY, 2007 WHEREIN, AT PARA 10 AND 13, IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 10. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PART IES AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE AFORESAID PROVISION WE FIND THAT THE SUPREME COURT BY THOSE I NTERIM ORDERS HAS NO DOUBT STAYED THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THI S COURT BY DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO AND AT THE SAME TIME, EVEN RESTRAINED THE STATE FROM INDUCTING THIRD PARTIES ON THE LANDS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT-MATTERS BEFORE THE APEX COURT. SUC H INTERIM ORDER IS BINDING UPON THE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BUT THE LAW IS EQUALLY SETTLED THAT BY MERE PASSING OF AN INTERIM ORDER STAYING THE 4 ITA NO. 2280/K/2010 MGB TRANSPORT A.Y. 2007-08 OPERATION OF A JUDGMENT WITH CERTAIN FURTHER CONDIT IONS, THE EXISTENCE OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IS NOT WIPED OUT AND AT THE SAME TIME, FOR SUCH INTERIM OR DERS INTER PARTIES, THE AUTHORITY OF A DECISION AS A PRECEDENT IS NEVER UNDERMINED. UNLESS A DECISION IS SET ASIDE BY THE SUPERIOR COURT, THE SAID DECISION REMAINS BINDING AS A PRECEDENT THOUGH MAY NOT BE BINDING UPON THE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS WHERE THE SUPERIOR COURT HAS GRANTED IN TERIM ORDER. MOREOVER, ONCE A PROVISION HAS BEEN DECLARED ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , THE STATE CANNOT INVOKE THE SAID ULTRA VIRES PROCEEDING AGAINST THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRY SIMP LY BECAUSE AN INTERIM ORDER OF STAY OF OPERATION ORDER DECLARING THE PROVISION AS ULTRA VIRES HAS BE EN PASSED IN AN APPEAL AGAINST SUCH ORDER. THE OBJECT OF GRANTING INTERIM ORDER I TO SEE THAT THE RELIEF CLAIMED IN THE APPEAL MAY NOT BECOME INAPPROPRIATE OR THE APPEAL DOES NOT BECOME INFRUCT UOUS FOR NOT GRANTING SUCH INTERIM ORDER; BUT BY MERE GRANT OF INTERIM STAY, THE EFFECT OF A BINDING PRECEDENT IS NOT DESTABILIZED. OVER AND ABOVE, THE INTERIM ORDERS OF THE STAY GRANTED BY THE SUPRE ME COURT CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE SAID COURT NEVER INTENDED THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT DECLARING A PART OF THE PROVISIONS OF VESTING AS ULTRA VIRES THE STATE WOUL D NEVERTHELESS BE FREE TO PROCEED WITH THE PROCESS OF VESTING DURING THE PENDENCY O THE PROCEE DINGS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT AND THAT IS WHY STATUS QUO AS REGARDS POSSESSION HAS BEEN MAINT AINED AND EVEN, THE STATE HAS BEEN RESTRAINED FROM CREATING ANY THIRD PARTY INTEREST I N THE LANDS IN QUESTION. 13. THEREFORE, THE EFFECT OF THE ORDER OF STAY IN A PENDING APPEAL BEFORE THE APEX COURT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ANY DECLARATION OF LAW BUT IS ONLY BI NDING UPON THE PARTIES TO THE SAID PROCEEDINGS AND AT THE SAME TIME, SUCH INTERIM ORDER DOES NOT D ESTROY THE BINDING EFFECT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT AS A PRECEDENT BECAUSE WHILE GRANTING TH E INTERIM ORDER, THE APEX COURT HAD NO OCCASION TO LAY DOWN ANY PROPOSITION OF LAW INCONSI STENT WITH THE ONE DECLARED BY THE HIGH COURT WHICH IS IMPUGNED. 6. EVEN, HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE SHREE CH AMUND MOPEDS LTD. VS. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION, MADRAS, AIR 1992 SC 1439, 1444 HAS ANALYSED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STAY OF OPERATION OF AN ORDER AND QUASHINGOF AN ORDER AND HELD THAT STAY OF ORDER OF AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY / COURT BY A HIGHER COURT MEANS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY / LOWER COURT STILL CON TINUES TO EXIST IN LAW INSPITE OF THE STAY AND ITS EXISTENCE IS NOT DESTROYED. BUT WHERE THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE / LOWER COURT IS QUASHED AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED B ACK, IT MEANS THAT THE APPEAL DISPOSED OF BY THE SA ID ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY/LOWER COURT WOULD BE RESTORED AND IT CAN BE SAID TO BE PENDING BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY/LOWER COURT. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, PARTICULARLY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF PIJUSH KANTI CHOWDHURY (SUPRA), AS ALSO IN OBEDI ENCE TO DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF SHREE CHAMUND MOPEDS LTD. (SUPRA), WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH O F THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRA NSPORTS (SUPRA) STILL HOLDS GROUND AND ACCORDINGLY , TDS PROVISIONS WILL APPLY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVOCATIO N OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT , ONLY ON THE AMOUNTS REMAINED PAYABLE AT THE END OF FINANCIA L YEAR AND NOT ON THE PAID AMOUNTS. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE ACCORDI NGLY. APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5 ITA NO. 2280/K/2010 MGB TRANSPORT A.Y. 2007-08 8. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) DELETING THE ADDITION BEING BALANCE CREDIT AMOUNT O F RS.1,18,419/- OUT OF TOTAL SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS.3,96,280/-. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS R AISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO. 2:- WHETHER LD. CIT(A), ASL. WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF LIABILITY AS SUNDRY CREDITOR TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,96,280/- IN BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2009 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND MATERIAL ON RECOR D. HOWEVER, IN THE GROUND, THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED IS ME NTIONED AT RS.3,96,280/- AND THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO RS.1,18,419/-. 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE OUTSTANDING DETAILS OF S UNDRY CREDITORS AND TOTAL CLAIM MADE READS AS UNDER:- OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.03.2007 TOTAL CLAIM 1. LABOUR CHARGES PAYABLE 69,890/ - 3,15,890/ - 2. SALARY & WAGES 6,700/ - 44,400/ - 3. FOODING EXPENSES PAYABLE 10,230/ - 30,535/ - 4. TRAVELLING & CONVEYANCE 8,930/ - 22,780/ - 5. REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 22,670/ - 2,65,310/ - 1,18,420/ - THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US CONTENTED THAT IT IS FOLLOWI NG ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, WHICH PROVIDES FOR OUTSTANDING EXPENSES AS ON 31 ST MARCH OF EVERY YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE CIT(APPE ALS) PRODUCED LEDGER COPIES OF THE EXPENSES AND THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN PAID IN SUBS EQUENT YEARS AND NECESSARY EVIDENCE WERE ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE CIT(APPEALS). TH E ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES AT RS.1 ,18,420/- IN THE ABSENCE OF VOUCHERS. HOWEVER, CIT(APPEALS) AFTER VERIFYING THE VOUCHERS DELETED THE ADDITION AND WE CONFIRM THE DELETION. THIS ISSUE OF REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS WIT H REGARD TO AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,00,000/-. THE TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY ASS ESSEE READS AS UNDER:- 6 ITA NO. 2280/K/2010 MGB TRANSPORT A.Y. 2007-08 HEAD OF EXPENSES AMOUNT CLAIMED 1. REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 2,65,310/ - 2. RENT 38,500/ - 3. ROAD TAX & PERMIT 43,800/ - 4. INSURANCE 54,000/ - 5. LABOUR CHARGES 3,15,890/ - 6. TELEPHONE EXPENSES 7,819/ - OUT OF THESE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWAN CE OF AD HOC EXPENSES AT RS.1,00,000/-. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER VOUCHERS C IT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION BY NOTING THAT THE EXPENSES ARE PETTY IN NATURE FOR WHICH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WERE NOT READILY AVAILABLE AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THAT THESE EXPENSES HAVE NOT ACTUALLY BEEN INCURRED. AS THERE IS NO COGENT B ASIS, CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION. SIMILARLY, WE ALSO CONFIRM THE DELETION. THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.03.201 3. SD/- SD/- . . . . . . . . , ' ' ' ' #!' #!' #!' #!' , (P. K. BANSAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . . .) )) ) DATED : 15 TH MARCH, 2013 SL. SR. PS 7 ITA NO. 2280/K/2010 MGB TRANSPORT A.Y. 2007-08 - / +##0 10&2- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . )* / APPELLANT ITO, WARD-3(1), ASANSOL 2 +,)* / RESPONDENT M/S. MGB TRANSPORT, C/O, ASHOK MAHAT O PUNJABI MORE, 110 NSB ROAD, RANIGANJ, BURDWAN-713347. 3 . #- ( )/ THE CIT(A), ASANSOL 4. 5. #- / CIT ASANSOL 0 7#8 +# / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA ,0 +#/ TRUE COPY, -9/ BY ORDER, ' !: /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .