Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
8823514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 9 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
06-11-2015
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
15-01-2013
Judgement Text
I.T.A. NOS. 88 & 89/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 PAGE 1 OF 13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 88 & 89/KOL/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,.............. ................,....APPELLANT CIRCLE-48, KOLKATA -VS.- PASCHIM BANGA GRAMIN BANK,......................... .......................RESPONDENT NATABAR PAUL ROAD, CHATTERJEEPARA MORE, TIKIAPARA, HOWRAH-711 101 [PAN : AAAJP 0923 H] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI DEBASHIS BANERJEE, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI R.N. DUTT, SR. ADVOCATE , FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 07, 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 06, 2015 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP :- THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-XXX, KOLKATA, BOTH DATED 28.09.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 -09 & 2009-10 INVOLVE SOME COMMON ISSUES AND THE SAME, THEREFORE, HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A SINGLE CONS OLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 BEING ITA NO. 88/KOL/2013 . THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 1 OF THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE DELETION BY THE LD. CIT(APPEA LS) OF THE ADDITION OF RS.5,03,58,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A CCOUNT OF I.T.A. NOS. 88 & 89/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 PAGE 2 OF 13 DISALLOWANCE OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DOU BTFUL DEBTS. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COOPERATIV E SOCIETY, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RURAL BANKING. THE RETUR N OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, I.E. A.Y. 2008-09 WAS FIL ED BY IT ON 16.09.2008 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.13,25,41,330/-. IN THE SAID RETURN, DEDUCTION OF RS.2,44,14,800/- WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS , WHICH WAS REVISED TO RS.5,03,58,000/- DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS. THIS REVISED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EXAMINED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND ON SUCH EXAMINATION, HE DISALLOWED THE SAME FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER:- THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 36(1)(VIIA)(A) NO DOU BT ALLOWS A SCHEDULED BANK FOR A NON SCHEDULED BANK RE FERRED TO IN THIS SUB-CLAUSE AN OPTION TO CLAIM IN ANY OF THE RE LEVANT ASSMT. YEAR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANY PROVISION MADE BY IT FOR ANY ASSETS CLASSIFIED BY THE RBI AS DOUBTFUL ASSETS OR LOSS ASSETS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY IT IN THIS BEHALF FOR AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING 5% OF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH ASSET S SHOWN IN THE BOOK OF A/CS OF THE BANK ON THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. EXPLANATION TO THE SAID CLAUSE VIZ 36(1)(VIIA)(A) A T THE SAME TIME PROVIDE THAT 'RELEVANT ASSMT. YEARS' MEAN S THE 5 CONSECUTIVE ASSMT YEARS ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 2000 AND ENDING BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 2005. THE ASSMT YEAR IN CONSIDERATION IS A. Y.2008-09 WHI CH IS BEYOND THE PERIOD MENTIONED IN THE SAID EXPLANATION . THERE IS THEREFORE, NO NEED TO GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE ARG UMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM MADE IS THEREFORE NOT AS PER TH E PROVISIONS OF LAW AND HENCE IT IS REJECTED. BEFORE PARTING IT IS WORTH MENTIONING HERE THAT THE REVISED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO ALLOW RS.5,03,58,0 00/- INSTEAD OF RS.2,44,14,800/- VIDE HIS AFORESAID LETTER CANNOT B E ENTERTAINED IN VIEW OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT JUDGMENT IN GOETZ E (INDIA) VS.- CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 WHICH HAS RULED THAT A FRESH CLAIM BEFORE A.O. CAN BE MADE ONLY BY FILING A REVISED RE TURN AND NOT OTHERWISE. I.T.A. NOS. 88 & 89/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 PAGE 3 OF 13 4. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N ACCOUNT OF ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) WAS C HALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN AN APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) AND ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE ON HIS BEHALF BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE SAID SUBMISS IONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WERE FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE LATTERS COMMENTS. IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSING OF FICER OFFERED HIS COMMENTS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAID COMMENTS OF FERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE COUNTER COMMENTS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREON, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH 2.4 AN D 2.4.1 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- 2.4 THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN APPEAL AS WELL AS THE REJOINDERS TO THE REMAND REPORT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE TW O-HID I.E. DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS AND THE REVI SION OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS NO T ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. IT IS SEEN FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AS ABOVE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RETURN OF INCOME MADE A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR BAD DEBTS U/S.36(1). HOWEVER, THE DEDUCTION HAD BEEN COMPUTED BY VIRTUE OF PROVISO TO SUB-CLAUSE (A) TO THE CLAUSE (VIIA) WHICH WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT BEING ONLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2004 -05. THE APPELLANT HAD HOWEVER EXPLAINED THAT THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE TO IT UNDER THE SUB-CLAUSE(A) RESTRICTED BY THE PRO VISIONS OF SUB- SECTION 2(V) WHICH PROVIDES THAT IN RESPECT OF THE DEBTS RELATING TO ADVANCES MADE BY AN ASSESSEE TO WHOM CLAUSE (VII A) OF SUB- SECTION (1) APPLIED THE DEDUCTION WOULD BE AVAILABL E ONLY IF THE IN THAT YEAR HAS BEEN DEBITED TO THE PROVISION OF B AD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT ACCOUNTS. IT IS SEEN THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA)(A) THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED TO CLAIM BAD DEBTS IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISIONS MADE IN ~NE ACCO UNTS TO THE EXTENT OF 7.5% AND 10% OF THE AGGREGATE AVERAGE ADV ANCES MADE BY THE RURAL BRANCHES OF SUCH BANK. HOWEVER IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THE PROVISIONS ACTUALLY MADE IN THE ACCOU NTS WAS LESS THAN THE CLAIM ALLOWABLE TO THE APPELLANT UNDER THI S SECTION. THE A.O. CONFUSED HIMSELF REGARDING THE ALLOWABILITY OF THIS CLAIM BY REFERRING TO EXPLANATION 1) WHICH IS APPLICABLE ONL Y TO PROVISO TO THE-FIRST AND SECOND PROVISO WHICH C LOWS FOR AN OP TION TO THE I.T.A. NOS. 88 & 89/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 PAGE 4 OF 13 ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING THE BAD DEBTS AT A HIGHER AMO UNT FOR A LIMITED PERIOD MENTIONED IN THE RELEVANT EXPLANATIO N. THIS HAS BEEN CLARIFIED BY THE CBDT IN ITS CIRCULAR NO.17 OF 2008 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED IN POINT NO.3 REGARDI NG THE CLAIM OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UN DER: '(III) SECTION 36(1)(VIIA)(A) OF THE ACT PROVIDES T HAT IN RESPECT OF ANY PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS OF THE TY PE REFERRED TO IN THAT SUB-CLAUSE MADE BY A BANK, AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEE DING 5 PER CENT UP TO 31 ST MARCH, 2003 AND THEREAFTER 7.5 PER CENT OF THE TOT AL INCOME (COMPUTED BEFORE MAKING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THIS CLAUSE AND CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT) AND AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEE DING 10 PER CENT OF THE AGGREGATE AVERAGE ADVANCES MADE BY 'RUR AL BRANCHES' OF SUCH BANKS COMPUTED IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED UNDER THE INCOME- TAX RULES, 1962, SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. FOR THIS PURPOSE - (A) TOTAL INCOME OF THE YEAR SHOULD BE WORKED OUT A FTER ADJUSTING BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES, IF ANY, BUT BEFORE MAKING A NY DEDUCTIONS UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT. (B) THE DEDUCTION FOR PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFU L DEBTS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT OF SUCH PROVISION ACTUALLY CREATED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT YEAR OR THE A MOUNT CALCULATED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) WHICHEVER IS LESS. (C) FOR WORKING OUT THE AGGREGATE AVERAGE ADVANCES BY RURAL BRANCHES, THE AO SHOULD VERIFY WHETHER THE BRANCHES IN QUESTION ACTUALLY QUALIFY TO BE CATEGORIZED AS RURAL BRANCHE S AS PER THE DEFINITION IN EXPLANATION (IA) BELOW SECTION 36(1)( VIIA). THE AGGREGATE AVERAGE ADVANCES OF SUCH RURAL BRANCHES S HOULD THEREAFTER BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 6ABA OF I.T. RULES, 1962. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE WORKING IN RE SPECT OF ITS CLAIM FILED BEFORE THE AO IN RESPECT OF PROVISIONS FOR DOUBTFUL AND BAD DEBTS. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE HAVING ITS TOTAL INCOME AT NIL (LOSS) IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY ALLOWANCES UNDER ITEM (I) ABOVE OUT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER ITEM NO. (II) ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM FOR ALLOWANCE FOR BAD DEBT PROVISION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECTLY COMPUTED AT RS.25.38 CRORES AS UNDER: TOTAL ADVANCES (LENDING) BY RURAL BRANCHES OF THE A SSESSEE BANK MADE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08, AS EVI DENCED BY THE ASSESSEE BANK.....RS.253,76,00,000/- PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT ALLOWABLE UNDER ITEM (II) ABOVE (10% OF RS.153.76 CRORES)....RS.25,38,00,000/ - I.T.A. NOS. 88 & 89/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 PAGE 5 OF 13 THE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE ALLOWANCES IS HOWEVER, REST RICTED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE PROVISION DEBITED TO PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE PRO VISIONS ACTUALLY ALLOWABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT WOULD BE THE A MOUNT OF PROVISION DEBITED TO P/L ACCOUNT FOR THE RELEVANT F INANCIAL YEAR, I.E. RS.5,03,58,000/- OR RS.25.3 CRORES WHICH EVER IS LESS..........RS.5,03,58,000/- UNFORTUNATELY, IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME SUBMITT ED TO YOU, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RS.2,44,14,800/- INST EAD OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS.5,03,58,000/-, WHICH SHOULD BE T HE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION U/S.36(I)(VIIA)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AS SUCH THE QUESTION OF PREFE RRING THE CLAIM BY 1 LING REVISED RETURN DOES NOT ARISE AT AL L IN THIS CASE SINCE THE CLAIMED AMOUNT HAS ONLY BEEN SUBSTITUTED WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE PROVISION OF THE SAME SECTION 36(I )(VIIA)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961.' IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT AS PER NOTE O(VII) TO THE N OTES ON ACCOUNT SCHEDULE 17 THE PROVISIONS FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.5,21,58,000/- AND AFTER REDUCING PROVISIONS FOR FRAUD ETC. THE NET AMOUNT W ORKED OUT IS RS.5,03,58,000/- WHICH IS THE AMOUNT BEING CLAIMED IN APPEAL. THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED DISCUSSION AS ABOVE IT IS HELD THE A.O WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM, AND THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLE D TO DEDUCTION OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA)(A). 2.4.1 WITH RESPECT TO THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS OF RS.5,03,58,000/- AS AGAINST R S.2,44,14,800/- MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS SEEN THAT THE DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS PER PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AND EVEN THOUGH LOWER AND INCORRECT CLAIM HAD BEEN MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS THE CO RRECT CLAIM FOR WHICH THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED AND CONSIDERING THE DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 THE APPELLA NT HAS NOT MADE A CLAIM OF FRESH DEDUCTION BUT HAS ONLY CLAIMED THAT THE CO RRECT DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE TO IT IS ADMITTED OR ALLOWABLE I.E. THE R EVISED CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE CORRECT PROVISION O F LAW WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED IN APPEAL IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASE AS EVEN IF IT IS CONSIDERED AS A FRESH DEDUCTION OR C AIM THE SAME CAN BE CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGL Y, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE REVISED DEDUCTION OF R S.5,03,58,000/-. THIS GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. LD. REPRESEN TATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES HAVE AGREED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 1 OF REVENUES APPEAL RELATING TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE, INTER ALIA , BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK I.T.A. NOS. 88 & 89/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 PAGE 6 OF 13 LIMITED VS.- CIT REPORTED IN 343 ITR 270 (SC), WHE REIN IN WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 36(1)(VII) AND 36(1)(VII A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARE DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT ITEMS OF DE DUCTION AND OPERATE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE FIELDS. IT WAS HELD THAT BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF, OTHER THAN THOSE FOR WHICH PROVISION IS MADE UNDER CLAUSE (VII A), WILL BE COVERED UNDER THE MAIN PART OF SECTION 36(1)(VII), WHILE TH E PROVISO WILL OPERATE IN CASES UNDER CLAUSE (VIIA) TO LIMIT THE DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DEBT OR PART THEREOF WRITTEN OFF IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE CREDIT BALANCE IN THE PROVISION FOR BA D AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS ACCOUNT MADE UNDER CLAUSE (VIIA). IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISO THUS WOULD NOT PERMIT THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT DEDUCTION, OPERATIN G WITH REFERENCE TO RURAL LOANS WHILE UNDER SECTION 36(I)(VII). RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE DEDUCTION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED (SUPRA), WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT IT IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUN T OF PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. LD. D.R. HAS CONTENDED THAT EVEN IF THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN PRI NCIPLE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CATHOLIC S YRIAN BANK LIMITED (SUPRA), THE QUANTIFICATION OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) IS REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAIS ED ANY OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE QUAN TUM OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) O F THE ACT. SUBJECT TO THIS DIRECTION, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUES APPEA L IS DISMISSED. 6. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,80 ,983/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE O N AMORTIZATION OF EXPENSES TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN SECURITY. I.T.A. NOS. 88 & 89/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 PAGE 7 OF 13 7. IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF AMORTIZATION OF INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,00,80,983/-. THE SAID CLAIM WAS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND ON SUCH EXAMINATION, HE DISMISSED THE SAME FOR THE FOLLOWIN G REASONS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER:- THE BOARDS CIRCULAR REFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE REQU IRES THE A.O. TO DETERMINE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE AS TO WHETHER ANY PARTICULAR SECURITY CONSTITU TE STOCK IN TRADE OR INVESTMENT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE GUID ELINE ISSUED BY RBI IN THIS REGARD FROM TIME TO TIME. THE SAID CIRCULAR HOWEVER NOWHERE PERMITS THE ASSESSEE TO CL AIM THE AMORTIZATION AS A RESULT OF DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE SAME HAS ALSO NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSE E IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND NEITHER THE EXPENDITURE QUALIFIES F OR DEDUCTION U/S 35D OF THE I.T. ACT. IN LIGHT THEREOF THE CLAIM OF RS.1,00,80,983/- IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO INCOME. 8. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N ACCOUNT OF ITS CLAIM OF AMORTIZATION OF EXPENSES WAS DISPUTED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THE DE TAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE TH AT ITS CLAIM FOR AMORTIZATION OF INVESTMENT WAS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTI ON IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE SAID SUBMISSION WAS FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE LATTER COMMENTS AND A FTER CONSIDERING THE COMMENTS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS RE MAND REPORT AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A PPEALS) DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING R EASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 3.4 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE ISSUE ON TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THE AMORTISATION OF INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR OF RS.1,00,80,982/-. AS EXPLAINED THE APPELLANT IS DOING BANKING BUSINESS A ND HAS TO MAINTAIN STATUTORY LIQUIDITY RI TIC (SLR) AS PER BA NKING REGULATION ACT FOR WHICH IT HAS TO INVEST IN GOVERN MENT SECURITIES AND BONDS WHICH ARE OPEN PURCHASED FROM MARKET I.T.A. NOS. 88 & 89/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 PAGE 8 OF 13 AS THE PRICE WHICH IS AT PREMIUM OVER FACE VALUE AN D SUCH PREMIUM IS AMORTISED EQUALLY IN YEAR TO YEAR BASIS BASED ON THE MATURITY PERIOD OF SUCH SECURITIES. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HELD THE SLR SECURITIES AS PAID INVESTMENT UNDER THE 'HELD TO MATURITY' CATEGORY WHOSE VALUATI ON AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO.665 OF 1993 HAS TO BE MADE AS PER NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY RBI. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIM ED THAT ALTHOUGH THE VALUATION HAS BEEN MADE AS PER THE GUI DELINES OF THE RBI THE A.O. HAS HELD THAT THIS CIRCULAR DOES N OT PERMIT APPELLANT TO CLAIM AMORTIZATION AS REVENUE EXPENDIT URE AS A RESULT OF DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS. T HE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF BOMBAY TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VS. BANK OF RAIASTHAN LTD. IN WHICH THIS ISSUE WAS CONS IDERED AND THE DECISION WAS BAS ED ON CBOT CIRCULAR NO.17 OF 2 008. THE ITAT, MUMBAI B BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE ABOVE DECISIO N DATED 22.01.2010 HAS HELD THAT '21. SINCE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS PER RBI GUIDELINES AND CBDT HAS ALSO ISSUED DIRECTIONS TO ALLOW PREMIUM TO BE AMORTIZED REMAINING WITH THE MATURITY, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIREC TED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.65,51,826/-. ' THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE PLACING ITS ORDE R ON THE INSTRUCTION OF CBDT NO.17 DATED 26.11.2008, THE REL EVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'AS PER RBI GUIDELINES DATED 15 TH OCTOBER, 2000, THE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO OF THE BANKS IS REQUIRED TO BE CLASSIFIED UNDER THREE CATEGORIES VIZ. HELD TO MATURITY (HTM), HELD FOR TRADING (HFT) AND AVAILABLE FOR SALE (AFS). INVESTMENTS CLASSIFIED UN DER HTM CATEGORY NEED NOT BE MARKED TO MARKED AND ARE CARRIED AT ACQUISITION COST UNLESS THESE ARE MORE THAN THE FACE VALUE, IN WHICH CASE THE PREMIUM SHOULD BE AMORTIZED OVER THE PERIOD REMAINING TO MATURITY. IN THE CASE OF HFT AND AFS SECURITIES FORMING STOCK IN TRADE OF THE BANK, THE DEPRECIATION/APPRECIATION IS TO BE AGGREGATED SCRIP WISE AND ONLY NET DEPRECIATION, IF ANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED FOR THE ACCOUNTS. THE LATEST GUIDELINES OF THE RBI MAY BE REFERRED TO FOR ALLOWING ANY SUCH CLAIMS.' THEREFORE BOTH FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND F ROM THE INSTRUCTION CITED ABOVE, IF THE ACQUISITION COST IS MORE-THAN FACE VALUE THE PREMIUM IS TO BE AMORTISED OVER THE PERIOD REMAINING TO MATURITY. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED THE DETAILS OF AMORTIZATION OF SEC IRITIES BASED ON THE MATURIT Y DATE, IN ITS SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 12.09.2012 AND IT IS SEEN FROM THE BREAK I.T.A. NOS. 88 & 89/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 PAGE 9 OF 13 UP-THAT THE AMORTIZATION HAS BEEN DONE ON THE BASIS OF LIFE YEARS I.E. THE PERIOD BETWEEN PURCHASE DATE AND MAT URITY DATE AND THE AMOUNT FOR THE CURRENT YEAR IS AS CLAIMED B Y THE APPELLANT OF RS.1,00,80,982/-. THEREFORE, IT IS CLE AR THAT NOT ONLY THE PROVISION IS THERE FOR AMORTISATION OF EXP ENSES THE SAME ARE BEING CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN LINE WIT H THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.17/2008. ACCORDINGLY IT IS HELD THAT THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE ABOVE CLAIM AND TH E DISALLOWANCE IS DELETED. (RELIEF RS.1,00,80,982/-) 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PER USED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. LD. D.R. HAS CONTENDE D THAT THE RELIEF ON THIS ISSUE WAS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BANK OF RAJASTHAN LIMITED (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THE BASIS OF RELEVANT GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE RBI. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE SAID GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE RBI WERE APPLICABLE ONLY FOR A CERTAI N PERIOD AND IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE SAME HAS BEEN EXTENDED FOR A FURTHER PERIOD COVERING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, HAS FILED A COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED MARCH 2 6, 2009 ISSUED BY THE RBI EXTENDING THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY RBI EVEN TO THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09. KEEPING IN VIEW THE SAID GUIDE LINES, WHICH ARE DULY APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE FIN D NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. THE SAME IS, THEREFO RE, UPHELD DISMISSING THE GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 10. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,66,57 ,100/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTER OFFICE ADJUS TMENT. 11. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN TER OFFICE ADJUSTMENT OF RS.7,66,57,100/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSE E COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO MATCHING AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE BALANCE-SHEET CORRESPONDING TO THIS LI ABILITY. HE, THEREFORE, I.T.A. NOS. 88 & 89/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 PAGE 10 OF 13 TREATED THE AMOUNT OF INTER OFFICE ADJUSTMENT AS IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE SAME TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. 12. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF INTER OFFICE ADJUSTMENT WAS TREATED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF WRONG PRESUMPTION AND WITHO UT APPRECIATING THE EXACT NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION INVOLVED IN THE BAN KING BUSINESS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REGIONAL RURAL BAN K OPERATING ITS BANKING BUSINESS THROUGH 216 BRANCHES AND AT ANY GI VEN POINT OF TIME, THERE REMAINS A DIFFERENCE IN THE CLOSING BALANCE I N BETWEEN THE BRANCH AND THE H.O. ARISING FROM THE TIMING DIFFERENCE IN PASSING CORROBORATING ENTRIES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SUCH DIFFERENCE, HOW EVER, WAS DULY RECONCILED AND THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WAS FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN SUPPORT. THE SAID RECONCILIATION PREPARED AND FURNI SHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE COMMENTS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE TH EREON IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY HIM IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH 6.4 OF HIS IMP UGNED ORDER:- THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ON THIS ISSUE AS WELL AS ITS REJOINDER TO REMAND REPORTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AN D IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE DIFFERENCES IN RESPECT OF LIE CLOSING BALANCE IN BETWEEN THE BRANCH AND THE H EAD OFFICE ARISING FROM NON-RESPONDING OF ENTRIES MADE EITHER ON BRANCH AND /OR HEAD OFFICE RELATING TO VARIOUS ITEMS. IT H AS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT THE SAME COVER MAINLY THIRD PARTY LI ABILITY TOWARDS DEMAND DRAFT DRAWN ON DIFFERENT BANKS AND C LEARING CHEQUES. FURTHER THAT DEMAND DRAFT PAYABLE CONSTITU TE THE MAJOR PORTION OF INTER OFFICE ADJUSTMENT LIABILITY AND THE SAME IS PURELY A THIRD PARTY LIABILITY WHICH HAS NOT BEE N RECORDED BY OTHER BANKS AND THE SAME IS CONSIDERED WHILE COMPUT ING NET DEMAND AND TIME LIABILITY BASED ON WHICH CRR IS CAL CULATED. THEREFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE A.O. THAT INTER BRA NCH ADJUSTMENT CREDIT WAS A LIABILITY TO SELF IS MISPLA CED AND NOT CORRECT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED COPY OF FORM X PRESCRIBED BY RESERVE BANK OF INDIA UNDER THE BANKING REGULATI ON ACT 1949 AND AS PER THE INSTRUCTION OF RBI IN RPCD NO. CRRB.1/396/83-84 DATED JULY, 28,1983 THE ENCLOSED F ORM X HAS PROVISION FOR BRANCH ADJUSTMENT AT SI.NO.6 AS LIABI LITY OR SI.NO.9 AS ASSET (AS THE CASE MAY BE) AND AS PER NO TE TO THE SAME IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT HE NET BALANCE OF B RANCH I.T.A. NOS. 88 & 89/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 PAGE 11 OF 13 ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE SHOWN AS LIABILITY OR ASSETS A S THE CASE MAY BE. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INTER OFFIC E ADJUSTMENT NET FIGURE IS BEING SHOWN AT RS.7,66,57,100/- AS PE R THE GUIDELINES AND THE PRESCRIBED FORM OF THE RESERVE B ANK OF INDIA AND IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT NONE OF THESE ITEMS ARE OF REVENUE IN NATURE AND DID NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE BANK. FURTHER AS POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT THE AMOUNT COVERED UNDER THIS HEAD IS IN A CONTINUO US PROCESS OF ELIMINATION OR RECONCILIATION AND THAT THE NET A MOUNT APPEARING IN APPELLANTS BALANCE SHEET FOR THE SUBS EQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS A DEBIT ITEM UNDER THE ASSET SIDE' OF THE BALANCE SHEET. IT IS A LSO SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THE BRANCH-WISE DETAILE D BREAK-UP OF THE AMOUNTS SHOWN UNDER THIS HEAD IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE 216 BRANCHES OF THE APPELLANT BANK WITH TOTAL CREDI T OF RS.11,62,11,121/- AND TOTAL DEBIT OF RS.3,95,53,719 /- THUS RESULTING IN THE INTER OFFICE ADJUSTMENT NET CREDIT OF RS.7,66,57,402/-. IT IS ALSO BEEN EXPLAINED THAT TH E DETAILS WERE CALLED BY THE A.O. JUST 3-4 DAYS BEFORE THE COMPLET ION OF THE ASSESSMENT AND IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO COLLECT THE D ETAILS WITHIN 3-4 DAYS PROVIDE TO THE A.O. IT IS HOWEVER SEEN THA T THE A.O. HAS NOT GONE INTO THE MERITS OF THIS HEAD OF ACCOUNT BU T THE A.O. HAS MENTIONED THAT ITEM WISE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS HA VE NOT BEEN FURNISHED FOR EXAMINATION WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED SI NCE THERE ARE LUMINOUS TRANSACTIONS INVOLVED THE A.O. COULD HAVE CALLED DETAILS OF A BRANCH AND VERIFIED ON A TEST CHECK BA SIS WHICH HE FAILED TO DO SO THEREFORE HE INSISTED OF SUCH VOLUM INOUS DETAILS IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS WAS NEITHER JUSTIFIED NOR REA SONABLE. THIS IS ANOTHER WAY OF THE A,O. TO GO INTO THIS ISS UE AGAIN WITHOUT HAVING DEALT WITH IT AT THE ASSESSMENT STAG E WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE APPELLANT HAS B EEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF INTER OFFICE ADJUSTMENT AND HOW THE NET BALANCE IN A PARTICULAR YEAR COULD EITHER BE REFLECTED IN THE ASSET SIDE OR THE LIABILITY SIDE O F THE BALANCE SHEET AS WAS THE CASE IN THE CURRENT YEAR. THE APPE LLANT HAS ALSO SHOWN BY WAY OF COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET OF OTH ER BANKS THAT SUCH INTER OFFICE ADJUSTMENTS WERE APPEARING I N THE BALANCE SHEET OF OTHER BANKS ALSO. THEREFORE, CONSI DERING THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS ABOVE AND THE FACT S AS EXPLAINED IN RESPECT OF THE INTER OFFICE ADJUSTMENT S IT IS CLEAR THAT NATURE OF THIS ITEM IS NOT SUCH WHICH IS DISAL LOWABLE OR WHICH IS BEING DEBITED IN THE P&L A/C AS A REVENUE ITEM AND THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO REGARDING SUCH INTER OFFICE ADJUSTMENT WAS NOT CORRECT AND TH E DISALLOWANCE IS THEREFORE, JOT JUSTIFIED. THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.7,66,75,100/- IS DELETED. (RELIEF RS.7 ,66,57,100). 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ONLY CON TENTION RAISED BY THE LD. D.R. ON THIS ISSUE IS THAT SOME ITEMS OF RECONC ILIATION MADE BY THE I.T.A. NOS. 88 & 89/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 PAGE 12 OF 13 ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF INTER OFFICE ADJUSTMENT MAY HAVE A DIRECT EFFECT ON THE PROFITABILITY AND THE MATTER MAY, THEREFORE, BE SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF SUCH ITEMS. H OWEVER, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE RECONCILIATION WAS FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT NO SUCH ITEM WAS POINTED OUT BY HIM IN THE REMAND REPORT HA VING ANY DIRECT BEARING ON THE INCOME OR PROFITABILITY OF THE ASSES SEE. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. D.R. O N THIS ISSUE AND UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS ) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE, WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 14. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE A.Y. 2009- 10 BEING ITA NO. 89/KOL/2013 . 15. AS AGREED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E SIDES, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.1 OF THIS APPEAL RELATING TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF AMOUN TING TO RS.5,80,90,357/- IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE INVOLVED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008-09, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY US IN THE FOREGOING PORTION OF THIS ORDER. FOLLOWING OUR CONCLUSION DRA WN ON IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN PRINCIPLE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE QUAN TUM OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SUBJECT TO THE SAID DIRECT ION, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 16. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 2 R ELATING TO THE DELETION BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OF THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLA IMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF AMORTIZATION OF EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.98,18,140/-, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES HAVE AGREED T HAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO SIMILAR TO THE ONE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DEC IDED BY US IN THE I.T.A. NOS. 88 & 89/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 PAGE 13 OF 13 FOREGOING PORTION OF OUR ORDER. FOLLOWING OUR CONCL USION DRAWN ON IN A.Y. 2008-09, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(AP PEALS) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL. 17. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON NOVEMBER 6 TH , 2015. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 6 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015 COPIES TO : (1) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-48, KOLKATA (2) PASCHIM BANGA GRAMIN BANK, NATABAR PAUL ROAD, CHATTERJEEPARA MORE, TIKIAPARA, HOWRAH-711 101 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- XXX, KO LKATA (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.
