PCB Enterprises Private Limited, Kolkata V. ACIT, CC- XXVIII, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 979/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0475 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PINAKI MUKHERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: M D SHAH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH B , KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI P.K.BANSAL, AM & SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & ] ITA NO .979 /KOL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 ( A PPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) PCB ENTERPRISE P RIVATE LIMITED - VERSUS - A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - XXVIII, KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN: AABCP 8195 K) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI M.D.SHAH, FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI PINAKI MUKHERJEE, JCIT, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 25.05.2015. DATE O F PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.05.2015. ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - CENTRAL - I, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO . 326 /CIT(A) C - I/CC - XXVIII / 09 - 10 DATED 16.05.2011. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - XXVIII, KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS THE ACT ) FOR A.YR . 2006 - 07 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.12.2008. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTIN G THE FIRST IS SUE I.E. VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY WAY OF GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTERNAL AUDIT FEE FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS THE RE BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.3 : 3. FOR THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT APPEALS ERRED IN DISALLOWING RS.48,000/ - BEING INTERNAL AUDIT FEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT 1961. SUCH DISALLOWANCES IS UNWARRANTED, UNCALLED FOR AND UNJUSTIFIED AND HENCE THE SAME BE DELETED. ITA NO .979/KOL/2011 PCB ENTERPRISE PVT.LTD. A.YR.2006 - 07 2 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF INTERNAL AUDIT FEE PAID TO THE FOLLOWING THREE PERSONS : - MR.M.MUNDRA RS.18000 MR. CS SHAH RS.18000 MR.S.PANDAV RS.12000 TOTAL RS.48000 AO BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 194J OF THE ACT MADE DISALLOWANCES. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO. 5. WE FIND THAT IN EACH OF THE CASE AUDIT FEE DID NOT EXCEED RS.,20,000/ - . THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2006 - 07 RELEVANT TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2005 - 06. IN VIEW OF THE PROVISO OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT FEE FOR PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL SERVICES THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS IN CASE THE PAYMENT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONE TARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED I.E. RS.20,000/ - IN THAT YEAR IN EACH OF THE CASE. IN VIEW OF THE PROVISO THE PRESENT ASSESSE E IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AS THE PAYMENT IN ALL THE THREE CASES IS LESS THAN RS.20,000/ - EACH. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND THAT AO AS W ELL AS CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING TH IS PAYMENT. WE DELETE THE SAME AND THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.47,40,432/ - TO VARIOUS PARTIES, AND CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.43,65,432/ - . FOR THIS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.4 : - 4. FOR THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT APPEALS ERR ED IN DISALLOWING RS.43,65,432/ - BEING INTEREST BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT 1961. SUCH DISALLOWANCE IS UNWARRANTED, UNCALLED FOR AND UNJUSTIFIED AND HENCE THE SAME BE DELETED. ITA NO .979/KOL/2011 PCB ENTERPRISE PVT.LTD. A.YR.2006 - 07 3 7. THE AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED INTER EST ON LOAN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.47,40,432/ - AND ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED LEDGER COPY AND ADMITTED THAT NO TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED WHILE CREDITING SUCH INTEREST. ACCORDINGLY AO DISALLOWED THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE BY INVOKING THE PROVIS ION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF RS.43,65,432/ - AS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO AT RS.47,40,432/ - BY OBSERVING IN PARA 4.2 AS UNDER : - 4.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.A.R., REPORT OF THE A.O AND THE COUNTER REPLY FILED BY THE LD.A.R. THE 15G FORMS SUBMITTED WERE INCOMPLETE AND NONE OF THE SCHEDULE - I & II, III PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION. EVEN PAN OF THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS IS NOT GIVEN IN ANY OF THE FORM 15G. FURTHER AS REPORTED BY THE AO THE LD. AR EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION OR TO PRODUCE ANY OF THE PERSONS FOR EXAMINATION. HENCE NO CREDIT CAN BE GIVEN TO THE UNVERIFI ABLE FORM 15G SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS. HOWEVER AS REPORTED BY THE AO THAT TDS HAS BEEN DULY DEDUCTED ON PAYMENT OF INTEREST OF RS.3,75,000/ - , THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.47,40,432/ - MADE BY THE AO IS RESTRICTED TO RS.43 ,65,432/ - . THE APPELLANT WILL GET NECESSARY RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 8. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM AO AND COUNTER REPLY BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SUBMISSION OF FORM NO.15G. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF FORM 15G WI TH CIT(A) & AO AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WERE REFERRED TO AO BY CIT(A). THUS AO HAS ONLY GIVEN THE TECHNICAL HITCH THAT THESE PERSONS , NO DOUBT HAVE GIVEN FORM 15G BUT THESE ARE NOT PROPERLY FILLED UP ACCORDING TO CIT(A). THESE FORMS ARE NOT PROPERLY FILLED UP IN SCHEDULE I, II AND III AND EVEN PART - II OF THE FORM TO BE FILLED UP BY THE DEDUCTOR. ACCORDING TO CIT(A) PAN OF THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS WAS NOT GIVEN IN FORM 15G. IT IS A FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED FORM 15G FROM THE RESPECTIVE PAYEES TO W HO M INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED FORM 15G THE ONUS AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS OVER FOR DEDUCT ING TDS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS VIEW OF OURS IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VIPIN P.MEHTA IN ITA NO.3317/M/2010 DATED 20 TH MAY, 2011 HELD AS UNDER :_ 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND TH E RI VA L CO NT E NT IO N S . SEC T I ON 19 4A PR OVIDES FOR DE D UC TION OF TAX FR OM THE INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESS E E , A T THE APPROPRIAT E R A T E . SECTION 197A(LA) PROVIDES THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ITA NO .979/KOL/2011 PCB ENTERPRISE PVT.LTD. A.YR.2006 - 07 4 AN Y THING CONTAINED IN SECTION 194A NO DEDUCTION OF TAX SHALL BE MADE UNDER THE SECTION IF THE PAYEE OF THE INTEREST FURNISHED T O TH E PERSON RESPO NSIBLE FOR PAYING TH E I NT E REST , A DECLAR A T IO N IN WRIT I N G I N DUPLICATE IN THE PRES C R I B E D FOR M A ND VE RIFI ED IN THE PRES C R I BED MANN E R TO TH E EFFE C T TH A T TH E TAX O N HI S ES T I M ATED TOT A L I N C OM E O F THE PR EVIO US YEAR I N W H IC H T H E IN TERE S T IS TO B E INCLUDED WILL BE NIL . SUB - SECTION ( 2) PRO V IDES THAT THE P E R SO N RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING INTEREST S HALL DELIVER O R CA US E TO BE DELIVERED TO THE CCIT OR CIT ONE C O P Y O F THE D EC L ARA T IO N SUBMITTED BY THE PAYEE OF THE INTEREST TO THE ASSESSEE O N O R BEFORE THE SEVENTH DAY OF THE MONTH NE X T FOLLO WI NG T HE MONT H IN WHICH THE DECLARATION WAS FURNISHED TO HIM . IF TH E PER SO N RESPONSIBLE F OR PAYIN G THE INTEREST (I.E . THE ASSESSEE ) D OES N OT COMPL Y WITH SUB - SECTION 2 OF SEC T ION 1 9 7A, H E IS LI A B LE T O P AY P E N A L TY OF RS . 