Smt. Purnima Dutta., Kolkata V. The I.T.O, Ward-55(4)., Kolkata

ITA 432/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83079 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SOUMITRA CHOW DHURY
• Keywords: Residential status; Search and seizure; Non-deduction of tax; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH A , KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HONBLE S RI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM ] ITA NO.432/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) SMT PURNIMA DUTTA, -VS- I.T.O, WARD-55(4), KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN:ADRPD 5608 D) FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI SOUMITRA CHOWDHURY, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI VIVEK VERMA, JCIT, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.08.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03. 09.2014. ORDER PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST ORDER OF LD. C.I.T.(A)- XXXVI, KOLKATA DATED 21.12.2012 AND PERTAINS TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THIS APPEAL READ AS UN DER :- 1. FOR THAT THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EAL)-XXXVI/KOL HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE A DDITION OF RS.32,10,999.00 (RS.42,81,332.00 RS.10,70,333.00) U/S 40(A)(IA) O F THE I.T.ACT, 19761 ON THE GROUNDS WHICH ARE NOT CORRECT. 2. FOR THAT THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE AL)-XXXVI,/KOL HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN ENHANCING THE AS SESSED INCOME BY A SUM OF RS.22,32,562.00 U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 TO THE TUNE OF RS.23,32,532.00 ON THE GROUNDS WHICH ARE NOT CORRECT. 3. FOR THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADDUCE, M ODIFY AND/OR ALTER THE GROUNDS AT OR BEFORE HEARING. 2.1. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH IS AS UNDER :- 2. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A ) WAS WRONG IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE REOPENING U/S 147 WAS ITSELF BAD-IN- LAW, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 148 DATED 23.12.2011 AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD . CIT(A) IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN QUASHE D. ITA.NO.432/KOL/2013 SMT.PURNIMA DUTTA A.YR.2006-07 2 3. IN THIS CASE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30.12.2008 ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.36,13,450/-. THEREAFTER ASS ESSMENT WAS REOPENED. DURING THE RE-ASSESSMENT AO OBSERVED AS UNDER :- ON SCRUTINY OF THE RECORDS IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS PAID RS.42,81,332/- TO M/S.PARAMOUNT FILMS OF INDIA LTD. DURING THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2005-06 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. AS PER RECORDS, M/S. PARAMOUNT FILMS OF INDIA LTD H AVING P.A.NO.AAACP9517E IS ASSESSED TO TAX IN INTERNATIO NAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-4(2), MUMBAI. THE RESIDENTIAL STATUS OF M/S.PARAMOUNT FIL MS OF INDIA LTD. IS NON-RESIDENT AND IT IS A FOREIGN COMPANY AND IS INCORPORATED IN USA. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961, A PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING TO NON-RESIDENT OR TO A FOREIGN COMPANY SHALL DEDUCT INCOME-TAX THEREON AT THE RATE IN FORCE. AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRE D TO DEDUCT TAX ON GROSS BASIS WHILE MAKING PAYMENT TO M/S.PARAMOUNT FILMS OF INDIA LTD. , A NON-RESIDENT AND FOREIGN COMPANY, AS REQUIRED U/S 195 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO. THE ASSESSEE WAS, THEREFORE, ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT OF RS.42,81,332/- SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED B ACK TO HER TOTAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 U/S 40(A)(I) OF THE I.T.ACT , 1961, FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT SECTION 195(1) OF THE A CT DOES NOT APPLY. HOWEVER AO WAS NOT SATISFIED. HE REFERRED TO THE CONFIRMATION RECEIVED FROM AO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI HAVING JURISDICTION OVER M/S.PARAM OUNT FILMS OF INDIA LTD. AND PROCEEDED TO HOLD AS UNDER :- IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, M/S. PARAMOUNT FILMS OF INDI A LTD., TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.42,81,332/- DURING THE F.Y.2005-06 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE FROM PAYMENT, IS A FOREIGN COMPANY AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, IS APPL ICABLE IN THIS CASE. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO. OUT OF THE ABOVE SUM OF RS.42,81,332/- PAID TO M/S . PARAMOUNT FILMS OF INDIA LTD. AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,70,333/- HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED BY THE A.O. IN THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHICH WAS SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-XXXVI, KOLKATA, VIDE ORDER DATED 26/9/2011. AS SUCH, AN AMOUNT OF RS.32,10,999/- (RS.4,81,332 10,70,333) IS ADDED B ACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AS PER PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR FAILURE ON THE PART OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1961. 4. ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJU DICATING BOTH THE ISSUES ON REOPENING AS WELL AS MERITS OF THE ADDITION OF RS.3 2,10,999/-. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE OF REOPENING. HOWEVER, HE CONF IRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. FURTHERMORE THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE TO TAL PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ITA.NO.432/KOL/2013 SMT.PURNIMA DUTTA A.YR.2006-07 3 TO M/S. PARAMOUNT FILM OF INDIA LTD. WITHIN THE YEA R WAS RS.66.13,884/-. HENCE HE ENHANCED THE ADDITION BY RS.22,32,562/-. AGAINST TH E ABOVE THE ASSESEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE C ONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE OF REOPENING HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A ). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING IN THIS CASE IS CLEARLY BAD IN LAW. HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ISSUE OF PAYMENT TO M/S. PARAMOUNT FILM OF INDIA WAS DULY CONSIDERED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LICENSEE AGREEMENT WITH M/S.PARAMOUNT FILM INDIA LTD. WAS AL SO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. HENCE THE AO WAS FULLY AWARE OF THE NATURE OF THE P AYMENTS MADE TO M/S.PARAMOUNT FILM (INDIA) LTD. THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE A ND ALSO MADE ADDITION IN THIS REGARD. HENCE HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING ON TH E SAME ISSUE OF PAYMENT TO M/S.PARAMOUNT FILM OF INDIA LTD. BY THE AO IS NOT V ALID AS IT IS A CHANGE OF OPINION AND THE AO HAS DULY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF PAYMENT TO M/S.PARAMOUNT FILM OF INDIA LTD. ON THE SAME ISSUE NOW HE CANNOT REOPEN THE ASS ESSMENT TO MAKE FURTHER ADDITION ON FRESH APPLICATION OF MIND. IN THIS REGARD THE LD . COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT ALL MATERIAL FACTS WERE DISCLOSED BE FORE THE AO AND NO MATERIAL HAS COME TO THE POSSESSION OF THE AO. HENCE HE SUBMITTE D THAT REOPENING IS CLEARLY BAD. IN THIS REGARD THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REFE RRED TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN ITAT NO.108 OF 2012, GA NO.1 510 OF 2012 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M/S.KANOI INDUSTRIES (P)LTD. ORDER DATED 15 TH JUNE, 2012 WHEREIN IT HAS HELD AS UNDER :- WHEN ON THE SAME SET OF FACT AND MATERIALS ASSESS ING OFFICER TAKES BONA FIDE DECISION, IT IS NOT OPEN FOR THE SUBSEQUENT OFFICER TO REOPEN THE SAME JUST BECAUSE HE DOES NOT AGREE TO THE DECISION OF THE PREVIOUS OFFICER. IN T HIS CASE THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED THAT A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION BETWEEN TWO OFFICERS IN RE OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND IT IS NOT LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY AND ILLEGALITY IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12 TH JANUARY, 2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL. 5.1. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KELVIN ATOR OF INDIA LTD. 320 ITR 561 ITA.NO.432/KOL/2013 SMT.PURNIMA DUTTA A.YR.2006-07 4 AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF MRS.PARVEEN P.BHARUCHA VS DCIT AND ANOTHER 348 ITR 325. 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WE NOTE THAT IN PARA -2 THE AO HAS DEALT WITH THE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. IN THIS THERE IS A CLEAR MENTION OF PAYMENT TO M/S. PARAMOUNT FILM (INDIA) PVT. LTD. WH EREIN THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.10,59,716/-. THE AO IN THIS REGARD HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSE HAS GIVEN THE NAMES AND ADDRESS DETAILS VERY LATE. THE AO HAS DEPUTED THE INSPECTOR. THE INSPECTOR WITH REGARD TO M/S.PARAMOUNT FILM (INDIA) PVT.LTD. HAS MENTIONED THAT PAYMENTS MADE DURING THE YEAR RS.55,54,177/-. AS A DDRESS IS GIVEN AT MUMBAI. WE COULD NOT VERIFY THE SAME WITHIN ONE DAY.. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEEE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT THE ABOVE DISCREP ANCY/PAYMENT AND RECONCILIATION. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN NOT TO RE CONCILE THE SAME. AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ALL THE AG REEMENTS TO ASCERTAIN THE EXACT PAYMENTS THAT SHE HAS MADE. AO PROCEEDED TO COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT AS UNDER :- NAME AMOUNTS SAID TO HAVE BEEN PAID DURING THE YEAR TOTAL ARJOE ENTERTAINMENT PVT.LTD. 7438 30,139 37,577 BLACK MAGIC MOTION PICTURES 1275 5576 6851 BEYOND REELS 12080 520 12,600 DEEP FILMS 3,20,060 NI L 3,20,060 INNER CIRCLE 7923 * 71463 ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS.63,916/- DIFFERENCE AMOUNT IS RS.71,463-63916 = 7,447 JAGANNATH PRODUCTIONS 134924 4740 1,39,664 TEJASVI ENTERTAINMENT 3790 13,281 17,071 PARAMOUNT FILM (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 10,59,716 TOTAL 5,33,823 THEREFORE, BASED ON THE ABOVE FACTS THE TOTAL DISAL LOWANCE U/S 41(1) IS RS.5,33,823/-. ITA.NO.432/KOL/2013 SMT.PURNIMA DUTTA A.YR.2006-07 5 7.1. FROM THE ABOVE WE NOTE THAT THE AO HAS DULY CO NSIDERED THE PAYMENT TO M./S. PARAMOUNT FILM (INDIA) PVT. LTD. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH PAYMENT WAS MADE TO M/S.P ARAMOUNT FILM (INDIA)LTD. WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. HE WAS ALSO AWARE OF THE PAYMENTS AND BALANCE OUTSTANDING IN THE NAME OF THE SAID COMPANY. HENCE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AO WAS NOT AWARE OF THE NATURE OF PAYMENTS MADE TO THE SAI D PARTY. AO HAS ALSO CONSIDERED AND CHOSEN NOT TO MAKE ANY ADDITION U/S 41(1) OF TH E ACT IN THE NAME OF THE SAID PARTY, DESPITE NOTING THAT THE INSPECTOR HAS REPORTED THAT PAYMENT MADE DURING THE YEAR TO THE SAID PARTY WAS RS.55,54,177/-. THUS AO AFTER CONSCI OUS APPLICATION OF MIND HAS CHOSEN NOT TO MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE. HENCE IT IS CL EAR THAT THE AO HAS APPLIED HIS MIND REGARDING THE NATURE OF PAYMENT AND CHOSEN NOT TO MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE. 7.2. NOW IN THIS BACKGROUND WE NOTE THAT WHILE REOP ENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE SAME GROUND OF PAYMENT TO M/S.PARAMOUNT FILM (INDIA ) PVT. LTD. AO HAS NOTED IN THE REASON OF REOPENING THAT AS PER RECORDS M/S.PARAMOU NT FILM (INDIA)PVT.LTD. HAVING PA NO.AAACP9517E IS ASSESSED TO TAX IN INTERNATIONAL T AXATION 4(2), MUMBAI. AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESEE WAS REQUIRED TO MAK E TDS U/S 195 OF THE ACT WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DONE. THUS WE NOTE THAT NO NEW FAC T HAS COME TO THE NOTICE OF AO FOR REOPENING THE ISSUE OF PAYMENT TO M/S.PARAMOUNT FIL M (INDIA) LTD.. THE NATURE OF PAYMENTS, LICENCEE AGREEMENT MADE WITH THE PARTY WE RE ALL AVAILABLE WITH THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. AO C ONSCIOUSLY MADE A DECISION NOT TO MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE IN THIS REGARD. HENCE ON THE SAME ISSUE WHEN THE REOPENING IS DONE AND THE AO CHANGES HIS OPINION AND COMES TO TH E DECISION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED TDS U/S 195 OF THE ACT, I T IS CLEARLY A CHANGE OF OPINION. IT IS A FRESH APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE SAME SET OF F ACTS. THIS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS HELD BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M/S.KANOI INDUSTRIES (P)LTD. (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE IT WAS EXPOUNDED THAT WHEN ON THE SAME SET OF FACT AND MATERIALS ASSESSI NG OFFICER TAKES BONA FIDE DECISION, IT IS NOT OPEN FOR THE SUBSEQUENT OFFICER TO REOPEN THE SAME JUST BECAUSE HE DOES NOT AGREE TO THE DECISION OF THE PREVIOUS OFFICER. IN T HIS CASE THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED THAT A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION BETWEEN TWO OFFICERS IN RE OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND IT IS NOT LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY AND ILLEGALITY IN THE ITA.NO.432/KOL/2013 SMT.PURNIMA DUTTA A.YR.2006-07 6 IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12 TH JANUARY, 2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL. THUS IT IS NOT OPEN FOR THE OFFICER TO REOPEN THE A SSESSMENT JUST BECAUSE HE DOES NOT AGREE TO THE DECISION OF THE PREVIOUS OFFICER. HENC E REOPENING ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION BETWEEN TWO OFFICERS IS NOT LEGALLY PERMISS IBLE. 7.3. WE MAY ALSO REFER TO THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KEL VINATOR OF INDIA LTD REPORTED IN 320 ITR 561 (SC) HAS HELD AS UNDER :- THEREFORE, POST 1 ST APRIL 1989, POWER TO REOPEN IS MUCH WIDER. HOWEVER , ONE NEEDS TO GIVE A SCHEMATIC INTERPRETATION TO THE WORDS RE ASON TO BELIEVE FAILING WHICH, WE ARE AFRAID, SECTION 147 WOULD GIVE ARBITRARY POWERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN ASSESSMENTS ON THE BASIS OF MERE CHANGE OF OPINION , WHICH CANNOT BE PER SE REASON TO REOPEN. WE MUST ALSO KEEP IN MIND THE CONCEPTUAL DI FFERENCE BETWEEN POWER TO REVIEW AND POWER TO REASSESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW; HE HAS THE POWER TO REASSESS. BUT REASSESSMENT HAS TO BE BASED ON F ULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN PRECONDITIONS AND IF THE CONCEPT OF CHANGE OF OPINION IS REMOVE D, AS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT, THEN, IN THE GARB OF REOPENING THE ASSE SSMENT, REVIEW WOULD TAKE PLACE. ONE MUST TREAT THE CONCEPT OF CHANGE OF OPINION A S AN IN-BUILT TEST TO CHECK ABUSE OF POWER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7.4. SIMILAR WAS EXPOUNDED BY THE HONBLE APEX COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS FORAMER FRANCE 264 ITR 566. IT WAS HELD THAT REASSE SSMENT CANNOT BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. IT WAS HELD THAT L AW IN THIS REGARD WAS SAME BEFORE AND AFTER THE AMENDMENT BY DIRECT TAX LAW AMENDMENT 1987. 7.5. THUS THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO THE ABOVE SUPPO RTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE PAYMENT AND NATURE OF THE PAY MENT TO M/S.PARAMOUNT (INDIA) LTD. AND CHOSEN NOT TO MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE, REOPE NING AND ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS MERELY A CHANGE OF OPINION AND IS NOT PERMISSIBL E. MOREOVER IF IT IS CONSIDERED THAT WHEN THE DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE AND AO CHOSE NOT TO MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCES BY INVOKING PROVISION OF SECTION 195 OF THE ACT, THE R EMEDY LIED WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THIS CANNOT BE MA DE A SUBJECT MATTER OF REOPENING U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND FRESH APPLICATION OF MIND BY ANOTHER ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THESE ITA.NO.432/KOL/2013 SMT.PURNIMA DUTTA A.YR.2006-07 7 CIRCUMSTANCES WE HOLD THAT REOPENING IN THIS CASE I S BAD IN LAW. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE ISSUE OF REOPENING THE MERITS OF THE CA SE IS NOT CONSIDERED. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 03.09.2014. SD/- SD/- [ MAHAVIR SINGH ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 03.09.2014. R.G.(.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SMT.PURNIMA DUTTA, 95, RASH BEHARI AVENUE, KOLKATA- 700029. 2 I.T.O., WARD-55(4), KOLKATA 3 . CIT(A)-XXXVI, KOLKATA 4. CIT - KOLKATA. 5. CIT-DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES