Shyam Metalics and Energy Ltd, Kolkata V. ACIT, Kolkata

ITSSA 59/KOL/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0843 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital receipt
• Section: 68; 143(3); 153A; 115JB; 143(2)

Judgement Text

IT(SS)A Nos. 89/KOL/2023 & 59/KOL/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member I.T.(SS)A. No. 89/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,.........Appellant Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3 rd Floor, Room No. 305 110, Shanti Pally, E.M. By Pass, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited,........Respondent 83, Trinity Tower, 7 th Floor, Topsia Road, Topsia, Kolkata-700046 [PAN: AAHCS5842A] -AND- I.T.(SS)A. No. 59/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited,........Appellant 83, Trinity Tower, 7 th Floor, Topsia Road, Topsia, Kolkata-700046 [PAN: AAHCS5842A] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, E.M. By Pass, Kolkata-700107 Appearances by: IT(SS)A Nos. 89/KOL/2023 & 59/KOL/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited 2 Shri A.K. Tulsyan, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assesseee Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing : August 21, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : October 11, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The Revenue and assessee are in cross appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-20 dated 24 th March, 2023 passed for A.Y. 2013-14. 2. First we take the appeal of Revenue i.e. IT(SS)A No. 89/KOL/2023. 3. The Revenue has taken four grounds of appeal. However, its grievances revolve around a single issue, namely ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,58,20,000/-, which was added by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that a search & seizure operation was carried out on 17.01.2019 in the residential premises of the Directors as well as business premises of ‘Shyam Sel Group’ of cases at Kolkata. IT(SS)A Nos. 89/KOL/2023 & 59/KOL/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited 3 A simultaneous search was carried out in the Office- sum-residential premises of a well known entry operator Shri Pankaj Agarwal. The ld. Assessing Officer has issued a notice under section 153A on 30.12.2019. The assessee has filed return in response to this notice. The ld. Assessing officer has noted down the details of amount as to how the assessee has filed the return under section 139(1). When the assessment under section 143(3) was completed and how the assessee has filed its return under section 153A. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter issued notice under section 143(2) on 29.09.2020. In paragraph no. 8.1 of the assessment order, he observed that a simultaneous search was carried out in the office- cum-residential premise of a well known entry operator Shri Pankaj Agarwal. During his statement recorded under section 132(4), he disclosed that Shyam Sel Group and other concerns had brought back their unaccounted income in their books of account in the guise of bogus share capital/premium/unsecured loan. The ld. Assessing Officer has reproduced the reply to Question No. 17 of his statement on page no. 6 of the assessment order. On the strength of this, he harboured belief that the assessee has received share application money with the help of this entry operator and accordingly he made an addition of Rs.2,58,20,000/-. IT(SS)A Nos. 89/KOL/2023 & 59/KOL/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited 4 5. Dissatisfied with the addition, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. 1 st Appellate Authority. 6. On the strength of large number of decisions, it was pleaded that no incriminating material was found during the course of search carried out at the premises of the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer is harping upon the statement of a third person for harbouring belief that share application money from unaccounted sources has been received by the assessee. 7. The ld. CIT(Appeals) in a detailed order considered this aspect elaborately and thereafter in the concluding paragraph observed as under:- “3.3(e) As can be seen from above, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and Kolkata ITAT have, time and again, reiterated their view that the additions in the case of search assessments can be made on the basis of incriminating material only. Similarly, the Hon'ble High Courts of Delhi, Bombay, Rajasthan, Orissa, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and several other High Courts as well have expressed similar views. Initially, the SLPs filed by the Department in the Supreme Court against the orders of the High Courts on this issue were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the SLP filed against the orders of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT (Central) - III Vs. CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2015), 61 