M/s Anil Kumar Agarwal., Siliguri V. D.C.I.T.Cir - 1,Siliguri, Siliguri

ITA 6/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0502 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Set Aside
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 139; 201(1)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO . 0 6 / KOL ./20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 1 OF 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 0 6 / KOL / 20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 20 10 M/S. ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL,........................... ........ . APPELLANT SISHIR BHADURI SARANI, KHUDIRAM PALLY, SILIGURI - 734 001 [PAN : AAOFA 1848 C] - VS. - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX,..... ....... ..... . RESPONDE NT CIRCLE - I, SILIGURI , MATIGARA, SILIGURI - 734 010 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUBASH AGAR WAL, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI KANHIYA LAL KANAK , JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MAY 27 , 2 01 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JUNE 09 , 201 5 O R D E R PER P.K. BANSAL : THIS A PPEAL HA S BEEN FILED BY THE AS SESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , SILIGURI D ATED 2 4 . 09 .20 1 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ( 1 ) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.40,63,000/ - OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.47,68,000/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT CHARGES BY WRONGLY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA). ( 2 ) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS A ND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.47,68,000/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT CHARGES. 2. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THESE GROUNDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HA D CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS.89,86,129/ - , OUT OF I.T.A. NO . 0 6 / KOL ./20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 2 OF 6 WHICH ASSESSEE HA D PAID TRANSPORTATION CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.47,68,000/ - TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES , WHICH WERE IN EXCESS OF RS.50,000/ - DURING THE YEAR : - 1. HARI SHANKAR SINGH (VEHICLE NO. WB - 73/9866) RS.4,56,000/ - 2. PAPU BASNET KALINGPONG ROAD, KALIJHORA (VEHICLE NO.WB - 71/2638) RS.5,22.000/ - 3. SHAMBHU AGARWAL, KHALPARA, SILIGURI (VEHICLE NO. WB - 73/1689) RS.4,58,000/ - 4. SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL, KHALPARA SILIGURI, (VEHICLE NO. WB - 73/1121) RS.4,54,000/ - 5. SMT. GIRA RIZAL, EAST MAIN ROAD, KALIMPONG, (VEHICLE NO. WB - 78/0309) RS.4,64,000/ - 6. MAHESH PRASAD SHARMA, THAKURBARI, KALIMPONG, (VEHICLE NO. WB - 73A/1814) RS.4,94,000/ - 7. SRI SURAJ GUPTA, REONG, DARJEELING, (VEHICLE NO. WB - 73/1197) RS.5,22,000/ - 8. SUBHASH SINGH, BURDWAN ROAD, SILIGURI, (VEHICLE NO. WB/73/6245) RS.4,48,000/ - 9 SUKDEO CHETTRY, KALIJHORA, (VEHICLE NO. WB/73B/4246) RS.9,50,000/ - TOTAL RS,47,68,000/ - THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)( IA) DISALLOWED THE SAME AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED THE TDS. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), CIT(APPEALS) REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.40,63,000/ - AS ACCORDING TO HIM, THIS AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE AS ON 31 ST MARCH OF THE YEAR FOLLOWING THE DECISION DATED 29.03.2012 OF ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS VS. - ACIT REPORTED IN 16 ITR (TRIBUNAL) 1. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDER OF TAX A UTHORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) IN THIS CASE HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF MERILYN SHIPPING & T RANSPORTS VS. - ACIT, BUT THE DECISION OF MERILYN SHIPPING & T RANSPORTS VS. - ACIT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE HON BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CRESCENT EXPORTS SYNDICATE IN ITA NO. 23 OF 2013 . I.T.A. NO . 0 6 / KOL ./20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 3 OF 6 4. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R. THAT THE 2 ND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) AS INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 WOULD APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, 2 ND PROVISO IS CURATIVE IN NATURE INTENDED TO SUPPLY AN OBVIOUS OMISSION, TAKE CARE OF AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE AND MAKE THE SECTION WORKABLE. SECTION 40(A)(IA) WITHOUT THE SECOND PROVISO RESULTED IN THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF DISALLOWANCE OF LEGITIMATE BUSINESS E XPENDITURE EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE PAYEE IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOME HAD PAID TAX, AND, THEREFORE, HE TOOK THE PLEA THAT THE SECOND PROVISO ALTHOUGH INSERTED W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL, 2013 BUT BEING CURATIVE IN NATURE H AS RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND ACCORDINGLY CONTEND ED THAT THE ISSUE BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN PROVIDE ALL THE DETAILS IN TERMS OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA). 5 . WE NOTED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R. ARE DULY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF T HIS TRIBUNAL ( SMC BENCH) IN ITA NO. 1905/KOL/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, IN WHICH THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 04.03.2015 HAS HELD AS UNDER: - 5. I HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I FIND FROM FIRST ARGUMENT MADE BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 WOULD APPLY IN THE INSTANT CASE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE SECOND PROVISO IS CURATIVE IN NATURE INTENDED TO SUPP LY AN OBVIOUS OMISSION, TAKE CARE OF AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE AND MAKE THE SECTION WORKABLE. SECTION 40(A)(IA) WITHOUT THE SECOND PROVISO RESULTED IN THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF DISALLOWANCE OF LEGITIMATE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE PA YEE IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOME HAD PAID TAX. ACCORDING TO HIM, IT HAS FOR LONG BEEN THE LEGAL POSITION THAT IF THE PAYEE HAS PAID TAX ON HIS INCOME, NO RECOVERY OF ANY TAX CAN BE MADE FROM THE PERSON WHO HAD FAILED TO DEDUCT THE INCOME TAX AT SOURCE FROM SUC H AMOUNT. IN GRINDLAYS BANK V CIT , (1992) 193 ITR 457 (CAL) DECIDED ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1989, IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AS FOLLOWS AT PAGES 469 - 470 OF THE REPORTS: A POINT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AS A RESULT OF THIS DEDUCTION THE DEPARTMENT IS REALIZING THE TAX TWICE ON THE SAME INCOME. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THIS POINT WAS AGITATED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE, HOWEVER, MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IF THE AMOUNT OF TAX HAS ALREADY BEEN REALISED FROM THE EMPLOYEES CONCERNED DIRECTLY, THERE C ANNOT BE ANY QUESTION OF FURTHER REALISATION OF TAX AS THE SAME INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE. IF THE TAX HAS BEEN REALISED ONCE, IT CANNOT BE REALISED ONCE AGAIN, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF I.T.A. NO . 0 6 / KOL ./20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 4 OF 6 INTEREST OR ANY OT HER LEGAL CONSEQUENCE FOR THEIR FAILURE TO DEDUCT OR TO PAY TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW TO THE REVENUE. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) THAT SUCH WAS THE LEGAL POSITION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES IN ITS CIRCULAR NO.275/201/95 - IT(B) DATED JANUAR Y 29, 1997. REFERENCE IN THIS BEHALF MAY ALSO BE MADE TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE P. LTD. V CIT , (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) WHERE THE SAME VIEW WAS TAKEN. I FIND THAT THE AFORESAID SETTLED POSITION IN LAW HAS A LSO BEEN LEGISLATIVELY RECOGNIZED BY INSERTION OF A PROVISO IN SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 201 OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012. THUS, THE SETTLED POSITION IN LAW IS THAT IF THE DEDUCTEE/PAYEE HAS PAID THE TAX, NO RECOVERY CAN BE MADE FROM THE PERSON RES PONSIBLE FOR PAYING OF INCOME FROM WHICH HE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. IN A CASE WHERE THE DEDUCTEE/PAYEE HAS PAID THE TAX ON SUCH INCOME, THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THE INCOME IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO DEDUCT OR DEPOSIT ANY TAX AT SOURCE. IN TH E SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, I FIND THAT THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010, WHICH HAS BEEN HELD TO BE CURATIVE AND THEREFORE, RETROSPECTIVE IN ITS OPERATION BY THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN ITAT NO. 302 OF 2011, GA 3 200/2011 , CIT V VIRGIN CREATIONS DECIDED ON NOVEMBER 23, 2011 PROVIDES FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE IN ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN WHICH TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE CLEARLY IS NOT TO DISALLOW LEGITIMATE BUSINESS EXP ENDITURE. THE ALLOWANCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IS SOUGHT TO BE MADE SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION AND PAYMENT OF TAX AT SOURCE. HOWEVER, IN A CASE WHERE THE DEDUCTEE/PAYEE HAS PAID TAX AND AS SUCH THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO DEDUCT OR PA Y ANY TAX, LEGITIMATE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE WOULD STAND DISALLOWED SINCE THE SITUATION CONTEMPLATED BY THE FIRST PROVISO VIZ. DEDUCTION AND PAYMENT OF TAX IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR WOULD NEVER COME ABOUT. SUCH UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE HAS BEEN SOUGHT TO BE TAKEN C ARE OF BY THE SECOND PROVISO INSERTED IN SECTION 40(A) (IA) BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE SECOND PROVISO WAS INSERTED TO SUPPLY AN OBVIOUS OMISSION AND MAKE THE SECTION WORKABLE. THE INSERTION OF SECOND PROVISO WAS EXPLAINED BY ME MORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISION IN FINANCE BILL, 2012, REPORTED IN 342 ITR (STATUTES)234 AT 260 & 261, WHICH READS AS UNDER: - E.RATIONALIZATION OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE (TDS) AND TAX COLLECTION AT SOURCE (TCS) PROVISIONS I. DEEMED DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAX BY THE RESIDENT PAYEE . UNDER THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVII - B OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX ON CERTAIN SPECIFIED PAYMENTS AT THE SPECIFIED RATES IF THE PAYMENT EXCEEDS SPECIFIED THRESHOLD. IN CASE OF NON - DEDUCTION O F TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, HE IS DEEMED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH NON - DEDUCTION. HOWEVER, SECTION 191 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT A PERSON SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN RESPECT OF NON/SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE PAYEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO PAY THE TAX DIRECTLY. THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTOR CANNOT BE TREATED AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN RESPECT OF NON/SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX IF THE PAYEE HAS DISCHARGED H IS TAX LIABILITY. THE PAYER IS LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) ON THE AMOUNT OF NON/SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE PAYEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS TAX LIABILITY DIRECTLY. AS THERE IS N O ONE - TO - ONE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE TAX TO BE DEDUCTED BY THE PAYER AND THE TAX PAID BY THE PAYEE, THERE IS LACK OF CLARITY AS TO WHEN IT CAN BE SAID THAT I.T.A. NO . 0 6 / KOL ./20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 5 OF 6 PAYER HAS PAID THE TAXES DIRECTLY. ALSO, THERE IS NO CLARITY ON THE ISSUE OF THE CUT - OFF DATE, I.E., THE DATE ON WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE PAYEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS TAX LIABILITY. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE CLARITY REGARDING DISCHARGE OF TAX LIABILITY BY THE RESIDENT PAYEE ON PAYMENT OF ANY SUM RECEIVED BY HIM WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX, IT PROPOSED TO AMEND SECTION 201 TO PROVIDE THAT THE PAYER WHO FAILS TO DEDUCT THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TAX ON THE PAYMENT MADE TO A RESIDENT PAYEE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEALT IN RESPECT OF SUCH TAX IF SUCH RESIDENT PAYEE - (I) HAS FURNISHED HIS RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 ; (II) HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT SUCH SUM FOR COMPUTING INCOME IN SUCH RETURN OF INCOME ; AND (III) HAS PAID THE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME DECLARED BY HIM IN SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, AND THE PAYER FURNISHES A CERTIFICATE TO THIS EFFECT FROM AN ACCOUNTANT IN SUCH FORM AS MAY E PRESCRIBED. THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE RESIDENT PAYEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE DATE ON WHICH RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE PAYER. IT IS ALSO PROPOSED TO PROVIDE THAT WHERE THE PAYER FAILS TO DEDUCT T HE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TAX ON THE PAYMENT MADE TO A RESIDENT AND IS NOT DEEMED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE SUCH RESIDENT, THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A)(I) SHALL BE PAYABLE FROM THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE TO THE DATE OF FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME BY SUCH RESIDENT PAYEE. AMENDMENTS ON SIMILAR LINES ARE ALSO PROPOSED TO BE MADE IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206C RELATING TO TCS FOR CLARIFYING THE DEEMED DATE OF DISCHARGE O F TAX LIABILITY BY THE BUYER OR LICENSEE OR LESSEE. THESE AMENDMENTS WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST JULY, 2012. II. DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX ON PAYMENT TO RESIDENT PAYEE. A RELATED ISSUE TO THE ABOVE IS THE DISAL LOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF CERTAIN BUSINESS EXPENDITURE LIKE INTEREST, COMMISSION, BROKERAGE, PROFESSIONAL FEE, ETC. DUE TO NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX. IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT IN CASE THE TAX IS DEDUCTED IN SUBSEQUENT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE EXPENDITURE SHA LL BE ALLOWED IN THAT SUBSEQUENT PREVIOUS YEAR OF DEDUCTION IN ORDER TO RATIONALIZE THE PROVISIONS OF DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO A RESIDENT PAYEE, IT IS PROPOSED TO AMEND SECTION 40(A)(IA) TO PROVIDE THAT WHE RE AN ASSESSEE MAKES PAYMENT OF THE NATURE SPECIFIED IN THE SAID SECTION TO A RESIDENT PAYEE WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AND IS NOT DEEMED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE PAYEE, THE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF A LLOWING DEDUCTION OF SUCH SUM, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED AND PAID THE TAX ON SUCH SUM ON THE DATE OF FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME BY THE RESIDENT PAYEE. I.T.A. NO . 0 6 / KOL ./20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 6 OF 6 THESE BENEFICIAL PROVISIONS ARE PROPOSED TO BE APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE CASE O F RESIDENT PAYEE. THESE AMENDMENTS WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 2013 AND WILL, ACCORDINGLY, APPLY IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 6 . NO CONTRARY DECISION WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE BY THE LD. D.R. BY R ES PECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL PROVIDE ALL THE DETAILS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE RECIPIENT S OF THE INCOME AND TAXES PAID BY THEM . THE ASSESSING O FFICER SHALL CARRY OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATION IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENTS AND TAXES OF SUCH INCOME AND ALSO FILING THE RETURN BY THE RECIPIENT. IN CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS THAT THE RECIPIENT HAS DULY PAID THE TAXES ON THE INCOME, T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL STAND DELETED. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JUNE 09 , 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - MAHAVIR SINGH P. K. BANSAL ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 9 TH D AY OF JUNE , 201 5 COPIES TO : (1) M/S. ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL, SISHIR BHADURI SARANI, KHUDIRAM PALLY, SILIGURI - 734 001 (2) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - I, SILIGURI, MATIGARA, SILIGURI - 734 010 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B ENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S .