JCIT(OSD), Circle -4, Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s Tongani Tea Co. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 587/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1621 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: D S DAMLE
• Section: 263; 154; 15

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 587/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-2001 PAGE 1 OF 7 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. 587/KOL/ 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-2001 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD),............ ............................APPELLANT CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 -VS.- M/S. TONGANI TEA CO. LIMITED,...................... ....................................RESPONDENT 15B, HEMANTA BASU SARANI, KOLKATA-700 001 [PAN: AAACD 9238 Q] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI R.K. KUREEL, JCIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI D.S. DAMLE, FCA, FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : APRIL 11, 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JUNE 23, 2017 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. .: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KOLKATA DA TED 08.12.2011. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE GIVING RISE TO TH IS APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY, WHICH FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.96,03,528/- UNDER THE NORMAL PRO VISIONS OF THE ACT AND BOOK PROFIT OF RS.64,99,092/- UNDER SECTION 115JA OF THE ACT. IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORIGINALLY COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/147 VIDE AN ORDER DATED 27.12. 2005, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WAS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.10,78,00,000/- WHILE THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JA WAS DETERMINED BY HIM AT RS.8,18,91,021/-. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 143(3)/147, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). MEANWHILE THE I.T.A. NO. 587/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-2001 PAGE 2 OF 7 ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECT ION 143(3)/147 WAS SET ASIDE BY THE LD. CIT VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 AND WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 263, THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE ASSESSMENT DE NOVO WERE MODIFIED BY THE TRIBUNAL. KEEPING IN VIEW THI S DEVELOPMENT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3)/147 WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) HOLDING THE SAME TO BE INFRUCTUOUS VIDE AN ORDER DATED 12.01.2007 ON THE G ROUND THAT THE SAID ASSESSMENT HAD ALREADY BEEN SET ASIDE. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OF FICER COMPLETED A FRESH ASSESSMENT VIDE AN ORDER DATED 28.12.2007 IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 263 AS MODIFIED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE ASS ESSMENT SO COMPLETED, HE COMPUTED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE NORMAL PROVIS IONS OF THE ACT, BUT DID NOT COMPUTE THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JA, ALTHOUGH CERTA IN OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE BY HIM AS REGARDS THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SEC TION 115JA IN THE BODY OF THE FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 28.12.2007 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3)/147, SPECIFI C GROUNDS WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE SAID OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO COMPUTATION OF BO OK PROFIT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER DATED 28.12.2007 PASSED UNDER SECT ION 143(3)/263, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSED THE SAID GROUND TREATING THE SAME TO BE PREMATURE. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DATED 09.04.2008, VIDE AN ORDER DATED 19.11.2008 THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY UNDER SECTION 115JA AT THE SAME FIGURE AS WAS COMPU TED EARLIER IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3)/147 VIDE AN ORDER DATED 27.12. 2005. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER DATED 19.11.2008 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AN APPE AL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND WHILE DISPOSING OF THE SAID APPEAL VIDE AN ORDER DATED 27.03.2009, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE COMP UTATION OF BOOK PROFIT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 115JA WAS BEYOND TH E SCOPE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON 09.04.2008 AS THERE WAS NO SUCH DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS ORDE R DATED 09.04.2008 TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE BOOK PROFIT. THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) IN HIS ORDER DATED 27.03.2009, HOWEVER, RECORDED CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS/FINDINGS ON THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL RELATING TO THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROF IT UNDER SECTION 115JA. THE ASSESSING I.T.A. NO. 587/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-2001 PAGE 3 OF 7 OFFICER AT THIS STAGE APPARENTLY REALIZED THAT THER E WAS PERHAPS A MISTAKE IN NOT COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JA IN THE FR ESH ASSESSMENT MADE VIDE AN ORDER DATED 28.12.2007 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/263 AN D SINCE THE SAID MISTAKE, ACCORDING TO HIM, WAS APPARENT FROM RECORD, A NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 154 WAS ISSUED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE ON 11.09.2009 IN ORDER TO RECTI FY THE SAME. IN REPLY TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 154, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE BEING NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2007 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/263 AS WELL AS IN ANY OF THE S UBSEQUENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, RECTIFICATION PROPOSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 154. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE THAT THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE AN ORDER DATE D 19.11.2008 WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DATED 09.04.2008 HAVING BEEN CANCELLED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 27.03.2009 AND THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BEING IN FORCE HAVING NOT BEEN DISTURBED BY THE TRI BUNAL, PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 154 WERE UNTENABLE. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE COMPUTA TION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JA, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE AND THE SAME, THEREFORE, WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION PE RMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 154. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THESE CONTE NTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2007 PASSED BY HIM UNDER SECTION 143(3)/263 IN NOT COMPUTING TH E BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JA AND THE SAME BEING APPARENT FROM RECORD, WAS RECTIF IABLE UNDER SECTION 154. HE ACCORDINGLY PASSED AN ORDER DATED 17.11.2009 UNDER SECTION 154 COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY UNDER SECTION 115JA FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AT RS.2,42,22,069/-. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 154, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), INVOCATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSE E, INTER ALIA, ON THE GROUND THAT NON- COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JA BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2007 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/263 WA S NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND THE ISSUE RELATING TO COMPUTATION OF BOO K PROFIT BEING A HIGHLY DEBATABLE I.T.A. NO. 587/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-2001 PAGE 4 OF 7 ISSUE WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 154. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDING TO HI M, NON-COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2007 , DESPITE SOME OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HIM ON MERIT RELATING TO THE SAID COMPUTATION IN TH E MAIN BODY OF ORDER WAS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN CORRECTING THE SAID MISTAKE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, ALLOWED THE OTHER CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTE D THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE 60% OF THE PROFIT AS AGRICULTURAL PROFIT WHILE COMP UTING THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 115JA OF THE ACT. HE ALSO DIRECTED THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW SIMILAR RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME. AGGR IEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (1) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE AO TO APPLY RULE 8 TO T HE NET PROFIT AS PER P&L ACCOUNT AND EXCLUDE 60% OF SUCH PROFIT FOR ARRIV ING AT BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JA SINCE PROFIT ON SALE OF FIXED ASSETS IS N OT AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND IN THE ORDER U/S 154 DATED 17.04.2009 THE AO BROUGHT OUT RS.2,20,31,606/- FROM THE PURVIEW OF RULE 8 AND TAXE D UNDER THE CENTRAL INCOME. (2) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE AO TO APPLY RULE 8 TO THE INTEREST INCOME WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT INTEREST INCOME D OES NOT RELATE TO THE ACTIVITY OF GROWING AND MANUFACTURING OF TEA. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO INVOKE RULE 27 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 TO RAISE THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE CHALLENGING THE INVOCATION OF PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 154 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THE I SSUES DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL. TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSEES CASE ON THIS PREL IMINARY ISSUE, HE CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF M ANUFACTURING OF TEA, IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE AND THE RECTIFICATION ON THE SAID ISSUE I S, THEREFORE, BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 154. HE CONTENDED THAT THE FACT THAT AT THR EE DIFFERENT STAGES, THREE DIFFERENT I.T.A. NO. 587/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-2001 PAGE 5 OF 7 FIGURES OF BOOK PROFIT HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE SAID ISSUE IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE ON WH ICH NO RECTIFICATION IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 154. HE CONTENDED THAT EVEN THE CBDT HAS TO ISSUE A CIRCULAR IN THIS CONTEXT CLARIFYING THAT ONLY 40% OF THE PROFIT IS T O BE TAKEN AS BOOK PROFIT IN THE CASE OF TEA MANUFACTURING COMPANY BY TREATING THE BALANCE 6 0% AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO SLUMP SALE AND THE SAME MADE THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT MORE DEBATABLE. 6. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDED THAT THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JA WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED IN THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY DOUBT ABOUT I T. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN FACT, HAD RAISED QUERY DURING THE COURS E OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ABOUT COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT AND THIS ISSUE WAS VERY MUCH UNDER CONSIDERATION GOING BY THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HIM IN THE MAIN B ODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, FINA LLY OMITTED TO COMPUTE THE BOOK PROFIT DUE TO OVERSIGHT AND THIS OMISSION BEING A C LEAR MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, THE SAME WAS RIGHTLY RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER VIDE AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154. HE CONTENDED THAT THE COMPUTATION OF B OOK PROFIT MAY BE A DEBATABLE ISSUE AS SOUGHT TO BE CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS A RIGHT TO DISPUTE THE SAME BY FILING AN APPEAL. 7. IN THE REJOINDER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JA INVOLVES CHARGING AND CO MPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT AND SINCE THE SAME ARE INSEPARABLE PARTS, EVEN IF ONE PART IS DEBATABLE, THE ENTIRE ISSUE BECOMES DEBATABLE AND GOES OUT OF THE RECTIFICATION PERMISS IBLE UNDER SECTION 154. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE PRELIMINARY ISS UE RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING ON RULE 27 OF THE APPELLATE TRI BUNAL RULES, 1963 CHALLENGING THE INVOCATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY UNDER SECTI ON 115JA WAS NOT COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2007 PAS SED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/263 AND BY TREATING SUCH NON-COMPUTATION AS THE MISTAKE APP ARENT FROM RECORD, THE SAME WAS I.T.A. NO. 587/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-2001 PAGE 6 OF 7 RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 15 4 BY COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 115JA. AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, THE ISSUE OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JA INVOLVES CHARGING AS WELL AS COMPUTATION AND THESE TWO PARTS BEING INSEPARABLE, THEY CANNOT BE SEEN IN ISOLATION. EVEN IF ONE OF THESE TWO PARTS IS DEBATABLE, THE EN TIRE ISSUE RELATING TO BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JA BECOMES DEBATABLE. IN SO FAR AS THE F IRST PART IS CONCERNED, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT GOING BY THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN THE MAIN BODY OF HIS ORDER, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF B OOK PROFIT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JA WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED ALTERNATI VELY AND THE FAILURE OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DO SO WAS A MI STAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. HOWEVER, THE COMPUTATION OF SUCH BOOK PROFIT IN THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF TEA WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE KEEPING IN VIEW THE APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES , 1962 AS WELL AS THE INVOLVEMENT OF SLUMP SALE AND THIS POSITION IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FRO M THE FACT THAT THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AT THREE DIFFERENT STAGES WAS WORK ED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THREE DIFFERENT FIGURES. THE COMPUTATION PART OF BO OK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JA IN SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION IS CONCERNED THUS WAS HIGHLY DEBATABLE ISSUE, RECTIFICATION ON WHICH WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 154. WE, THEREFORE, FIND MERIT IN THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAIS ED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID PRELIMINARY ISSUE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JUNE 23, 2017 . SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER KOLKATA, THE 23 RD DAY OF JUNE, 2017 COPIES TO : (1) JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 I.T.A. NO. 587/KOL./2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-2001 PAGE 7 OF 7 (2) M/S. TONGANI TEA CO. LIMITED, 15B, HEMANTA BASU SARANI, KOLKATA-700 001 (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KOLK ATA; (5) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,KOLKAT A (6) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (7) GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.