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi), PCIT Vs. Kurele Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 571 (Delhi) and PCIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia (2017) 82 taxmann.com 287 (Delhi) were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has admitted the SLPs filed by the Department on the same issue. Some of such reported cases are as under: (1) PCIT Vs. Anand Kumar Jain (2021) 133 taxmann.com 289 (SC) (Against the Order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court); IT(SS)A Nos. 89/KOL/2023 & 59/KOL/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited 5 (2) PCIT Vs. GauravArora (2021) 133 taxmann.com 293 (SC)) (Again.it the Order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court); (3) PCIT Vs. Param Dairy Ltd. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 148 (SC) ) Against the Order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court); (4) PCIT, Central-4 Vs. Dhananjay International Ltd. (2020) 114 taxrnann.com 351 (SC)) (Against the Order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court). However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not stayed any of the orders of Hon'ble High Courts even if SLPs of Department have been admitted Further, in the case of Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. (Supra) Department decided not to file SLP against the order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and this was communicated by letter No.ADG(L&R)-ll/EZ/PCIT(C)/Kol/1184/2016/770 dated 07/08.02.2017. In view of the above discussion, the situation remains that additions in search assessments without incriminating evidences found during search would not be sustainable. Hence, in view of discussion above, it is held that additions made during proceedings u/s153A are not sustainable as no incriminating evidence was found during search in respect of these additions. Hence, AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.2,58,20,000/-/-. No observations are being made on the merits of the issue involved, as on technical ground it has been held that the additions made in proceedings u/s.153A are not sustainable, in the absence of incriminating material found during search”. 8. The ld. CIT(DR) was unable to controvert this finding of ld. CIT(Appeals) after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT-Vs.- Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (149 taxmann.com 399). 9. However, on the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that firstly the assessee had not raised share capital from any of the companies where IT(SS)A Nos. 89/KOL/2023 & 59/KOL/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited 6 Shri Pankaj Agarwal was the Director. It has received share application money from seven companies and ld. Counsel for the assessee placed on record copies of the Directors in these companies. Such details read as under:- “The seven companies from whom M/s Eskay Business Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Inforev Software Pvt, Ltd are not the companies of Pankaj Agarwal but they are the companies of Vishnu Kejariwal (brother-in-law of Deepak Agarwal). This is evident from the List of directors of these companies during the FY 2012-13 which is under: SI. No. Share Applicant Directors 1 Wellman Tie-up Pvt. Ltd (4) Premlata Kejariwal (5) Akash Kejariwal 2 Parichay Tie-up Pvt. Ltd. (a) Sunil Kumar Gupta (b) Akash Kejariwal 3 Accurate Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. 1. Premlata Kejariwal 2. Akash Kejariwal Tulsi Vamjya Pvt. Ltd. 1. Hari Narayan Sharma 2. Radhe Shyam Gupta 5 Kejriwal Mercantiles Pvt, Ltd, 1. Hari Narayan Sharma 2. Girdhari Lai Kejariwal 6 Vicky Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. 1. Hari Narayan Sharma 2. Girdhari Lai Kejariwal 7 Sevenstar Services Pvt. Ltd. 1. Sunil Kumar Gupta 2. Sanjay Kumar Khemka Further, as per the latest ROC data, the list of directors are as follows: SI. No. Share Applicant Directors 1 Wellman Tie-up Pvt, Ltd 1. Hari Kumar Sharma 2. Vishnu Kumar Kejariwal 2 Parichay Tie-up Pvt. Ltd, 1. Sudhir Kanti 2. Ravindra Kumar Mandal IT(SS)A Nos. 89/KOL/2023 & 59/KOL/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited 7 3 Accurate Dea ; mark Pvt. Ltd. (6) Hari Kumar Sharma (7) Vishnu Kumar Kejariwal 4 Tutsi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd, (c) Hari Kumar Sharma (d) Vishnu Kumar Kejariwal 5 Kejriwal Mercantiles Pvt, Ltd. 3. Sanjay Kumar Khemka 4. Vishnu Kumar Kejariwal 6 Vicky Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. 3. Sanjay Kumar Khemka 4. Vishnu Kumar Kejariwal 7 Sevenstar Services Pvt. Ltd. 3. Sanjay Kumar Khemka 4. Vishnu Kumar Kejariwal From the above, it is proved that Pankaj Agarwai has no role over the above companies & he never accepted the fact that these are his companies. These are the companies of the relative of the assessee company's director. Hence, the statement of Mr Pankaj Agarwai is completely irrelevant and does not have any impact on the case of the assessee”. 10. He further submitted that the alleged share applicant M/s. Eskay Business Pvt. Limited and M/s. Inforev Software Private Limited have merged with the assessee-company w.e.f. 1 st April, 2013, i.e. F.Y. 2013- 14. Prior to their amalgamation with the assessee, assessment under section 143(3) was made in their own cases for A.Y. 2013-14 and share application received by them have been accepted by the ld. Assessing Officer. He further submitted that M/s. Eskay Business Pvt. Limited had merged with the assessee-company w.e.f. 01.04.2013 i.e. F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to A.Y. 2014-15 and the second company M/s. Inforev Software Private Limited was merged with effect from 01.04.2015 i.e. F.Y. 2015-16 relevant to A.Y. 2016-17. On the strength of this information, it was contended that in A.Y. 2013-14, the IT(SS)A Nos. 89/KOL/2023 & 59/KOL/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited 8 assessee was not responsible to explain their source because it is not a reopened assessment. 11. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. In the cases of erstwhile companies, share application money was received and was accepted. Thereafter those companies were merged with the assessee, thereafter search was carried out. In case incriminating material was found, then assessee could be asked to explain the source of such share application money in the capacity of a successor company, who has owned assets and liabilities of those amalgamated companies. But in the present case, nothing has been possessed by the Revenue demonstrating that earlier assessment orders are to be disturbed except the statement of one entry operator, who has nothing to do with the share applicant of the assessee-company. Therefore, ld. CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition. 12. Now we take the appeal of the assessee i.e. IT(SS)A No. 59/KOL/2023. In the first ground of appeal, assessee has raised the plea in support of the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) with regard to the assessment of alleged share application money. We have taken note of these pleas and it is not to be adjudicated again in the IT(SS)A Nos. 89/KOL/2023 & 59/KOL/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited 9 assessee’s appeal. Hence this ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 13. In Ground No. 2, the assessee has pleaded that it has received incentive amounting to Rs.1,04,58,093/- under the Status Holders Incentive Scheme (SHIS)/ Focus Product Scheme (FPS). According to the assessee, it was a capital receipt and not liable to tax. 14. The assessee had filed its original return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring ‘NIL’ income (gross total income of Rs.18,56,00,067/- minus deduction under section 80IA(4)(iv) of same amount). The ld. Assessing Officer has observed in paragraph no. 2 that thereafter assessee has revised its return of income declaring gross loan of Rs.23,74,67,464/-. The assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Income tax Acdt whereby gross total income was determined at Rs.24,06,64,514/- on 19.03.2016. Probably it was negative income. In response to the notice under section 153A, the assessee has claimed fresh deduction of Rs.1,06,55,235/-. This deduction has been denied to the assessee by the ld. Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(Appeals) has concurred with the ld. Assessing Officer. 15. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. The ld. Counsel for IT(SS)A Nos. 89/KOL/2023 & 59/KOL/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited 10 the assessee has submitted that since a notice under section 153A was issued to the assessee, therefore, in response to that, it has filed its return claiming further benefit, which was not claimed originally. On the other hand, ld. D.R. relied upon the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). 16. We have duly considered the rival contentions. We find that the ld. 1 st Appellate Authority has made a lucid enunciation of law and facts, therefore, we deem it appropriate to take note that finding, which reads as under:- “4.1. Grounds of Appeal No(s). 2, 7 and 8: While filing the return in response to notice u/s.153A of the I.T. Act, assessee had claimed fresh deduction Rs.1,06,55,235/- on account of subsidy and cess. This deduction was claimed under the head ‘any other deduction as allowable’ while computing total income under normal provisions. Further, assessee had also reduced book profit by an amount of Rs.1,04,58,093/- on account of subsidy. During assessment proceedings, assessee had submitted that it was not very conversant with the income tax laws and unknowingly and inadvertently capital receipt were not claimed as deductible while filing the original return of income u/s.139 of the Act. However, AO has not accepted assessee’s claim of additional deductions under normal provisions and while computing book profit u/s.115JB of the I.T. Act. AO has held that search proceedings u/s.153A are for the benefit of the revenue and therefore fresh claim is not allowable in assessment order u/s.153A of the Act, In this regard, AO has relied on the judgement of Bombay High Court in K. Sudhakar S. Shanbhag Vs. ITO (2000) 161 CTR 391 (Bombay) and the judgement of Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC). AO has also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein it has been held that AO cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. AO has also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P.Varghese Vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 in building his argument. AO has also referred to some IT(SS)A Nos. 89/KOL/2023 & 59/KOL/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited 11 direct decisions on the issue where it is held that fresh claim is not allowable u/s.153A of the Act. These decisions are as under: (8) Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur Vs. ACIT, (2013) 36 taxmann.com 523 Rajasthan; (9) Charchit Agarwal Vs. ACIT, C.C. 12, New Delhi (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Delhi); (10) Suncity Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2019) 124 TEJ 674 (Jodhpur). In view of the above discussion, AO has added Rs.1,06,55,235/- under normal provisions and addition of Rs.1,04,58,093/- has been made to the book profit u/s.115JB of the I.T. Act. 4.2. In the appellate proceedings, appellant has submitted that assessee had received incentive amounting to Rs.1,04,58,093/- under the Status Holders Incentive Scheme (SHIS) / Focus Product Scheme (FPS). These amounts were credited to the Profit & Loss Account and assessee claims these amounts have been inadvertently offered to tax in the original return of income filed u/s.139 of the I.T. Act. Hence, the said amount of Rs.1,04,58,093/- has been claimed as non taxable in return filed pursuant to section 153A. Appellant alleges that AO has adopted double standards while making addition in respect of capital raised but not allowing the claim for deduction for incentive received. Appellant submits that as per foreign trade policy, 2009-2014, the Government of India had introduced certain schemes to promote exports from India. Key objectives for granting the incentives under the two schemes (SHIS and FPS) were to generate employment opportunity and/or to enhance the competitiveness of the country in international market. Appellant submits that benefit under these schemes are not granted to enhance the profits of the business. The incentives to eligible persons are given in the form of scrips and these scrips can either be utilized in payment of specific indirect tax by the companies or can also be sold in the open market. Appellant has cited / discussed a number of judicial decisions where it is discussed that subsidy in the hands of the recipients are taxable depending on its nature. If the incentive is of capital nature, then these incentives are not taxable. Further, appellant has also discussed various decisions which have decided the nature of incentives to be revenue or capital in nature depending on various other factors. Appellant has further mentioned that the incentives received under SHIS and FPS were capital in nature. Hence, these are neither taxable under the normal provisions of the Act nor these are part of book profit u/s.115JB of the Act. IT(SS)A Nos. 89/KOL/2023 & 59/KOL/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited 12 4.3. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submission of the appellant. I fully agree with AO’s stand that fresh claim for deduction cannot be made in proceedings u/s.153A of the I.T. Act. In para 3.3, I have discussed several Court decisions which have held that in proceedings u/s.153A, no new additions can be made without any incriminating document found during search. While arriving at this conclusion , the Courts have held that in the case of completed assessment, no additions can be made in respect of issues which are part of consideration under regular assessment proceedings. Appellant has also quoted a number of judgements in its submission against the additions made by the AO which has been discussed in para 3 above. Applying the same logic, assessee would not be entitled to make any fresh claim in respect of completed assessment during proceedings u/s.153A of the Act. In the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur Vs. ACIT (Supra), the Hon'ble Rajasthan Hich Court held that it is not open for assessee to seek deduction or claim expenditure which has not been claimed in original assessment when the assessment already stands completed. Assessee cannot make any fresh claim only because assessment u/s.153A in pursuance of search is required to be made. In the case of Charchit Agarwal Vs. ACIT, C.C.12, New Delhi (Supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that proceedings initiated u/s.153A of the I.T. Act are for benefit to Revenue. Hence, in response to notice u/s.153A, assessee cannot reduce its income while filing the return. From above discussion, it is apparent that various Courts have held that in case of completed assessment, assessee cannot seek new deduction, which was not claimed in the original return of income. Here, in this case, assessee has submitted that due to lack of knowledge it had not reduced the items of capital nature from its total income while filing the original return of income. Hence, it is seeking remedy while filing return in response to notice u/s.153A. However, this is not justified as held by various High Courts / Tribunals. Courts have held that proceedings u/s.153A are initiated for considering incriminating evidences found during search. Issues relating to regular assessments cannot be considered in proceedings u/s.153A in the case of completed assessment. Hence, same logic would apply in the case of relief sought by the assessee in respect of fresh claims of deduction. Similar views have been expressed by various High Courts, as discussed above. Hence, respectfully following the judicial decisions in this regard and also in view of discussion above, addition of Rs.1,06,55,235/- under the normal provisions and addition of Rs.1,04,58,093/- to the book profit are confirmed”. IT(SS)A Nos. 89/KOL/2023 & 59/KOL/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited 13 17. We have perused the above finding of ld. 1 st Appellate Authority. On the strength of judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the cases of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur –vs.- ACIT (2013) 36 taxmann.com 523 (Rajasthan), Suncity Alloys Pvt. Ltd. –vs.- ACIT (2019) 124 TEJ 674 (Jodhpur) and on the strength of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Charchit Agarwal –vs.- ACIT, CC-12, New Delhi (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Delhi), the ld. 1 st Appellate Authority has held that proceedings initiated under section 153A of the Income Tax Act are for the benefit of Revenue. In other words, it is not open for the assessee to claim deduction or some expenditure. To the extent of the above finding, we concur with the finding of ld. 1 st Appellate Authority. However, we find that in the concluding paragraph, ld. CIT(Appeals) has confirmed the addition for levy of taxation upon the assessee. It is pertinent to observe that on the one hand, it has been harboured by the ld. 1 st Appellate Authority that in the absence of any incriminating material, no other issue can be debated in the proceeding under section 153A. It is further observed that once Revenue Authorities found themselves without any jurisdiction to decide the character of the receipt claimed by the assessee as revenue or capital, then how they can disallow the claim of an assessee and put it under tax liability. The claim of the assessee is that it is a capital receipt and its income ultimately assessed under section IT(SS)A Nos. 89/KOL/2023 & 59/KOL/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited 14 143(3) as well for MAT purposes under section 115JB ought to have been reduced by this amount. Thus it would suggest that the earlier calculation finalised in the original assessment under section 143(3) contains these receipts and determined the taxable income. If an authority does not have jurisdiction to decide the character of income whether taxable or not, then it does not have jurisdiction to tax it also. Therefore, we are of the view that no taxes be levied upon these receipts, but simultaneously we observe that the assessee is not entitled to exclude this amount from the taxable income determined under section 143(3) or 115JB originally. The position of taxability of the assessee as determined under regular assessment would attain finality because no addition has been made in an assessment passed under section 153A meaning thereby the original assessment would not abate and no additional benefit will be available to the assessee. With the above observation, this appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. 18. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on October 11, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) (Rajpal Yadav) Accountant Member Vice-President(KZ) Kolkata, the 11 th day of October, 2023 IT(SS)A Nos. 89/KOL/2023 & 59/KOL/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited 15 Copies to :(1) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3 rd Floor, Room No. 305 110, Shanti Pally, E.M. By Pass, Kolkata-700107 (2) Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited, 83, Trinity Tower, 7 th Floor, Topsia Road, Topsia, Kolkata-700046 (3) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, E.M. By Pass, Kolkata-700107 (4) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-20; (5) Commissioner of Income Tax , (6) The Departmental Representative (7) Guard File TRUE COPY By order Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S.