M/s. Apeejay Private Limited, Kolkata V. DCIT, Central Circle - III, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 376/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4528 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH TIWARI
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB; 263

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 376/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 376/KOL/ 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 M/S. APEEJAY PRIVATE LIMITED,...................... .....................APPELLANT APEEJAY HOUSE, 15, PARK STREET, KOLKATA-700 016 [PAN : AADCA 1160 F] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,................. ............RESPONDENT CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, KOLKATA, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-700 001 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI MANISH TIWARI, FCA, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAJAT SUBHRA BISWAS, CIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MAY 30, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JULY 8, 2016 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA DATE D 17.01.2011 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY, W HICH FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION O RIGINALLY ON 30.11.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL AND BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB AT RS.95,36,199/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE REVISED R ETURNS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DECLARING THE SAME RESULTS BUT CLAIMIN G HIGHER CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OF TDS. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER S ECTION 143(3) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 26.12.2008, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.39,87,110 /-, WHILE THE BOOK I.T.A. NO. 376/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 2 OF 8 PROFIT WAS COMPUTED AT RS.1,04,49,157/-. THE RECORD OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT CAME TO BE EXAMINED BY THE LD. CIT AND O N SUCH EXAMINATION, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING ERRORS, WHIC H WERE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE:- (I) DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,572/- MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER UNDER SECTION 14A WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 8 D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES; (II) THE PROFIT ON SALE OF EIGHT FLATS WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ACCOUNTS AT RS.3,25,26,172/- WHILE THE SAME WAS SHOWN AT RS.1,96,63,330/- IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN; (III) THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. APEEJAY FINANCE GROUP LIMITED AMOUNTING TO RS.1,51,80,500/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT CREDITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, BUT THE SAME WAS CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE NEXT YEAR AS PRIOR PERIOD INCOME. THE LD. CIT, THEREFORE, ISSUED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW-CAUSE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 263 CONTAINING THE ABOVE ERRORS SHOULD NOT BE REVISED UNDER SECTION 263. 3. IN REPLY, THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF THE PROFIT ARISING FROM SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. APEEJAY FINANCE GROUP LIMITED CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE SUBS EQUENT YEAR:- 1. SECTION 11SJB(2) STIPULATES MANDATE ON EVERY CO MPANY TO PREPARE ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE RELE VANT PREVIOUS YEAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART 11 AND III OF SCHEDULE VI TO COMPANIES ACT, 1956 IN TE RMS OF THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES AND ACCOUNTING STANDARDS LAID DOWN IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 210 OF COMPANIES ACT. I.T.A. NO. 376/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 3 OF 8 2. IT IS A FACT THAT WHILE PREPARING THE PROFIT & L OSS ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2005 TO 31.03.2006, CA PITAL GAIN OF RS.1,51,80,500/- ARISING FROM SALE OF SHARE S WAS OMITTED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. B UT THE SAID CAPITAL GAIN WAS ACCOUNTED FOR DURING THE PERI OD FROM 01.04.2006 TO 31.03.2007 AS PRIOR PERIOD INCOME. 3. ACCOUNTING STANDARD-5, ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE O F CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AUTHORIZES THAT INCOME OR EXP ENSES RELATING TO EARLIER PERIOD MAY BE ADJUSTED IN THE L ATER YEAR AS PRIOR PERIOD INCOME /EXPENSES IF THERE WAS ANY E RROR OR OMISSION OR EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. THE CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,51,80,800/- WHICH ACTUALLY AROSE DURING THE PE RIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 BUT OMITTED TO BE CONSIDERED THROUGH INADVERTENCE WAS THEREFORE ACCOU NTED FOR IN THE IMMEDIATE SUCCEEDING YEAR IN TERMS OF AS -5 AND UNDER THE HEAD 'PRIOR-PERIOD INCOME'. THEREFORE, YO UR VIEW THAT THE COMPANY VIOLATED THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE /ACCOUNTING STANDARD IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 4. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER STATED THAT THE ALLEGATION T HAT THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WERE MISREPRESENTED WITH A VIEW TO REDUCE THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE YEAR MUST BE HELD AS UNFOUNDED UNLESS IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE OMISSION WAS INTENTIONAL. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, YOUR PROPOSITION TO INCREASE THE PROFIT AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2006 FOR COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB BY THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,51,80,500/- I S IN DIRECT CONTRAST WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENTION OF EX PLANATION- 1 ATTACHED TO SECTION 115JB(2) . 4. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTI ON 14A, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT THAT T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,572/- UNDER SECTION 14A WAS MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THE WORKING FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY APPL YING HIS MIND AND THERE WAS NO CASE FOR REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 ON THIS ISSUE. 4.1. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAI N ARISING ON SALE OF FLATS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH S HORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS WORKED OUT AS PER THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS CONTA INED IN SECTION 50(2) I.T.A. NO. 376/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 4 OF 8 OF THE ACT AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER VERIFYING THE RELEVANT DETAILS, THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE. 5. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPE CT OF ALL THE THREE ERRORS ALLEGEDLY POINTED OUT BY HIM IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE LD. CIT. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE TREATMENT OF PROFIT ARISING FROM THE SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. A PEEJAY FINANCE GROUP LIMITED AS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN ACCORDA NCE WITH PART II & III OF SCHEDULE 6 OF THE COMPANIES ACT AND IT WAS THUS A CASE OF MISREPRESENTATION OF ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A VIEW TO REDUCE THE BOOK PROFIT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE HE LD THAT THIS PROFIT WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFI T AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE WAS ERRONEOUS A S WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. AS REGARDS THE DISALLO WANCE UNDER SECTION 14A, THE LD. CIT FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST AS WELL AS THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AR RIVING AT THE FIGURE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A WAS NOT AS PER THE B OOKS AND, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8 D SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT RS.58,13,404/- INSTEAD OF RS.1,572/- AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE WORKING OF SHORT-T ERM CAPITAL GAIN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF FLATS AS PER SECTION 50 WAS WRONG AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT NECES SARY EXAMINATION. HE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) HOLDING THE SAME TO BE ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO COMPLETE THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER AFFORDING PROPER O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 263, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A BY APPLYING RULE 8D AS ALLEGED BY THE L D. CIT IN HIS IMPUGNED I.T.A. NO. 376/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 5 OF 8 ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263. HE CONTENDED THAT T HE SAID RULE IS MADE APPLICABLE ONLY FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND TH E SAME, THEREFORE, WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, I.E. A.Y. 2006-07. AS REGARDS THE OTHER ERROR ALLEGEDLY POINTED OUT BY TH E LD. CIT IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT MAKING ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF PROFIT ARISING FROM THE SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. APEEJAY FINANCE GRO UP LIMITED WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED BEFORE US THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT DURING THE COURSE OF PR OCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DULY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS AND INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT PORTION OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER TO SHOW THAT THE SAME WAS DECIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AFTER SUCH EXAMINATION BY APPLYING HIS MIND. HE ALSO INVITED O UR ATTENTION TO THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FOR THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION TO SHOW THAT THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SH ARES WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, BUT THE SAME WAS SHOW N AS LIABILITY IN THE BALANCE-SHEET. HE CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY AUDITED AND PRESE NTED BEFORE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF TINKERING WITH THE SAME AND THE ADJUSTMENT, IF ANY, TO THE PROFIT REFLECTED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IS ONLY PERMITTED AS GIVEN IN EXPLANATION TO SECTIO N 115JB AS HELD, INTER ALIA, BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF A POLLO TYRES [255 ITR 273]. HE CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS THUS NO MISTAKE I N THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE AND THE REVISION BY THE LD. CIT BY HIS IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE IS AGAINST THE DECISIO N OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF APOLLO TYRES (SUPRA). AS REGARDS THE ERROR ALLEGEDLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT IN THE ORDER O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ACCEPTING THE QUANTUM OF SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE SALE OF EIGHT FLATS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 HAS ALREADY EXAMINED THIS ISSUE AND DEC IDED THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS THUS NO I.T.A. NO. 376/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 6 OF 8 GRIEVANCE LEFT ON THIS ISSUE SO AS TO CHALLENGE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT ON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER. 7. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN NOT CREDITING THE PROFIT ARISING FROM THE SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. APEEJAY FINANCE GROUP LIMITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT AS PER THE COM PANIES ACT AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER PA SSED UNDER SECTION 263 AND THERE WAS THUS A CLEAR ERROR IN THE ORDER O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ADDING THE SAME WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PRO FIT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 115JB. HE CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS TH US A CLEAR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESESE IN NOT INCLUDING THIS A MOUNT IN THE BOOK PROFIT AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE BENEFIT OF SUCH OMISSION. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALS O PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS REGARDS T HE ERROR ALLEGEDLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IN NOT MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A BY APPLYING R ULE 8D, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID RULE NOT BEING APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION, I.E. A.Y. 2006- 07, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY ERROR IN T HE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A BY APPLYING THE SAID RULE. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFO RE US, EVEN THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO RAISE ANY MATERIAL CONTENTION TO DISPUTE THIS POSITION. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO SUC H ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLING FOR REVISION BY THE L D. CIT UNDER SECTION 263. 9. AS REGARDS THE OTHER ERROR ALLEGEDLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ADDING TH E PROFIT ARISING FROM SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. APEEJAY FINANCE GROUP LIMITE D WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT SUCH PROFIT WAS NO T CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE SAME WAS SHOWN AS LIABILITY IN THE BALANCE- SHEET. THE AMOUNT OF I.T.A. NO. 376/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 7 OF 8 SUCH PROFIT, THEREFORE, WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PRO FIT AS REFLECTED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHI CH WAS DULY AUDITED AND PRESENTED IN THE A.G.M. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF APOLLO TYRES (SUPRA), THE PROFIT REFLECTED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, WHICH IS DULY AUDITED AND PRESENTED BEFORE THE A.G.M., CANNOT BE TINKERED WITH EXCEPT BY WAY OF ADJUSTMENTS, WHICH A RE PERMISSIBLE AS PER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115JB. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED P OSITION THAT THE ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ARISING FROM SALE O F SHARES, WHICH WAS NOT CREDITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE-COMPANY IS NOT COVERED BY SUCH EXPLANATION. MOREOVER, IT IS ALSO P ERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THIS ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E THEREON WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON SUCH EXAMINATI ON BY APPLYING HIS MIND, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . HAVING REGARD TO ALL THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH ERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT INCLUDING THE PROFIT ARISING FROM THE SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. APEEJAY FINANCE GROUP LIMITE D IN THE BOOK PROFIT AS ALLEGED BY THE LD. CIT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER CALLIN G FOR REVISION UNDER SECTION 263. AS REGARDS THE THIRD ERROR POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT VERIFYING THE QUANTUM OF SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF FL ATS AS PER THE RELEVANT SECTION 50, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T RAISED ANY ARGUMENT TO DISPUTE OR CHALLENGE THE SAME. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOL D THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT IN SO FAR AS THIS ISSUE IS CONCERNED . 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JULY 8, 2016. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 8 TH DAY OF JULY, 2016 I.T.A. NO. 376/KOL./2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 8 OF 8 COPIES TO : (1) M/S. APEEJAY PRIVATE LIMITED, APEEJAY HOUSE, 15, PARK STREET, KOLKATA-700 016 (2) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, KOLKATA, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-700 001 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), CENTRAL- 1, 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 LAHA/SR. P.S.