ITO, Ward - 9(1), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Mitra Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 944/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8132 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MAHAPATRA
• Assessee Lawyers: M D SHAH
• Keywords: Question of law; Non-deduction of tax; Wrong claim
• Section: 143(3); 260A; 194C

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA (BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN) ITA NO. 852/KOL/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08 MITRA LOGISTIC PVT. LTD., VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFI CER, C/O D.J. SHAH & CO., WARD 9(1), KALYAN BHAVAN, 2 ELGIN ROAD, KOLKATA. KOLKATA 700 020 [PAN: AADCM 7145E] ITA NO. 944/KOL/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. MITRA LOGISTIC PVT. L TD., WARD 9(1), KOLKATA. KOLKATA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. A K. MAHAPATRA, CIT-DR RESPONDENT BY : SH. M.D. SHAH, AR DATE OF HEARING : 29/8/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/9/2012 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2012 PER SANJAY ARORA, A.M. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS, I.E., BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER BY THE CIT (A)-VIII, KOLKATA (CIT(A) FOR SH ORT) DATED 4.4.2011, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2007-08 DATED 30.12.2009 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER). 2 2.1 AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. AR, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEALS STANDS COVERED BY TH E ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE (IN ITA NOS. 1216 AND 1387/KOL/ 2011 AND ITA NOS. 1217 AND 1388/KOL/2011 DATED 19.6.2012) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY, PLACING A COPY OF THE SAME ON RECORD. THESE WERE, AS IS ALSO THE POSITION IN THE INSTANT CASE, CROSS APPEALS; THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAVING ALLOWED PARTIAL RELIEF, SO THAT THE DISALLOWANCES AS EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) MAY BE BROKEN UP OR CONSIDERED IN TWO SEPARATE COMPONENTS. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, A CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENT (CFA) FOR HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD., MUMBAI (HLL), MAKES PAYMENT OF VARIOUS CHARGES, WHICH ARE IN FACT ONLY FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITS PRI NCIPAL, I.E., HLL AND, ACCORDINGLY, ARE FULLY REIMBURSABLE BY IT. THE EARNING OF THE ASSESS EE IS IN THE FORM OF AGENCY COMMISSION, AND WHICH IN FACT STANDS SEPARATELY ACCOUNTED FOR U NDER THE SAID HEAD, AND DULY RETURNED AS INCOME (BEING AT RS. 29.05 LACS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR), AND ON WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE. 2.2 THE FIRST COMPONENT, HE CONTINUED, IS IN RESPEC T OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, AS A PART OF ITS DUTIES AND OBLIG ATIONS UNDER THE AGENCY AGREEMENT, RECEIVES GOODS CONSIGNED TO IT, WHICH ARE BOTH STOC KED AND THEN DISPATCHED TO THE DESIGNATED DESTINATIONS AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF TH E PRINCIPAL-CONSIGNOR, AND AT THE LATTERS COST. SIMILARLY, THE OTHER EXPENSES INCURRED, VIZ. SECURITY EXPENSES, COURIER FEES, BUS HIRE CHARGES, CONSULTANCY FEES AND ACCOUNTING CHARGES, A RE ALL AGAIN TOWARD THE VARIOUS SERVICES REQUIRED TO BE RENDERED AS A PART OF THE B USINESS ARRANGEMENT, AND REIMBURSABLE IN FULL. QUA TRANSPORTATION CHARGES, THE BASIS OF RELIEF BY THE LD. CIT (A) HAS BEEN THE FURNISHING OF FORM 15-I BY THE INDIVIDUAL TRANSPORT ERS TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, AND OF FORM 15-J (AN ANNUAL STATEMENT BASED ON FORM/S 15-I ) BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE REVENUE. AS REGARDS OTHER CHARGES, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RESTOR ED BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE OTHER YEARS (I.E., AYS 2006-07 AND 2008-09), TO EXAMINE I F THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS ARE IN THE NATURE OF REIMBURSEMENTS, WITH THE FURTHER DIRECTIO N THAT WHERE SO, NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) WOULD ENSUE. THE SAME, IT WAS PR AYED, BE FOLLOWED. 3 2.3 THE LD. DR WOULD, IN RESPONSE, SUBMIT THAT THER E IS NO QUESTION OF THE MATTER BEING CONSIDERED AS COVERED BY THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL EVEN THOUGH IT IS IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE. AS WOULD BE APPARENT THERE-FROM, THE ONLY BA SIS OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM QUA TRANSPORTATION CHARGES IN THAT CASE WAS THE FILING OF FORM 15-J BY THE ASSESSEE, SO THAT NO TDS ON THE SAID PAYMENT WAS IN FACT PAYA BLE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR FILING FORM 15-I OR 15-J HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY CONTESTED AND ASSAILED BY THE AO (REFER PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER PAYMENTS ALSO, IT STANDS ABUNDANTLY CLARIFIED THAT THE PRIVITY OF CONTRACT IS ONLY BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND THE PAYEE. AS SUCH, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE DRAWS A SEPARATE BILL TOWARDS THE SAME, AND WHICH EXPENDITURE IS SUBSEQUE NTLY REIMBURSED, THE SAME WOULD NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE FROM LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX A T SOURCE. 2.4 IN REJOINDER, THE LD. AR WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE FILING OF FORM 15-J BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY FORMED ITS ALTERNATE GROUND; ITS PRINCIPAL CA SE BEING THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT SUBJECT TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) IN VIEW OF IT BEING ON LY IN THE NATURE OF A REIMBURSEMENT. THE ISSUE UNDER REFERENCE, IT IS TO BE NOTED, HE CONTIN UED, IS NOT OF A LIABILITY OR DEMAND RAISED UNDER SECTION 201 AND/OR 201(1A), BUT APPLICATION O F SECTION 40(A)(IA). AS SUCH, EVEN IF SECTION 194C IS ATTRACTED, SO THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INDEED LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE, NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) WOULD OBTAIN I NASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY EXPENDITURE IN ITS RESPECT. IF THE FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS CHOSEN NOT TO ALLOW RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND, BUT ON A DIFFERENT GROUND, I.E., FURNISHING OF FORM 15-I/15-J, THE SAME CANNOT BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE OR OPERATE TO ITS PREJUDICE. IN FACT, THIS IS PRECISELY THE BASIS WHICH FOUND FA VOUR WITH THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE OTHER TWO YEARS. THE ASSESSEE, HE FURTHER URGED, ALSO PLACES RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS, VISHAKHAPATNAM VS. A DDL. CIT (IN ITA NO. 477/VIZ/2008), PLACING A COPY OF THE ORDER OF EACH OF THE THREE MEMBERS CONSTITUTING THE SPECIAL BENCH, WHICH DECIDED THE S AME PER MAJORITY DECISION, ON RECORD. THE SAME BEING NOW AVAILABLE AND APPLICABLE, FORMED YET ANOTHER REASON FOR NON- 4 APPLICATION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) IN THE INSTANT CAS E; THE PAYMENT, IN MOST PART, HAVING BEEN MADE AND NOT OUTSTANDING AS AT THE YEAR-END. 2.5 THE LD. DR, ON THIS, RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MILK SPECIALTIES LTD. VS. CIT (IN ITA NO. 374 OF 2011 DATED 16.2.2012) [REPORTED AT (2012) 21 TAXMAN.COM 327 (P&H)], PLACING A COPY OF THE SAID DECISION ON RECO RD. THE HONBLE COURT HAS CLARIFIED THAT WHERE THERE IS A LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX AT SO URCE UNDER SECTION 194C, WHICH WAS NOT DEDUCTED AND PAID, DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A) (IA) WOULD FOLLOW. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD, AS WELL AS THE CASE LAW CITED. 3.1 AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, I.E., QUA THE SEVERAL CHARGES DISALLOWED U/S. 40(A)(IA). THE MATTER, IN OUR VIEW, HAS TO GO BACK TO THE AO IN VIEW OF THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2008-09 (SUPRA). WE DO OBSERVE THAT THE MATTER STANDS DECIDED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON DUE EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSEES RECORDS AND EXPLANATI ONS, WITH THE AO ALSO SUBMITTING A REMAND REPORT TO THE LD. CIT (A), AND WHICH STANDS CONSIDERED BY THE LATTER. IN FACT, IT IS INDEED SURPRISING THAT THE MATTER SHOULD CONTINUE T O BE DISPUTED AND UNRESOLVED EVEN UP TO THE SECOND APPELLATE STAGE, AND THAT TOO FROM YE AR TO YEAR. THIS IS PARTICULARLY SO AS THE ISSUE IS ESSENTIALLY A SIMPLE MATTER, GIVEN THAT TH E ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES AND METHODS ARE WELL-SETTLED, SO THAT THE ENTRIES PASSED IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT SHOULD ORDINARILY REMOVE THE MATTER BEYOND THE REALM OF ANY DOUBT. WHEN A PA YMENT/S IS MADE, AS CLAIMED, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER, THE SAME WOULD ONLY, OR AT LE AST ORDINARILY AND IN THE NORMAL COURSE, STAND TO BE DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE LATTER, A S THE SAME ONLY WOULD REFLECT THE TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS. THERE WOULD THUS BE NO SCOPE FOR IT BEING CHARGED TO THE OPERATING STATEMENT OF THE PAYER AND, THUS, BEING CLAIMED AS AN EXPENSE IN THE COMPUTATION OF HIS INCOME, FOR ANY CONFUSION TO ARISE, LEAVE ALONE SUB SIST. 5 AT THE SAME TIME, SO HOWEVER, IT CANN OT BE OVERLOOKED THAT THE PAYMENTS UNDER REFERENCE ARE IN PURSUANCE TO THE SAME CONTINUING A RRANGEMENT WITH THE PRINCIPAL, I.E., AS FOR THE OTHER YEARS. A UNIFORMITY OF ADJUDICATION B Y THE TRIBUNAL, AS WELL AS BY THE REVENUE, WOULD THEREFORE DICTATE SUCH A COURSE, I.E ., AS AFORE-STATED. THE ONUS, THOUGH, WE MAY CLARIFY, WOULD BE STRICTLY ON THE ASSESSEE T O EXHIBIT THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE STANDS INCURRED ONLY FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE PRINC IPAL, WHO WAS OBLIGED TO REIMBURSE THE SAME IN FULL, AND INDEED DID SO, SO THAT THERE IS N O CLAIM IN RESPECT TO THE SAME BY THE ASSESSEE PER ITS RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER, THOUGH THE TRIBUNAL IN ITO VS. DR. WILLMAR SCHWABE INDIA PVT. LTD . (2005) 3 SOT 71 (DEL.), RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESS EE, CLARIFIES THAT THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, SEPARATELY BILLED, WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) HAS NOT EXPRESSED ANY SUCH RESERVATION OR QUALIFICATION (REFER PARA 9 & 1 9 THEREOF), I.E., QUA SEPARATE BILLING, SO THAT THE ONLY CONDITION THAT WOULD OBTAIN AND, RATH ER, IS TO BE SHOWN AS A MATTER OF FACT - ON THE BASIS OF THE UNDERLYING AGREEMENT AND RECORD S - IS THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT INCURRED ON OWN ACCOUNT BUT ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL, AND THEREFORE NOT CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE, BEING IN EFFECT FULLY REIMBURSABLE. AS A COROLLARY, IF AN EXPENDITURE IS REIMBURSABLE IN PART WHICH AGAIN WOULD NEED TO BE ESTABLISHED IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT AND RECORDS, ONLY THAT PORTION THEREOF WH ICH IS NOT REIMBURSABLE, AND THUS FORMS PART OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXPENDITURE PER ITS RETURN OF INCOME, WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE RIGOR OF SECTION 40(A)(IA). THE PREMISE OF T HIS ARGUMENT, WHICH REPRESENTS, AS APPARENT BY NOW, THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE TRIBUNA L, IS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE MAY BE LIABLE FOR TAX DEDUCTION, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DED UCTED, WHERE THE SAME, WHATEVER BE THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OR METHODOLOGY EMPLOYED, I S NOT CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY DISALLOWANCE IN ITS RESPECT. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 3.2 COMING TO THE REVENUES APPEAL; THE SAME CONCER NS ONLY TRANSPORTATION CHARGES, ALBEIT IN TWO SUMS, I.E., AT RS. 3,07,98,732/- AND RS. 28,63,254/-. AS REGARDS THE LATTER, THE SAME IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF PAYMENT TO ANY THI RD PARTY, BUT ONLY REPRESENTS THE 6 DEDUCTION MADE BY THE PRINCIPAL ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DELIVERY OF STOCK AND, THEREFORE, IS BY WAY OF TRANSPORTATION SHORTAGE. THERE IS NO QUE STION OF APPLICATION OF SEC. 40(A)(IA), AND STANDS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT (A). WE D ECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 3.3 WITH REGARD TO THE FORMER CLAIM (I.E., FOR RS. 307.99 LACS), WE ARE NOT AT ALL IMPRESSED WITH THE BASIS ON WHICH THE FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY HAS ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS RESPECT ARE DEFINITE AND UNCONTROVERTED. WHEN THE TRANSPORTERS HAD NOT ISSU ED FORM 15-I TO THE ASSESSEE, WHERE IS THE QUESTION OF IT FILING FORM 15-J TO THE DEPARTME NT, OF WHICH THE FORMER ARE BUT AN INTEGRAL PART. AND, EVEN IF FILED, WOULD BE ONLY A FALSE CLAIM, LEADING TO THE CHARGE OF PERJURY. ALSO, AS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND AGAIN TO NO REBUTTAL, THAT FORM 15J, I.E., TREATING IT AS HAVING BEEN FILED, IS NOT WITH THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY AND UNACCOMPANIED BY FORM 15-I, I.E., THE DECLARATIONS FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE INDIVIDUAL TRANSPORTERS, ON THE BASIS OF W HICH ONLY THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM TO BE FREE FROM THE OBLIGATION OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOU RCE. THAT IS, DE HORS F/15I, THE FILING OF F/15J IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE. FURTHER STILL, THE PHYS ICAL VERIFICATION CAUSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH SOME OF THE TRANSPORTERS, I. E., WHOSE ADDRESSES WERE SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, NAILS THE UNTRUTH OF THE ASSE SSEES CLAIM IN THIS REGARD; THEY BEING UNABLE TO FURNISH FORM 15-I, STATED TO BE ISSUED BY THEM, BEFORE THE INSPECTOR (ITI). THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED ANY OF THESE FINDINGS . SO HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEES PLEA QUA THE OTHER LIMB OF ITS ARGUMENT WOULD HOLD. THE PRINCIPLE OF REIMBURSEMENT, DISCUSSED EARLIER, WOULD DEFINITELY APPLY FOR THIS PAYMENT AS WELL. AT THE COST OF REPETITION, WE MAY CLARIFY THAT EVEN THOUGH THE PRIVITY OF CONTRACT MAY BE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE (WHOSE OBLIGAT ION IT IS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS) AND THE TRANSPORTER, RATHER, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRANSPORTER OR THE PRINCIPAL AND T HE TRANSPORTER THE PAYMENT IN EITHER CASE BEING ONLY IN PURSUANCE TO A CONTRACT; THE LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 194C BEING ON THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT AND NOT O N THE ONE WHO MAY FINALLY BEAR IT , SO THAT IT (THE PAYMENT) COULD BE ON ACCOUNT OF A DIFF ERENT PERSON, AS THE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL 7 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DISQUALIFICATION AND THE C ONSEQUENTIAL DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) WOULD APPLY ONLY WHERE THE CLAIM FOR EXPE NDITURE IS PREFERRED IN ITS RESPECT BY THE ASSESSEE, I.E., AS THE PERSON OBLIGED TO AND IN FACT MAKING THE PAYMENT. IF, AS CLAIMED, THE SAME STANDS CLAIMED AS A REIMBURSEMENT, AND IN FACT REIMBURSED, CLEARLY NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, FOR T HERE TO BE ANY SCOPE FOR DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE MATTER, THEREFORE, AS IN THE CASE OF OTHER EXPENSES FORMING PART OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, IS RESTORED BACK, ON IDENTICAL TERMS AND SCOPE, TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE DE CIDE ACCORDINGLY. 3.4 FINALLY, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT QUA THE NON APPLICATION OF THE DECISION BY THE HON'BLE COURT IN THE CASE OF MILK SPECIALITIES PVT. LTD . (SUPRA), CLAIMING THAT IT DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A NY QUESTION OF LAW, MUCH LESS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW (VIDE PARA 7 THEREOF), SO THAT THE SAID DECISION IS NOT A JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE ACT. THIS IS FO R THE REASON THAT A HOLISTIC READING OF THE SAID DECISION, NOTWITHSTANDING THE AFORESAID ST ATEMENT AT PARA 7, WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS ONLY A JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 260A, AND NOT A DENIAL OF ADMISSION OR AN IN LIMINE DISMISSAL OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE PARTIES W ERE HEARD AT LENGTH. THE HON'BLE COURT HAS APPROVED AND UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE T RIBUNAL. THE PRIMARY FACTS ARE RECORDED AT PARA 2. THOUGH, NO DOUBT, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC PLEA WITH REGARD TO PAYABLE, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT MAKE THE SAID DECISION NOT APPLICABLE; THE HON'BLE COURT, IN RATIO, STATING THAT WHERE AN EXPENDITURE IS SUBJECT TO DED UCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, VIOLATION THEREOF WOULD JUSTIFY DISALLOWANCE OF THE RELEVANT EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. WE OPINE ACCORDINGLY. 8 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES; WHILE THE REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (SANJAY AR ORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, D/ COPY FORWARDED TO:- M/S. MITRA LOGISTIC PVT. LTD., KOLKATA THE ITO WARD 9(1), KOLKATA. THE CIT (A) THE CIT THE DR GUARD FILE (ITA NOS. 852 & 944/KOL/2011) BY ORDER , AR, ITAT, KOLKATA. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 25/9/12 SD/- SD/- [ GEORGE MATHAN ] [ C.D RAO ] 25/9/12