M/s. Kanishka Industries Ltd., , Kolkata V. DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata

ITA 2634/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4815 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHANKAR HALDER JCITSRDR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

, D , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH D KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2634 / KOL / 20 18 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 M/S KANISHKA INDUSTRIES LTD., 20A, NELLIE SENGUPTA SARANI, HUMAYUN COURT, 1 ST FLOOR, KOLKATA-700087 [ PAN NO.AABCK 9374 P ] V/S . DCIT, CIRCLE-8, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATKA-700 069 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI RAVI TULSIYAN, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SHANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 06-05-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17-05-2019 / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-17, KOLKATAS ORDER DATED 26.02.2016 PASSED IN CASE NO.366/CIT(A)-17/KOL/15-16 UPHOLDING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IMPOSING PENALTY OF 3,33,362 IN PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE RAISED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S ACTION IMPOSING THE PENALTY IN ISSUE OF 3,33,362/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT EMERGES FRO M THE RELEVANT PENALTY NOTICE DATED 12.12.2005 THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ITA NO.2634/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2006 -07 M/S KANISHKA INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT, CRI-8, KOL. PAGE 2 SPECIFY AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ACCUSED OF CO NCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF ANY TAXABLE INCOME OR IT HAD FURNISHED INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BENCHS DECISIO N IN NISHITH KUMAR JAIN VS. ACIT IN ITA 961-964/KOL/2013 DECIDED ON 10-02-2016 HAS DELETED AN IDENTICAL PENALTY ON THIS COUNT ALONE AS UNDER:- 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT WHICH IS IN A PRINTED FORM AND THE AO HAS I NDICATED IN THE SAID NOTICE AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY IS SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME BY STRIKING OFF THE IRRELEVANT PORTION OF THE PRI NTED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. ON THIS ASPECT WE FIND THAT IN THE S HOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT THE AO HAS NOT STRUCK OUT THE IRRELEVANT PA RT. IT IS THEREFORE NOT SPELT OUT AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SOUGH T TO BE LEVIED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME . 9.1. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT & ANR. V. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY, 359 ITR 565 (KARN), HAS HELD THAT NOTICE U/S. 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPECIFICALLY STAT E AS TO WHETHER PENALTY IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE IMPOSED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PAR TICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT HAS FURTHER LAID DOWN THAT CERTAIN PRINTED FORM WHERE A LL THE GROUNDS GIVEN IN SECTION 271 ARE GIVEN WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIRE MENT OF LAW. THE COURT HAS ALSO HELD THAT INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ON E LIMB AND FIND THE ASSESSEE GUILTY IN ANOTHER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW. IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AFORESAID DECISION WILL SQUARELY APPLY AND ALL THE ORDERS IMPOSING PENALTY HAVE TO BE HELD AS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUAS HED. 9.2. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT & ANR. V. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) HAS LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE MATTER OF IMPOSING PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 59. AS THE PROVISION STANDS, THE PENALTY PROCEEDING S CAN BE INITIATED ON VARIOUS GROUND SET OUT THEREIN. IF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY CATEGORICALLY RECORDS A FINDING REGARDING THE EXIST ENCE OF ANY SAID GROUNDS MENTIONED THEREIN AND THEN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS I NITIATED, IN THE NOTICE TO BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274, THEY COULD CONVENIENTLY R EFER TO THE SAID ORDER WHICH CONTAINS THE SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITY WH ICH HAS PASSED THE ORDER. HOWEVER, IF THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONDITIONS COULD N OT BE DISCERNED FROM THE SAID ORDER AND IF IT IS A CASE OF RELYING ON DEEMIN G PROVISION CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION-1 OR IN EXPLANATION-1(B), THEN THOUGH P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE IN THE NATURE OF CIVIL LIABILITY, IN FACT, IT IS PENAL IN NATURE. IN EITHER EVENT, THE PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED I N SECTION 271 SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN ABOUT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THEY INTEND I MPOSING PENALTY ON HIM AS THE SECTION 274 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST SUCH ITA NO.2634/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2006 -07 M/S KANISHKA INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT, CRI-8, KOL. PAGE 3 PROCEEDINGS AND SHOULD HAVE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO MEE T THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND SHOW THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) DO NOT EXIST AS SUCH HE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY PENALTY. THE PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT SENDING A PRINTED FARM WHERE ALL THE GRO UND MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW WHEN THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ASSESSEE NOT REBUTTING THE INIT IAL PRESUMPTION IS SERIOUS IN NATURE AND HE HAD TO PAY PENALTY FROM 100% TO 30 0% OF THE TAX LIABILITY. AS THE SAID PROVISIONS HAVE TO BE HELD TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED, NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 SHOULD SATISFY THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE IS OFFENDED IF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS VAGUE. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEED INGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE. 60. CLAUSE (C) DEALS WITH TWO SPECIFIC OFFENCES, TH AT IS TO SAY, CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME. NO DOUBT, THE FACTS OF SOME CASES MAY ATTRACT BOTH THE OFFENC ES AND IN SOME CASES THERE MAY BE OVERLAPPING OF THE TWO OFFENCES BUT IN SUCH CASES THE INITIATION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO MUST BE FOR BOTH TH E OFFENCES. BUT DRAWING UP PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR ONE OFFENCE AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER OFFENCE OR FINDING HIM GUILTY FOR EITHER TH E ONE OR THE OTHER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. IT IS NEEDLESS TO POINT OUT SATIS FACTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WHEN IT IS A SINE QUA NON FOR INITIATION OR PROCEEDINGS, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE C ONFINED ONLY TO THOSE GROUNDS AND THE SAID GROUNDS HAVE TO BE SPECIFICALL Y STATED SO THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THOSE G ROUNDS. AFTER, HE PLACES HIS VERSION AND TRIES TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM, IF AT ALL, PENALTY IS TO BE IMPOSED, IT SHOULD BE IMPOSED ONLY ON THE GROUNDS O N WHICH HE IS CALLED UPON TO ANSWER. IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE AUTHORITY, AT THE TIME OF IMPOSING PENALTY TO IMPOSE PENALTY ON THE GROUNDS OTHER THAN WHAT ASSES SEE WAS CALLED UPON TO MEET. OTHERWISE THOUGH THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS MAY BE VALID AND LEGAL, THE FINAL ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY WOULD OFFEN D PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THUS ONCE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON ONE GROUND, THE PENALTY SHOULD ALSO BE IMPOSED ON THE S AME GROUND. WHERE THE BASIS OF THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS N OT IDENTICAL WITH THE GROUND ON WHICH THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED, THE IMPOSITION OF PE NALTY IS NOT VALID. THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER OF PENALTY MUST BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE INFORMATION, FACTS AND MATERIALS IN THE HANDS OF TH E AUTHORITY IMPOSING THE PENALTY AT THE TIME THE ORDER WAS PASSED AND FURTHE R DISCOVERY OF FACTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT VALI DATE THE ORDER OF PENALTY WHICH, WHEN PASSED, WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 61. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE AC T TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ONCE HE IS SATISFIED IN THE COURSE OF A NY PROCEEDINGS THAT THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER CLAUSE (C). CONCEALMENT, FURNISHING INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE DIFFERENT. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ISS UING NOTICE HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHETHER IS IT A CASE OF CONCEAL MENT OF INCOME OR IS IT A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE A PEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK PAI REPORTED IN 292 ITR 11 AT PAGE 19 HAS HEL D THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INC OME CARRY DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANU ENGINEERING ITA NO.2634/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2006 -07 M/S KANISHKA INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT, CRI-8, KOL. PAGE 4 REPORTED IN 122 ITR 306 AND THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIRGO MARKETING REPORTED IN 171 TAXMAN 156, HAS HELD THAT LEVY OF PENALTY HAS TO BE CLEAR AS TO THE LIMB FOR WHICH IT IS LEVIED A ND THE POSITION BEING UNCLEAR PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASS ESSING OFFICER PROPOSES TO INVOKE THE FIRST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT, THEN THE N OTICE HAS TO BE APPROPRIATELY MARKED. SIMILAR IS THE CASE FOR FURNI SHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE STANDARD PROFORMA WITHOUT STRIKING O F THE RELEVANT CLAUSES WILL LEAD TO AN INFERENCE AS TO NON-APPLICATION OF MIND. THE FINAL CONCLUSION OF THE HONBLE COURT WAS AS FO LLOWS:- 63. IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT IS STATED ABOVE, WHAT EME RGES IS AS UNDER: A) PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS A CIVIL LIAB ILITY. B) MENS REA IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT FOR IMPOSI NG PENALTY FOR BREACH OF CIVIL OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILITIES. C) WILLFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDI ENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY. D) EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 2 71(1)(C) IS A SINE QUA NON FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271. E) THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH CONDITIONS SHOULD BE DISC ERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY. F) EVEN IF THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), AT LEAST THE FACTS SET OUT IN EXPLANATION 1(A) & (B) IT SHOULD BE DISCERNIBLE FRO M THE SAID ORDER WHICH WOULD BY A LEGAL FICTION CONSTITUTE CONCEALME NT BECAUSE OF DEEMING PROVISION. G) EVEN IF THESE CONDITIONS DO NOT EXIST IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER PASSED, AT LEAST, A DIRECTION TO INITIATE PROCEEDIN GS UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) IS A SINE QUA NON FOR THE ASSESSMENT OFFI CER TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE OF THE DEEMING PROVISION CONTAI NED IN SECTION 1(B). H) THE SAID DEEMING PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS AND THE COMMI SSIONER. I) THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC. J) IMPOSITION OF PENALTY EVEN IF THE TAX LIABILITY IS ADMITTED IS NOT AUTOMATIC. K) EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ORD ER OF ASSESSMENT LEVYING TAX AND INTEREST AND HAS PAID TA X AND INTEREST THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE AUTHORITI ES EITHER TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OR IMPOSE PENALTY, UNLESS IT IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT, IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH UNE ARTHING OR ENQUIRY CONCLUDED BY AUTHORITIES IT HAS RESULTED IN PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX OR SUCH TAX LIABILITY CAME TO BE ADMITTED AND IF NOT IT WOU LD HAVE ESCAPED FROM TAX NET AND AS OPINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER. L) ONLY WHEN NO EXPLANATION IS OFFERED OR THE EXPL ANATION OFFERED IS FOUND TO BE FALSE OR WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PRO VE THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IS NOT BONA FIDE, AN ORDER IMPO SING PENALTY COULD BE PASSED. ITA NO.2634/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2006 -07 M/S KANISHKA INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT, CRI-8, KOL. PAGE 5 M) IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED, EVEN THOUGH NOT SUB STANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT IS FOUND TO BE BONA FIDE AND ALL FACT S RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED. N) THE DIRECTION REFERRED TO IN EXPLANATION IB TO SECTION 271 OF THE ACT SHOULD BE CLEAR AND WITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY. O) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED ANY S ATISFACTION OR HAS NOT ISSUED ANY DIRECTION TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEE DINGS, IN APPEAL, IF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY RECORDS SATISFACTION, THEN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE TO BE INITIATED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND NOT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. P) NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPEC IFICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), I .E., WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INCO RRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME Q) SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUND MENTI ONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY REQUIRE MENT OF LAW. R) THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS WHICH HE H AS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDED. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENA LTY COULD BE IMPOSED TO THE ASSESSEE. S) TAKING UP OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ONE LIMB AN D FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW. T) THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT FROM THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE PROCEEDINGS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENA LTY THOUGH EMANATE FROM PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT, IT IS INDEP ENDENT AND SEPARATE ASPECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS. U) THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS IN SO FAR AS 'CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' AND 'FURNISHING OF INCOR RECT PARTICULARS' WOULD NOT OPERATE AS RES JUDICATA IN THE PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEST THE SAID PROCEEDINGS ON MERITS. HOWEVER, THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT IN P URSUANCE OF WHICH PENALTY IS LEVIED, CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CANNOT BE DECLARED A S INVALID IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 9.3. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE AFORESAID DECISION THAT O N THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 274 OF THE ACT IS DEFECTIVE AS IT DOES NOT SPELL OUT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE PENALTY IS SOUGH T TO BE IMPOSED. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, W E HOLD THAT THE ORDERS IMPOSING PENALTY IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE T O BE HELD AS INVALID AND CONSEQUENTLY PENALTY IMPOSED IS CANCELLED. 9.4. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT LEVY OF PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE THEREFORE CAN CEL THE ORDERS IMPOSING PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE CONCLUSIONS ON THE ISSUE OF DEFECT IN SHO W CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT, WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH THE OTHER ARGUMENT S MADE ON MERITS OF THE ORDERS IMPOSING PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.2634/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2006 -07 M/S KANISHKA INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT, CRI-8, KOL. PAGE 6 WE ADOPT THE ABOVE DETAILED REASONING MUTATIS MUTANDIS AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE PENALTY IN QUESTION . 3. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 17/ 05/2019 SD/- SD/- ( %) (' %) (DR.A.L. SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (- 17 / 05 /201 9 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-M/S KANISHKA INDUSTRIES LTD., 20A, NELLI E SENGUPTA SARANI, HUMAYUN COURT, 1 ST , FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 087 2. /RESPONDENT-DCIT, CIR-8, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWR INGHEE SQ. KOLKATA-69 3. 3 4 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 4- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 7 ''3, 3, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ 3,