Surrendra Overseas Ltd., Kolkata V. DCIT, Central Circle - III, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 824/KOL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 82423514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMITAVA ROY
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH TIWARI
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.: 824/ KOL. / 2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 06 PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) , AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. NO. : 824 / KOL . / 2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 - 06 SURENDRA OVERSEAS LIMITED .APPELLANT 15, PARK STREET, APEEJAY HOUSE KOLKATA 700 016 [ PAN AADCS7605P] VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE III , KOLKATA RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: M ANISH TIWARI , FOR THE APPELLANT A MITAVA ROY , FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : FEBRUARY 13 , 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 17 , 2012 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CALLED INTO QUESTION CORRECTNESS OF CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 10 TH FEBRUARY 2009 , IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 I.T.A. NO.: 824/ KOL. / 2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 06 PAGE 2 OF 9 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEARNED CIT(A) IS WRONG AND UNJUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE NO MISTAKE IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT CORRECTLY APPLY TH E FORMULA FOR APPORTIONMENT OF COMMON EXPENSES TOWARDS NON SHIPPING BUSINESS AND THEREBY CONFIRMING DEDUCTION OF PROPORTIONATE EXPENSES AT RS 53,02,884 IN THE PLACE OF RS 1,01,80,626 AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING COMMON EXPENSES AT RS 17,93,62,713 AS COMPUTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHILE ADMITTING THAT NO REASONING HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR NOT CONSIDERING THE COMMON EXPENSES ALLOWABLE UNDER THE ACT FOR RS 2,10,00,999 AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN CONSIDERING THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM SHIPPING BUSINESS AS DENOMINATOR FOR ASCERTAININ G PROPORTIONATE COMMON EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO OTHER INCOME. LEARNED CIT(A), CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF OTHER INCOME INCLUDING INTEREST RENT ETC. , SHOULD HAVE TAKEN INCOME FROM SHIPPING BUSINESS AS PER ACCOUNTS AS DENOMINATOR FOR THE PURPOSE. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO WHO HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, I.E. 2006 - 07. I.T.A. NO.: 824/ KOL. / 2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 06 PAGE 3 OF 9 2. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE SHIPPERS AND CHARTERERS BY OPERATING AND MAINTAINING A FLEER OF DRY BULK CARRIERS IN VARIOUS SIZES. THE INCOME OF FROM THESE SHIPS WAS COMPUTED , UNDER THE TONNAGE SCHE ME UNDER SECTION 115VG, AT RS 1,18,57,063. IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN FREIGHT REVENUES AT RS 6,12,74,217, CHARTER HIRE REVENUES AT RS 109,95,77,898, AND OTHER SHIPPING B USINESS REVENUES AT RS 1,74,41,185, THUS AGGREGATING THE REVENUES AT RS 117,82,93,300, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SHIP OPERATING EXPENSES AT RS 67,85,98,993, COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE EXPENSES AT RS 5,39,62,513, AGENCY FEES EXPENSES AT RS 1,50,50,815, INTERES T EXPENSES AT RS 2,05,48,665, DEPRECIATION CLAIM AT RS 23,84,13,357, SALARY WAGES AND OTHER BENEFITS AT RS 11,71,25,736, AND OTHER SHIPPING RELATED BUSINESS EXPENSES AT RS 1,75,70,786, AGGREGATING TO TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS 114,12,70,865. IT WAS THUS NOTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT FROM SHIPPING BUSINESS AT RS 3,70,22,435, I.E. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REVENUES AND EXPENDITURE RELATING TO SHIPPING BUSINESS, AND PAID TAX ON INCOME OF RS 1,18,57,063 AS COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 115 VG. SO FAR AS THIS COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER TONNAGE SCHEME IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO ISSUES WITH THE ASSESSEE. 3. HOWEVER, WHILE EXAMINING COMPUTATION INCOME FROM ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN SHIPPING BUSINESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SOME RESERVATIONS ON TH E COURSE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM INTEREST AT RS 2,95,93,810, SERVICE CHARGES RECOVERED AT RS 51,94,300 AND RENT AT RS 48,300, THUS AGGREGATING TO RS 3,48,36,410 AS INCOME FROM ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN SHIPPING BUSINESS. OUT OF THESE REVENUES, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR PROPORTIONATE EXPENSES OF RS 1,01,80,626. THESE PROPORTIONATE EXPENSES, AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WERE COMPUTED BY AGGREGATING (A) NON SHIPPING BUSINESS EXPENSES AT RS I.T.A. NO.: 824/ KOL. / 2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 06 PAGE 4 OF 9 1,92,04,870, (B) S ALARIES, WAGES AND OTHER BENEFITS AT RS 36,05,158, (C) DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS OTHER THAN SHIPS AT RS 13,07,341, (D) DONATIONS AT RS 31,17,270. THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT SO WORKED OUT WAS RS 2,10,00,099, AND THE SAME WAS DIVIDED IN THE RATIO OF GROSS INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES DIVIDED BY AGGREGATE OF NET INCOME FROM SHIPPING BUSINESS AND GROSS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPROVE OF THE METHOD SO ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPORTIONING THE EXPENDITURE. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT EXPENSE S, WHICH ARE EXCLUSIVELY RELATED TO THE SHIPPING BUSINESS, SHOULD BE FIRST EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL EXPENSES, AND THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT SHOULD BE APPORTIONED IN THE RATIO OF GROSS INCOME FROM SHIPPING BUS INESS AND GROSS INCOME FROM NON - SHIPPING BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECOMPUTED TH E EXPENSES PROPORTIONATE TO NON - SHIPPING BUSINESS AS FOLLOWS: TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE 116,40,80,893 LESS : SHIPPING BUSINESS EXPENSES 67,85,98,993 COMMISSION, BROKERAGE A ND AGENCY FEES 6,90,13,328 DEPRECIATION ON VESSELS TOTAL DEPRECIATION 23,84,13,357 LESS : DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS OTHER THAN SHIPS - AS PER IT ACT 13,07,498 23,71,05,859 98,47,18,180 COMMON EXPENSES WHICH CANNOT BE SEGREGATED 17,93,62,713 ALLOCATED IN THE RATIO OF GROSS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES TO GROSS INCOME FROM BUSINESS I.E. 17,93,62,713 X 3,48,36,410 / 117,93,62,713, WHICH COMES TO RS 53,02,884 4. ACCORDINGLY, AS AGAINST DEDUCTION OF RS 1,01,80,626 ON ACCOUNT OF PROPORTIONATE EXPENSES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRICTED THE SAME TO RS 53,02,884. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS 48,77,742 WAS DISALLOWED. I.T.A. NO.: 824/ KOL. / 2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 06 PAGE 5 OF 9 AGGRIEVED BY THE STAND SO TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. WHILE REJECTING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) INTER ALIA OBSERVED THAT UNDER THE TONNAGE TAX SCHEME, THERE IS A TABLE STIPULATING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DAILY TONNAGE INCOME DEPENDING ON THE NET TONNAGE OF QUALIFYING SHIP, AND THIS AMOUNT TAKES CARE OF ALL THE EXPENSES RELATING TO THE SHIPPING ACTIVITY. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENSES SO TAKEN INTO THE ACCOUNT, UNDER THE TONNAGE SCHEME, CANNOT AGAIN BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN A CASE IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAS INCOME FROM SHIPPING BUSINESS AS ALSO FROM OTHER SOURCES OF BUSINESS. THE QUESTION THAT HE THEN P UT FOR HIMSELF WAS AS TO WHAT IS THE QUANTUM OF EXPENDITURE THAT SHOULD BE IGNORED IN THE LIGHT OF OPTION FOR TONNAGE TAX SCHEME. HAVING NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGREE THAT ALL THE DIRECT EXPENSES FOR SHIPPING ACTIVITIES, AS ALSO A PORTION OF COMMON EXPENSES RELATED TO, OR APPORTIONABLE TO, THE SHIPPING ACTIVITIES ARE TO BE IGNORED FOR THIS PURPOSE, AND THE DISPUTE IS CONFINED TO THE RATIO IN WHICH COMMON EXPENSES ARE TO BE APPORTIONED BETWEEN SHIPPING AND NON - SHIPPING BUSIN ESS ACTIVITY, THE CIT(A) EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT GROSS RECEIPTS FROM SHIPPING BUSINESS AS ALSO NON SHIPPING BUSINESS SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THIS PURPOSE. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEES INSISTENCE ON TAKING INTO ACCOUNT GROSS INCOME FRO M NON - SHIPPING ACTIVITY AND NET INCOME FROM SHIPPING ACTIVITY IS COMPLETELY MISPLACED . HE THUS APPROVED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DECLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD T HE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 6. WE FIND THAT, IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115 VF, WHEN AN ASSESSEE OPTIONS FOR TAXATION UNDER THE TONN AGE SCHEME, THE TONNAGE I.T.A. NO.: 824/ KOL. / 2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 06 PAGE 6 OF 9 INCOME IS COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 115 VG AND THE INCOME SO COMPUTED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE PROFITS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AND THE RELEVANT SHIPPING INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB SEC TION (1) OF SECTION 115 V - I SHALL NOT BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT INCOME HAS BEEN COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 115 VG AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME. THE POINT OF DISPUTE IS CONFINED TO THE BASIS ON WHICH COMMON COSTS ARE T O BE ALLOCA TED FOR SHIPPING INCOME AND NON - SHIPPING INCOME. SECTION 115VJ, WHICH DEALS WITH TREATMENT OF COMMON COSTS PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: TREATMENT OF COMMON COSTS. 115VJ. (1) WHERE A TONNAGE TAX COMPANY ALSO CARRIES ON ANY BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY OTHER THAN THE TONNAGE TAX BUSINESS, COMMON COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TONNAGE TAX BUSINESS SHALL BE DETERMINED ON A REASONABLE BASIS. (2) WHERE ANY ASSET, OTHER THAN A QUALIFYING SHIP, IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR THE TONNAGE TAX BUSINESS BY THE TONNAGE TA X COMPANY, DEPRECIATION ON SUCH ASSET SHALL BE ALLOCATED BETWEEN ITS TONNAGE TAX BUSINESS AND OTHER BUSINESS ON A FAIR PROPORTION TO BE DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAVING REGARD TO THE USE OF SUCH ASSET FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TONNAGE TAX BUSI NESS AND FOR THE OTHER BUSINESS. 7. AS EVIDENT FROM A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE STATUTORY PROVISION, WHERE A TONNAGE TAX COMPANY ALSO CARRIES ON ANY BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY OTHER THAN THE TONNAGE TAX BUSINESS, COMMON COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO TONNAGE TAX BUSIN ESS ARE CONCERNED ARE TO BE DETERMINED ON A REASONABLE BASIS. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO THE DEPRECIATION, THE ALLOCATION OF COSTS I.T.A. NO.: 824/ KOL. / 2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 06 PAGE 7 OF 9 HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT USE OF SUCH ASSET FOR TONNAGE TAX BUSINESS AND THE OTHER BUSINESS. 8. IRONICALLY, HOWEVER, T HE ASSESSEE AS ALSO THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE PROCEEDED TO USE THE EXPRESSION REASONABLE BASIS AS INTERCHANGEABLE WITH PROPORTIONATE BASIS. THIS APPROACH ITSELF IS FALLACIOUS INASMUCH AS PROPORTIONATE BASIS IS NOT ESSENTIALLY A REASONABLE BASIS IN ALL THE SITUAT IONS, PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PASSIVE INCOMES LIKE RENT AND INTEREST. WHILE SHIPPING BUSINESS IS ESSENTIALLY AN ACTIVE BUSINESS WHICH NEEDS TO BE MONITORED AND CONTROLLED ON DAY TO DA Y BASIS, AND IT INVOLVES A FULL - FLEDGED BUSINESS OPERATION IN TERMS OF MANPOWER, RESOURCES AND OTHER PARAPHERNALIA , THE SAME IS NOT THE POSITION SO FAR AS EARNING PASSIVE INCOMES SUCH AS INTEREST, DIVIDEND AND RENT ARE INVOLVED. TAKE FOR EXAMPLE, THE POSITION REGARDING INTEREST INCOME. WHEN AN ASSESSEE PLACES BANK DE POSITS FOR EARNING INTEREST INCOME, WHICH ARE SURPLUS FUNDS AT THAT POINT OF TIME, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT A PART OF ENTIRE GENERAL MANAGEMENT COSTS CAN BE REASONABLY ALLOCATED, LEAVE ASIDE ALLOCATION OF SUCH COSTS IN THE RATIO OF INCOME GENERATED BY BUSINE SS IN GENERAL AND BY PLACING THE DEPOSITS , AS COSTS TO EARN THAT INTEREST INCOME. SIMILARLY, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS USED BORROWED FUNDS FOR EARNING INTEREST INCOME, NO PART OF RELATABLE INTEREST COSTS CAN BE ALLOCATED TO THE SHIPPING BUSINESS INCOME. AS FA R AS DEPRECIATION IS CONCERNED, THERE IS A FURTHER RIDER THAT NOT ONLY THE ALLOCATION OF DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE ON A REASONABLE BASIS BUT SUCH REASONABLE BASIS SHOULD HAVE REGARD TO THE USE OF SUCH ASSET FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TONNAGE TAX BUSINESS AND FOR THE OTHER BUSINESS OR OTHER ACTIVITY . THE ALLOCATION OF DEPRECIATION COSTS HAS TO BE ON THE BASIS OF USAGE OF ASSET IN RESPECT OF WHICH DEPRECIATION IS CLAIMED. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT ALLOCATION OF ALL THE COMMON COSTS ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS IS NEITHER RE ASONABLE NOR MEETS THE PRESCRIPTION OF THE STATUTE. I.T.A. NO.: 824/ KOL. / 2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 06 PAGE 8 OF 9 9. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE EXAMINED THE MATTER LEAVES A LOT TO BE DESIRED. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SAID TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SAME FORMULAE , AS IS REJECTED IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, FOR APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENDITURE IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING, CANNOT ACT AS A ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE PROVISIONS OF LAW UNDER SECTION 115 VJ H AVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER , AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION DE NOVO IN THE LIGHT OF THE CORRECT LEGAL POSITION AND OUR OBSERVATIONS AS ABOVE. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED A DEDUCTION OF RS 53,02,884 ON ACCOUNT OF COMMON EXPENSES, AND HIS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS ASSESSED AT RS 2,95,33526 . AS ASSESSEE CANNOT BE WORSE OFF AS A RESULT OF HAVING COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, EVEN AS A RESULT OF FRESH ADJUDICATION AS ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL NOT PUT THE ASSESSEE IN A POSITION WORSE THAN HE WAS IN PR IOR TO APPROACHING THIS TRIBUNAL . WITH THIS RIDER, THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION DE NOVO. 10. BEFORE PARTING WITH THE MATTER, WE MAY ALSO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCLUDED AN AMOUNT OF RS 51,94,300, ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE CHARGES RECOVERED, IN THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES , AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSESSED IT AS SUCH . HOWEVER, WHETHER OR NOT SERVICES CHARGES RECOVERY BY A SHIPPING COMPANY WILL BE INCLUDIBLE IN RELEVANT SHIPPING INCOME UNDER SEC TION 115 V - I READ WITH RULE 11R HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED AT ANY STAGE. THE PARTIES HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS SERVICES CHARGES RECOVERY IS OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF RELEVANT SHIPPING INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE OPTING FOR COMPUTATION OF TAX UNDER TONNAGE TAX SCHEM E, AND, AS SUCH, CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THIS DECISION, THEREFORE, SHOULD NOT BE A TREATED I.T.A. NO.: 824/ KOL. / 2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 06 PAGE 9 OF 9 AS AN AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT SERVICE CHARGES RECOVERY, BY AN ASSESSEE UNDER THE TONNAGE SCHEME, IS TAXABLE IN NATURE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 17 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012. S D/XX SD/XX MAHAVIR SINGH PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) KOLKATA, THE 17 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012 COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA