Manju Devi Baid, Kolkata V. I.T.O.,Ward-37(2), Kolkata

ITA 394/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7308 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: LATA GOYAL ACA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained cash credit; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(1); 68; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 393 & 394/KOL/2019 AS SESSMENT YEARS: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 MANJU DEVI BAID 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C(SMC) BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ & HZ) I.T.A. NOS. 393 & 394/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 MANJU DEVI BAID,................................... .....................................APPELLANT GD-272, SECTOR-III, SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKATA-700106 [PAN: AECPB9580L] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ...................................RESPONDENT WARD-37(2), KOLKATA, 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-700 001 APPEARANCES BY: SMT. LATA GOYAL, ACA, FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI DEBASISH LAHIRI, ADDL. CIT, SR. D.R , FOR THE RESPONDEN T DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : AUGUST 19, 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 18, 2019 O R D E R THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 11, KOLKATA, BOTH DATED 27.11.2018 AND SINCE THE CO MMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED THEREIN, THE SAME HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L, WHO FILED HER RETURNS OF INCOME FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDER ATION REGULARLY ON 27.07.2009 AND 28.07.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,48,800/- AND RS.4,21,450/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2010 -11 RESPECTIVELY. ALTHOUGH THE SAID RETURNS WERE INITIALLY PROCESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE ASSESSMENTS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY REOPENED BY HIM ON TH E BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DDIT(INV.), TECH.-II, KOL KATA THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS BENEFICIARY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TAKEN FROM ONE SHRI PRAVEN ITA NOS. 393 & 394/KOL/2019 AS SESSMENT YEARS: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 MANJU DEVI BAID 2 KUMAR JAIN FOR BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS.3,90,665/- AND RS.3,22,750/- IN A.Y. 2009-10 AND 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY. ACCORDINGLY NOTIC ES UNDER SECTION 148 WERE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR BOTH THE Y EARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, A LETTER WAS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE RETURNS ORIGINALLY FILED BY HIM ON 27.07.2009 AND 28.07.2010 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURNS FILED IN RESPO NSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND 2010- 11 RESPECTIVELY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE PRODUCED THE COPIES OF THREE PURCHASE BILLS ISSUED BY SHRI PRAVE N KUMAR JAIN FOR THE PURCHASE OF DIAMONDS AND ALSO PRODUCED HER BANK ACC OUNT SHOWING THAT THE PAYMENTS AGAINST THE SAID PURCHASES WERE MADE B Y ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. SHE ALSO PRODUCED CERTAIN LOOSE SHEETS GIV ING THE DETAILS OF CORRESPONDING SALES OF DIAMONDS SUCH AS DATE OF SAL E, WEIGHT, ITEM, RATE, ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE SAID SALE S, HOWEVER, WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH AND IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAI LS REGARDING THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE SAID SALES WERE MADE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAID SALES WAS NOT VERIFIAB LE. HE ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE SALES OF RS.4,97,000/- AND RS.4,13,000/ - CLAIMED TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF PURCHASES FROM PRAVEN KUMAR JAIN AS UNPROVED AND THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH SALES WERE ADDED BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 BY TREATING THE SAME AS U NEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 147/143(3) FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION VIDE ORDERS DATED 25. 10.2016. 3. AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER UNDER SECTION 147/143(3) FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, APPEALS WERE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S) CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE SAID ASSESSMENTS AS WELL AS DISPUTI NG THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ITS TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 68 BY TREATING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF DIAMONDS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH C REDITS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO UPHOLD THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENTS MADE BY THE ITA NOS. 393 & 394/KOL/2019 AS SESSMENT YEARS: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 MANJU DEVI BAID 3 ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 147/143(3) FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER S ECTION 68 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. IN GROUND NO. 1, WHICH IS IDENTICAL FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A PRELIMINAR Y COMMON ISSUE CHALLENGING THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 68 ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENTS MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 147/143(3) OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AS FURNISHED AT PAGE NO. 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND POINTED OUT THAT T HE ASSESSMENTS FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE REOPENED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SHRI PRAVEN KUMAR JAIN. SHE CONTENDED THAT NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES WAS MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENTS COM PLETED UNDER SECTION 147/143(3) OF THE ACT FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONS IDERATION. SHE CONTENDED THAT THE SAID PURCHASES WERE ACTUALLY ACC EPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS GENUINE AND WHAT WAS DOUBTED O R DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE THE CORRESPONDING SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH WERE HELD TO BE UNVERIFIABLE/ UNPROVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE PROCEEDS OF THE SAME WERE ADDED BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. SHE CONTENDED THAT THE INCOME, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER, HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES AND WHICH INITIALLY FORMED A REASON TO BELIEVE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENTS THUS WAS NOT ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSES SMENTS MADE UNDER ITA NOS. 393 & 394/KOL/2019 AS SESSMENT YEARS: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 MANJU DEVI BAID 4 SECTION 147/143(3) AND SINCE THE ADDITIONS WERE MAD E BY HIM ON A DIFFERENT ISSUE BY TREATING THE SALE PROCEEDS AS UN EXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 WITHOUT ISSUING ANY FRESH NOTICE U NDER SECTION 148, THE SAID ADDITIONS ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN SUPPO RT OF THIS CONTENTION, SHE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- JET AIRWAYS INDIA LIMITED [331 ITR 236] A ND THAT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RANBAXY LABORATORIE S LIMITED VS.- CIT [336 ITR 136]. 6. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH NO ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOU NT OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES, ADDITION MADE BY HIM UNDER SECTION 68 IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO SUCH PURCHASES. HE CONTENDED THAT THE AD DITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT O F UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 THUS WAS NOT ON A SEPARATE ISSUE AND SINCE IT WAS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES ON THE BASIS OF WHICH BELIEF OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WAS ENTERTAINE D BY HIM, THE SAID ADDITION IS SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FA CTS OF THE CASES. HE CONTENDED THAT THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE SAID ADDITION WAS LOGICAL AND SINCE THE SAME WAS RELATED TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE REASONS RECORDED, THE ADDIT ION MADE BY HIM ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH WAS NOT SEPARATE, IS LIABLE TO BE SUST AINED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAYANT SECURITY & FINANCE LIMI TED [91 TAXMANN.COM 181]. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSMENTS FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE REOPENE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER RECORDING THE FOLLOWING IDENTICAL REA SONS:- INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DDIT(INV), TECH-II, KOLK ATA VIDE LETTER NO. DGIT(INV.)/KOL/TECH-II/19A/2014- 15/2826 DATED 12.08.2014, IT IS REVEALED THAT DURIN G ITA NOS. 393 & 394/KOL/2019 AS SESSMENT YEARS: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 MANJU DEVI BAID 5 SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF PRAVEN KR. JAIN, CERTAIN BENEFICIARIES OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WERE FOUND I N WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES THR OUGH BOGUS SALES/PURCHASE. THE ASSESSEE MADE TRANSACTION S THROUGH BOGUS CONCERN OPERATED THE SAID PRAVEEN KUM AR JAIN AS PER THE FOLLOWING DETAILS: NAME OF THE BENEFICIARIES ASST. YEAR NAME OF TRANSACTION AMOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS MANJU DEVI BAIN 2009- 10 SAL 3,90,665/- -DO- 2010- 11 SAL 1,10,000/- -DO- 2010- 11 SAL 2,12,750/- AS PER THE FINDINGS OF DGIT(INV.), MUMBAI, SHRI PRA VIN KUMAR JAIN PROVIDED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO VARIOU S BENEFICIARIES, THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIA RIES. SINCE THE TRANSACTIONS ITSELF HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE BOGUS AS PER INFORMATION OF DGIT(INV.), THE ASSESSEE APPE ARS TO HAVE ROUTED HER UNDISCLOSED MONEY THROUGH BOGUS TRANSACTIONS INTO HER BOOKS. I HAVE THEREFORE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ASSESSEE HA D INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,90,665/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2009-1- AND THE PERIOD ALREADY ELAPSED FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 IS BEYON D FOUR YEARS. HENCE I SEEK KIND APPROVAL OF LD. PR. CIT-13 , KOLKATA, FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 TO THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE AY 2009-10/ NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, TO BE ISSUED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF PR. CIT-13, KOLKATA. 8. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENTS FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION THUS WERE REOPENED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER HAVING FORMED THE BE LIEF ABOUT THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES RECEIVED IN THE FORM OF BOGUS PURCHASES FRO M SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN. IN THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 14 7/143(3) FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH PURCHASES, HOWEVER, WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER HAVING FOUND THAT THE PAYMENTS AGAINST THE SAID PURCHASES WERE MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THERE WERE CORRESPONDING SALES MADE BY THE ITA NOS. 393 & 394/KOL/2019 AS SESSMENT YEARS: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 MANJU DEVI BAID 6 ASSESSEE OUT OF THE SAID PURCHASES. HE, HOWEVER, DO UBTED THE CORRESPONDING SALES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE SINCE THE SAME, ACCORDING TO HIM, WERE UNVERIFIABLE IN THE AB SENCE OF DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING NAMES AND ADDRE SSES OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE SAME WERE MADE. HE ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH AS UNEXPLAI NED CASH CREDITS AND MADE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68. IT IS THUS CLEAR TH AT NO ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENTS MADE UNDER SECTION 147/143(3) FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCH ASES, WHICH FORMED THE BASIS OF REOPENING AND THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENT ISSUE BY TREATING THE PROCEEDS OF THE CORRESPONDING SALES MADE OUT OF SUCH PURCHASES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SEC TION 68. 9. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- JET AIRWAYS INDIA LIMIT ED (SUPRA) CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS HELD BY TH E HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THAT IF AFTER ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOLDS THAT THE INCOME WHICH HE HAS INITIALLY FORMED A REASON TO BELIEVE H AD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HAS AS A MATTER OF FACT NOT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT IS NOT OPEN TO HIM INDEPENDENTLY TO ASSESS SOME OTHER INCOME AND IF HE INTENDS TO DO SO, A FRESH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WOULD BE NECESSARY, THE LEGALITY OF WHICH WOULD BE TESTED IN THE EVENT OF A CHALLENGE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN ANOTHER CASE OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED VS.- CIT (SUP RA) CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH CO URT HAS HELD THAT THE LEGISLATURE COULD NOT BE PRESUMED TO HAVE INTENDED TO GIVE BLANKET POWERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ON ASSUMING ES CAPED INCOME, HE WOULD KEEP ON MAKING ROVING INQUIRY AND THEREBY INC LUDING DIFFERENT ITEMS OF INCOME NOT CONNECTED OR RELATED WITH THE R EASONS TO BELIEVE, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE ASSUMED JURISDICTION. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT FOR EVERY NEW ISSUE COMING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF ESCAPE D INCOME, AND WHICH ITA NOS. 393 & 394/KOL/2019 AS SESSMENT YEARS: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 MANJU DEVI BAID 7 HE INTENDS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, HE WOULD BE REQUIR ED TO ISSUE A FRESH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. 10. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER UNDER SECTION 68 IN THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 147/143( 3) CANNOT BE SAID TO BE CONNECTED OR RELATED WITH THE REASONS RECORDED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN THE BELIEF OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WAS FORMED BY HIM ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES MADE BY THE AS SESSEE, WHICH WERE FINALLY ACCEPTED BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENTS AS GENUI NE. I, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. D.R. B Y RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JA YANT SECURITY & FINANCE LIMITED (SUPRA), WHICH WAS RENDERED ENTIRELY IN A D IFFERENT CONTEXT. IN MY OPINION, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JET AIRWAYS INDIA LIMITED AND OF HONBLE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED IS SQUARELY AP PLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND APPLYING THE SAME, I HOLD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE IN THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 147/143(3) FOR BOTH THE YEA RS UNDER CONSIDERATION ON A DIFFERENT ISSUE, WHICH DID NOT F ORM THE BASIS OF BELIEF ENTERTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER THE REA SONS RECORDED, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFI ED IN SUSTAINING THE SAME. I, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 68 IN BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALLOW THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON OCTOBER 18, 2019. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) VICE-PRESIDENT (KOLKATA & HYDERABAD ZONES) KOLKATA, THE 18 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 ITA NOS. 393 & 394/KOL/2019 AS SESSMENT YEARS: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 MANJU DEVI BAID 8 COPIES TO : (1) SMT. MANJU DEVI BAID, GD-272, SECTOR-III, SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKATA-700106 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-37(2), KOLKATA, 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-700 001 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11, KOLK ATA, (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA- , KOLKATA; (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.