ITO, WARD-15(1), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s Merlin Resources Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 90/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7772 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2017
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 90/KOL/2017 (A.Y : 2010-2011) & I.T.A. NO.64/KOL/2017 (A.Y. 2010-2011) MERLIN RESOURCES (P) LIMITED 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 90/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 INCOME TAX OFFICER,........................ ................APPELLANT WARD-15(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, E.M. BY-PASS, 110, SHANTI PALLY, KOLKATA-700 107 -VS.- M/S. MERLIN RESOURCES PVT. LIMITED,................ ...........................RESPONDENT 9B, WOOD STREET, KOLKATA-700 016 [PAN: AABCM7285P] & I.T.A. NO. 64/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 M/S. MERLIN RESOURCES PVT. LIMITED,................ ...........................APPELLANT 9B, WOOD STREET, KOLKATA-700 016 [PAN: AABCM7285P] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,........................ .................RESPONDENT WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI A.K. NAYAK, CIT, D.R. & SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI A.K. TIBREWAL, FCA, FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JUNE 13, 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JULY 24, 2019 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KOLKATA ZONE) :- THESE TWO APPEALS, ONE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING ITA NO. 64/KOL/2017 AND THE OTHER FILED BY THE REVENUE BEING ITA NO. I.T.A. NO. 90/KOL/2017 (A.Y : 2010-2011) & I.T.A. NO.64/KOL/2017 (A.Y. 2010-2011) MERLIN RESOURCES (P) LIMITED 2 90/KOL/2017 , ARE CROSS APPEALS, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-12, KOLKAT A DATED 27.10.2016. 2. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL BEIN G ITA NO. 90/KOL/2017 , WHICH INVOLVES A COMMON ISSUE RELATING TO THE DEL ETION BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OF THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,00, 000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FO R BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY, W HICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCE AND SECURITIES. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY IT ON 21.09.2010 D ECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL. IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FILED ALONG WITH THE SAID RETURN, A SUM OF RS.1,50,00,000/- WAS DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT A SUM OF RS.4,00,00, 000/- WAS GIVEN AS LOAN TO M/S. ELBEE SERVICES LIMITED ON 10.05.1997 A ND AFTER PROVIDING FOR INTEREST CHARGED ON THE SAID LOAN, A TOTAL AMOUNT O F RS.9,85,61,855/- HAD BECOME RECEIVABLE FROM M/S. ELBEE SERVICES LIMITED AS ON 31.03.2003. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID RECEIVABLE AMOUNT WAS W RITTEN OFF IN PART AS BAD DEBTS AS FOLLOWS:- A.Y. 2006-07...............RS.1,97,12,371/- A.Y. 2008-09...............RS.3,80,00,000/- A.Y. 2009-10...............RS.1,75,00,000/- A.Y. 2010-11...............RS.1,50,00,000/- ON SPECIFIC QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT EFFORTS WERE BEING MADE TO RECOVER TH E AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM M/S. ELBEE SERVICES LIMITED AND AS AGREED MUTU ALLY BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID PARTY, THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE IN PART WAS WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBTS IN DIFFERENT YEARS. THIS EXPLANATION O FFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN WRITING OFF THE CONCERNED DEBT ONLY IN PART AS I.T.A. NO. 90/KOL/2017 (A.Y : 2010-2011) & I.T.A. NO.64/KOL/2017 (A.Y. 2010-2011) MERLIN RESOURCES (P) LIMITED 3 PER THE MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CONCERNED DEB TOR COULD NOT FULFIL THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 36(1)(VII) REA D WITH SECTION 36(2) OF THE ACT AS IT CLEARLY AMOUNTED TO A DEVISE REDUCING THE TAXABLE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.1,50,00,000/- ON ACCOU NT OF BAD DEBTS IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 28. 03.2013. 4. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N ACCOUNT OF ITS CLAIM FOR BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF WAS CHALLENGED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE DISALLOWAN CE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN O FF FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 4.2 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- 4.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT H AS GIVEN LOAN OF RS.4 CRORE TO ELBEE SERVICES (P) LTD ON 10. 05.1997 WHICH WAS BEING WRITTEN OFF IN PARTS STARTING FROM F.Y.2005- 06. A PART OF THE SAME LOAN HAD BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AS WELL. THE ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE CIT(A)-3, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 21/CIT(A )/CIR- 8/14-15(11-12)/KOL FOR THE A.Y.2009-10. IN HIS ORDE R DATED 29.01.2015 DISPOSING OFF THE SAID APPEAL, LD. CIT(A )-3, KOLKATA AFTER DISCUSSING FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION , DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OBSERVING THAT THE SECTION 36(1)(V II) OF INCOME TAX ACT HAS BEEN AMENDED W.E.F. 1.4.1989, HE HELD THE VIEW THAT AS PER THE AMENDED SECTION AS HELD BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T.R.F. LTD V CIT(2010) 323 ITR 397, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEB T HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS WRI TTEN OFF. THE ONLY CONDITION IS THAT THE DEBT SHOULD BE WRITT EN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. SINCE IN THE CASE OF THE APP ELLANT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS WRITTEN OFF T HE DEBT OF RS.1,75,00,000/- WHICH RELATES TO ITS MONEY LENDING BUSINESS, IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HENCE, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBT OF RS.1,75,00,000/- IS AN ALL OWABLE DEDUCTION AND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING RS.1,75,00,000/- AND THUS THIS GROUND O F THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED BY THE CIT (A)-3. THE MATERIAL FACTS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A BAD DEBT OF I.T.A. NO. 90/KOL/2017 (A.Y : 2010-2011) & I.T.A. NO.64/KOL/2017 (A.Y. 2010-2011) MERLIN RESOURCES (P) LIMITED 4 RS.1,50,00,000/- UNDER SEC 36(1)(VII) OF THE I.T AC T. I AGREE WITH THE REASONING GIVEN BY LD.CIT (A)-3 IN A.Y 09- 10, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,50,00,000/- IS DELETED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES HAVE AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUAR ELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDER ED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED SEPTEMBE R 22, 2017 PASSED IN ITA NO. 383/KOL/2015, WHEREIN THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF COMPRISING THE PAR T AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM M/S. ELBEE SERVICES LIMITED WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 6 OF ITS O RDER:- 6. AS REGARDS THE REVENUES APPEAL, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED THEREIN RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF IS SQ UARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD. (SUPRA) AS RI GHTLY HELD BY THE LD. CIT (A). EVEN THE CBDT HAS ACCEPTED THIS POSITION AND ISSUED A CIRCULAR NO 12/2016 ON 30.05.2016 DIRE CTING THAT IF ANY APPEAL IS ALREADY FILED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE BEFORE ANY COURT OR TRIBUNAL, THE SAME MAY BE WITHDRAWN. WE ACCORDINGLY TREAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE AS WITHDRAWN AND DISMISS THE SAME. 6. AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION AS WELL AS ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT THERETO ARE SIMILAR TO A.Y. 2009-10, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE ORDER OF COORDINATE BENCH O F THIS TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(APPEALS) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A CCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED . 7. NOW WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 64/KOL/2017 , WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE:- I.T.A. NO. 90/KOL/2017 (A.Y : 2010-2011) & I.T.A. NO.64/KOL/2017 (A.Y. 2010-2011) MERLIN RESOURCES (P) LIMITED 5 (1) FOR THAT ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.10,77,574/- U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D(2)(III) OU T OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. (2) FOR THAT THE ID AO MADE AN ERROR WHILE COMPUTI NG THE TOTAL INCOME BY NOT REDUCING THE PROVISION FOR DIMI NUTION IN THE VALUE OF QUOTED SHARES WRITTEN BACK NOT CLAI MED FOR DEDUCTION IN EARLIER YEARS OF RS.94,96,110/- ALONGW ITH THE REDUCTION EFFECTED BY HIM OF THE PROVISION FOR NPA WRITTEN BACK. FURTHER AND IN ANY EVENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDIC E TO THE AFORESAID, THE ID AO / LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DEDUCTING THE PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF QUOTED SHARES WRITTEN BACK AMOUNTING TO RS.94,96,110/- WHILE COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME. (3) FOR THAT THE LD. AO CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT SETTIN G OFF/CARRYING FORWARD THE UNABSORBED BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF RS.10,64,09,676/- UNDER THE HEAD 'BUSINES S' AND OF RS.2,36,650/- TOWARDS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER YEARS WITH THE IMPUGNED INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. (4) THE PURPORTED FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S IS WITHOUT ANY MATERIALS AND ARE CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ARE ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE, ERRONEOUS AND PERVERSE . (5) FOR THAT THE ID AO ERRED IN INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S. 271(1)( C). (6) FOR THAT THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST IS OTHERWI SE ERRONEOUS ON FACTS AND/OR IN LAW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED GROUNDS NO. 4, 5 & 6 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE SAME ARE ACCORD INGLY DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 9. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 1 RE LATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,77,574/- MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D(2)(III), THE LIMITED CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS ACTUALLY EARN ED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE I.T.A. NO. 90/KOL/2017 (A.Y : 2010-2011) & I.T.A. NO.64/KOL/2017 (A.Y. 2010-2011) MERLIN RESOURCES (P) LIMITED 6 MADE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D(2)(III) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CONTENDED THAT THI S CLAIM IS BEING MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE GIVEN AN OP PORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE SAME. WE FIND MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. D .R. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE IS ACCORDINGL Y SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR VERIFYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE A SSESSEES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. 10. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 2, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISION MADE FOR DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF QUOTED SHARES IN THE EARLIER YEARS WAS NEV ER CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION AND, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION C OULD BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF WRITE BACK OF THE SAID PROVISION IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THIS ISSUE MAY ALSO BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RELIEF CAN BE ALLOWED ON SUCH VERIFICATION. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS INVITED OUR ATTENT ION TO THE PARAGRAPH NO. 6.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) T O SHOW THAT THE DIRECTION WAS ALREADY GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND AL LOW RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. HOWEVER, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID DIRECTION WAS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN THE CONTEXT OF COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB WHIL E THE ISSUE AS RAISED IN GROUND NO. 2 NOW IS IN RELATION TO SIMILAR RELIE F BEING CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE NORMA L PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING NOT CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION IN THE EARLIER YEARS ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROVISION MADE FOR DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF QUOTED SHARES AND IF IT IS FOUND CORRECT ON SUCH VERIFICAT ION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.T.A. NO. 90/KOL/2017 (A.Y : 2010-2011) & I.T.A. NO.64/KOL/2017 (A.Y. 2010-2011) MERLIN RESOURCES (P) LIMITED 7 SHALL DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF WRITE BACK OF THE SAID PROVISION IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHILE COM PUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY TREAT ED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 3, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SPECIFIC GROUND WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) CLAIMING THE SET OFF AND CARRY FORWARD OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION BUT THE SAME WAS NOT DECIDED BY THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT SINCE THI S ISSUE INVOLVES VERIFICATION OF THE RELEVANT FACTS AND FIGURES FROM THE RECORD, THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR SUCH VERIFICATION. SINCE THE LD. D.R. HAS ALSO AGREED FOR SENDING THE MATTER BAC K TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SET OFF/CARRY FORWARD OF THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AFTER DUE VERIFI CATION OF THE RELEVANT FACTS AND FIGURES. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEES A PPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED, WHILE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JULY 24, 2019 . SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE -PRESIDENT (KZ) KOLKATA, THE 24 TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 COPIES TO : (1) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, E.M. BY-PASS, 110, SHANTI PALLY, KOLKATA-700 107 I.T.A. NO. 90/KOL/2017 (A.Y : 2010-2011) & I.T.A. NO.64/KOL/2017 (A.Y. 2010-2011) MERLIN RESOURCES (P) LIMITED 8 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 (3) M/S. MERLIN RESOURCES PVT. LIMITED, 9B, WOOD STREET, KOLKATA-700 016 (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-12, KOLKA TA, (5) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , (6) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (7) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.