M/s. Khaitan Winding Wire Pvt. Ltd., , Kolkata V. ACIT, Circle - 4(1) , Kolkata

ITA 2546/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7075 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHRUBAJYOTI RAY
• Assessee Lawyers: S M SURANA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Peak credit; Period of limitation; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Time period of passing order; Change of opinion; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 14A; 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2546/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 20 10 M/S. KHAITAN WINDING WIRE PVT. LIMITED 1 ITA NO. 2546/KOL/18 AY 2009 - 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2 546 /KOL/20 1 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 20 1 0 M/S. KHAITAN WINDING WI R E PVT. LIMITED,..... ... ..... .. .. ... ...... ... .. APPELLANT P - 38, INDIA EXCHANGE PLACE, KOLKATA - 700001 [PAN:AABCK3663K - VS. - ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ......... ... .....................RESPONDENT CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P - 7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA - 700069 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI S.M. SURANA, ADVOCATE , FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI DHRUBAJYOTI RAY, JCIT , FOR THE RESPONDEN T DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JANUARY 2 7 , 20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : F E B . 5 , 20 20 O R D E R PER SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : - 1. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 10 ARISES AGAINST THE CIT(A), 19 , KOLKATAS ORDER DATED 12 - 11 - 2018 PASSED IN CASE NO. CIT(A) , KOLKATA - 19/10413/2017 - 18 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U /S 147/ 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT ACT). HEARD BOTH THE LEARNED PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE PLEA DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IS THAT THE IMPUGNED REGULAR RE - ASSESSMENT ALLEGEDLY FRAMED ON 31 - 03 - 2016 ITSELF DESERVES TO BE QUASHED SINCE IT WAS SERVED ONLY ON 18 - 08 - 2016 I.E AFTER 140 DAYS. LEARNED COUNSEL INVITED OUR ITA NO. 2546/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 20 10 M/S. KHAITAN WINDING WIRE PVT. LIMITED 2 ITA NO. 2546/KOL/18 AY 2009 - 10 ATTENTION TO THE CIT(A)S DISCUSSION REGARDING THE INSTANT LEGAL ISSUE AS FOLLOWS: - 4. GROUNDS NO. 1 IS IN RESPECT OF THE LIMITATION U/S 147. THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 147/143(3) DT. 31.3.2016 WAS SERVED ONLY ON 18:8.2016 I.E. BY DELAY OF 140 S 0 BUTTRESS ITS CONTENTION, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DEMAND CREATED BY THE IMPUG NED ORDER WAS NOT UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF THE DEPARTMENT TILL 18.8.2016. HENCE, THE ORDER HAVING NOT BEEN SERVED WITHIN REASONABLE TIME, THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW. THE APPELLANT HAS MERELY TAKEN THE PLEA THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN SERVED ON 18.8.20.16 AND TH E SAME HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE UPLOADING OF THE DEMAND ON SUCH DATE OR SUBSEQUENT DATE. THE UPLOADING OF THE DEMAND ON THE WEB SITE CANNOT BE A CRITERIA TO PROVE THAT THE DEMAND HAS BEEN CREATED ON SUCH DATE AND NEITHER THERE WAS ANY LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF SUCH UPLOADING DURING SUCH PERIOD. HENCE MERELY BECAUSE THE DEMAND HAS BEEN UPLOADED [AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSE, WITHOUT ANY PROOF THE SAME EVEN) HAS NO LEGAL SANCTITY SINCE SUCH UPLOADING IS FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE ASSESSE ONLY AND CAN HAPPEN EVEN O N SUBSEQUENT DATES. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF THE APPELLANT IS REJECTED. 3 . THE REVENUES CASE ON THE OTHER HAND IS THAT THE ASSESSEES FOREGOING LEGAL ARGUMENT CARRIES NO MERIT SINCE THE IMPUGNED RE - ASSESSMENT HAD INDEED BEEN FRAMED ON 31 - 03 - 2016. WE NOTE I N THIS BACKDROP OF PLEADINGS THAT THE TRIBUNALS COORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN ITA NO. 1194/KOL/2017 ACIT VS. SUNIL AGARWAL DT. 28 - 02 - 2019 HAS DECIDED THE VERY ISSUE OF AN ASSESSMENT IS VALIDLY BEYOND THE STIPULATED LIMITATION PERIOD AS UNDER: - 2. WE COME TO REVENUE'S APPEAL ITA NO.L194/KO1/2017. ITS SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS PLEADS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THE ASSESSMENT IN ISSUE TO BE FRAMED BEYOND THE STIPULATED LIMITATION PERIOD VIDE DETAILED DISCUSSION: ITA NO. 2546/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 20 10 M/S. KHAITAN WINDING WIRE PVT. LIMITED 3 ITA NO. 2546/KOL/18 AY 2009 - 10 '2. A GGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE APPELLANT HAD PREFERRED THIS APPEAL WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. I, THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 3// 03/2014 PASSED BY THE LD. D C I T AND SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ON 28/04/2014 IS LIME BARRED, ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO. 2. THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/ S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE LD. DCIT ON 31 / 03/2014 IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND AGAINST THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF NATU RAL JUSTICE. 3. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. ACIT ERRED IN LAW IN MAKING ADDITIONS OF AN AGGREGATE SUM OF RS. 73,05,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS APPEARING IN THE HOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 4. THAT T HE LD. D CIT ER RED IN DISALLOWING THE SUM OF RS.8, 78,694 / - - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON UNSECURED' LOANS BORROWED B Y THE APPELLANT AND USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS BUSINESS. 5. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ID. DCIT ERRED IN ADDING THE SUM OF RS.73,05, 000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT WITHOUT CONSIDERING [HE PEAK CREDIT OF UNSECURED LOANS. 6. THAT THE LD. D CIT ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS.2,83, 789/ - CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST NET PROFIT FROM THE PROPRIETARY BUSINESS M/S AGARWAL STEEL INDUSTRIES ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON LOANS BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 7. THAT THE LD. D CLT ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE SLIM OIRS.I,344 IT/ S 14A OF THE INCOME LAX ACT, 1961. 8. THAT THE ID. DC I T ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST 01 RS. 9,35,478 U/ S. 234B OF THE INCOME TA - X ACT, 1961 WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE IN THIS CASE. ITA NO. 2546/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 20 10 M/S. KHAITAN WINDING WIRE PVT. LIMITED 4 ITA NO. 2546/KOL/18 AY 2009 - 10 9. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE 10 ADD, ALTER OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. BEFORE GOING INTO THE ME RITS OF THE CASE IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEAL WITH GROUND OF APPEAL NO I, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED ON 28104/2014. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER 3110312014 AND THE ORDER HAS GO T T IME BARRED AND IT IS ILLEGA L. IN SUPPORT OF HIS PROPOSITION, APPELLANT HAS CITED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS/DECISIONS. I. SLATE OFANDHRA PRADESH VS. M RAMAKRISHTAIAH & CO. - 93 STC 40; (SC). 2. ('IT VS. SHRI NARAYANI CHANDRIKA TRUST 212 ITR 456 (KER) 3. GOVERNMENT OF WOOD WORKS VS. STALE OF KERALA - 69 STC 62 (SC) 4. MOFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANOTHER VS. ('TO & OTHERS - 101 STC 461 (ITAT; KOLKATA). 5. SHANTI LAL GHODAWAT & ORS. VS, ACIT - (2009) 7261TJ (JD) 135 (ITAT. JODHPUR) 6. CIT VS. MA. RAI BAHADUR KISHORE CHAND& SONS - 2008 TMI - 3777 (P &HHC) 7. M/S. DILIP MOHAN SETH VS. NO - ITA NO. 2110//KOL/2009 (ITAT, KOLKATA) 8. CIT VS. KAPPUMALAI ESTATE - (/998) 2341TR 167 (KER) 9. K. JOSEPH JACOB VS. AGRL. NO & ANR. (1991) 190 IL R 464 (KER). 10. MALAYIL MILLS VS. STALE OF KERALA - (TRC NOS, 15 AND 69 (D' (1991) AS ASSESSEE HAD LEVELED SERIOUS ALLEGATION THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) WAS NOT PASSED WITHIN THE LIME LIMIT OF 3//03/2014, IT WAS IMPORTANT TO LOOK INTO THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, AO WAS REQUESTED TO INTIMA TE THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN HIS REPORT DATED 20/02/20/7 A CIT,CIR - 50(I) INFORMED THAT TEAR O FF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE ITA NO. 2546/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 20 10 M/S. KHAITAN WINDING WIRE PVT. LIMITED 5 ITA NO. 2546/KOL/18 AY 2009 - 10 ASSESSMENT RECORDS. IT WAS ALSO INTIMATED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS CASE WAS PASSED B Y DC IT - CE NT RAL CIR - 4(3) (ERSTWHILE DCIT ; CENTRAL, CIR - XXVII, KOLKATA). ACCORDINGLY, LE T TER WAS SENT TO DCI1; OR - 4(3) IN THIS REGARD. DC I T CENTRAL CIR - 4(3), VIDE HIS FELLER 22/02/2017, INFORMED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT DISPATCHED B Y P OST AND PROOF OF SE RVICE, IF ANY, WOULD BE IN THE - ASSESSMENT RECORDS. AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS REPORT ANOTHER FELLER WAS SENT TO AC IT, CIR - 50(1) INTIMATE THE DATE OF UPLOADING OF COMPUTATION ON ITD , IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN RESPONSE, ACI1; CIR R - 50(L), VIDE HIS LETTER DT. 09 /03/20 1 7, INFORMED THAT COMPUTATION/ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT UPLOA DED ON ITD . ASSESSEE IS VERY FORCEFULLY SAYING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED ON 28/04/20J4 AND N HAS BEEN PASSED AFTER 31/03 / 12 1 4. ON THE OTHER HAND A. 0 IS NOT ABLE TO SUBMIT ANY PROOF TO COUNTER THE ALLEGALION OF THE ASSESSEE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, 1 DO NOT HAVE ANY OPTION HULLO ACCEPT ASSESSEE 'S SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD. I HAVE ALSO PE RUSED THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND I A M SEPARATELY COMMUNICATING MY OBSERVATIONS TO PR. CIT - 17, IN THIS MATTER. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE AND THE CASE LAWS CITED B Y ASSESSEE, IF IS HELD THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION AS IF APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PASSED AFTER 31 /03/2014, HENCE, ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) DATED 31/03/2014 IS QUASHED. AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS QUASHED, MERITS OF THE CASE HAVE NOT BEEN LOOKED INTO. 3. LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT TO HAVE FRAMED BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD PRESCRIBED. HE QUOTES HON 'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT'S DECISION IN CIT' VS. SUBRATA ROY; [2014] ITA NO. 2546/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 20 10 M/S. KHAITAN WINDING WIRE PVT. LIMITED 6 ITA NO. 2546/KOL/18 AY 2009 - 10 45 TAXMANN.COM 5/3 (CALCUTTA) HOLDING THAT ASSESSMENT WITHIN LIMITATION PERIOD CANNOT BE DOUBTED MERELY BECAUSE THE CONSEQUENTIAL DEMAND AND NOTICE WAS SERVED AFTER 47 DAYS OF THE STATUTORY PERIOD OF LIMITATION. WE FIND NO MERIT IN REVENUE'S INSTANT ARGUMENTS. THE FACTS REMAINS THE CIT(A) MAD E TREMENDOUS EFFORTS BY WAY OF VARIOUS CORRESPONDENCE(S) TO GET ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO WHETHER THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN FRAMED WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT UP TO 31.03.2014 OR NOT. IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSING AUT HORITY HAD ALSO FAILED TO INDICATE ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT THE RELEVANT COMPUTATION HAD BEEN UPLOADED EVEN ON THE DEPARTMENT'S PORTAL. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY QUASHED IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT NOT FRAMED WITHIN THE TIME LIMITATION PRESC RIBED. HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT'S DECISION CIT VS. SUBRATA ROY; /2014/ 45 TAXMANN.COM 513 (CALCUTTA} INVOLVES A CASE WHERE THE REVENUE HAD FILED SUFFICIENT PROOF BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT IN ISSUE WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD PRESCRIBED AS AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT IN CIT VS. SREE NARAYAN CLTANDRIKA TRUST; (/995) 212 IT!? 456(KERA L A) IN SIMILAR FACTS HOLDS AS FOLLOWS: WE SHALL NOW DEAL WITH THE OTHER REFERENCES AND APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 256(2) WHICH HAVE BEEN HEARD ALONG WITH THESE REFERENCES. THE QUESTIONS REFERRED FOR THE YEAR 1978 - 79 ARE SIMILAR, EXCEPT THAT ONE FURTHER QUESTION HAS B EEN REFERRED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. NAMELY, 'WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 IS NOT BARRED HY LIMITATION'. WE SHALL DEAL WITH THIS QUESTION WHICH ARISES IN INCOME - TAX REFERENCES NOS. 81 AND 82 OF 1986 REL ATING TO THIS YEAR. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER MADE AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ON JANUARY 12, 1981, HOLDING THAT INCOME ACCRUING, 10 THE ASSESSEE - TRUST FR0111 THE FIRMS OF WHICH IT WA S A PARTNER ITA NO. 2546/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 20 10 M/S. KHAITAN WINDING WIRE PVT. LIMITED 7 ITA NO. 2546/KOL/18 AY 2009 - 10 WAS EXEMPT UNDER SECTIO N 10(22 A ), AS INCOME ACCRUING 10 THE HOSPITAL, DEVIATING FROM THE STAND TAKEN B Y HIM EARLIER. THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME - LAX TOOK UP THE MATTER IN REVISION ON JANUARY 11, 1983 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. THE R EVISIONAL ORDER WAS PASSED ON JANUARY 11, 1983. AND COMMUNICATED WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX DAYS THEREAFTER. THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE EXERCISE OF THE REVISIONAL POWER W AS BARRED BY LIME. THE TRIBUNAL HELD OTHERWISE AND SUSTAINED THE ORDER. IT IS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE ADDITIONAL QUESTION HAS BEEN REFERRED. SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 263 AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT TIME, PRESCRIBED THAT NO ORDER SHALL HE MADE UNDER SUB - SECTION (I) OF THE SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED. THE TRIBUNAL WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAD PASSED HIS ORDER WITHIN THE LIME PRESCRIBED, THOUGH IT WAS COMMUNICATED LATER. THE QUESTION AS TO WHEN AN ORDER CAN BE SLATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE WAS THE SUBJECT OF CONSIDER 01 ION BY THIS COURT IN GOVERNMENT WOOD WORKSHOP V. STATE OF KERALA [1988] 69 STC 62 ; [ 1987 ] 1 KLT 804 IN WHICH THIS COURT STATED, A FTER RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT CULMINATING IN B.J SHELAT V. STATE OF GUJARAT, A IR 1978 SC 1109, AS FOLLOWS (AT PAGE 69) : 'THE ORDER OF ANY AUTHORITY CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PASSED UNLESS IT IS IN SOME WAY PRONOUNCED OR PUBLISHED OR THE PARTY EFFECTED HAS THE MEANS OF KNOWING IT. IT IS NOT ENOUGH IF THE ORDER IS MADE, SIGNED, AND KEP T IN THE FILE, BECAUSE SUCH ORDER MAY B E LIABLE TO CHANGE AT THE HANDS OF THE AUTHORITY WHO MAY MODIFY IT, OR EVEN DESTROY IT, BEFORE IT IS MADE KNOWN, BASED ON SUBSEQUENT I NFORMATION , THINKING OR CHANGE OF OPINION. TO MAKE THE ORDER COMPLETE AND EFFECTIVE , IT SHOULD BE ISSUED, SO AS TO B E BEYOND THE CONTROL O F THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED, FOR ANY POSSIBLE CHANGE OR MODIFICATION THEREIN. THIS SHOULD B E DONE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD, THOUGH THE ACTUAL SERVICE OF THE ORDER MAY HE BEYOND THAT PERIOD' ITA NO. 2546/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 20 10 M/S. KHAITAN WINDING WIRE PVT. LIMITED 8 ITA NO. 2546/KOL/18 AY 2009 - 10 37. T HE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT REFERRED 10 THIS DECISION THOUGH IT IS RELEVANT. WE FEEL THAT THE MATTER HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, PARTICULARLY AFTER ADVERTENCE TO THE AFORESAID DECISION. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE T O ANSWER THE ADDITIONAL QUESTION REFERRED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN INCOME - TAX REFERENCES NOS. 81 AND 82 OF 1986. 5 . WE ADOPT FOREGOING REASONING MUTATIS MUTANDIS AND HOLD THE IMPUGNED RE - ASSESSMENT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE SINCE IT WAS FRAMED BEYOND THE STIPULATED TIME LIMIT PERIOD. THE SAME IS QUASHED , THEREFORE, THE OTHER ISSUES ON MERITS ARE RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS 6 . THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 0 5 - 0 2 - 2020 S D / - S D / (DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI) ( SATBEER SINGH GODARA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 5 F E B . , 20 20 ITA NO. 2546/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 20 10 M/S. KHAITAN WINDING WIRE PVT. LIMITED 9 ITA NO. 2546/KOL/18 AY 2009 - 10 COPIES TO : (1) M/S. KHAITAN WINDING WI R E PVT. LIMITED, P - 38, INDIA EXCHANGE PLACE, KOLKATA - 700001 (2) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P - 7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA - 700069 ( 3 ) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 19, KOLKATA ; (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - , KOLKATA ( 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA *PP /SR. P.S.