M/s. India Traders, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 30(1), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITSSA 6/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8377 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R PUROKAYASTHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S P CHOWDHURY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Block assessment
• Section: 54; 132; 154

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA () , , , !' ) [BEFORE HONBLE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HONBLE SHR I AKBER BASHA, AM] ( '# $ #% ) & & & & / I.T.(SS).A NO. 6/KOL/2010 '( )* '( )* '( )* '( )*/ // / BLOCK PERIOD: 01.04.1985 TO 13.10.1995 M/S. INDIA TRADERS VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD- 30(1), KOLKATA (PAN-AAAFI 8753 Q) (,- /APPELLANT ) (./,-/ RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S. P. CHOWDHURY FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI B. R. PUROKAYASTHA ! / ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH/ : THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XIX, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 17/CIT(A)-XIX/WD.30(1)/08-09 DATED 17.05.2010. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ACIT, INV. CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, U/S. 158BC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1985 TO 13.10.199 5 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 25.10.1996. ORDER UNDER DISPUTE WAS PASSED U/S. 154 OF THE ACT BY THE AO VIDE DATED 10.12.2003 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN REJECTING APPLICATI ON U/S. 154 OF THE ACT, WHEREIN CLAIM WAS MADE FOR DELETION OF INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 220(2) O F THE ACT AND ALSO THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR INTEREST U/S. 132B(4)(A) & (B) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS , THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING FOUR GROUNDS: 1. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT( A) HAS ACTED ARBITRARILY IN UPHOLDING THE FINDING OF THE A.O. IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION U/ S. 154 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, CLAIMING TO DELETE THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 220(2) AND TO ALLO W INTEREST TO THE APPELLANT AS PER LAW, SUCH FINDING IS COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS, PERVERSE AND ILLEGAL. 2. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST U/S. 132B(4)(A) AND (B) OF THE L. T. ACT, 1961 AFTER HUNDRED TWENTY DAY S FROM THE LAST DATE OF AUTHORIZATION WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED ERRONEOUSLY AND ILLEGALLY TO THE APPELLANT. 3.FOR THAT THE SEARCH PARTY SEIZED RS.50,00,000/- O N 13.10.1995, THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST U/S. 138B(4)(B), BUT THE LD . CIT(A) HAS DENIED THE CLAIM ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT PRAY OR ADJUSTMEN T OF TAX AGAINST ALLOCATED SUM OF RS. 10,07,917/- IS WRONG AND ILLEGAL. 2 IT(SS)A 6/K/201 0 M/S. INDIA TRADERS . B.P. 1.4.85 TO 13.10.95 4. FOR THAT AS TO SEIZED CASH IN THE CUSTODY OF THE DEPARTMENT IS TREATED TO BE PAYMENT TO GOVERNMENT AND THERE BEING CREDITOR AND DEBTOR RELA TION, AS SUCH EITHER ONE OF THE PARTY WOULD ENTITLED TO INTEREST U/S. 132(4)(A) AND(B) OF THE I. T. ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE T HAT A SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITS PARTNERS IN NEW DELHI BY INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT ON 13.10.1995. AS A RESULT O F SEARCH, CASH OF RS.50 LACS WAS SEIZED. CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH ACTION, ASSESSMENT U/S. 158BC OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 25.10.1996 DETERMINING UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE B LOCK PERIOD AT RS. 17,48,290/-. AS NOTED BY REVENUE, THE SEIZED CASH TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10, 07,917/- WAS APPROPRIATED TOWARDS TAX DEMAND RAISED U/S. 158BC OF THE ACT VIDE BANK DRAFT NO. 154006 DATED 28.5.1999 ON RBI, CALCUTTA AND IT WAS CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF DEPA RTMENT ON 3.6.1999 ( WHEREAS, AS PER THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THIS AMOUNT OF RS.10,07,917/- WAS APPROPRIATED TO PD ACCOUNT OF CIT, WB-V ON 15.1.1997 ACTUALLY) AND BALANCE CASH WAS APPROP RIATED FOR THE TAX DEMAND OF ASSESSEE FIRMS SISTER CONCERNS BY ACIT, (HQRS-IX), NEW DELHI. THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FINALLY TAKEN TO APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL AND TRIBUNAL E BENCH, K OLKATA IN ITA NO.39/K/1996 VIDE ORDER DATED 18.1.1999 DECIDED THE ISSUES AND THE AO GIVIN G APPEAL EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT U/S. 158BC R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT ON 5.7.1999 REVISED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.7,84,760/- AND TAX DEMAND WAS DETERMINED AT RS.4,70,856/-. THE A. O. WHILE GIVING APPEAL EFFECT VIDE ORDER U/S. 158BC R.W.S 254 OF THE ACT CHARGED INTEREST U/ S. 220(2) OF THE ACT AT RS.2,18,948/- AND ALLOWED CREDIT OF TAX APPROPRIATED OUT OF SEIZED CA SH OF RS.10,07,917/-, REFUNDING THE BALANCE AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE ON RECEIPT OF APPEAL EFFECT O RDER PASSED BY AO U/S. 158BC R.W.S 254 OF THE ACT DATED 5.7.1999, FILED AN APPLICATION U/S. 1 54 OF THE ACT DATED 27.6.2001 REQUESTING FOR DELETION OF INTEREST LEVIED U/S. 220(2) OF THE ACT AND ALSO FILED A FURTHER MISC. APPLICATION BEFORE TRIBUNAL AND TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED DIRECTED THE AO TO REDUCE THE INTEREST U/S. 220(2) OF THE ACT, THE AO REDUCED THE INTEREST AT RS.2,11,262/- A S AGAINST RS.2,18,948/-. THE ASSESSEE, IN CONTINUATION OF RECTIFICATION PETITION DATED 27.6.2 001, FILED PETITIONS U/S. 154 DATED 25.2.2003 AND 22.8.2003 FOR DELETION OF INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 220(2) OF THE ACT. THE AO PASSED ORDER ON PETITION FILED U/S. 154, VIDE ORDER DATED 10.12.200 3, WHICH READS AS UNDER: THE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS INTEREST L EVIED U/S. 220(2) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,07,917/- VIDE BANK DRAFT NO.1540 06 DATED 28.05.1999 OF RBI, CALCUTTA HAS BEEN CREDITED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER S ACCOUNT ON 03.06.1999 OUT OF THE SEIZED CASH. THE SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION IN THI S CASE WAS HELD ON 13.10.1995. SINCE THE AMOUNT COLLECTED THROUGH P.D. ACCOUNT ON 03.06.1999 TO THE A.OS ACCOUNT, THE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED BY LEVYING INTEREST U/S. 220( 2). HENCE THE RECTIFICATION PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THIS ISSUE IS REJECTE D SINCE IT IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. 3 IT(SS)A 6/K/201 0 M/S. INDIA TRADERS . B.P. 1.4.85 TO 13.10.95 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT( A) AND HE ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDINGS IN PARA 5 OF HI S APPELLATE ORDER: 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLA NT AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. DISPOSING OFF PETITION U/S. 154 OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, GROUP CONCERNS AND THEIR PARTNERS ETC. SEARCH OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON 13.10.1995 AND CASH OF RS.50,00,000/- WAS SEIZED IN NEW DELHI. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT THE ORDER U/S. 158BC OF THE ACT FOR BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1985 TO 13.10.1995 W AS PASSED ON 25.10.1996 WHEREIN TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.17,48 ,290/- AND ACCORDINGLY THE TAX WAS LEVIED AT THE PRESCRIBED RATE AND DEMANDED THROUGH NOTICE OF DEMAND. OUT OF THE SEIZED CASH AT NEW DELHI, THE CASH TO EXTENT OF RS.10,07,9 17/- WAS ALLOCATED AS SHARE OF THE APPELLANT AND TRANSFERRED TO THE P. D. ACCOUNT OF T HE CIT, WEST BENGAL-V, CALCUTTA. IT APPEARS THAT THE TAX DEMANDED U/S. 158BC OF THE ACT WAS NOT PAID BY THE APPELLANT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT AND THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE AS TO WHETHER IT HAS REQUESTED TO THE A.O. TO ADJUST THE SEIZED CASH AS ADVANCE TAX PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF ORDER U/S. 158BC OR TO A DJUST THE CASH AS REGULAR TAX ON COMPLETION THE ASSESSMENT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD AS TO WHETHER, ON RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF DEMAND FOR ORDER U/S. 158BC, THE APPELLAN T HAD REQUESTED THE A.O. TO STAY THE DEMAND OR TO ADJUST THE SAME FROM THE SEIZED CASH. THE A.O. RECEIVED THE BANK DRAFT OF RS.10,07,917/- DATED 28.05.1999 AND THE TAX WAS CRE DITED ON 03.06.1999. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO. WAS JUSTIFIED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S. 220(2) OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH THE A.O. WAS JUSTIFIE D IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT NO I NTEREST IS ALLOWABLE U/S. 132B(4)(A), AS THE REFUND HAS BEEN ARISEN AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT THE A.O. WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE PETITION U/S. 154 OF THE ACT. THE FACTS IN THE CASES RELIED UPON BY APPELLANT ARE DISTINGUI SHABLE FROM THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT. THE ACTION OF THE A.O IS UPHELD. THE G ROUND NOS. 1,2 & 3 ARE DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED, NOW ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND FROM ABOVE FACTS (AS NARRATED IN PARA 3), W HICH ARE UNDISPUTED EXCEPT THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF RS 10,07,917/- APPROPRIATED TOWARDS TAX LIABILITY. IT IS A FACT THAT DURING SEARCH ACTION ON BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITS PARTNERS IN NEW DELHI ON 13.10.1995 BY THE I. T. DEPARTMENT U/S. 132 OF THE ACT A SUM OF RS.50 LACS WAS SEIZED. PURSUANT TO THAT ACTION, BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS COMPL ETED U/S. 158BC, WHICH FINALLY REDUCED TO RS.7,84,760/- ON WHICH TAX DEMAND WAS RS.4,70,856/- . THE CASH SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS APPROPRIATED TOWARDS ASSESSEES DEMAND A MOUNTING TO RS.10,07,917/- VIDE BANK DRAFT NO. 154006 DATED 28.5.1999 DRAWN ON RBI, KOLK ATA. THIS TAX WAS CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE DEPARTMENT ON 3.6.1999. THE ASSESSEE MOVED APPLICATION U/S. 154 OF THE ACT DATED 27.6.2001 FOR DELETION OF INTEREST LEVIED U/S. 220( 2) OF THE ACT FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,11,262/- (FINALLY SETTLED) AND FURTHER PETITIONS U/S. 154 DA TED 25.2.2003 AND 22.8.2003 FOR DELETION OF INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 220(2) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH MADE A CLAIM OF INTEREST U/S. 132B(4)(A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US MADE A CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.10,07,917/- WAS APPROPRIATED TO P D ACCOUNT OF CIT,WB-V, KOLKATA ON 15.1.1997 AN D NOT ON 28.5.1999 AS CLAIMED BY 4 IT(SS)A 6/K/201 0 M/S. INDIA TRADERS . B.P. 1.4.85 TO 13.10.95 REVENUE AND, THEREFORE, THE INTERVENING PERIOD FROM DECEMBER, 1996 TO 15.1.1997 I.E. ONLY 2 MONTHS PRIOR TO APPROPRIATION OF THE AMOUNT IN FAVO UR OF CIT,WB-V, KOLKATA ARE THERE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE CHARGING OF INTEREST BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM 1.12.1996 TO 30.6.1999 IS WRONG ACCORDING TO LAW. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.10,07,917/- WAS SEIZED ON 13.10.1995 AND ACCORDING TO HIM, MONE Y WAS LYING WITH THE GOVT. AND FROM THAT VERY DAY IT MAKES THE RELATION OF DEBTOR AND CREDIT OR. SO, THE DELAY IN ACTION FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THE DEMAND IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, WHI CH RISES TO LEVY INTEREST U/S. 220(2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, AS NO DEMAND WAS PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE MONEY WAS LYING WITH THE GOVT. FURTHER ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132B(4)(A) AND (B), IT IS ENTITLED FOR INTEREST IN TERMS OF THIS SECTION, SIN CE THE AMOUNT OF RS.50 LACS WAS SEIZED, OUT OF WHICH RS.10,07,917/- WAS APPROPRIATED TOWARDS ASSES SEE BY CIT, WB-V, KOLKATA. 6. WE FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT IT IS A FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,07,917/- WAS APPROPRIATED VIDE CHEQUE NO.024970 DATED 19.3.1997 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF CIT,WB-V, KOLKATA BY CIT, DELHI-9 AS REFERRED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND FROM THE LETTER ISSUED BY CIT,WB-V, KOLKATA VIDE NO. WBVS&S/95-96/IT-3429 DAT ED 15.01.1997. THE ASSESSED AMOUNT AFTER ITAT ORDER AND APPEAL EFFECT GIVEN BY THE AO TO THE ITATS ORDER THE REVISED UNDISCLOSED INCOME COMPUTED WAS AT RS.7,84,760/-, T AX COMPUTED THEREON WAS AT RS.4,70,856/-. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TAX DE TERMINED WAS RS.4,70,856/- AS AGAINST THE APPROPRIATED AMOUNT COLLECTED FROM PD ACCOUNT OF CI T, WB-V ON 15.1.1997 OF RS.10,07,917/- OUT OF THE SEIZED CASH OF RS.50 LACS ON 13.10.1995 IS GREATER AND NO DEMAND AS SUCH IS PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF FRAMING OF BLOCK ASS ESSMENT. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 220(2) OF THE ACT CREATES LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST AND THIS LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST UNDER THIS SECTION IS A STATUTORY LIABILITY AND IT IS NOT BASED ON EQUITY. LIABILITY TO PAY SUCH INTEREST WILL COMMENCE AFTER THE END OF THE PERIOD MENTIONED IN SECTION 22 0(1) OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF DEMA ND FOR THE MARGINAL PERIOD OF 30 DAYS AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 220(1) OF THE ACT. SECTION 22 0(2) OF THE ACT NECESSARILY ASSUMES THAT THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE OF DEMAND REMAINS OU TSTANDING AND PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD MENTIONED IN SECTION 220(1) OF THE ACT, AND WHERE THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE OF DEMAND IS EITHER ALREADY PAID OR NO LONGER PAYABLE OR SUBSISTING, NO LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST U/S. 220(2) OF THE ACT CA N ARISE. AN ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A DEFAULTER OR LIABLE IN RESPECT OF A DEMAND WHICH IS NO LONGER SUBSISTING, PAYABLE OR ENFORCEABLE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN RESPECT OF APPROPRIATED AMO UNT IN FAVOUR OF CIT, WB-V ON 15.1.1997 5 IT(SS)A 6/K/201 0 M/S. INDIA TRADERS . B.P. 1.4.85 TO 13.10.95 AMOUNTING TO RS.10,07,917/- IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT AFTER GIVING APPEAL EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL I.E. RS.4,70,856/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS A LSO REFUNDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,22,457/- AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT OF AMOUNT COLLECTED FROM PD ACCOU NT OF CIT,WB-V. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO DEMAND IS SUBSISTING AS ON THE DATE OF GIVING APPEAL EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, AND ACCORDINGLY, INTEREST UN DER SECTION 220(2) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE CHARGED. SIMILARLY, HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BIRLA COTTON SPG. & WVG. MILLS LTD. VS. ITO (1995) 211 ITR 610 (CAL), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT BY REASON OF THE SUBSEQUENT APPELLATE ORDERS THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 24.9.1979 ON THE POINTS IN ISSUE DECIDED BY THE APPELLATE ORDERS EXPRESSLY MERGED IN THE APPEAL ORD ERS AND ONLY THE APPEAL ORDERS AND ORDERS CONSEQUENTIAL THERETO WERE OPERATIVE AND THE ASSESS MENT ORDER OR NOTICE OF DEMAND OR AMOUNT OF TAX SPECIFIED THEREIN WERE NO LONGER EXECUTABLE, VA LID AND SUBSISTING. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D VIEW THAT THE INTEREST U/S. 220(2) OF THE ACT LEVIED IN THIS CASE IS WITHOUT RHYME AND REASONS AN D ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 7. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF INTEREST U/S. 13 2B(4)(A)&(B), WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE APPROPRIATED AMOUNT OF RS.10,07,917/- IN FAVOUR OF CIT,WB-V ON 15.1.1997 IN THE PD ACCOUNT AFTER ADJUSTING THE FIN AL DEMAND IN VIEW OF THE APPEAL EFFECT ORDER OF THE AO TO THE ORDER OF ITAT. WE FIND THAT NEITH ER THE AO NOR CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT OF TAX DEMAND OUT OF THE APPROPRIATED AMOUNT TO PD ACCOUNT OF CIT, WB-V ON 1 5.1.1997, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR INTEREST SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132B( 4)(A)&(B) OF THE ACT. BUT NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DISCUSSED THE FACTS, LET THI S ISSUE BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE AFRESH AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, AFTER P ROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- , !' , (AKBER BASHA) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( 0' 0' 0' 0') )) ) DATED 3 RD MAY, 2011 12 '3# 4 JD.(SR.P.S.) 6 IT(SS)A 6/K/201 0 M/S. INDIA TRADERS . B.P. 1.4.85 TO 13.10.95 ! 5 .6 7!6)8- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . ,- / APPELLANT M/S. INDIA TRADERS, 12B, TARAK DUTTA ROAD , KOLKATA- 700 019 2 ./,- / RESPONDENT ITO, WD-30(1), KOLKATA. 3 . ' ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. ' / CIT KOLKATA 6>? .' / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA /6 ./ TRUE COPY, ! '@/ BY ORDER, # /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .