Tara Chand Jain, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward-45(1), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 2282/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3124 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAVID Z CHAWNGTHU
• Assessee Lawyers: K M ROY
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Question of law; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

ITA NO.2282/KOL/2014-TARA CHAND JAIN, A.Y.2005-06 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BE NCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM ] I.T.A NO. 2282/KOL/20 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-0 6 TARA CHAND JAIN -VS.- I.T.O., WARD-45(1 ), KOLKATA KOLKATA [PAN : ACKPJ1876H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI K.M.ROY, FC A FOR THE RESPONDENT : DAVID Z. CHAWNGTHU, ADDL.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 14.01.2016. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 3.2.2016. ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2014 OF CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA, RELATING TO AY 2005-06. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE CARRIES ON TH E BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION IN THE NAME AND STYLE M/S.JAIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY . FOR AY 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 4.10.2005 DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,01,590. THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO BY HIS ORDER DATED 31.12.2007 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 3,48,760. ONE OF THE ADDITION MADE WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S.1 43(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT) WAS AN ADDITION OF RS. 4,400/- BEING 20% OF RS.22,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S.J.K.SUPPLIERS, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT BY CASH IN VIOLATION OF T HE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3) OF THE ACT. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3) OF THE AC T AS IT EXISTED FOR AY 2005-06, WHERE THE ASSESSEE INCURS ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPEC T OF WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE, IN A SUM EXCEEDING TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES OTHERWISE THAN BY A CROSSED CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK OR BY A CROSSED BANK DRAFT, TWENTY PER CENT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED TH E AFORESAID ADDITION BEFORE CIT(A) BUT THE CIT(A) BY HIS ORDER DATED 23.1.2009 CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. ITA NO.2282/KOL/2014-TARA CHAND JAIN, A.Y.2005-06 2 2.1. WHILE THE MATTERS STOOD THUS THE AO ISSUED A N OTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT ON 10.3.2010 FOR MAKING AN ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE A CT, VIZ., TO BRING TO TAX INCOME THAT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO READS THUS: IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT, ON 31.12.07 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,48,760/-. ON SCRUPULOUS EXAM INATION OF SCRUTINY FOLDER AND THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT (VIJAYA BANK, BURRABAZAR BRANCH, A/C NO.240010) OF M/S. JAIN CONSTRUCTION, THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF TH E ASSESSEE, IT IS FOUND THAT CASH CHEQUES EXCEEDING RS.20000/- WERE ISSUED TO SEVERAL PARTIES ON DIFFERENT DATES AS PER TABLE BELOW :- DATE NAME OF THE PAYEE AMOUNT OF CASH CHEQUE (RS.) 06.07.04 F.ALI 45,000/- 29.09.04 R.A.PAILAN 1,50,000/- 01.10.04 R.A.PAILAN 1,00,000/- 06.10.04 R.A.PAILAN 50,000/- 11.10.04 S.K.BADRUDDIN 1,00,000/- 14.10.04 BIPAD TARAN RUDRA 69,800/- 15.10.04 PAYAL CONSTRUCTION 40,000/- 30.10.04 R.A.PAILAN 1,00,000/- 01.11.04 PAYAL ENTERPRISE 87,430/- 02.11.094 R.A.PAILAN 75,000/- 05.11.04 S.K.BADUDDIN 50,000/- 08.11.04 R.A.PAILAN 1,00,000/- 09.11.04 R.A.PAILAN 2,00,000/- 10.11.04 J.K.SUPPLIERS 42,078/- 18.11.04 R.A.PAILAN 35,000/- 19.01.04 R.CHAKRABORTY 1,00,000/- TOTAL 13,44,308/- 20% OF THESE CASH PAYMENTS ARE DISALLOWABLE U/S 40A (3) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THERE IS EVERY R EASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,68,862/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSME NT. 2.2. BY AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 30.12.2010, TH E AO DISALLOWED 20% OF RS.13,44,308 AND ADDED A SUM OF RS.2,68,862 TO THE TOTAL INCOME ALREADY DETERMINED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED PA RTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE ONLY GROUND OF CHALLENGE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS TO THE VALIDITY OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S.147 OF THE ACT. THO UGH THIS GROUND OF APPEAL WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE AO OR CIT(A), THIS GROUND BEING A LEGAL GROUND CAN BE RAISED AT ANY ITA NO.2282/KOL/2014-TARA CHAND JAIN, A.Y.2005-06 3 TIME. THEREFORE THERE CANNOT BE ANY OBJECTION TO R AISING OF SUCH GROUND OF APPEAL FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ME THAT THE AO HAS ON THE BASIS OF THE VERY SAME MATERIAL WHICH WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIM WHILE HE COMPLETED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND W ITHOUT ANY OTHER TANGIBLE MATERIAL COMING TO HIS POSSESSION RESORTED TO REOPE NING OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENT. ACCORDING TO HIM DOING SO WOULD BE ASSUMPTION OF JU RISDICTION TO REOPEN ASSESSMENT PURELY BASED ON CHANGE OF OPINION AND WITHOUT FRESH TANGIBLE MATERIAL COMING TO HIS POSSESSION AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE MOTILAL R.TODI VS. ACIT ITA NO.2910/MUM/20 13 ORDER DATED 22.9.2015 WHEREIN IT WAS LAID DOWN THAT AVAILABILITY OF NEW T ANGIBLE MATERIAL INDICATING ESCAPED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH SHOULD HAVE COME INTO POSSESSION OF THE AO, AFTER PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE A CT, IS NECESSARY FOR VALID ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S.147 OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT WAS NOTICED BY ME THAT T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSE IS THAT THERE WAS NO FRESH TANGIBLE MATERIAL IN THE POSSESS ION OF AO AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF IMPUGNED REASONS. A PERUSAL OF THE REASONS REC ORDED BY THE AO IN THIS CASE REVEALS THAT AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF THESE REA SONS THE AO HAD EXAMINED ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT RECORDS ONLY AND NO FRESH MATERIAL HAD C OME IN THE POSSESSION OF THE AO. IN RESPONSE TO OUR SPECIFIC QUERY ALSO, LD DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY FRESH MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE AO AT THE TIME OF REOPENING OF T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, ASSERTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO FRESH M ATERIAL WITH AO FOR REOPENING OF THIS CASE, REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED. 6. ON IDENTICAL FACTS, THE MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF MOTILAL R.TODI (SUPRA) HELD AS FOLLOWS: 6.7. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, LET US N OW EXAMINE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW ON THIS ISSUE. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN VARIOUS JUDGMENTS C OMING FROM VARIOUS COURTS THAT AVAILABILITY OF FRESH TANGIBLE MATERIAL IN THE POSS ESSION OF AO AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF ITA NO.2282/KOL/2014-TARA CHAND JAIN, A.Y.2005-06 4 IMPUGNED REASONS IS A SINE QUA NONE, BEFORE THE AO CAN RECORD REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE CASE. WE BEGIN WITH THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR INDIA LTD. 320 ITR 561 (SC), LAYING DOWN THAT FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO SHOULD HAVE IN ITS POSSESSION T ANGIBLE MATERIAL. THE TERM TANGIBLE MATERIAL HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD AND EXPLAINED BY VARI OUS COURTS SUBSEQUENTLY. THERE HAS BEEN UNANIMITY OF THE COURTS ON THIS ISSUE THAT IN ABSENCE OF FRESH MATERIAL INDICATING ESCAPED INCOME, THE AO CANNOT ASSUME JURISDICTION T O REOPEN ALREADY CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT. 6.8. RECENTLY, HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS TUPPERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD., IN ITS ORDER DT 10-8-15 (ITA NO 415/2015 ) GOT AN OCCASION TO ANALYSE LATEST POSITION OF LAW ON THIS ISSUE. AFTER DISCUSSING MAN Y JUDGMENTS ON THIS ISSUE, IT WAS HELD THAT EVEN IN THE CASE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED U/S 143(1), IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE AO TO HAVE IN ITS POSSESSION, FRE SH TANGIBLE MATERIAL BEFORE REOPENING OF THE CASE. 6.9 IN THE CASE OF BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. (WRIT PETITION NO.2468 DT. 12.06.2014) (89 CCH 118), HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: 5. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT RESPONDENT NO.1 HA S NOT SET OUT IN THE REASONS WHICH FACT OR OTHER MATERIAL WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE PETITIONER THAT LED TO INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT. IN FACT, ON GOIN G THROUGH THE REASONS, WE FIND THAT RESPONDENT NO.1 HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION/BELIEF T HAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ALREADY BEFORE HIM AND NO NEW TANGIBLE MATERIAL HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY RESPONDENT NO.1 TO COME THE SAID CONCLUSION/BELIEF. THIS IS CLEAR F ROM THE USE OF THE WORDS ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS IT IS NOTICED........, FURTHER PERUSAL OF STATEMENT 2 ENCLOSED WITH THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME SHOWS....... AND IT IS FURTHER NOTICED...... IN THE IMPUGNED NOTICE. 6.10. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORIENT CRAFT LTD. 354 ITR 536, IT WAS OBSERVED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT THAT IN THE SAID CASE, REASONS FOR REASSESSMENT DISCLOSED THAT AO REACHED BELIEF THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME 'ON GOING THROUGH THE RETURN OF INCOME' FILED BY ASSESSEE AFTER HE ACCEPTED RETURN U/S. 143(1) WITHOUT SCRUTINY, AND NOTHING MORE. IN THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT THAT IT WAS NOTHING BUT REVIEW OF EARLIER PROCEEDINGS AND ABUSE OF POWE R BY AO. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO WHISPER IN REASONS RECORDED, OF ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL WHICH CAME TO POSSESSION OF AO SUBSEQUENT TO ISSUE OF INTIMATION, THEREFORE, IT WAS AN ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF POWER CONFERRED U/S 147. THUS, REOPENIN G WAS HELD TO BE INVALID ON THIS GROUND ITSELF. 6.11. IN THE CASE OF MOHAN GUPTA (HUF) VS. CIT 366 ITR 115, SAME VIEW HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COUT. 6.12. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K. L. ARORA IN ITA 118/2014 DATED 21-04-2014, HONBLE DELHI HIG H COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE TRIBUNALS ORDER. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT IN ORDER TO ISSUE A VALID REASSES SMENT NOTICE, THE AO HAS TO BE SATISFIED ON THE BASIS OF TANGIBLE MATERIAL OR INFORMATION SU BSEQUENTLY AVAILABLE TO HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE WHIC H LED TO INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT AT THE STAGE WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPL ETED. SHORT OF THAT A REAPPRECIATION OF THE EXISTING MATERIALS WHICH REALLY AMOUNTS TO R EVIEW IS IMPERMISSIBLE. THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT RE-ASSESSMENT ITA NO.2282/KOL/2014-TARA CHAND JAIN, A.Y.2005-06 5 PROCEEDINGS THEMSELVES WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE REVENUES APPEAL. NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION. 6.13. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI ATUL KUMAR SWAMI IN ITA NO. 112/2014 DATED 18-03- 2014 REPORTED AT 52 TAXMANN.COM 47, HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: ..REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS VALID IF IT IS BASED ON TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO JUSTIFY CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOMEIN I NSTANT CASE NOTE FORMING PART OF RETURN CLEARLY MENTIONED AND DESCRIBED NATURE OF TH E RECEIPT UNDER A NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTREASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 147 NO WHERE MENTIONED THAT REVENUE CAME UP WITH ANY OTHER FRESH MATERIAL WARRANTING RE OPENING OF ASSESSMENTMERE CONCLUSION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(1) IPSO FACTO DOE S NOT BRING INVOCATION OF POWERS FOR REOPENING ASSESSMENTREOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS UN JUSTIFIEDREVENUES APPEAL DISMISSED. 6.14. FURTHER RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED ON THE DETAILE D JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MADHUKAR KHOSLA VS. ACIT 367 ITR 165 (DELHI), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE REOPENING IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE LAW UNLESS IT IS BASED ON FRESH TANGIBLE MATERIAL AND THAT IF THE REASONS TO BELIEVE ARE NOT BASED ON NEW, TANGIBL E MATERIALS, THE REOPENING AMOUNTS TO AN IMPERMISSIBLE REVIEW. IT HAS BEEN FUR THER OBSERVED THAT : THE FOUNDATION OF THE AOS JURISDICTION AND THE RA ISON DETRE OF A REASSESSMENT NOTICE ARE THE REASONS TO BELIEVE. NOW THIS SHOULD HAVE A RELATION OR A LINK WITH AN OBJECTIVE FACT, IN THE FORM OF INFORMATION OR FACTS EXTERNAL TO THE MATERIALS ON THE RECORD. SUCH EXTERNAL FACTS OR MATERIAL CONSTITUTE THE DRIVER, O R THE KEY WHICH ENABLES THE AUTHORITY TO LEGITIMATELY RE-OPEN THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT. IN A BSENCE OF THIS OBJECTIVE TRIGGER, THE AO DOES NOT POSSESS JURISDICTION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. IT IS AT THE NEXT STAGE THAT THE QUESTION, WHETHER THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT A MOUNTS TO REVIEW OR CHANGE OF OPINION ARISES. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE ARE NO R EASONS TO BELIEVE BASED ON NEW, TANGIBLE MATERIALS, THEN THE REOPENING AMOUNTS TO AN IMPERMISSIBLE REVIEW. HERE, THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW WHAT TRIGGERED THE ISSUANC E OF NOTICE OF REASSESSMENT NO INFORMATION OR NEW FACTS WHICH LED THE AO TO BELIEV E THAT FULL DISCLOSURE HAD NOT BEEN MADE ( KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD [(2010)320 ITR 561 (SC)] AND ORIENT CRAFT LTD [(2003)354 ITR 536 (DELHI)] FOLLOWED, USHA INTERNATIONAL [(2012)348 ITR 485 (DEL) (FB)] REFERRED) 6.15. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS JYOTI DEVI 218 CTR 264, HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HELD THAT SINCE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY INFORMAT ION OR MATERIAL WHICH HAD SUBSEQUENTLY COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO TO ENABLE HIM TO FORM THE REQUISITE BELIEF THAT ANY INCOME LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED HAD ESCAPED ASSESS MENT, THEREFORE, THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT VALID. 6.16. HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BAPA LAL & CO. EXPORTS 289 ITR 37, HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEW MATERIAL, THE A O IS NOT EMPOWERED TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER IT WAS MADE UNDER S.143(1) OR S. 143(3). 6.17. RECENTLY, MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE HV TRANSMISSIONS LTD. IN I.T.A NO. 2230/MUM/2010 HELD THAT EVEN THOUGH ORIGINAL ASSESS MENT WAS MADE UNDER S. 143(1) AND NOT UNDER S. 143(3), ASSESSEE HAVING MADE FULL DISCLOSURE OF ITS INCOME, AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY NEW MATERIAL. HONBLE BENCH HAS RELIED UPON THIRD MEMBER JUDGMENT FROM MUMBAI B ENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE TELCO ITA NO.2282/KOL/2014-TARA CHAND JAIN, A.Y.2005-06 6 DADAJEE DHACKJEE LTD VS DCIT ( ITA NO 4613/MUMBAI/2 013 DT 12-5-2010), IN SUPPORT OF THIS VIEW. 6.18. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY HONBLE DE LHI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S NEXGEN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS VS. DEPUTY COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX, [ITA NO.5609/DEL/2010] HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO INITIATE THE REOPENING PROCEEDINGS IN ABSENCE OF ANY NEW INFORMA TION OR MATERIAL ON RECORD SINCE THE DATE OF FILLING AND PROCESSING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. 7. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSS ED THAT ADMITTED FACTS ARE THAT THERE WAS NO FRESH MATERIAL COMING INTO THE POSSESS ION OF THE AO, AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF THE REASONS. THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BE EN REBUTTED BY LD DR ALSO. THUS, IN VIEW OF DECISIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE, REOPENING D ONE BY LD. AO IN THE ABSENCE OF FRESH TANGIBLE MATERIAL, IS INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. THEREFORE, THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT VALID. THUS, RE-AS SESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN PURSUANCE TO INVALID REOPENING IS ILLEGAL; THE SAME IS HEREBY QUASHED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3.2.2016. SD/- [ N.V.VASUDEVAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 3.2.2016. [RG PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.TARA CHAND JAIN, 24/25, UPPER CHITPUR ROAD, KOLKA TA-700007. 2. I.T.O., WARD-45(1), KOLKATA. 3. CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA 4. CIT-XV, KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES