Income Tax Officer-Ward-41(1), Kolkata, Kolkata V. Sri Purna Chandra Sahoo, Kolkata

ITA 2734/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4382 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD GHAYAS UDDIN JCITSRDR
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 142(1); 194C; 201(1); 37; 28; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2734/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2009-10 ITO, WARD-41(1), PODDAR COURT, 4 TH FLOOR, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-1 / V/S . SRI PURNA CHANDRA SAHOO, 43B, BHUPEN BOSE AVENUE, KOLKATA-700 004 [ PAN NO.ARKPS 6458 F ] /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SH. MD. GHAYAS UDDIN, JCIT-SR-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANJAY BHATTACHARYA, FCA /DATE OF HEARING 22-09-2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05-10-2016 /O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIX, KOLKATA DATED 06.09.2013. ASSESS MENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO WARD-41(1), KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28.11.2011 FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE PER ITS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED DIN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE HIRE CHARGES CANNOT BE TREATED AS RENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HIMSELF TREATED THE SAME AS RENT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RENT AND PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTORS A RE NOT HIT BY THE PROVISION ITA NO.2734/KOL/2013 A.Y.2009-10 ITO WD-41(1) KOL. VS. SH PURNA CH. SAHOO PAGE 2 OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT SECTION 29 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ENUMERATES THE DED UCTION TO BE ALLOWED IN COMPUTING BUSINESS INCOME AND THAT THE SECTION 28 S HOULD NOT BE READ IN ISOLATION BUT WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 29, SEC. 30 TO SEC. 37 AND SEC. 40 SEC. 40(A)(IA) AND SEC. 43 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 R ESPECTIVELY. SH MD. GHAYES UDDIN, LD. SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE AND SHRI SANJAY BHATTACHARYA, LD. ADVOCA TE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN IND IVIDUAL IS ENGAGED IN HIRING OF CRANES, DIGGING EQUIPMENTS AND OTHER EQUIPMENTS WHI CH ARE USED IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS F ILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DATED 23.09.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF 8,97,197/- COMPRISING OF BUSINESS INCOME. THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AS PE R ACTION PLAN AND SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICE U/S 143(2) R.WS. 142(1) WAS ISSUED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AT A TOTAL INCOME OF R S. 2,02,04,217.00 BY DISALLOWING CERTAIN EXPENSES WHICH ARE DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF REVENUE AS UNDER. 3. THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEA L IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE (TDS FOR SHORT) U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR THE MACHINE HIRE CHARGES AND TRANSPORT CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS INCURRED THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES:- I) MACHINES HIRING CHARGES FOR RS. 1,90,32,520.00. II) TRANSPORT CHARGES FOR RS. 6,10,000.00. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS ON ITS EXPENSES INCURRED TOWARDS HIRING OF MACHINES UNDER SECTION 194I OF THE ACT AND TRANSPORT CHARGES UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT EXCEEDING 20,000/- IN CASH OTHER THAN CROSSED CHEQUE OR DRAFT TO THE CERTAIN PARTIES TOWARDS MACH INE HIRE CHARGES AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISION OF SEC.40A(3) O F THE ACT. SUCH CASH PAYMENT WAS ITA NO.2734/KOL/2013 A.Y.2009-10 ITO WD-41(1) KOL. VS. SH PURNA CH. SAHOO PAGE 3 AMOUNTING TO RS. 71,01,895/-. THE AO FOUND THAT TOT AL DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TDS IS GREATER THAN THE DISALLOWAN CE MADE U/S 40A (3) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE AO ALSO DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT ON AC COUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TDS FOR RS. 1,96,42,520/- (RS.1,90,32,520.00 + 6,10,000 .00) AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 9.2 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E APPELLANT ARE CONSIDERED IN DECIDING THE ISSUE AT HAND WHETHER THE HIRE CHAR GES PAID FOR THE CRANES ARE ATTRACTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194I OR NOT AND CONSEQUENTLY WHETHER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) WILL COME INTO PLAY OR NOT. FROM THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION IN THE MATTER, I FIND THAT THE AO HAS HA STILY CONCLUDED THAT THE HIRING CHARGES ARE OF CONTRACTUAL IN NATURE AND DECIDED TH E ISSUE TO BE COVERED U/S. 194I OF THE ACT WITHOUT FINDING OUT THE FACTUAL POS ITION IN THE MATTER. ON THE OTHER HAND THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT LENDS MU CH FORCE ON THE ISSUE THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR HIRING THE MACHINERIES WERE N OT IN THE NATURE OF CONTRACTUAL PAYMENTS WHEN THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT OF ANY SORT TO THE EFFECT. THE FACTS OF THE CASE SURROUNDING THE APPELLANTS C ASE NEEDED A DEEPER PROBE AND UNDERSTANDING BY THE AO TO COME TO A JUDICIOUS DECISION. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH THE REASONING THAT THE IMPUGNED ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE FORM PART OF THE TRADING ACCOUNT RATHER THAN THE P&L A/C LEND MUCH FORCE. ON PRINCIPLES AND FACTS, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT SEEMS TO CUT MUCH ICE ON THE ISSUE. 9.3 TO SUM UP, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE HIRE CHARGES W ILL NOT COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 30 TO 37 OF THE ACT. THE RECIPIE NTS OF THE HIRE CHARGES ALREADY INCLUDED THESE PAYMENTS IN THEIR ACCOUNTS W HEREBY THE RESPECTIVE CERTIFICATES HAVE BEEN FILED TO THAT EFFECT. THE AS SESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A DEFAULTER US/S 201(1) OF THE ACT I.E. NOT LIAB LE TO DEDUCT TAX ON THOSE PAYMENTS. THERE IS ALSO NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE AS S UCH ON THESE TRANSACTIONS SINCE THE AMOUNTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SHOWN AS INCOME IN THE RECIPIENTS HANDS. FOR THE AY 2008-09, THE AO TREATED THE PAYMENTS AS DIRECT COST I.E. SECTIONS 194AI AND 194C NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE. CASE LAWS SUBMITTED HAVE SPELT OUT THAT VIEWS TAKEN BY THE AO IN ONE YEAR CANNOT BE RE VERSED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS UNLESS THERE IS MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND SITUATION OF THE ASSESSEES AFFAIRS. IN THE APPELLANTS CASE THERE IS NO SUCH C HANGE IN MATERIAL AND SITUATION, THE SAME BUSINESS BEING CARRIED OUT YEAR AFTER YEAR IN THE SAME FASHION. IN THE RESULT, I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT AND HAVE NO HESITATION IN TREATING TH E HIRE CHARGES PAID AS ITEMS FORMING PART OF THE TRADING ACCOUNTS OF THE APP. IT WAS FOR THE AO TO PROVE THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194I IS ATTRACTED FOR INVO KING SECTION 40(A)(IA) AFTER ITA NO.2734/KOL/2013 A.Y.2009-10 ITO WD-41(1) KOL. VS. SH PURNA CH. SAHOO PAGE 4 ASCERTAINING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDIN G THE APPELLANTS CASE. MERE ASSUMPTION IN THE MATTER WILL NOT JUSTIFY HIS ACTION WHICH NEEDS TO BE CORROBORATED WITH CONCLUSIVE PROOF AND REASONING TO MAKE OUT HIS CASE. IN VIEW OF THIS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TO THE TUN E OF 1,90,32,520/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 40(A)(IA) READ W ITH SECTION 194I TREATING THE AMOUNT AS RENTAL PAYMENT IS HEREBY DELETED . THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO FOR RS. 6.10 LAKHS FOR THE REASONS CITED ABOVE. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT EVEN ORAL AGREEM ENTS ARE ALSO CONTRACTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE AC T THEREFORE THE PROVISION OF TDS ARE VERY MUCH ATTRACTED TO THE DISPUTED TRANSACTION S. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 201(1) WAS BROUGHT UNDER THE STAT UTE BY THE FINANCE ACT 2012 AND IT CAME INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2013 AND THE PRESENT CASE PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THEREFORE THE AMENDMENTS A RE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE DISPUTED TRANSACTIONS. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE RELIEF IN THE INSTANT CASE IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS THEN THE ADDITION U/S. 40A(3) SHOULD BE CONFIRMED FOR MAKING THE CASH PAYMENT EXCEEDING FOR 20,000/-. THE LD. DR RELIED IN THE ORDER OF AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED PAP ER BOOK WHICH IS RUNNING FROM PAGES 1 TO 41 AND STATED THAT THE PARTY TO WHOM HIR ING CHARGES WERE PAID HAS SHOWN ITS RECEIPT IN THEIR RESPECTIVE IT RETURN. THE LD. AR I N SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM HAS SUBMITTED THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHARTERED ACCO UNTANT WHICH ARE PLACED ON PAGES 23 TO 32 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AR WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MAJOR PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH CHEQUE AND THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED BY AO U/S 40A(3) I S NOT CORRECT. LD. AR OF ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE BENCH TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH VERIFICATION WHETHER THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN V IOLATION OF THE PROVISION OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR RELIED IN THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(A). ITA NO.2734/KOL/2013 A.Y.2009-10 ITO WD-41(1) KOL. VS. SH PURNA CH. SAHOO PAGE 5 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT TH E AMENDMENT IN SEC. 201(1) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN BROUGHT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 WHICH IS CURATIVE IN NATURE. THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE EFFECTIVE FROM THE RETROSPECTIVE DATE. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE RELY ON THE ORDER OF THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SANTOSH KUMAR KEDIA VS. ITO IN ITA NO.1905/KOL/2014 DATED 04.03.2015 AND THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PORTIO N IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- FROM THE ABOVE, JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PEERLEES HOSPITAX HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE LTD . KOLKATA (SUPRA) IT IS CLEAR THAT HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THAT THE SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AS INSE RTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 IS RETROSPECTIVE OR PROSPECTIVE. 9. IT WOULD THUS APPEAR THAT NO SUBMISSION WAS MADE BEFORE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT THAT THE SECOND PROVISO WAS CURATIVE OR RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMISSION WAS THAT THE SECOND P ROVISO EFFECTIVE FROM APRIL 1, 2013 WENT TO SHOW THAT THE LEGISLATURE WAS NOT I N FAVOUR OF CREATING UNDUE HARDSHIP FOR ASSESSEE AND THAT CLAUSE (IA) SHOULD N OT BE CONSTRUED AS CREATING SUCH HARDSHIP. THE SAID LIMITED SUBMISSION OF THE A SSESSEE WAS DEALT WITH BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN PARAGRAPH 21 OF ITS JUDGM ENT. THE QUESTION BEFORE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT WAS AS TO, WHETHER CLAU SE (IA) ONLY APPLIED TO AMOUNT OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND NOT I N RESPECT OF PAYMENTS ACTUALLY MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR OR NOT? HON' BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT WAS PLEASED TO HOLD THAT CLAUSE (IA) WAS APPLICABLE NOT ONLY IN RESPECT TO OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS BUT ALSO AMOUNTS BUT ALSO AMOUN TS PAID. IN DECIDING TE SAID CONTROVERSY, THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT W AS PLEASED TO REJECT THE SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE OBJE CT BEHIND THE INSERTION OF THE SECOND PROVISO WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 2013 SHOUL D ALSO GUIDE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PARENT CLAUSE (IA). IT WAS AR GUED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN PARAGRAPH 21 OF ITS JUDGMENT DEALT WITH THE LIMITED ARGUMENT MADE ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED IN PARAGRAPHS 5 AND 6 OF THE JUDGMENT AND CANNOT BE READ AS DECIDING THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE SECOND PROV ISO IS CURATIVE AND CLARIFICATORY OF THE LAW FROM ITS INCEPTION. THE QU ESTION WHETHER THE SECOND PROVISO IS CURATIVE AND CLARIFICATORY DID NOT ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION IN CRESCENTS CASE, WAS NOT DEBATED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF IN STATE OF H ARYANA V. RANBIR, (2006) 5 SCC 167, HAS DISCUSSED THE CONCEPT OF THE BITER DIC TUM THUS: A DECISION, IT IS WELL SETTLED, IS AN AUTHORITY FO R WHAT IT DECIDES AND NOT WHAT CAN LOGICALLY BE DEDUCED THEREFROM. THE DISTIN CTION BETWEEN A DICTA AND OBITER IS WELL KNOWN.. OBITER DICTA IS MORE OR LESS PRESUMABLY UNNECESSARY TO THE DECISION. IT MAY BE AN EXPRESSIO N OF A VIEWPOINT OR SENTIMENTS WHICH HAS NO BINDING EFFECT. ITA NO.2734/KOL/2013 A.Y.2009-10 ITO WD-41(1) KOL. VS. SH PURNA CH. SAHOO PAGE 6 10. SECONDLY, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE INSERTION O F SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS CURATIVE AND IT HAS RETROSP ECTIVE EFFECT W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL, 2005, BEING A DATE FROM WHICH SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004. IN VIEW OF THIS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT MATTER NEEDS FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT TH E AO WILL CARRY OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATION IN REGARD TO RELATED PAYMENTS HAVING B EEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE RECIPIENT IN COMPUTATION OF ITS INCOME AND VERI FICATION OF PAYMENT OF TAXES IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOME AND ALSO FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN BY THE RECIPIENT. IN TERM OF THE ABOVE, THE SECOND ASPECT ARGUED BY L D. COUNSEL IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO AND ASSESSEE WILL PROVIDE ALL THE DETAILS IN TERMS OF SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. FROM THE ABOVE PRECEDENTS, WE FIND THAT THE AMENDME NT HAS COME INTO EFFECT WITH RETROSPECTIVE DATE AND AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISION IF THE PAYEE HAS INCLUDED THE RECEIPT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HAS OFFERED FOR TAXES THEN THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS WILL NOT ARISE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEW OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHERE IT WAS HELD T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DEFAULT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS. 8. HOWEVER, COMING TO OTHER ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DR THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A3) OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENT OF MACHINE HIRING CHARGES FOR RS. 71,01,85/-. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE ARE INCLINED TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AS PE R LAW WITH A DIRECTION TO CHECK WHETHER THE PAYMENT TO THE PARTY CONCERNED HAS BEEN MADE IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISION OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE GROUND OF REVENUES A PPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 05/10/2016 SD/- SD/- (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *DKP SR.P.S ! - 05/10/2016 / KOLKATA ITA NO.2734/KOL/2013 A.Y.2009-10 ITO WD-41(1) KOL. VS. SH PURNA CH. SAHOO PAGE 7 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-ITO, WARD-41(1),PODDAR COURT, 4 TH FL,18, RABINDRA SARANI,KOL 2. /RESPONDENT-SRI PURNA CH SAHOO, 43B, BHUPEN BOSE AV ENUE, KOL-4 3. '# % / CONCERNED CIT 4. % - / CIT (A) 5. &'( ))'# , '# / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. (*+ / GUARD FILE. /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER/ , / '#,