DCIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Laxmi Traders, Kolkata

ITA 700/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7223 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH SALARPURIA
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , /AND . ! . , '# ) [BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI C. D. RAO, AM] $ $ $ $ / I.T.A NO. 700/KOL/2010 %& '( %& '( %& '( %& '(/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VS M/S. LAXMI TRADERS CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA. (PAN-AABFL 7051 M) (*+ /APPELLANT ) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT ) & C.O. NO.62/KOL/2010 IN $ $ $ $ / I.T.A NO. 700/KOL/2010 %& '( %& '( %& '( %& '(/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 M/S. LAXMI TRADERS VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA. (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE REVENUE: SHRI AJAY KUMAR SINGH FOR THE ASSESSEE: SHRI RAKESH SALARPURIA DATE OF HEARING: 06.09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.10.2011 '. / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM ( , , , , ) THE APPEAL BY REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY ASSESS EE ARE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-VI, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 83/CIT(A)-XX/CIR-3 5/09-10/KOL DATED 19.02.2010. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HEREINAFTER REFE RRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 25.08.2009. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ALLOWING SUNDRY BAD DEBTS/LOANS WRITTEN OFF IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. FO R THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.1: 1. LD. CIT(A) ERRED BOTH IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN AL LOWING ASSESSEES APPEAL IN RELATION TO SUNDRY BAD DEBTS/LOANS WRITTEN OFF FOR RS.1,98,18,2 46/- IN THE P&L A/C. WHICH IS ACTUALLY 2 ITA 700/K/2010 & CO .62/K/2010 M/S. LAXMI TRADERS A.Y.04-05 A CAPITAL LOSS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY O F CIRCUMSTANCES AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE MATERIALS BROUGHT ON RECORD DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT WHICH IS PERVERSE IN NATURE. 3. BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.10.2004 A ND WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) ON 14.2.2006. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT LOANS WRITTEN OFF WAS NOT ACTUALLY REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND SAME IS CAPITAL LOSS, HE AFTER RECO RDING REASONS, ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT IT HAD DEBITED A SUM OF RS.1.98 LACS UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY BAD DEB TS/LOANS WRITTEN OFF IN P&L ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF TRADING OF PAPERS AND BOARDS, SHARES AND SECURITIES AND FINANCE AS A FINANCIER ADVANCING LOA NS AND ADVANCES. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THESE LOANS WERE ADVANCED DURING FYS RELEVANT TO AYS 1994 -95 TO 1996-97. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THIS CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE IS FACTUAL LY INCORRECT REASON BEING THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ITS BUSINESS IN THE RETURN RELEVANT TO AY 1994-95 AS MANUFACTURING AND TRADING. SIMILARLY, IN THE RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-9 7, THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION WAS MENTIONED AS TRADING. EVEN ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 U/S. 143(3) DATED 30.12.1997 OBSERVED AS UN DER: THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM REMAIN S THE SAME AS IN EARLIER YEARS. IT IS DEALING MAINLY IN PAPER PRODUCED BY M/S. ORIENT PAP ER MILLS LTD. IT IS ALSO DEALING IN SHARES & SECURITIES AND FOOD GRAINS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ASSESSEES BUSINESS IS NOT THAT OF FINANCING OR ADVANCING OF LOANS AND ADVANCES AND ACCORDINGLY, ADVANCES GIVEN TO M/S. TUNGBHADRA INDUSTRIES LTD. (TIL) IS NOT IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, HENCE HE D ISALLOWED CLAIM OF SUNDRY BAD DEBTS/LOANS WRITTEN OFF BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1) (VII) R.W.S. 36(2) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO ALLOWE D THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 3.4 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER RELYING ON TRIBUNALS DECISION IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN ITA NO. 170/K/2007 DATED 9.3.2007 AS UND ER: 3.4. I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND CONSI DERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS MADE A SECURITY DEPOS IT OF RS.1,83,64,025/- WITH M/S. TUNGBHADRA INDUSTRIES LTD. FOR EARNING COMMISSION I NCOME, AND THE DEPOSIT IS RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS A LSO EARNED COMMISSION OF RS.2,35,065/- IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1993-94 AND THA T OF RS.12,18,084/- IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1994-95; AND, THE SAME WERE DULY CREDITED IN T HE P&L A/C FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 AND 1995-96. SINCE THE COMPANY WENT INTO L IQUIDATION, AND THE AMOUNT BECAME UN-REALIZABLE, THE SAME WAS WRITTEN OFF BY THE APPE LLANT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS DIRECTLY COVERED BY THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT, WHEREIN UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPELLANT HAD WRIT TEN OFF THE SUM ADVANCED AND HAD CLAIMED THE SAME AS ALLOWABLE AND THE HONBLE ITAT HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 3 ITA 700/K/2010 & CO .62/K/2010 M/S. LAXMI TRADERS A.Y.04-05 EVEN OTHERWISE, THE DEBT HAS ARISEN DIRECTLY FROM T HE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT, AND, WAS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION AS A TRADING LOSS U/S. 28(I) ITSELF. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AND, THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE ITAT, I AM OF THE OP INION THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWABLE. GROUND NO.2 IS ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED, NOW REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US, LD. CIT-DR SHRI AJAY KUMAR SINGH REFE RRED ASSESSMENT ORDER AND STATED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY NOTED A FINDING OF FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCING OR ADVANCING OF LOANS DURING ASSESSMENT Y EARS 1994-95, 1995-96 AND 1996-97, HENCE, ADVANCES GIVEN TO M/S. TIL DURING THAT PERIO D IS NOT IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS AND HENCE, WRITING OFF THESE LOANS IN THE NATURE OF BAD DEBTS IS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED AND CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY APPLIED THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASS ESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04 (CITED SUPRA). LD. CIT-DR ALSO STATED THAT THIS FACT WAS NOT BEFORE TRIBUNAL, HENCE TRIBUNAL WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THIS FACT HAS DECIDED THE ISSU E, WHICH IS PER IN QUARIUM. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEAR AND ORDER OF CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI R. SALARPURIA BEFORE US REFERRED TO PAGES 61 TO 73 OF PAPER BOOK WHEREIN DETAILS OF SERVICE CHARGES FOR C HARGING COMMISSION ON ACCOUNT OF WORK DONE THROUGH TIL ARE ATTACHED AND FOUND THOSE DETAI LS, LD. COUNSEL STATED THAT THESE ADVANCES ARE MADE TO TIL FROM WHERE COMMISSION IN THOSE YEAR S I.E. FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE, 1994 WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,13,130/-, FOR THE MONTH OF MAY, 19 94 IT WAS RS.3,01,587/- AND SIMILARLY FOR THE MONTHS OF 1994, 1995 AND 1996 ARE ALSO EARNED. LD. COUNSEL STATED THAT ONCE THIS COMMISSION INCOME IS EXIGIBLE TO TAX AND THIS ADVANCE IS AS A SECURITY DEPOSIT I.E. AMOUNTING TO RS.1.83 CR. TO TIL, WHICH HAS GONE BAD AND IRRECOVERABLE, IT IS TO BE TREATED AS LOSS OR BAD DEBT, AS THE CASE MAY BE. LD. COUNSEL STATED THAT AFORESAID SUNDRY B AD DEBT LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS.1.98 CR AND ODD FIGURES IN AGGREGATE WRITTEN OFF BY ASSESSEE FI RM IN ITS ACCOUNTS BY DEBITING TO THE P&L ACCOUNT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE ENTIRE AMO UNT WAS RECEIVABLE FROM A SICK COMPANY TIL BUT NOT RECEIVED, WHICH INCLUDES LOANS AND ADVA NCES OF RS.1,83,50,000/- ADVANCED DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 TO 1996-97 FOR EARNING OF C OMMISSION/BROKERAGE INCOME. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THIS COMMISSION WAS EARNED FOR WORK DO NE DURING THESE FINANCIAL YEARS AT RS.14,38,149/- AND TRULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE AUDIT ED ACCOUNTS AND DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT WAS THE C ONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT OWING TO 4 ITA 700/K/2010 & CO .62/K/2010 M/S. LAXMI TRADERS A.Y.04-05 ACCUMULATE LOSS TIL BECAME A SICK COMPANY AND WAS R EFERRED TO BIFR AND BIFR VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 14.11.2000 FINALLY DECLARED IT AS SICK COMPAN Y IN PUBLIC INTEREST AND ORDERED TO BE WOUND UP. THE ASSESSEE REALISED THAT THERE IS NO CHANCE OF RECOVERY OF THE AFORESAID SUM OF MONEY AND REMAINING OUTSTANDING AND DUE FROM TIL TILL ORD ERED BY BIFR IN THE YEAR 2000 AND FIT FOR WINDING UP, THE ASSESSEE FIRM WRITTEN OFF THE ENTIR E SUM OF RS.1,98,18,246/- IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 I.E. RELEVANT A SSESSMENT YEAR. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS EARNED COMMISSION/BROKERAGE INCOME FROM TIL FOR THE SECURITY DEPOSIT GIVEN TO IT AT RS.1.83 LACS WHEN IT BECAME UNREALIZABLE/IRRECOVERABLE DUE TO THE ABOVEMENTIONED FACTS. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT-DR COULD NOT REBUT THIS FACT AS NARRATED AB OVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED COMMISSION ON ACCOUNT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT GIVEN TO TIL AMOUNT ING TO RS.14,13,149/- AND DISCLOSED IN THE RETURNS FOR RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.170/KOL/2007 FOR THE AY 2003-04, EXACTLY ON SIMI LAR FACTS HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM AS UNDER:- 9. IN THE CASE BEFORE US THERE WAS NO DISPUTE THAT THE SECURITY DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF RS.65,00,000/- WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NOR MAL COURSE OF BUSINESS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES IN AS MUCH AS THE A.O. HAS ALLOWED THE DED UCTION OF THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST RS.1,20,695/- AS BAD DEBTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT SUCH AMOUNT HAS BECOME BAD DEBTS AS THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF TH E SAID DEBT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS INCLUDING IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE SAID DEBTOR COMPANY APPEARING AT PAGES 45-46 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 36(L)(VII) READ WITH SECTION 36(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AND, THEREFORE, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE SAME. THIS VIEW ALSO FINDS SUPPORT FROND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK (2006) 100 ITD 285 (MUM)(SB) WHE REIN IT HAS BEEN HELD VIDE SHORT NOTES APPEARING AT PAGES 288-289 AS UNDER: - IF FOR ANY REASON THE REVENUE S CONTENTIONS WERE TO BE ACCEPTED THAT THE WRITE OFF IS NOT BONA FIDE AND THE DEBT HAS NOT BEC OME BAD IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE DEBT IS SO WRITTEN OFF THE ASSESS EE WILL ONLY GET DENIED ITS RIGHTFUL DEDUCTION IN THE YEAR OF WRITE OFF AND IN ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR, WHEN THE DEPARTMENT REACHES THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DEBT HAS ACTUALLY GONE BAD, HE WILL LOOSE THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF THE SAME FOREVER BECAUSE EVEN THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 36(2) (III) AND (IV) WHICH REQ UIRED THE RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 155 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE POST-AM ENDED PERIOD. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE LOOSES THE DEDUCTION ITSELF. TH AT IS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE RATIONALISATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36 (1) (VII). THAT WILL ONLY MEAN PUTTING ADDITIONAL BURDEN AND CONDITIONS WHICH ARE NOT SPELT OUT IN THE AMENDMENT. THE APPREHENSION OF THE REVENUE THAT SUCH SORT OF W RITE OFF WILL ONLY RESULT IN GOOD DEBTS BEING WRITTEN OFF AS BAD, IS UNFOUNDE D. WHENEVER, THERE IS A RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNTS SO WRITTEN OFF THE REVENUE HAS ALWAYS THE MEANS TO BRING IT TO TAX UNDER SECTION 41, WHEREAS THE ASSES SEES WERE TO LOOSE THE DEDUCTION IF TO FOLLOW THE LINE OF ARGUMENTS OF THE REVENUE. 5 ITA 700/K/2010 & CO .62/K/2010 M/S. LAXMI TRADERS A.Y.04-05 IT IS WITHIN THE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE BUSINES SMAN WHETHER A DEBT HAS BECOME BAD OR NOT. HIS DECISION, AS LONG AS IT IS B ONA FIDE, CANNOT BE DISPUTED BY DEMANDING FROM HIM A DEMONSTRATIVE PROO F TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT HAS ACTUALLY BECOME BAD. THE WRITE OFF OF A BAD DEBT IS A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE, ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WITH WH OM THE INFORMATION RESTS, AND IS A SUFFICIENT REQUIREMENT OF THE AMENDED PROV ISION. THEREFORE, AS PER EXITING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36( 1) (VII) EVEN AFTER ITS AMENDMENT WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1989, IT IS NOT OBLI GATORY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE DEBT WRITTEN OFF BY HIM IS INDEED A BAD DEBT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII). ACCORDINGLY, THE AMOUNT OF BAD DEBT OF RS.65,00,000 /- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN U PHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.65,00.000/- IS REVERSED. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE, THEREFORE, ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER AY, WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THIS ISSUE OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING ADDITION OF RS.48,000/- CLAIMED AS LOSS. F OR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.2: 2. LD. CIT(A) ERRED BOTH IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN AL LOWING ASSESSEES APPEAL IN RELATION TO ASSESSEES OVERSTATEMENT OF LOSS OF RS.48,000/- IN THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 WHICH WAS ABSENT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN U/S. 143(1) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE MATERIALS BROUGHT ON RECORD DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT IN TH E LIGHT OF APEX COURTS DECISION WHICH IS PERVERSE IN NATURE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANC E ON THE GROUND THAT THIS DEDUCTION OF PARTNERS REMUNERATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.48,000/- WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN IT HAS CLAIMED THIS DEDUCTION BY DEBITING THIS AMOUNT IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AND CLAIM WAS MADE AS PER THE PR OVISION OF SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM A S THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 40(B) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF PARTNERS SALARY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.48,000/- AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES A PPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS REGARDS TO JURISDICTION. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND: 6 ITA 700/K/2010 & CO .62/K/2010 M/S. LAXMI TRADERS A.Y.04-05 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND RELATING TO THE LEGAL VALID ITY OF THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICH WAS PREFERRED BEFORE HIM. 10. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THIS GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION UNDER INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE ASSESSEE AS C LAIMED BY HIM. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE AS WELL AS CRO SS OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 12. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14.10.2011. SD/- SD/- . ! . , '# , (C. D. RAO) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( !# !# !# !#) )) ) DATED 14TH OCTOBER, 2011 /0 %12 3 JD.(SR.P.S.) '. 4 , 5''6- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . *+ / APPELLANT DCIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA 2 ,-*+ / RESPONDENT, M/S. LAXMI TRADERS, 16, INDIA EXCHANG E PLACE, KOLKATA- 700 001. 3 . .% ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. .% / CIT, KOLKATA 5 . => ,% / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA - ,/ TRUE COPY, '.%?/ BY ORDER, 2 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .