M/s Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata V. CIT, (IT & TP), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 62/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4558 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Assessment record; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI ABY. T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM ] I.T.A NO. 62/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-1 2 M/S PRICEWATER HOUSE COOPERS SP.Z.O.O. -VS- CIT (IT&TP), KOLKATA. (C/O M/S PRICEWATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.) [PAN: AAFCP 4438 D ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI J.P. KHAITAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI GOULEAN HANGSHING, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 12.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.08.2018 ORDER PER M.BALAGANESH, AM 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT & TP), KOLKATA [IN SH ORT THE LD. CIT] IN MEMO NO. CIT(IT&TP)KOL/AAFCP4438D/263/2015-16/2730-33 DATED 02.11.2015 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DDIT -2(1), KOLKATA [IN SHORT THE LD. AO] UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 [IN SHORT THE ACT] DATED 10.03.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE VALIDITY OF INVOKI NG REVISIONARY JURISDICTION BY THE LD CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN THE INSTANT CASE BY RAISI NG SEVERAL GROUNDS. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FOREIGN COMPAN Y ENGAGED IN RENDERING CONSULTANCY 2 ITA NO.62/KOL/2016 M/S PRICEWATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 2 SERVICES AND IS ASSESSED IN THE STATUS OF A NON-RES IDENT. IT HAD FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASST YEAR 2011-12 ON 29.9.2011 DECLA RING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 23,37,862/- U/S 115A OF THE ACT CLAIMING REFUND OF RS 2,40,800/- AND CLAIMED CERTAIN RECEIPTS AS NON-TAXABLE TO THE TUNE OF RS 24,01,487 /- (EQUIVALENT TO 158094 POLAND CURRENCY). 3. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER FILED A REVISED RETURN F OR THE ASST YEAR 2011-12 ON 29.9.2012 DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS 1,04,96,654/-U/S 115 A OF THE ACT PAYING SELF ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS 5,815/- (PAID ON 28.9.12) AND CLAIMED CER TAIN RECEIPTS AS NON-TAXABLE TO THE TUNE OF RS 24,82,739/- (EQUIVALENT TO 39813 EUROS). THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND THE REVI SED RETURN IN RESPECT OF NON-TAXABLE INVOICES WERE WITH REGARD TO CHANGE IN FOREIGN CURR ENCY AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL EXCHANGE RATE. IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN, THE INVOICES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REFLECTED IN POLAND CURRENCY AND RECEIPTS TO THE TUNE OF RS 24,01,487/- WERE ARRIVED AT BY APPLYING THE RELEVANT EXCHANGE RATE. BUT IN THE REVISED RETURN, THE SAME INVOICES FROM THE VERY SAME PARTIES WERE REFLECTED IN EURO CURRENCY AND RECEIPT S TO THE TUNE OF RS 24,82,739/- WERE ARRIVED AT BY APPLYING THE RELEVANT EXCHANGE RATE. WITH REGARD TO THE CHANGE IN THE TAXABLE INCOME BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL AND REVISED RET URN, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THOUGH THE COMPONENT OF TAXABLE SERVICES HAD BEEN INCREASE D IN THE REVISED RETURN, THE SAME WAS ALSO DULY SUBJECTED TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOUR CE AND THERE WAS A MINOR DISCREPANCY IN CALCULATION OF SURCHARGE AND CESS THEREON DUE TO INCOME BEING CROSSED OVER RS 1 CRORE AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PAY SELF ASSESSMENT TAX THEREON TO THE TUNE OF RS 5.815/- WHICH WAS DULY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON 2 8.9.2012 AND REVISED RETURN FILED ON 29.9.2012. 3 ITA NO.62/KOL/2016 M/S PRICEWATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 3 4. FROM THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES SUBMITTED BEFORE US AND FROM PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE CALLING FOR CERTAIN DETAILS IN THE YEARS 2012 AND 2013 RESPECTIVELY. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE FI LED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 3.3.2014 FILED ON 5.3.2014 FURNISHING THE FOLLOWING DETAILS :- A) COPY OF REVISED RETURN FILED MARKED IN SEPARATE ANNEXURE. B) COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIVED ON FILING THE R EVISED RETURN MARKED IN SEPARATE ANNEXURE. C) COPY OF INCOME TAX COMPUTATION ALONG WITH THE LI ST OF INVOICES MARKED IN SEPARATE ANNEXURE. D) COPY OF INVOICES MARKED AS SEPARATE ANNEXURE. E) COPY OF AGREEMENT IN SUPPORT OF INVOICES TREATE D AS NON-TAXABLE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME MARKED AS SEPARATE ANNEXURE. IT WAS ALSO CLARIFIED BEFORE THE LD AO THAT NO PERS ONNEL FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD RENDERED SERVICES IN INDIA. 