100/ - FOR EV ER Y D AY DU R IN G W H IC H TH E F A I L U R E C ONTINUES . SUCH PENALT Y C A N BE I MPOSED O NL Y B Y T HE COMMISSION E R OR CHIEF C O MMI SSIO N ER OF I N CO M E T AX AS ST A TED IN CLAUS E (B) OF SUB - SECTION 3 OF SEC TION 272A A ND SUB - S ECT I O N 4 REQUIRES THAT AN OPPORTUNITY SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE AS S E SSE E BEFORE ANY PENALTY ORDER IS PASSED . 7. IN THE PRESENT C A SE THE CL A IM OF T HE ASSESS EE IS T H AT AT THE TIME OF PAYING THE INTEREST TO THE 34 PERSONS M E NT IONE D I N T H E A SS ES SMEN T ORDER, HE H A D BEFORE HIM TH E A PPR O PR IATE DE C L ARA TIONS I N T H E PR ESCRI B E D F ORM FROM THE PAYEES STATING TH A T NO T AX WAS PA YA BLE BY TH E M IN R E S PEC T O F TH E I R T OTA L I N COME AND THEREFORE TA X NEED NOT BE DEDUCTED F ROM INTEREST UNDER SE CTION 194A, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THESE DECLARATIONS HE HAD NO OPT IO N BUT TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF INTERES T WITHOUT AN Y TAX DEDU C TI O N . IF THE CLAIM IS TRUE THEN T HE CO NTENTION MUS T BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE UNDER SUB - SECTION (LA) OF SECT I O N 197A, IF SUCH A DECL A RATION IS FILED B Y THE PA Y EE O F INT E REST , NO DEDUCTI O N OF TA X SHALL BE MADE B Y THE A SSESSEE . T HE RE V EN UE A U THOR ITIES HAVE DOUBTED THE ASSESSEE'S VERSION B E CAUS E ACCORD I N G TO THEM IT IS ONL Y W HEN THE ASSESSING OFFICE R PROPOSED THE DIS AL L OWANCE OF THE I NTEREST B Y I N V OK I N G T HE SEC TION 40(A)(IA) IN T H E COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PR OC EEDIN G S TH AT T H E ASSESSEE FILED T HE DECLARATIONS CLAIM E D TO H AVE B EEN SU BMIT TED TO HI M BY THE PAYEES O F TH E INTEREST, IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT(TDS) AS REQU I RED B Y SUB - S EC T ION 2 OF SECTION 197A. APART FROM THIS INFERENCE , THERE I S NO O TH ER EVIDENCE IN THEIR POSSESSION TO HOLD T HA T THE DECL AR A TION S WERE NOT SUBMITTED B Y THE PA Y EES OF TH E I NT E R E ST TO TH E A S SESSEE AT T HE TI ME W H E N THE PA Y ME NT S WERE MA D E . WITHOUT DISPRO V ING TH E ASSESSEE ' S CL A IM O N THE B A SIS O F OTHE R E VI DEN CE, EXCEPT BY WAY OF INFERENCE , IT WOULD NOT BE FAIR OR PROPER TO DISCARD THE CLAIM . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED AN Y S T ATEMEN T S FROM THE PAYEES OF THE INTEREST TO THE EFF E C T T HAT THE Y D I D N O T FILE AN Y DECLARATIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE AT T HE APPROPRIATE TIME OR T O T HE EFFECT THAT THE Y F ILED THE D E CLAR ATI ONS ONLY AT THE REQ U EST OF TH E ASSESSEE I N SEPTEMBER / OCTOBE R, 2 00 8. IN THE ABSENCE OF A N Y SUCH DIRECT EVIDENCE , WE ARE UN A BLE T O RE J ECT THE AS SE SS EE'S CLAIM . TH E ASSESSING O FFICER H AS S T AT ED I N PA R A 4 . 4 OF TH E A SS ESS M E N T OR DER TH AT HE F O UND THAT SO M E OF T H E LOAN CR E DIT OR S WERE HA VI N G TA XABLE IN C OM E BU T STI LL THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITT E D DECLARATIONS FROM THEM I N F ORM NO . 15 G . UNLESS IT IS P ROVED THAT THESE FORMS WERE NOT I N FACT SUBM I TTED B Y TH E L O A N C R EDITORS, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BLAM E D B ECA USE AT TH E TIM E OF P A YING THE INTEREST TO THE LOAN CREDITO R S , H E H A S T O PER F O RC E RELY U P ON THE DE C LARATIONS FILED B Y TH E LOAN C R E D ITO RS AND H E WAS N OT EXPECTED TO EMBARK UPON AN ENQU I R Y AS TO WHETHER TH E LOAN CREDITORS REALL Y AND IN TRUTH HA VE NO TAXABLE I NCOM E ON WHICH TAX IS ITA NO .979/KOL/2011 PCB ENTERPRISE PVT.LTD. A.YR.2006 - 07 5 PA Y ABL E . THAT WOULD B E P U T TI N G AN I MP O S SI BL E BURDEN ON TH E A SS E SSEE. T H AT APA RT SUB - S ECTION LA OF SECTION 197A MERE LY R E QUIRES A DECLARATION TO BE FILED B Y TH E P AY E E OF TH E I N TEREST AND ONCE IT IS FILED THE PAYER OF THE INTEREST HAS NO CHOICE EX C E PT TO DESIST FRO M DEDUCTING TAX FROM THE INTEREST . TH E SUB - S E CT ION USES THE WORD ' SHALL' WHICH LEA V ES NO CHOICE T O T HE AS S ESS E E IN THE MATTER . IN THE CASE OF PA Y MEN T O F L EA V E T RA V E L CON C ESS ION AND CON V E Y ANCE ALLO WA N C E T O EMPLOYEES WHO ARE LIABLE TO D E DU CT TAX FRO M T HE SA L ARY P A ID TO THE EMPL OYEE S UND E R SECTI O N 1 92, T H E S UPR E ME C OURT HA S H ELD IN C I T V S . LAR S E N & TOUBRO LTD . (2009) 313 ITR 1 , T H AT THE ASS E SSEE WA S UNDE R N O S T A T U TORY OBLIGATION UNDER THE A C T OR RULES TO COLLE C T EVIDE N CE T O SH OW THAT TH E EMPLOYEE HAD ACTUALLY UTILIZED THE MONE Y P A ID TOW A RD S LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESS I ON/CON V E Y ANCE A L L O WA N CE . T H E P OSI TI ON IS S T RONGER UNDER SECTION 197A W H ICH DO ES N O T A PP LY TO SE C TI ON 192, BUT WHICH PROVIDES IN SUB - SE CTI O N (L A ) T HA T IF THE P AYEE OF THE INTEREST HAS FILED THE PRESCRIBE D FORM TO THE EFFECT T H AT H E IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ANY TAX IN COMPUTING HIS TOTAL I NCOME , THE PA Y ER SHALL NOT DEDUCT AN Y TA X . THE S U B - SE CTI ON DO E S NOT I MP OSE A N Y O BL I G ATION O N T H E P AYER TO F I N D OUT THE TRUTH OF TH E D ECLA R A TION S FI L ED B Y T HE P AYEE . E V EN IF T HE ASS E SSEE H A S DEL AYE D T H E FI LING O F TH E D EC L ARATIO N S WITH THE OFFICE OF THE C IT / CCIT (TDS) WITHIN T HE TI ME LIM IT SP E C IFIED IN SUB - SE CTION (2) OF SECTION 197A , T HAT IS A D I STIN CT OMISSION OR DEFAULT FOR WHI CH A PENALTY IS PRESCRIBED . SECTION 2 7 3 B PRO VI D ES T H AT NO PEN ALTY SHALL BE IMP O S E D UND E R A N Y OF THE CLAUSES OF SU B - SE C TI O N ( 2 ) O F S ECT I ON 272A FOR THE DELA Y, IF THE ASSES SE E PR OVES T HAT TH ERE WAS REASONABLE CAUS E F O R THE SAME . W E H AVE A L READY S EE N T H AT UNDER SUB - S E CTION ( 4 ) O F SECTION 27 2A , N O PE N A L TY CAN BE IMPOS E D UNLE SS T H E A S S ESSEE I S G IV EN A N O PP O RTUN I T Y OF B E IN G H E A RD . ALL TH ESE PROV I SIO NS IND ICA T E TH A T TH E F A ILURE O N TH E P A R T OF T H E A SS ES S EE, W H O IS TH E P AYER OF TH E INT E R E ST , T O F I LE TH E D E CL ARAT I O N S G I VE N TO HIM B Y THE P AYEES OF T HE I NT EREST, WI THIN TH E TIM E LIMI T SPECIFIED IN SUB - SECTION (2) TO S E CTI O N 1 97A I S DIS T IN CT AND SEPARATE AND MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS A FAILURE ON THE P A R T OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DE C LARATIONS TO THE IN C OME - TAX DEPARTMENT WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT, IT CANNOT BE S A ID THA T THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE DECLARATIONS WI TH HIM AT TH E T IM E W H E N H E PAID THE INTEREST TO THE PA Y EES. TH A T WO ULD B E A S E PA RA TE M AT T ER AND SEPARATE PROOF AND E V IDEN CE IS REQ U IRED TO S H OW T H AT E V EN W H EN T H E ASSES S EE P AI D THE INTEREST, HE DID NOT HA VE TH E D E C L A R ATION S FRO M T H E P A Y EES WITH H IM A ND T H E REFORE HE OUG HT TO HA V E D E DUCTED THE T AX FR O M TH E P AY M E N T. NO S U C H EVI D EN C E OR E , ROOF HAS BEEN BROUGHT B Y THE DEPARTMENT . 8 . FOR THE A FORESAID REASONS , W E ACCE PT THE ASSESSE E' S CLAI M THAT SINCE HE HA D THE D ECLAR ATIONS OF THE PAYEES IN TH E PRESCRIBED FORM BEFORE HIM AT THE TIME WHEN THE INTER E ST WAS PAID , HE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX THERE FROM UNDER S EC TI O N 197A. IF HE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TA X, SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS NO T ATTRACTED. 9. FROM THE ABOVE DECISI ON OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VIPIN MEHTA (SUPRA) AND THE FACT IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED FORM 15G FROM THE RESPECTIVE PAYEES TO WHOM INTEREST IS PAID, THE AO HAS NO ITA NO .979/KOL/2011 PCB ENTERPRISE PVT.LTD. A.YR.2006 - 07 6 AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. A CCORDINGLY THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 10 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNC ED IN TH E COURT. SD/ - SD/ - [ P.K.BANSAL ] [ MAHAVIR SINGH ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 25 TH MAY, 2015 R.G.(.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1 . PCB ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED, C/O D.J.SHAH & CO., KALYAN BHAVAN, 2, ELGIN ROAD, KOLKATA - 700020. 2 THE A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - XXVIII, KOLKATA 3 . THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A) - CENTRAL - I , KOLKATA 5 . C.I.T.( DR ) , KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY , BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES