D.C.I.T Cir - 4,kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co, Kolkata

ITA 905/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5084 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILOY BARAN SOM JCIT SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: B K PODDAR
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Permanent establishment; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 80G

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUSDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 905 / KOL / 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 DCIT, CIRCLE-4, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-700 069 V/S . M/S GILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT & CO. LTD., C-4, GILANDER HOUSE, N.S.ROAD, KOLKATA-700001 [ PAN NO.AAACG 9832 F ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI NILOY BARAN SOM, JCIT, SR-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI B.K.PODDAR, FCA /DATE OF HEARING 03-02-2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29-02-2016 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.212/CIT(A)-IV/2011-12 DATED 31.01.2013. ASSESSME NT WAS FRAMED BY JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE-4, KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORD ER DATED 28.12.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO. 905/KOL/2013 A.Y.2009-10 DCIT CIR-4 KOL. V. M/S GILLANDER ARBUTHNOT & CO. LTD. P AGE 2 1. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALLOWING PUJA EXPENSES AND TEMPLE EXPENSE S AS BUSINESS EXPENSES. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING G ROUND NO.1: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW PUJA EXPE NSE AND TEMPLE EXPENSE FOR RS.5,78,610/- SINCE SUCH EXPENSES ARE N ON-BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COULD NOT ESTA BLISH THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NECESSITY OF SUCH EXPENDIT URE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND G ONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE AO DISALLOWED PUJA EXPENSES AND TEMPLE EXPENSES FOR TH E REASON THAT THESE ARE NOT FOR A LEGITIMATE REQUIREMENT OF THE B USINESS. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, REVE NUE CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELI ED ON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 589/K/2012 FOR AY 2007-08 DATED 19.12.2013 WHEREIN TRIBUNAL H AS ALLOWED AS UNDER: AGGRIEVED, NOW REVENUE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. W E FIND THAT THE PUJA EXPENSE INCURRED ON OCCASION OF DIWALI AND MAHURAT ARE CUSTOMARY EXPENSES AND GOING BY THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY AND THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSES SEE, WE FEEL THAT THESE ARE INCURRED FOR THE HARMONY OF THE ASSE SSEE-COMPANYS EMPLOYEES AND THESE ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS . SIMILAR ARE THE REASONS FOR INCURRING TEMPLE EXPENSE. HENCE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. AS THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEA L IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 905/KOL/2013 A.Y.2009-10 DCIT CIR-4 KOL. V. M/S GILLANDER ARBUTHNOT & CO. LTD. P AGE 3 4. THE SECOND ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CESS ON GREEN LEAF. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO. 2 : 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.67,90,287/- ON CESS ON GREEN LEAF WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF CESS ON GREEN LEAF IS RELATED TO 100% AGRICULTURAL OPERATION AND SLP IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUP REME COURT AGAINST THE DECISION OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AFT INDUSTRIES LTD. VS- CIT (270 ITR 167) IN THE LIGH T OF WHICH LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELI ED ON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 589/K/2012 FOR AY 2007-08 DATED 19.12.2013, WHEREIN TRIBUNAL H AS ALLOWED AS UNDER: 5. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AFT INDUST RIES LTD. V. CIT 270 ITR 167 (CAL), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THAT CESS ON GREEN LEAF I S A NORMAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND ONCE THE HONBLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT DECIDES THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE, SAME IS COVERED. HENCE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED ON THIS ISS UE. THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . AS THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEA L IS DISMISSED. 6. THE THIRD ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO ON ACCO UNT OF NON- DEDUCTION OF TDS ON EXPENSES OF COMMISSION PAYMENT U/S. 195(1) OF THE ACT THEREBY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO. 3 : 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.552 692/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 40(A)(IA) IN VIEW OF THE J UDGMENT GIVEN BY THE ITA NO. 905/KOL/2013 A.Y.2009-10 DCIT CIR-4 KOL. V. M/S GILLANDER ARBUTHNOT & CO. LTD. P AGE 4 SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. TRANSMISSION CORP ORATION OF INDIA REPORTED IN 239 ITR 587. 7. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELI ED ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 589/K/2012 FOR AY 2007-08 DATED 19.12.2013, WHEREIN TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED AS UNDER: 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUG H FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT ASSESSI NG OFFICER TREATED THE COMMISSION PAID TO FOREIGN AGENT AS NON ALLOWABLE EXPENSES AS ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS AND HE DI SALLOWED THE COMMISSION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.11,35,554/-. AGG RIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO ALLOWE D THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING VIDE PARA-7.1 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER:- 7.1 IT IS SEEN THAT AO MADE THIS DISALLOWANCE ON T HE BASIS OF SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CASE OF M/S. TRANSMISS ION CORPORATION OF INDIA REPORTED IN 239 ITR 587 WHEREI N IT WAS HELD THAT ONLY WAY TO ESCAPE LIABILITY IS TO GET NO DEDUCTION CERTIFICATE OR LOWER RATE DEDUCTION CERTIFICATE FRO M AO. APPELLANT ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN C ASE OF GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE P LTD. VS. CIT IN 44 DTR SUPREME COURT 201 ,IN WHICH SUPREME COURT HAS CLARIFIED THAT OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ARISES U/S. 194 ONLY WHEN THERE IS ANY SUM CHARGEABLE UNDER THE ACT. AND CBDT CIRCULAR HAS ALSO CLARIFIED, THAT TDS PROVISIO N WILL NOT APPLIED IN CASE WHERE SUCH INCOME IS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA. IN THIS CASE, AS THE INCOME DOES NOT ARISE IN INDIA AND THE COMMISSION IS PAID TO THOSE FOREIGN AGENTS, WHO HAV E NO PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OR BUSINESS PLACE IN INDIA AND SERVICES ARE ALSO RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA. IT IS VER Y CLEAR THAT NO TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE IN CASE WHERE THE NON-RES IDENT AGENTS OPERATE OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY AND NO PART OF H IS INCOME ARISES IN INDIA. IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 23 AND 786 , THE COMPANY WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AND AS PROVISION U/S. 40(A)(IA) DOES NOT APPLY, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED . WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE'S CLAIM WAS THAT THE COMMISSI ON PAID TO FOREIGN AGENTS, WHO ARE NOT HAVING PERMANENT ESTABL ISHMENT BUSINESS PLACE IN INDIA AND THEY ARE PROVIDING SERV ICES OUTSIDE INDIA AND EVEN THE PAYMENT IS DIRECTLY MADE OUTSIDE INDIA IN ITA NO. 905/KOL/2013 A.Y.2009-10 DCIT CIR-4 KOL. V. M/S GILLANDER ARBUTHNOT & CO. LTD. P AGE 5 FOREIGN EXCHANGE. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, ASSESSEE'S INCOME DOES NOT ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA AND ONCE INCOME D OES NOT ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABL E TO DEDUCT TDS ON FOREIGN PAYMENTS. ACCORDING TO HIM, THIS ISSUE I S COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE P. LTD. V. CIT 44 DTR 201 (SC). AS THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WE HAVE NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) AND WE CONFIRM THE SAME. THIS ISSUE OF REVE NUES APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED . AS THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN A .Y. 2007-08, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISS UE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. THE FOURTH ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE THE NURSERY EX PENSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NURSERY EXPENSES HAS ALW AYS BEEN HELD AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FO LLOWING GROUND NO. 4: 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN NOT ALLOWING NURSERY EXPENSES O F RS.3548465/- AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHILE THE AO HELD THE SAME TO B E CAPITAL IN NATURE IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S TASATI TEA CO. LTD. 9. WE HAVE HEARD LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND G ONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DISALLO WED NURSERY EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.35,48,465/- BY ATTRIBUTING THE SAME TO BE OF ENDURING NATURE FOR LONG TERM PLANTATION OF TEA GAR DENS FOR GROWING GOOD QUALITY OF TEA. 10. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A), WHO RELYING ON THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. TASATI TEA LTD. (2003) 262 ITR 388(CAL) DELETED THE DISALL OWANCE OF EXPENSES ITA NO. 905/KOL/2013 A.Y.2009-10 DCIT CIR-4 KOL. V. M/S GILLANDER ARBUTHNOT & CO. LTD. P AGE 6 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 10.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS NARRATED BY APPE LLANT AND ALSO DECISION RELIED UPON OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY APPELLANT IS INCURRED FOR TH E PURPOSE OF RE- PLANTATION IN THE EXISTING AREA AND PLANTS GROWN IN THE NURSERY WERE USED FOR REPLACEMENT OF USELESS OR DEAD PLANTS WITH IN THE PLANTATION AREA. AS THE RE-PLANTATION IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE GROWING AND MANUFACTURING TEA, AND NOTHING CONTRARY TO THE FACT IS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO, THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY APPELL ANT IS TO BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. AS PER FACTS AVAIL ABLE, THE AREA UNDER CULTIVATION ALSO REMAINS THE SAME, AND THEREF ORE, THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. T HE ADDITION MADE, THEREFORE, BY AO IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AN D CLAIM OF APPELLANT IS ALLOWED. 11. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDIT URE FOR RE- PLANTATION IN THE EXISTING AREA AND PLANTS GROWN IN THE NURSERY WERE USED FOR REPLACEMENT OF DEAD PLANTS WITHIN THE PLANTATIO N AREA. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN DENIED BY REVENUE BEFORE CIT(A) OR BEFORE US NOW. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT THIS IS RE-PLANTATION IN THE EXISTI NG AREA AND REPLACEMENT OF DEAD PLANTS BUT BY GOING THROUGH THE VOLUME OF E XPENDITURE HE MADE DISALLOWANCE AND HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TASATI TEA LTD. , (SUPRA) HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF REPLACEMENT OF PLANTS IN EXISTING AREA AGAINST DEAD PLANTS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: BUT, HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WI TH THE ORDER ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,68,615/- AS A REVE NUE EXPENDITURE, THOUGH ON DIFFERENT GROUNDS, INASMUCH AS IF THE PLANTS ARE RAISED AND MAINTAINED IN A NURSERY FOR B EING UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RE-PLANTATION WITHOUT ANY EXPANSION OF THE PLANTATION AREA OR RE-PLANTATION IN AN ABANDONED AR EA, THEN IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. CAPITA L EXPENDITURE INVOLVES AN INVESTMENT INCREASING THE CAPITAL FOR H IGHER PROFIT. THE EXPANSION MEANS EXTENSION OF PLANTATION TO AN ADDIT IONAL AREA. AN AREA ALREADY ABANDONED, IF REPLANTED WOULD BE AN EXPANSION OF THE AREA UNDER CULTIVATION FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR CONCERNED. THE MAINTENANCE OF AN AREA ALREADY UNDER CULTIVATION CA NNOT BE TREATED TO BE AN EXPANSION OF THE PLANTATION NOR CA N IT BE TREATED ITA NO. 905/KOL/2013 A.Y.2009-10 DCIT CIR-4 KOL. V. M/S GILLANDER ARBUTHNOT & CO. LTD. P AGE 7 TO BE AN INVESTMENT OR EXPANSION ADDING TO THE CAPI TAL ALREADY INVESTED. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WOULD BE A MAINTEN ANCE OF THE PLANTATION ITSELF AND, THEREFORE, IS A REVENUE EXPE NDITURE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND FO LLOWING THE CASE LAW OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TASATI TEA LTD ., (SUPRA), WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THIS ISS UE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 12. THE FIFTH ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF WE ALTH TAX WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT. FOR T HIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.5: 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE AO TO DEDUCT WEAL TH TAX FROM THE NET PROFIT TO ASCERTAIN BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB. 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE AO WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT ADJUSTI NG THE BOOK PROFIT BY THE AMOUNT OF PROVISION MADE FOR WEALTH TAX ACT RS. 1.10 LAC. 14. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CI T(A), WHO RELYING ON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF USHA MARTIN INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT (2003) 81 TTJ 158 (CAL) AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AS HE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF ITA T KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF USHA MARTIN INDUSTRIES LTD ., (SUPRA). HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 15. THE SIXTH AND LAST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVE NUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN REJECTING THE ADDITION MADE BY A O TOWARDS DONATION. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.6: - ITA NO. 905/KOL/2013 A.Y.2009-10 DCIT CIR-4 KOL. V. M/S GILLANDER ARBUTHNOT & CO. LTD. P AGE 8 6. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN REJECTING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS DONATION TO VARIOUS CLUBS THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINE SS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHEN THE CLUBS ARE NOT APPROVED FO R DONATION U/S. 80G OF THE IT ACT. 16. AT THE OUTSET, WE OBSERVED THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL HAS NEITHER BEEN RAISED NOR BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE THIS GROUND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. HENCE, WE DISMISS AS INFRUCTUS. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE DISMISSED. SD.- SD/- (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP !- 29 / 02 /201 6 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-DCIT, CIRCLE-4, P7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-69 2. /RESPONDENT-M/S GILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT &CO.C-4, GILAN DER HOUSE, N.S.ROAD, KOL-01 3. ) *+ , , - / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. , , -- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 012 33*+, , *+ , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 267 89 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , , /TRUE COPY/ / , *+ ,