5. THE LD AO ON VERIFICATION OF THE AFORESAID PARTI CULARS WITH DOCUMENTS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 10.3.2014 BY OB SERVING AS UNDER:- IN RESPONSE TO ABOVE NOTICE, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT IVE OF THE ASSESSEE, SRI BIKASH CHANDA APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND SUBMITTED NEC ESSARY PARTICULARS, WHICH WERE CONSIDERED. THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED AND HEARD WITH HIM. THE ASSESSEE, PWC SP ZOO, A NON-RESIDENT FOREIGN CO MPANY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE LAWS OF POLAND, IS HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE IN WARSZAWA. IT CARRIED ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS A CCEPTED AS PER RETURN. 4 ITA NO.62/KOL/2016 M/S PRICEWATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 4 IN THE TAX COMPUTATION SHEET, THE LD AO ADOPTED THE INCOME RETURNED AS PER THE ORIGINAL RETURN AT RS 23,37,862/- AND GAVE CREDIT FOR TDS ON LY TO THE TUNE OF RS 29,856/- AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AT RS 2,40,800/- . I N THE SAID TAX COMPUTATION SHEET ATTACHED ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD AO RAISED A DEMAND OF RS 2,97,520/- PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. LATER THIS ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REVISED B Y THE LD CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY TREATING THE ORDER OF THE LD AO DATED 10.3.2014 AS ERRONEOUS IN AS MUCH AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON THE G ROUND THAT THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT TAKEN COGNIZANCE BY THE LD AO WHILE COMPLET ING THE ASSESSMENT AND ACCORDINGLY NO ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE LD AO W ITH REGARD TO THE INCOME DECLARED AND EXEMPTION CLAIMED THEREON. THE LD CIT CONCLUDE D THAT THERE WAS COMPLETE LACK OF ENQUIRY AND NON-APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE LD AO WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSEE BY NOT VERIFYING THE REVISED RETURN AND TH E CONTENTS THEREON. HENCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD AO WAS TREATED AS ERRONEOUS IN AS MUCH AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND ORDER U/S 263 OF THE AC T WAS PASSED BY THE LD CIT ON 30.10.2015. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AT THE OUTS ET, WE FIND THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DISPUTE ON THE TAXABLE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DIFFERENCE OF INCOME THEREON OFFERED IN THE ORIGINAL AND REVISED RETURN OF INCOME . THE INCOME OFFERED IN BOTH THE RETURNS TOWARDS TAXABLE SERVICES WERE DULY SUBJECTED TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND SINCE THE TOTAL INCOME EXCEEDED RS 1 CRO RE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE INVITED WITH ADDITIONAL SURCHARGE AND CESS AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF TDS , HAD TO PAY SELF ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS 5,815/- WHICH WAS DULY PAID ON 28.9.2012. 5 ITA NO.62/KOL/2016 M/S PRICEWATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 5 THE LIST OF INVOICES FOR TAXABLE AND NON-TAXABLE SE RVICES AS PER THE ORIGINAL RETURN ARE AS UNDER:- LIST OF INVOICES RAISED ON INDIAN ENTITIES DURING T HE FY 2010-11(ORIGINAL) THE LIST OF INVOICES FOR TAXABLE AND NON-TAXABLE SE RVICES AS PER THE REVISED RETURN ARE AS UNDER:- 6 ITA NO.62/KOL/2016 M/S PRICEWATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 6 LIST OF INVOICES RAISED ON INDIAN ENTITIES DURING T HE FY 2010-11(REVISED) 7.1. THUS IT COULD BE SEEN THAT THE SERVICES ARE RE NDERED TO THE SAME PARTIES AND INVOICES ARE RAISED TO THE SAME PARTIES WITH THE SAME DATES BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL AND THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS FAR AS NO N-TAXABLE SERVICES ARE CONCERNED. HOWEVER, THE CURRENCY IN WHICH THE INVOICES WERE RA ISED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS IN POLAND CURRENCY AND IN THE REVISED RETURN WAS EURO CURRENCY. THIS HAS LED TO MINOR DIFFERENCE IN VALUE OF RS 81,253/- ( 24,82,739 -24, 01,486). WITH REGARD TO TAXABLE SERVICES, THOUGH THE INCOME IS INCREASED IN THE REV ISED RETURN, THE SAME HAD BEEN FULLY SUBJECTED TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND ASSESSE E HAD ALSO MADE GOOD THE DEFICIT IN TAX BY PAYING SELF ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS 5,815/- ON 28.9.2012 BEFORE FILING THE REVISED 7 ITA NO.62/KOL/2016 M/S PRICEWATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 7 RETURN. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCLOSE D UNDER WHICH SECTION, THE EXEMPTION IS CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF NON-TAXABLE SERVICES PORTI ON IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ITSELF. LATER THE HARD COPY OF THE REVISED RETURN WAS ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TOGETHER WITH THE NOTE FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION WHICH IS ENCLOSED IN PA GE 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK REPRODUCED SUPRA. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO BROUGHT ALL THESE FACTS BEFORE THE LD CIT IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 263 OF THE ACT VIDE SEPARATE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 15.10.2015 WHICH ARE ENCLOSED IN PAGES 95 TO 100 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HENCE EVEN THOUGH THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD AO BY UNDER ASSESSING THE INCOME BY NOT CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFF ERED IN THE REVISED RETURN, THERE COULD NOT BE ANY PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE R EVENUE IN THIS REGARD AS THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN TAX LIABILITY. WE FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL THE REQUISITE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE LD AO VIDE LETT ER DATED 3.3.2014 FILED BEFORE THE LD AO ON 5.3.2014. THE LD AO AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE C ONTENTS OF THIS LETTER AND ON VERIFICATION OF THE SAME HAD COME TO A CONCLUSION O F NOT MAKING ANY ADDITIONS TO THE RETURNED INCOME. THOUGH THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES D OES NOT CONTEMPLATE CALLING OF SPECIFIC DETAILS BY THE LD AO FROM THE ASSESSEE PRI OR TO 5.3.2014, IT CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT COME FORWARD TO F ILE DETAILS BEFORE THE LD AO THAT WERE NOT CALLED FOR BY THE LD AO. NO ASSESSEE WOUL D DO THE SAME. HENCE IT COULD BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE LETTER DATED 3.3.2014 FIL ED ON 5.3.2014 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD AO PURSUANT TO SPECIFIC DETA ILS CALLED FOR BY THE LD AO. WE FIND THAT THE ENTIRE DETAILS OF TAXABLE AND NON-TAXABLE SERVICES TOGETHER WITH THE COPY OF REVISED RETURN, COPY OF INVOICES AND AGREEMENTS ENT ERED INTO THEREON WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD AO. HENCE IT CLEARLY TANTAMOUNTS TO PROPER ENQUIRY MADE BY THE LD AO. MOREOVER, THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE VID E LETTER DATED 3.3.2014 DID NOT CALL FOR ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY AS THE ENTIRE INCOME WAS DU LY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED RETURN PROPERLY. IN THIS REGARD, THE RELI ANCE PLACED BY THE LD CIT ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GEE VEE ENT ERPRISES VS ADDL CIT REPORTED IN 99 ITR 375 (DEL) WOULD ACTUALLY SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AN D NOT THE 8 ITA NO.62/KOL/2016 M/S PRICEWATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 8 REVENUE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS AND WRONG APPLICATION OF LAW NEITHER ON THE PART OF THE LD AO NOR HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LD CIT IN HIS SE CTION 263 ORDER. HENCE IT COULD BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THOUGH NOT CONSIDERING THE RE VISED RETURN WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT ON 10.3.2014 WOULD MAKE THE ORDER OF THE LD AO ERRONEOUS, IT DOES NOT CAUSE ANY PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AS ALL THE REQUISITE DETAILS WERE ALREADY ON RECORD WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AND THE SAME WE RE DULY EXAMINED BY THE LD AO. HENCE IT IS NOT THE CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY ON THE PART OF THE LD AO ON THE LIST OF TAXABLE AND NON-TAXABLE SERVICES DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD THAT THE TWIN CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT IN THE INSTANT CASE AND ACCORDINGLY BY PLACI NG RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUST RIAL COMPANY LTD VS CIT REPORTED IN 243 ITR 83 (SC) , REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT CANNO T BE INVOKED BY THE LD CIT. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD CONSIDERED ALL THE ASPECTS THAT ARE RELEVANT TO THE CASE BEFORE US IN CIT VS J.L.MORRISON (INDIA) LTD REPORTED IN 366 ITR 593 (CAL) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- 86. WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28TH MARCH, 200 8 WAS PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND IS BASICALLY A QUESTION OF FACT. THE LEARNE D TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. T HE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSMENT INCLUDING THE ORDER SHEETS GO TO SHOW THAT APPROPRI ATE ENQUIRY WAS MADE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS HEARD FROM TIME TO TIME. IN DECIDING THE QUESTI ON COURT HAS TO BEAR IN MIND THE PRESUMPTION IN LAW LAID DOWN IN SECTION 114 CLAUSE - E OF THE EVIDENCE ACT: 'THAT JUDICIAL AND OFFICIAL ACTS HAVE BEEN REGULARL Y PERFORMED;' 87. THEREFORE, THE COURT HAS TO START WITH THE PRESUMP TION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28TH MARCH 2008 WAS REGULARLY PASSED. THERE IS EVID ENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO ANSWER 17 QUES TIONS AND TO FILE DOCUMENTS IN REGARD THERETO. IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS TH AT THE 17 QUESTIONS RAISED BY HIM DID NOT REQUIRE APPLICATION OF MIND. WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY HIM IN THE ANNEXURE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FORMULATED. 88. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN HIS INCOME AND TO LEVY APPROPRIA TE TAX ON THAT BASIS. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED THAT THE RETURN, FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS IN ACCORDANCE 9 ITA NO.62/KOL/2016 M/S PRICEWATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 9 WITH LAW, HE WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO JUSTIFY AS TO WHY WAS HE SATISFIED. ON THE TOP OF THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HIS ORDER DATED 28TH MARCH, 2008 DID NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ANY RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY CIVIL RIGHT O F THE ASSESSEE PREJUDICED. HE WAS AS SUCH UNDER NO OBLIGATION IN LAW TO GIVE REASONS. 89. THE FACT, THAT ALL REQUISITE PAPERS WERE SUMMONED AND THEREAFTER THE MATTER WAS HEARD FROM TIME TO TIME COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE VI EW TAKEN BY HIM IS NOT SHOWN BY THE REVENUE TO BE ERRONEOUS AND WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BOT H BY THE TRIBUNAL AS ALSO BY US TO BE A POSSIBLE VIEW, STRENGTHENS THE PRESUMPTION UNDER CLAUSE (E) OF SECTION 114 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT. A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE, ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID PRESUMPTION, IS THUS CONVERTED INTO A CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THE FACT THE O RDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. 90. THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY MR. NIZAMUDDIN DO NOT REALL Y SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION. THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MEERUT ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ( P.) LTD. (SUPRA) DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE HIGH COURT IN THAT CASE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT ENQUIRY. 7.2. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS IN THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS RELI ED UPON HEREINABOVE, WE QUASH THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND SET ASIDE THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 8.IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 01.08 .2018 SD/- SD/- [A.T. VARKEY] [ M.BALAGANESH ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 01.08.2018 SB, SR. PS 10 ITA NO.62/KOL/2016 M/S PRICEWATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. A.YR.2011-12 10 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. PRICEWATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD., PLOT NO. 56 & 57, BLOCK-DN, SECTOR-V, SALT LAKE, KOLKATA-700091, WEST BENGAL. 2. CIT(IT & TP), 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KO LKATA- 700107. 3. C.I.T(A)- 4. C.I.T.- KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVAT E SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O., ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHE S