DCIT, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, Kolkata V. M/s Bhubrighat Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 663/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1280 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VARKEY JUDIC IA L M EMBER
• Assessee Lawyers: SAURABH KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 131; 68; 28

Judgement Text

, B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI ABY.T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 663 / KOL / 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 DCIT, CICLE-4(1), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-69 V/S . M/S BHUBRIGHAT TEA CO. PVT. LTD. 6D, SHYAMKUNJ, 12C, LORD SINHA ROAD, KOLKATA-71 [ PAN NO.AABCB 2972 J ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SAURABH KUMAR, ADDL. CIT-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI ARIVND AGARWAL, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING 14-09-2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11-10-2017 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, KOLKATA DAT ED 23.01.2015. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ACIT, CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA U/ S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 17.12.2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT CESS ON GREEN LEAF OF RS.1172020/- IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE IGNORING THE FACT THAT GREEN LEAF IS ATTRIBUTABLE T O AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES WHICH IS TAXABLE UNDER STATE AGRICULTURE INCOME TAX BEYOND T HE PURVIEW OF CENTRAL INCOME TAX AND AS PER RULE 8 ONLY 40% OF THE COMPOS ITE INCOME IS TAXABLE UNDER CENTRAL INCOME TAX AND MOREOVER ON THE SAME I SSUE AS SLP IS PENDING BEFORE APEX COURT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT EMPLOYEES C ONTRIBUTION TO PF OF RS.244399/- IS ALLOWED IF DEPOSITED BEFORE FILING O F RETURN, IGNORING THE FACT THAT ITA NO.663/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-4(1) KOL. VS. M/S BHUBRIGHT TEA CO. P VT.LTD. P AGE 2 EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF IS GOVERNED BY THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VA) WHICH PROVIDES THAT CONTRIBUTION TO EMPLO YEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF IS TO BE MADE WITHIN DUE AS SPECIFIED IN RESPECTIVE RU LE I.E PF RULE IN THIS CASE. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT ADDITION OF LOANS OF RS.29300000/- AS CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 WAS NOT WARRANTED, IGNORING THE FACT THAT IN REMAND STAGE ALSO THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION TO SATISFY THE PRECONDIT ION OF CASH CREDIT RECEIVED IN THE BOOKS. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LEAVE TO ADD, DELE TE OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. SHRI SAURABH KUMAR LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE AND SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL, LD. ADVOCATE AP PEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DELAYED BY 17 DAYS AND CONDONATION PETITION HAS BEEN FILED EXP LAINING THE REASONS FOR DELAY ALONG WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT. ON QUERY, F ROM THE BENCH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OPPOSED THE CONDONATION RA THER HE CONCEDED THAT DELAY CAN BE CONDONED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REASONS GIVEN IN THE CONDONATION PETITION AND CONCESSION GIVEN BY THE LD .AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 3. FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR AN AMOUNT OF 11,72,020/- ON ACCOUNT OF CESS ON GREEN LEAF. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PRIV ATE LIMITED COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF GROWING AND MANUFACTURING OF TEA. DURING THE YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSE OF 11,72,020/- UNDER THE HEAD CESS ON GREEN LEAF IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE IM PUGNED EXPENSE RELATES TO 100% AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE IT CANN OT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION FROM THE COMPOSITE INCOME. THUS, AO DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- ITA NO.663/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-4(1) KOL. VS. M/S BHUBRIGHT TEA CO. P VT.LTD. P AGE 3 5.1 I HAVE EXAMINED THIS ISSUE. THIS MATTER HAS BEE N DULY CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT, KOLKATA, IN THE CASE OF M/S APEEJAY TEA LTD., ITA NO.901/KOL/2011 PRONOUNCED ON 5.9.2011. THE ITAT KOLKATA WHILE DISM ISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE HELD AS BELOW:- THE FACT THAT THE SLP IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BL E SUPREME COURT AGAINST THE DECISION OF HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE AFT INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT (270 ITR 167) WILL NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT SINCE THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS NEITHER SET ASIDE THE OR DERS OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT NOR GRANTED ANY STAY. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. THE HON'BLE ITAT, KOLKATA, CONFIRMED THE ABOVE VIEW AT A LATER DATE IN AN ORDER PASSED ON 11.5.2012 IN THE CASE OF M/S ASSAMB ROOK LTD AT ITA NO.2049/KOL/2010 FOR AY 2006-07. 5.2 HUMBLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTI ONAL TRIBUNAL, I DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.11,72,020/- ON ACCOUNT OF CESS ON G REEN LEAF MADE BY THE AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 6. BEFORE US BOTH THE PARTIES RELIED ON THE ORDER O F AUTHORITIES BELOW AS FAVOURABLE TO THEM. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE INS TANT CASE RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF CESS EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR RS. 11,72,020 ONLY. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED EXPE NSE PERTAINS/ RELATES TO THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT B E ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION FROM COMPOSITE INCOME. THUS THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO. HOWEVER THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT- A AFTER HAVING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S APE EJAY TEA LTD. (SUPRA) . 7.1 WE ALSO FIND THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. A.F.T INDUSTRIES LTD. (2004), 270 ITR 167 (CAL) BUT AGAINST THE SAME JUD GMENT THE REVENUE HAS FILED SLP IN THE HONBLE APEX COURT WHICH HAS BEEN ADMITTED FOR FINAL ADJUDICATION. IN VIEW OF THIS, T HE LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE DEDUCTION OF THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD CESS ON GREEN LEAF HAS NOT BEEN REACHED TO T HE FINALITY. ITA NO.663/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-4(1) KOL. VS. M/S BHUBRIGHT TEA CO. P VT.LTD. P AGE 4 HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT IN IDEN TICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S APEEJAY TEA & CO. LTD. CIVIL APPEAL NO.1105 OF 2006 , ORDER DATED 6 TH AUGUST, 2015 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BEL OW:- O R D E R THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAD PAID CESS ON GREEN LEAF TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM WHICH WAS LEVIED UNDER ASSAM TA XATION (ON SPECIFIED LAND) ACT, 1990. IN ITS INCOME TAX RE TURN, IT HAD CLAIMED THE SAME AS DEDUCTION WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOWE D BY THE HIGH COURT. THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION IN THIS BEHALF IS AS UNDER: - 'HOWEVER, THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT THE DE DUCTION IS ELIGIBLE AFTER COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER RULE 8 AN D THE APPORTIONMENT IS TO BE MADE ONLY AFTER THE INCOME I S SO COMPUTED. SUCH APPORTIONMENT CANNOT BE MADE BE FARE THE DEDUCTION. RULE 8 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 REQ UIRES THAT THE COMPUTATION IS TO BE MADE AS IF BY FICTION THE ENTIRE INCOME OUT OF THE TEA GROWN AND MANUFACTURED AS INCOME ASS ESSABLE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN VIEW OF RULE 8 T HE INCOME SO. COMPUTED IS TO BE APPORTIONED 60:40 OF WHICH 40 IS ASSESSABLE TO TAX UNDER THE ACT. IT DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT AFTER A PPORTIONMENT OF THE 60% OF THE INCOME SO COMPUTED SHALL AGAIN BE RE QUIRED TO BE COMPUTED UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THIS 60% IS EXPOSED AND BECOMES ELIGIBLE TO T AX UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX ACT WITHOUT BEING REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE SAID ACT BY REASON OF THE FICTIO N SO CREATED. THEREFORE, THE CESS PAID HAS RIGHTLY BEEN EXCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER RULE 8 OF THE TEA GROWN AND MANUFACTURED. IN ARRIVING OF THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION THE HIGH CO URT HAS REFERRED TO THE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF THIS COURT. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS RIGHT LY INTERPRETED THE SCOPE OF RULE 8 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962. W E, THUS, FIND NO MERIT IN THIS APPEAL WHICH IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISM ISSED. THUS FROM THE ABOVE ORDER, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT T HE DEDUCTION OF CESS ON GREEN LEAF EXPENDITURE IS AVAILABLE FROM THE COMPOS ITE INCOME. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COU RT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENU E AND WE ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE SAME. ITA NO.663/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-4(1) KOL. VS. M/S BHUBRIGHT TEA CO. P VT.LTD. P AGE 5 8. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS T HAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR 2,44,399/- ON ACCOUNT OF LATE DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF AUTHORITIES . 9. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO OBSERVED FROM THE TAX AUDIT REPORT THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEPOSI T THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF ACCOUNT FOR 2,44,399/- WITHIN DUE DATE AS SPECIFIED UNDER THE R ELEVANT PF ACT. ACCORDINGLY, AO DISALLOWED THE SAME U/S. 36 (1)(VA) OF THE ACT AND TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE U/S 2(24(X) OF THE ACT. 10. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THE AMOUNT OF PF WAS DEPOSITED WITHIN THE TIME AS SPECIFIED UNDER THE ASSAM TEA PLANTATIO N PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME AND DEPOSIT LINK INSURANCE FUND SCHEME. AS PER THE SCHEME, THERE WAS TIME LIMIT TO DEPOSIT THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION WITHIN A MONTH AND THE AMOUNT OF PF WAS DEPOSITED WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME I.E. WIT HIN ONE MONTH FROM THE MONTH OF DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER FILED THE NECESSARY DETAILS AS UNDER:- MONTH EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION DATE OF DEPOSIT JUNE 2005 72,555 27.07.05 DECEMBER 05 90,001 27.01.06 MARCH 06 81,843 29.04.06 TOTAL ADDITION: 2,44,399 IN ADDITION TO ABOVE, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE A MOUNT OF EMPLOYEES PF FUND WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE THE FILING OF RETURN OF I NCOME AS SPECIFIED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH TH E PROVISION OF CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSE SSEE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.2 I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEWS THE AR OF THE APPELLANT. THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.2,44,399/- HAS BEEN PAID BEFORE THE GR ACE PERIOD OF ONE MONTH ALLOWED UNDER THE ASSAM TEA PLANTATION PROVIDENT FU ND SCHEME & DEPOSIT LINK INSURANCE FUND SCHEME. MOREOVER, I ALSO FIND T HAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.2,44,399/- HAS BEEN PAID BEFORE THE STIPULATED D UE DATE OF FLING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1). THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CITED SEV ERAL SUPPORTING JUDGMENTS ITA NO.663/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-4(1) KOL. VS. M/S BHUBRIGHT TEA CO. P VT.LTD. P AGE 6 OF VARIOUS COURTS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.2, 44,399/- ON ACCOUNT OF DELAYED PAYMENT OF PF WILL NOT SUSTAIN. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.2 OF THE AL IS ALLOWED. 11. BEFORE US BOTH THE PARTIES RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AS FAVOURABLE TO THEM. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE A.O. MADE ADDITIO NS TOWARDS BELATED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTIONS TO PF. ACCORDIN G TO THE A.O., EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND IS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)( VA ) OF THE ACT, IF THE SAME IS PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER THE PROVIDENT FUND ACT. THE A.O. FURTHER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(24)( X ) R.W.S. 36(1)( VA ) OF THE ACT, ANY RECOVERY FROM EMPLOYEES TOWARDS PROVIDENT FUND CONT RIBUTION IS DEEMED TO BE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, IF THE EMPLOYER FAILED TO P AY THE SAME TO THE PROVIDENT FUND ACCOUNT OF THE EMPLOYEE WITHIN DUE D ATE SPECIFIED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PF ACT. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE THAT SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 43B OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT NO DEDUCTIO N SHALL BE ALLOWED UNLESS SUCH SUM HAS ACTUALLY BEEN PAID ON OR BEFORE DUE DA TE AS SPECIFIED IN EXPLANATION TO 36(1)( VA ) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS OMITTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2003 W.E.F. 1.4.2004 AND ACCORDINGLY, THERE WAS NO SPECIAL PROVISION REGARDING EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO PF. IT IS FURT HER CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT, ANY S UM PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN EMPLOYER BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTION TO P F SHALL BE ALLOWED, IF THE SAME IS PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED IS WHETHER THE ASSESS EE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION FOR THE EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION MAD E TO PF AFTER THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE PF ACT, BUT BEFORE THE DUE DAT E PRESCRIBED FOR FILING OF INCOME-TAX RETURN IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS CO NTAINED IN SECTION 36(1)( VA ) OF THE ACT AND SECTION 43B( B ) OF THE ACT. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND E MPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION AFTER ITA NO.663/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-4(1) KOL. VS. M/S BHUBRIGHT TEA CO. P VT.LTD. P AGE 7 OMISSION OF SECOND PROVISO OF SECTION 43B OF THE AC T BY FINANCE ACT, 2003 W.E.F. 1.4.2004. IN THIS REGARD WE FIND THAT THE ALLOWABILITY OF EMP LOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND IS GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER : OTHER DEDUCTIONS. 2 36. (1) THE DEDUCTIONS PROVIDED FOR IN THE FOLLOWING CL AUSES SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE MATTERS DEALT WITH THEREIN, IN CO MPUTING THE INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 28 -------- (VA) ANY SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-CLAUSE (X) OF CLAUSE (24) OF SECTION 2 APPLY, IF SUCH SUM IS CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EMPLOYEES A CCOUNT IN THE RELEVANT FUND OR FUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE. EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF TH IS CLAUSE, DUE DATE MEANS THE DATE BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED AS AN EMPLOYER TO CREDIT AN EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO THE EMPLOYEES ACCOUNT IN THE RELEV ANT FUND UNDER ANY ACT, RULE, ORDER OR NOTIFICATION ISSUED THEREUNDER OR UN DER ANY STANDING ORDER, AWARD, CONTRACT OF SERVICE OR OTHERWISE;] FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DEDU CTION WILL BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE SUM IS CREDITED TO THE EMPLOYEES ACCOUNT UNDER THE PROVIDENT FUND ACT. 12.1 SECTION 43B OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR CERTAIN DE DUCTIONS TO BE ALLOWED ONLY ON ACTUAL PAYMENT BASIS WHICH READS AS UNDER : [ CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS TO BE ONLY ON ACTUAL PAYMENT. 25 43B. 26 NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PRO VISION OF THIS ACT, A DEDUCTION OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE UNDER THIS AC T IN RESPECT OF 27 [(A) ANY SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF TA X 28 , DUTY, CESS OR FEE, BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED, UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BE ING IN FORCE, OR] (B) ANY SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN EMPLOYER BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTION TO ANY PROVIDENT FUND OR SUPERANNUATION FUND OR GRA TUITY FUND OR ANY OTHER FUND FOR THE WELFARE OF EMPLOYEES, 29 [OR] THE PROVISIONS OF SUB CLAUSE ( B ) OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT COVERS ANY SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN EMPLOYER BY WAY OF CO NTRIBUTION TO ANY ITA NO.663/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-4(1) KOL. VS. M/S BHUBRIGHT TEA CO. P VT.LTD. P AGE 8 PROVIDENT FUND OR SUPERANNUATION FUND OR GRATUITY F UND OR ANY OTHER FUND FOR THE WELFARE OF THE EMPLOYEES. THE PROVISO TO SECTIO N PROVIDES THAT ANY SUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF F URNISHING RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, THEN NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT AN EXTENSION IS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF PF CONTRIBUTIONS OR ANY OTHER FUND TILL THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS WE NOTICE THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS GIVEN DIFFERENT TREATMENT FOR THE ALLOWABILITY OF EMPLOYEES AND EMP LOYERS CONTRIBUTION TO THE PROVIDENT FUND ACCOUNT. BUT WE FURTHER NOTE THAT TH E COURTS HAVE NOT DIFFERENTIATED THE EMPLOYEES & EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTI ON TO PROVIDENT FUND AS FAR AS ALLOWABILITY OF THE SAME IS CONCERNED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF ESSAE TERAOKA (P.) LTD. V. DY. CIT [2014] 366 ITR 408/222 TAXMAN 170 (MAG.)/43 TAXMANN.COM 33 TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE WORD CONTRIBUTION OCCURRING IN SECTION 43B OF THE ACT WOULD INCLUDE EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO PF IN THE LIGHT OF THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD CONTRIBUTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2( C ) OF THE PF ACT. AS PER THE SAID SECTION, CONTRIBUTION WOULD MEAN BOTH EMPLOYER'S CO NTRIBUTION AND EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HELD THAT THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT ALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR PAYMENT MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF INCOME-TAX RETURN CANNOT BE IGNORED. SIMILARLY, THE ITAT HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TETRA SOFT (INDIA) (P) LTD. V. ACIT [2015] 70 SOT 66/61 TAXMANN.COM 299 HELD THAT WHEN ASSESSEE REMITTED EMPLOYEES' CONTRI BUTION TO PF WITHIN DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/ S 139(1) OF THE ACT, AMOUNT OF EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO PF CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. SIMILAR VIEW WAS UPHELD BY THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE ITAT, IN THE CASE OF ASSTT. CIT V. FARIDA SHOES (P.) LTD. [2016] 46 CCH 29. THE COORDINATE BENCH HELD THAT I F ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEPOSITED EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PROVI DENT FUND UP TO THE DUE ITA NO.663/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-4(1) KOL. VS. M/S BHUBRIGHT TEA CO. P VT.LTD. P AGE 9 DATE AS PRESCRIBED UNDER RELEVANT STATUTE, BUT BEFO RE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. UDAIPUR DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD. [2013] 35 TAXMANN.COM 616/217 TAXMAN 64 (MAG.)/[201 4] 366 ITR 163 (RAJ.) , THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN, AFTER REFERRIN G TO THE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. [2009] 319 ITR 306/185 TAXMAN 416 & CIT V. VINAY CEMENT LTD. [2007]213CTR 268 (SC) HELD THAT THE DEDUCTIONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR THE PAYMENT OF EMP LOYEES' CONTRIBUTION MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN. SIMIL ARLY, IN THE CASE OF CIT V. STATE BANK OF BIKANER, THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HELD THAT CONTRIB UTION PAID AFTER THE DUE DATE UNDER THE RESPECTIVE ACT, B UT BEFORE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED U /S 43B OF THE ACT AND OR U/S 36(1)( VA ) OF THE ACT. 12.2 CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THI S CASE AND ALSO FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES' AND EMPLOYER CONTRIB UTION TO PF, AND IF THE TOTAL CONTRIBUTION IS DEPOSITED ON OR BEFORE THE DU E DATE OF FURNISHING RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, THEN NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE TOWARDS EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND. HENCE, W E ARE INCLINED NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, T HE GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE OF 2.93 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 13. DURING THE YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A LOAN O F 2.39 CRORES FROM M/S SUGAM DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. (SDPL FOR SHORT). THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF LOAN TAKEN FROM SDPL HAS FILED COPY OF PAN AND ADDRESS O F THE LONEE. THE DIRECTOR OF SDPL ALSO APPEARED BEFORE THE AO IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED U/S. 131 OF THE ACT. BUT HE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE A MOUNT OF LOAN GIVEN BY IT ON THE PLEA THAT HE ASSUMED CHARGE OF DIRECTOR IN SDPL IN NOVEMBER, 2006. THE ITA NO.663/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-4(1) KOL. VS. M/S BHUBRIGHT TEA CO. P VT.LTD. P AGE 10 DIRECTOR ALSO FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SDPL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED COPY OF LO AN CONFIRMATION FROM SDPL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SDPL HAS BEE N MERGED WITH M/S AHW STEEL ONE OF THE COMPANY OF BAJORIA GROUP OF CO MPANIES. HOWEVER, THE AO DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERV ING AS UNDER:- THE CONTENTION OF THE A/R IS NOT ACCEPTED WHEN THE IDENTITY OF THE LOANEE WAS NOT ESTABLISHED AND WHEN THE CREDITWORTH INESS COULD NOT BE PROVED BY THE DIRECTOR. BESIDES, THIS THE RECEIPTS OF THE LOANEE COMPANY HAS NOT BEEN PROVED TO BE GENUINE. THE WHOLE THING WAS PREDETERMINED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. EVEN IN THE TIME OF AUDIT U/S.44A B THE IDENTITY WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE AUDITOR. THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO BECAME CLEAR WHEN THE COMPANY IS MERGED WITH GROUP OF COMPANY. THERE FORE, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF LOAN IN RESPECT OF SUGAM DISTRIBUTORS IS CONSIDE RED THE OWN MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE ENROOTED THROUGH DIFFERENT BANK A/C. BEING THE AMOUNT IS CONCEALED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM INCOME, IT IS ADDED BACK WITH TOTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 14. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY AO BY OBSERVING AS UND ER:- 8.3 I HAVE EXAMINED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE REMAN D REPORT AND VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT. WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.2.39 CRORES, THE AO HAS HELD THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS THE CO NCEALED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. ALTHOUGH, THE SECTION UNDER WHICH THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED BY THE AO, THE LANGUAGE HAS DOUBTED THE I DENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS FOR THE TRANSACTION. IT THEREFORE APPEA RS THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. (A) IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING, TO PROVE THE IDEN TITY OF THE CREDITOR, M/S SUGAM DISTRIBUTORS P LTD., THE APPELLANT HAS PROVID ED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS:- I) PAN, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF IT RETURNS FOR AY 2006-0 7 AND AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 31/03//2006 II) COPY OF RETURN FILED WITH ROC III) COPY OF THE ORDER OF HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COU RT GIVING CONSENT TO THE MERGER OF M/S SUGAM DISTRIBUTORS P LTD. WITH M/S AH W STEEL. THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY JUSTIFY THE IDENTITY OF M/S SUGAM DISTRIBUTORS P. LTD. NEEDLESS TO SAY, EVEN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KOL KATA HAS RECOGNIZED THE IDENTITY OF M/S SUGAM DISTRIBUTORS P. LTD. (B) GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITO R FROM THE REMAND REPORT AS WELL AS THE OTHER DOCUME NTS SUBMITTED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT THE FOLLOWING FACTS EMERGE: I) THE ENTIRE LOAN WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHA NNELS II) IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ITI HAS CONFIRMED AFT ER EXAMINING THE RECORDS OF M/S SUGAM DISTRIBUTORS P. LTD. THAT THE OPENING STOCK O F SHARES AS ON 01/04/2005 WAS FOR RS.3,44,10,000/- WHEREAS THE CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31/3/2006 WAS ONLY ITA NO.663/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-4(1) KOL. VS. M/S BHUBRIGHT TEA CO. P VT.LTD. P AGE 11 RS.85,29,240/-. THIS IMPLIES THAT DURING FY 2005-06 , M/S SUGAM DISTRIBUTORS P. LTD. HAD SOLD SHARES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,58,80 ,760/- WHICH WAS SUFFICIENT TO FINANCE THE LOAN OF RS.2,39,00,000/- TO THE APPE LLANT COMPANY. III) THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE SHARES WERE SOLD WERE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BEFORE THE AO AS PROPER LEDGER ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTION WAS MAIN TAINED AND FILED BOTH AT ASSESSMENT AND REMAND STAGE. THE DETAILED SALES LED GER WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO AND IT INCLUDED NOT ONLY THE NAMES AND QUANT ITY OF SHARES SOLD BUT ALSO THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM SUCH SHARES W ERE SOLD. THE AO WAS IN POSSESSION OF THESE DETAILS BUT NEITHER AT THE REMA ND STAGE NOR AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE DOUBTED THESE FACTS. IV) DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SHRI MANISH S ARAOGI, DIRECTOR OF M/S SUGAM DISTRIBUTORS P. LTD ATTENDED BUT COULD NOT PR OVIDE ANY DETAILS OF THE LOAN BECAUSE HE WAS NOT A DIRECTOR WHEN THE LOAN WA S GIVEN. I HAVE EXAMINED THE ANNUAL RETURN FILED WITH THE ROC FOR T HE RELEVANT PERIOD ( 2004 ) AND I FIND THAT AT THE TIME LOAN WAS GIVEN, THE CON CERNED DIRECTORS OF M/S SUGAM DISTRIBUTORS P. LTD. WERE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR LA TT AND SHIR RAM KUMAR SHARMA. IT WAS ONLY MUCH LATER IN NOVEMBER, 2006 TH AT SHRI MANISH SARAOGI AND SHRI VINOD KUMAR NANGALIA BECAME DIRECTORS. IT IS THEREFORE POSSIBLE THAT SHRI MANISH SARAOGI MAY NOT BE READILY CONVERSANT W ITH WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PERIOD EARLIER TO WHICH HE BECAME THE DIRECTOR. 8.4 I AM THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT C OMPANY HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUIN ENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WITH M/S SUGAM DISTRIBUTORS P. LTD. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES , ADDITION OF RS.2,39,00,000/- AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE SU STAINED. I FIND SUPPORT TO MY POINT OF VIEW FROM THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL DECISIONS ;- I) CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION (P) LTD. REPORTED IN (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) II) CIT VS. SAHIBGANAJA ELECTRIC CABLES (P) LTD. RE PORTED IN 115 ITR 408 (CAL) III) CIT VS. SHREE GOPAL & CO. REPORTED IN 204 ITR 285 (GUJ) IV) CIT VS. TANIA INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 322 ITR 394 (BOM) V) MOD CREATIONS (P) LTD. VS. ITO REPORTED IN 354 I TR 282 (DEL) VI) DCIT VS. ROHINI BUILDERS REPORTED IN 256 ITR 36 0 (GUJ) VII) NEMI CHAND KOTHARI VS. CIT REPORTED IN 264 ITR PAGE 254 (GAUHATI). IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DISCUSSED EARLIER AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED, I AM OF THE VIEW THA T ADDITION SHOULD NOT SUSTAIN. GROUND NO.7 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED . THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 15. BEFORE US LD. DR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). LD. AR FILED PAPER BOOK WHICH IS RUNNING PAGES FROM 1 TO 1 22 AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT THE AO HAS ADMITTED THE FACT THAT SDPL WAS HOLDING SHARES OF DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. 01.04.2005 FOR 3,44,10,000/- WHEREAS THE SHARES HELD AS ON 31.03.2006 WAS FOR 85,29,240/-. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT SDPL HAS GIVEN LOAN TO ASSESSEE FOR 2.39 CORRES OUT OF THE SALE PROCEED RECEIVED BY IT FROM THE SALE OF SHARES HELD BY IT. LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM DREW OUR ATTENTION PAGES D-1 AND D-2 OF THE PAPER B OOK WHERE THE REMAND ITA NO.663/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-4(1) KOL. VS. M/S BHUBRIGHT TEA CO. P VT.LTD. P AGE 12 REPORT OF AO WAS PLACED. LD. AR ALSO PRODUCED THE C OPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF SDPL WHEREIN THE PAYMENT MADE TO ASSESSEE WAS REFLE CTED. THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT AND BANK BOOK OF SDPL IS PLACED ON P AGES 83 TO 90 OF THE PAPER BOOK. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SDPL GOT MERGED WITH AHW STEEL BY THE ORDER OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT V IDE DATED 22.04.2008 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2006. THE COPY OF HON'BLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT PLACED ON PAGES 52 TO 270 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE DIRECTOR OF SDPL, NAMELY SHRI MANISH SARAOGI CO ULD NOT EXPLAIN THE ENTRY OF THE LOAN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE DUE TO REASON THAT HE BECAME THE DIRECTOR ONLY IN NOVEMBER,2006 AND THE LOAN WAS PRO VIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIS JOINING AS DIRECTOR IN SDPL. LD. AR RELI ED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED C ASH CREDIT OF 2.39 CRORES U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSER VING THAT ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS WERE DULY FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE A T THE TIME OF REMAND REPORT. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT THE IDENTITY OF SDPL C ANNOT BE DOUBTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT H AS ALLOWED THE MERGER OF SDPL WITH AHW STEEL VIDE ORDER DATED 22.04.2008 WHI CH EVIDENCES THAT THE COMPANY SDPL WAS VERY MUCH IN EXISTENCE DURING THE RELEVANT TIME. SIMILARLY, WE FIND THAT AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS CLEARLY JUSTIFIED THE SOURCE OF MONEY / GENUINENESS OF CASH IN THE HANDS OF SDPL WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT SDPL HAS SOLD ITS INVESTMENT OF SHARE DURING T HE YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, AMOUNT OF LOAN HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE OUT O F SUCH SALE OF INVESTMENT. THE REMAND REPORT OF AO HAS ALREADY BEE N DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH OF THIS ORDER. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE ITA NO.663/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT CIR-4(1) KOL. VS. M/S BHUBRIGHT TEA CO. P VT.LTD. P AGE 13 OPINION THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT FUND AVAILABLE IN THE HANDS OF SDPL TO PROVIDE THE LOAN TO ASSESSEE. BESIDES THE ABOVE, WE ALSO FIND THE ENTIRE LOAN HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ASSESSEE THOUGH BAKING CHANNEL. THUS, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE DOUBTED. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE REASONING, WE HOLD T HAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 11 /10/2017 SD/- SD/- (ABY. T. VARKEY) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP #- 11 / 10 /201 7 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-DCIT, CIRCLE-4, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLAKTA-69 2. /RESPONDENT-M/S BHUBRIGHAT TEA CO. PVT. LTD., 6D, S HYAMKUNJ, 12C, LORD SINHA ROAD, KOL KATA-71 3. / 0 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 0- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 3 66/, /, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 9 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO /,