M/s Tulip International, Kolkata V. ITO, WD-33(3), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 369/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99701 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Set Aside
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD GHAYAS UDDIN
• Assessee Lawyers: K M ROY
• Keywords: Application of stay
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO . 369 / KOL ./20 1 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10 - 20 11 PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 369 / KOL / 20 1 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 - 20 11 TULIP INTERNATIONAL,............................ ...... . .. ........ . . APPELLANT 1, LINDSAY STREET, KOLLKATA - 700 087 [PAN: AA B F T 9009 R ] - VS. - INCOME T AX OFFICER,.............................. , ................... . RESPONDE NT WARD - 33(3), KOLKATA APPEARANCES BY: S HRI K.M. ROY , FCA , FOR THE ASSES SEE MD. GHAYAS UDDIN , J CIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : AUGUST 11 , 2 01 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : AUGUST 13 , 201 5 O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA : TH IS A PPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER O F LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 9 , KOLKATA D ATED 30 . 0 1 .20 1 5 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 11. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESESE , A PARTNERSHIP FIRM , WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF CUSTOMS CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENCY ON BEHALF OF IMPORT ERS AND EXPORTERS. IT HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS OF RS.85,578/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED CREDIT OF TDS OF RS.2,369/ - . FROM THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS OF THE FIRM FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009 - 10 WAS RS.12,74,780/ - , WHICH INCLUDED COMMISSION OF RS.14,500/ - , GROSS BILL OF RS.10,68,364/ - , SERVICE CHARGES OF RS.1,40,700/ - AND SERVICE TAX OF RS.51,216/ - . FROM THE 26AS STATEMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009 - 10, THE ASSESSING OF FICER NOTICED THAT GROSS RECEIPT OF THE FIRM DURING THE YEAR WAS RS.2,31,54,644/ - AND TDS THEREON WAS RS.5,82,192/ - . AT PAGES 2 & 3 I.T.A. NO . 369 / KOL ./20 1 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10 - 20 11 PAGE 2 OF 7 OF HIS ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES WITH WHOM THE TRANSACTIONS HAD BEEN ENTERED INTO AND FROM WHOM THE SERVICE CHARGES, PROFESSIONAL FEES AND COMMISSION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH TAN. HE, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE RECEIPTS , RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN ITS RETURN. NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) WERE ISSUED TO DIFFERENT PARTIES AND THEY CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS AND TDS DEDUCTED THEREON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTICE D THAT BANK ACCOUNTS WERE OPENED USING THE PAN OF THE FIRM (AABFT9009R) WITH SARASWAT COOPERATIVE BANK, CAMAC BHUNDER BRANCH AT MUMBAI BEARING ACCOUNT NO. 143100100000165 AND UNION BANK OF INDIA, BHAT BAZAR BRANCH, MUMBAI BEARING ACCOUNT NO. 3 15901010036770 AND ALL THE TRAN SACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT FROM THESE BANKS. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE UTILIZED THESE UN DISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS AT MUMBAI FOR SMOOTH TRANSACTION OF ITS CLEARING AND FORWARDING BUSINESS. ON FURTHER VERIFICATION FROM THE BANKS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND IT WAS FURTHER FOUND THAT THESE ACCOUNTS WERE OPENED IN THE NAME OF ONE MR. MANISH KISHORILAL CHATWANI. IT WAS NOTICED THAT MR. CHATWANI HAD FURNISHED THE COPY OF PAN CARD OF THE ASSESSEE - FIRM TO GET THE ACCOUNT OPENED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) TO MR. CHETWAN I , WHO IN HIS REPLY DATED 13.10.2012 , CLEARLY STATED AS UNDER: - I AM NOT PARTNER OR PROPRIETOR OF THIS COMPANY. I AM ONLY WORKING OF ABOVE COMPANY. I DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT OF THIS ACCOUNT OF THIS COMPANY. I AM ONLY DOING THE JOB OF OUTFIELD STAFF. CO MPANY BOSS WAS MR. BASANT BASU. YOU HAVE ANY QUERY YOU CAN ASK MR. BASANT BASU . 3. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF MR. MANISH KISHORILAL CHATWANI, SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH PANDEY APPEARED AND PRODUCED COPY OF THE P OWER OF A TTORNEY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE - FIRM TO MANISH CHETWANI AND THE LETTER OF EMPLOYMENT. THESE LETTERS HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FROM THESE LETTERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE FIRM IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND , ACCORDINGLY , HE MAD E THE ADDITION OF RS.2,30,35,767.10 , AFTER I.T.A. NO . 369 / KOL ./20 1 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10 - 20 11 PAGE 3 OF 7 EXCLUDING THE RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD. OF RS.66,805/ - AND RS.1,19,218/ - ON ACCOUNT OF MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED TOTALLING TO RS.1,86,023/ - . 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE PRIMARILY CONTESTED THE ADDITION BEING MADE IN ITS HAND, THOUGH THE ACCOUNTS WERE IN THE NAME OF MR. MANISH CHATWANI. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - L. FOR THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30.0L.2015 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS, UNREASONABLE, UNLAWFUL, AND PERVERSE AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT A PPLICATION OF MIND. 2. FOR THAT THE LEARNED THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) - 9, KOLKATA HAS ARBITRARILY AND BASELESSLY COMPLETED THE APPELLATE ORDER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL WHICH IS BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL, WHIMSICAL AND AGAINST THE EQUITY AND NATURA L JUSTICE. 3. FOR THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) - 9, KOLKATA IS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPT OF RS.2,31,54,644 EXCLUDING THE SUM OF RS. 1,04,503.00 AS INCOME ON THE BASIS OF APPEARING IN FORM NO.26AS. STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS WHICH IS UNWARRANTED AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHEREAS YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITTED ALL THE DOCUMENTS BUT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY DID NOT GIVE ANY CONFRONTATION FOR ANY CLARIFICATION. 4. F OR THAT THE LEARNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY ADMITTED THAT THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS WERE OPENED WITH SARASWAT CO - OPERATIVE BANK, CARNAC BHUNDER BRANCH AT MUMBAI VIDE ACCOUNT NO. 143100100000165 AND THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, BHAT BAZAR BRANCH, MUMBAI VIDE ACCOUNT NO . 315901010036770 IN THE NAME OF SHRI MINISH KISHORLAL CHATWANI OF MUMBAI, SHREE GANESH KARUPA HOUSING SOCIETY, B - 20, 1/3 SECTOR NO. 10, AIROLI, NAVI MUMBAI 400708 BY USING THE PAN CARD OF THE APPELLANT FIRM WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTNERS AND BOTH T HE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE USED DEPOSITING THE RECEIPTS OF RS.2,31,54,644.00. I.T.A. NO . 369 / KOL ./20 1 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10 - 20 11 PAGE 4 OF 7 SHRI MANISH KISHORLAL CHATWANI ADMITTED THAT HE ACTED AND CARRIED OUT THE BUSINESS WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF APPELLANT AND IN THIS RESPECT, A WRITTEN SUBMISSION SIGNED BY SHRI MANISH K C HATAWANI WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) - 9 AND WHEREAS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY DID NOT CONSIDER WHILE PASSING THE APPELLATE ORDER WHICH IS UNWARRANTED AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 5. FOR THAT THE LEARNED APPELLA TE AUTHORITY SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED BUSINESS PRACTICE OF GIVING THE POWER OF ATTORNEY ONLY FOR DEALING CUSTOM MATTER TO MR. MANISH KUMAR CHATWANI AND MR. CHATWANI CHEATED THE FIRM BY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF CONFIDENCE OF THE PARTNERS, WHY THE FIRM WILL FALL UN DER THE TAX LIABILITY UNDER THE HEAD 'UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS' 6. THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NO LIABILITY IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED RECEIPT OF RS.2,31,54,644/ - AND CONSEQUENT INCOME THERE ON AS SHRI MANISH K CHATANI DECLARES BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT THAT THE RECEIPTS IN MUMBAI JURISDICTION ARE THE FRUITS OF HIS EFFORT AND THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE SAME RECEIPTS ARE ABSOLUTELY HIS INCOME AND SHOULD BE TAXED IN HIS HANDS. ANY PENALTY OR INTEREST OR OTHER PENAL PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SHRI MANISH K CHATANI. THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY BUT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY DID NOT CONSIDER THEM. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONFIRMED THE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPT OF RS.2 ,31,54,644 AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IS UNJUST. 7. THE IMPOSITION OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 2348 & 234C OF INCOME TAX ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE AS THERE IS NO TAX LIABILITY ON THE PART OF YOUR APPELLANT. 8. FOR THAT THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT ON THE PART OF YOUR APPELLANT. AS SUCH INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S. 271(L)(C) IS BAD IN LAW. 9. FOR THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY DID NOT GIVE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT OF BEING HEARD BEFORE PASSING THE APPELLATE ORDER. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL: - 1. FOR THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,31,54,644/ - BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DO NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME SHOULD BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF MR. MAN ISH K. CHATWANI WHO IS ASSESSED BY THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 22(3) - 2, MUMBAI IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. I.T.A. NO . 369 / KOL ./20 1 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10 - 20 11 PAGE 5 OF 7 2. FOR THAT, ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, EVEN ASSUMING BUT NOT ADMITTING THAT THE TURNOVER RELATING TO RS. 2,31,54,644/ - BE LONGS TO THE APPELLANT, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,31,54,644/ - CANNOT BE TAXED AND ONLY THE NET PROFIT ARISING THEREFROM CAN BE ADDED TO THE INCOME FOLLOWING THE CASE OF C.I.T VERSUS S.M. OMER (1993) 201 ITR 608 (CAL) AND C.I.T VERSUS BALCHAND AJIT KUMAR ( 2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP) ON THE FACTS STATED IN THE APPEAL, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS MAY BE ACCEPTED AND THE DECISION MAY BE GIVEN ON THE BASIS OF THE GROUNDS AND THE ARGUMENTS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE YOUR HONOUR. 7 . LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS EFFECTIVELY PRESSED GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US , LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT , IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS COULD NOT BE TAXED AND PRAYED THAT THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND DETERMINE THE NET PROFIT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 8 . LD. D.R. FOR THE R EVENUE REFERRED TO PAGE 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND POINTED OUT THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS UNDER: - SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY CLAIM THAT IT HAD INCURRED ANY ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE OVER AND ABOVE WHAT HAS BEEN CLAIMED OF ITS ACCOUNTS IN ARRIVING AT ITS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX, THE ENTIRE UN REPORTED RECEIPTS APPEARING IN THE 26AS STATEMENT IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 9 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD GRANTED STAY OF DEMAND VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 15.05.2015 IN S.P. NO 17/KOL/2015 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PETITION HAS REFERRED TO THIS FACT IN PARA 14, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 14. YOUR PETITIONER STATES THAT THE LEARNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY ADMITTED THAT THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS WERE OPENED WITH SARASWAT CO - OPERATIVE BANK, CAMAC BHUNDER BRANCH AT MUMBAI VIDE ACCOUNT NO. 143100100000165 AND THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, BHAT BAZAR BRANCH, MUMBAI VIDE ACCOUNT NO. 315901010036770 IN THE NAME OF SHRI MINISH KISHORLAL CHATWANI OF MUMBAI. S HREE GANESH KARUPA HOUSING SOCIETY, B - I.T.A. NO . 369 / KOL ./20 1 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10 - 20 11 PAGE 6 OF 7 20, 113 SECTOR NO. 10, AIROLI, NAVI MUMBAI 400 708 BY USING THE PAN CARD OF THE APPELLANT FIRM WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTNERS AND BOTH THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE USEDDEPOSITING THE RECEIPTS OF RS.2,31 ,54,644.00. SH RI MANISH KISHORLAL CHATWANI ADMITTED THAT HE ACTED AND CARRIED OUT THE BUSINESS WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF APPELLANT AND IN THIS RESPECT, A WRITTEN SUBMISSION SIGNED BY SHRI MANISH K CHATAWANI WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) - 9 AND WHEREAS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY DID NOT CONSIDER WHILE PASSING THE APPELLATE ORDER WHICH IS UNWARRANTED AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI MANISH K. CHATWANI PLACED IN ASSE SSEE S PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 47 WHEREIN, ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNT BELONGS TO HIM. THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 47 AND 48 OF ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI MANISH K . CHATWANI DATED 28.06.2013. WE ARE NOT SURE ABOUT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE COPY OF THIS AFFIDAVIT. HENCE, THIS AFFIDAVIT NEEDS VERIFICATION. ACCORDINGLY, LD. DR WAS ASKED TO VERIFY THIS AFFIDAVIT OR THE AUTHENTICITY OF THIS AFFIDAVIT. THE LD. SR. DR IS ALS O ASKED TO SEND THIS AFFIDAVIT TO ITO, WARD 22(3)2, MUMBAI AND HE CAN CALL FOR SHRI MANISH K. CHATWANI FOR VERIFICATION WHETHER HE ADMITS THIS AMOUNT BELONGS TO HIM OR NOT AND SEND THE REPORT TO THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN A MONTH S TIME FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT O F THIS ORDER . 10. IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY SHRI MANISH K. CHETWANI , CONTAINED IN PAGE 47 OF THE PAPER BOOK , PARA 3 REFERS AS UNDER: - I MANISH CHETWANI STATE THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009 - 10 I HAVE OPERATED THREE BANK ACCOUNTS ON BEHALF OF THE FIR M WITHOUT INTIMATING THE PARTNER OF FIRM ON THE STRENGTH OF POWER OF ATTORNEY GIVEN BY THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM. BANK NAME ACCOUNT NUMBER THE SARASWAT CO - OP. BANK, CARNAC BUNDER BRANCH 143100100000165 UNION BANK OF INDIA, BHAT BAZAR BRANCH 315901010036770 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, SANPADA, MUMBAI 1502022000000504 EARLIER THE ASSESSEE WAS CONTESTING THAT THE RECEIPTS DID NOT BELONG TO IT. HOWEVER, NOW LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY STATED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS UP ALL THE RECEIPTS AND , THEREFORE, NOW THE ADDITION HAS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF AS SESSEE IN RESPECT OF INCOME EMBEDDED IN THESE RECEIPTS. WE FIND THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS , IN WHICH THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED , HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE I.T.A. NO . 369 / KOL ./20 1 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10 - 20 11 PAGE 7 OF 7 ASSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 11 . LD. D.R. HAS RELIED ON PAGE 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE CONTENTS HA D BEEN PRODUCED EARLIER IN WHICH IT WA S STATED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY CLAIM THAT IT HAD INCURRED ANY ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE OVER AND ABOVE WHAT HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN THE ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF MANISH K. CHETWANI IT WA S THE SUBMISSION THAT HE HAD INCURRED EXPENSES FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNTS. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NECESSARY THAT BEFORE ARRIVING AT ANY CONCLUSION, THESE THREE BANK ACCOUNTS IN WHICH THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED , ARE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO ARRIVE AT PROPER CONCLUSION . WE , ACCORDINGLY , SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF BANK ACCOUNTS TO DETERMINE THE INCOME ARISING FROM THE RECEIPTS CREDITED IN THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNTS. 1 2 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE ASSESSE E IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH AUGUST , 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - MAHAVIR SINGH S.V. MEHROTRA ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 13 TH D AY OF AUGUST , 201 5 COPIES TO : (1) TULIP INTERNATIONAL, 1, LINDSAY STREET, KOLLKATA - 700 087 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 33(3), KOLKATA (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - 9 , KOLKATA (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - , KOLKATA ( 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY ORDER A SSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBU NAL KOLKATA B ENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S .