Eriabarie Films & Foils Pvt. Ltd. , Kolkata V. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

ITSSA 8/KOL/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4269 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD. GHAYAS UDDIN
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 147; 132; 139; 143(3); 153A; 14A; 143(1); 250; 264; 158BC; 73; 153; 153C

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA ] ] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No. 08/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Eriabarie Films & Foils Pvt. Ltd. Vasundhara, 5 th Floor 2/7, Sarat Bose Road Kolkata – 700020 PAN : AAACE5343D Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Kolkata अपीलाथȸ/ (Appellant) Ĥ× यथȸ/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.J. Bhide, FCA Revenue by : Md. Ghayasuddin, CIT, D/R स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 20/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT : The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata - 21, [hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”], dt. 22/12/2021, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Though the assessee has taken four grounds of appeal but its grievance revolves around single issue, namely, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.36,088/- which was added by the Assessing Officer with the aid of Section 14A of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has originally filed its return of income u/s 139 of the Act declaring total income of Rs.19,43,898/-. The assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 15/12/2009. This order was challenged in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority and IT(SS)A No. 08/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Eriabarie Films & Foils Pvt. Ltd. 2 the appeal was decided on 05/09/2013. A search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of Alok Kumar Goenka Group of assessees on 22/09/2011. According to the Assessing Officer, incriminating material belonging to the assessee were found and seized at the premises of the searched person, therefore, a notice u/s 153C of the Act, was issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee filed a letter dt. 11/09/2019 contending therein that the original return filed u/s 139 of the Act be treated as return filed in response to the notice u/s 153C of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has passed an assessment order u/s 153C/143(3) of the Act, dt. 31/03/2014. The Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.36,088/- u/s 14A of the Act. A brief discussion made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:- “The assessee company claimed to have earned dividend of Rs.1,51,159/- in the previous year under Scrutiny. Apparently expenses ought to have been disallowed by the assessee in its computation of total income in accordance with the provisions of section 14A of the Act, since the assessee claimed the said income as exempt u/s 10(34). But no such disallowance was made by the assessee on its own. It goes without saying that for earning any income, expenses have to be incurred, because earning of income can not be automatic. It was expected of the assessee that it would suo-moto identify the expenses incurred in connection with earning its exempted income; but since it has not been done, the assessee was requested in this connection to furnish the relevant details. On the basis of those details, an amount of expenditure of Rs.36,088/- is disallowed and accordingly added back to the returned income of the assessee for taxation.” 4. The appeal before the ld. CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 5. While impugning the orders of the revenue authorities it has been contended before us that addition in an assessment order u/s 153C of the Act can be made with the help of seized material found during the course of search. The Assessing Officer has not made any reference to any seized material while making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer has made reference to only those details which were already on record in the scrutiny assessment dt. 15/12/2009. Therefore, according to IT(SS)A No. 08/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Eriabarie Films & Foils Pvt. Ltd. 3 the ld. Counsel for the assessee, this addition made in the assessment u/s 153C of the Act is not sustainable. In respect of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Del). 6. The ld. CIT D/R, on the other hand, drew our attention towards the order of the ld. CIT(A) dt. 05/09/2013. This order of the ld. CIT(A) based on the assessment order dt. 15/09/2009 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The ld. CIT D/R pointed out that already a disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was made and the same stands confirmed. He drew our attention towards page 16 of the paper book filed by the assessee. This issue has been dealt with in para no. 4.3.4. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through these findings and we deem it appropriate to take note of this finding:- “As regards disallowance of Rs.32,894/- u/s 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961, it is submitted that although the appellant had earned dividend income of Rs.1,51,160/- but no expenditure was incurred for earning the said dividend income Hence, disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Act does not hold good in the instant case, and therefore, the same be deleted. I have considered the submissions. The contention that no expenditure was incurred for earning the dividend is not acceptable. Some expenses are bound to incur as both direct and indirect expenses are covered under sec. 14A of the Act. Therefore, in my opinion, the disallowance as worked out by the Assessing Officer does not appear to be excessive or unreasonable. The disallowance is, therefore, confirmed.” 7. He pointed out that the addition to the extent of Rs.32,894/- u/s 14A attained finality in the regular assessment. In the assessment order passed u/s 153C, the Assessing Officer enhanced it to few thousand rupees i.e., the addition has been recalculated at Rs.36,088/- in place of Rs.32,894/-. According to him there is nothing wrong in this computation. Alternatively, he contended that if this addition u/s 153C of the Act is not sustainable on account of the technicality, i.e., when there is no seized material found, then the original addition made in the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act should not be disturbed. IT(SS)A No. 08/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Eriabarie Films & Foils Pvt. Ltd. 4 8. We have duly considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record carefully. 9. Before adverting to the facts of the present appeals, we deem it appropriate to bear in mind the position of law propounded in various authoritative judgments expounding scope of section 153A of the Act. We are of the view that in this regard, there were large numbers of decisions. First we refer to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Del). Hon'ble Delhi High Court after detailed analysis has summarized the following legal position: 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: (i)Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A(l) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to fde returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. (ii)Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. (iii) The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". (iv)Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." (v)In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or IT(SS)A No. 08/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Eriabarie Films & Foils Pvt. Ltd. 5 reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. (vi)Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. (vii)Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of DIT Vs. Smt. Shivali Mahajan and others, rendered in ITA No.5585/Del/2015 has considered this aspect in its decision. Thereafter, the Tribunal has specifically held that serial no.(iv) of the above proposition, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has specifically held that assessment under section 153 A of the Act has to be specifically made on the basis of seized material. ITAT Delhi Bench was considering an aspect whether the evidence in the shape of books of accounts, money, bullion, jewellery found during the course of search relates to other person than the searched person, can that be considered while making assessment under section 153A of the Act. ITAT Delhi Bench has specifically held that material recovered from the premises of other person cannot be used in the hands of the searched person. For that purpose an assessment under section 153C or 147 is to be made. At this stage, in order to fortify ourselves, we would like to make reference to the following paragraphs of the ITAT Delhi Bench's order. It reads as under: “15. Thus, when during the course of search of an assessee any books, document or money, bullion, jewellery etc. is found which relates to a person other than the person searched, then the Assessing Officer of the person searched shall hand over such books of account, documents, or valuables to the Assessing Officer of such other person and thereafter, the Assessing Officer of such other person can proceed against such other person. However, in the case IT(SS)A No. 08/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Eriabarie Films & Foils Pvt. Ltd. 6 under appeal before us, admittedly, Section 153C is not invoked in the case of the assessee and the assessment is framed under Section 153A. We, respectfully following the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, hold that during the course of assessment under Section 153A, the incriminating material, if any, found during the course of search of the assessee only can be utilized and not the material found in the search of any other person." Order of the ITAT Delhi Bench in other cases viz. Asha Rani Lakhotia vs. ACIT and Subhag Khattar Vs. ACIT are on the same line. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Subhag Khattar in Tax Appeal No.60 of 2017 has considered the following question of law: "Did the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) fall into error in holding that the additions made under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the circumstances of the case, were not justified and supportable in law? " After putting reliance upon its decision in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) has replied this question as under: "6. The Assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who dismissed it by an order dated 27th November, 2014. A further appeal was filed by the Assessee before the IT AT. The IT AT, inter alia, found substance in the contention of the Assessee that the assessment under Section 153(A) of the Act, in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search on the premises of the Assessee was not sustainable in law. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla, [2016] 380ITR 573. 7. A question was posed to the learned counsel for the Revenue whether in the present case anything incriminating has been found when the premises of the Assessee was searched. The answer was in the negative. The entire case against the Assessee was based on what was found during the search of the premises of the AEZ Group. It is thus apparent on the face of it, that the notice to the Assessee under Section 153A of the Act was misconceived since the so- called incriminating material was not found during the search of the Assessee's premises. The Revenue could have proceeded against the Assessee on the basis of the documents discovered under any other provision of law, but certainly, not wider Section 153A. This goes to the root of the matter." IT(SS)A No. 08/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Eriabarie Films & Foils Pvt. Ltd. 7 10. Hon'ble Court has specifically observed for the purpose of section 153A that only seized material is required. However, if there is any other incriminating material belong to the assessee found at the premises of the some other person, then the assessment has to be made under other provisions and not under section 153 A of the Act. 11. Hon'ble Gujrat High Court has also considered the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra). Hon'ble Gujarat High Court framed the following question of law in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Saumya Construction (supra): "[A] Whether the order of Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition made in assessment made u/s 153A of the Act? [B] Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the addition should be based on the incriminating material found during the course of search under new procedure of assessment u/s 153A which is different from earlier procedure u/s 158BC r.w.s. 158BB of the Act and by reading into the section, the words 'the incriminating material found during the course of search' which are not there in section 153A? [C] Whether the Tribunal erred in relying on the ITAT order in Sanjay Aggarwal v. DCIT (2014) 47 Taxmann.Com 210 (Del) which has interpreted undisclosed income unearthed during the search to imply incriminating material, as against the finding of the Delhi High Court in Filatex India Ltd. v. CIT- IV (2015) 229 Taxman 555 wherein it is held that during the assessment u/s 153A additions need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found during the course of search? " 35. Hon'ble Court concurred with the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. We deem it appropriate to take note of relevant part of the decision, which reads as under: "16. Section 153A bears the heading "Assessment in case of search or requisition". It is well settled as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that the heading of the section can be regarded as a key to the interpretation of the operative portion of the section and if there is no ambiguity in the language or if it is plain and clear, then the heading used in the section strengthens that meaning. From the heading of section 153, the intention of the legislature is clear viz., to provide for assessment in case of search and requisition. When the very purpose of the provision is to make assessment in case of search or requisition, it IT(SS)A No. 08/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Eriabarie Films & Foils Pvt. Ltd. 8 goes without saying that the assessment has to have relation to the search or requisition. In other words, the assessment should be connected with something found during the search or requisition, viz., incriminating material which reveals undisclosed income. Thus, while in view of the mandate of sub-section (1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance can be made only on the basis of material collected during the search or requisition. In case no incriminating material is found, as held by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) (supra), the earlier assessment would have to be reiterated. In case where pending assessments have abated, the Assessing Officer can pass assessment orders for each of the six years determining the total income of the assessee which would include income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search or requisition. In case where a pending reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. 17. In the facts of the present case, a search came to be conducted on 07.10.2009 and the notice was issued to the assessee under section 153A of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 on 04.08.2010. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return of income on 18.11.2010. In terms of section 153B, the assessment was required to be completed within a period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the search came to be carried out, namely, on or before 31st March, 2012. Here, insofar as the impugned addition is concerned, the notice in respect thereof came to be issued on 19.12.2011 seeking an explanation from the assessee. The assessee gave its response by reply dated 21.12.2011 calling upon the Assessing Officer to provide copies of statements recorded on oath of Shri Rohit P. Modi and Smt. Pareshaben K. Modi during the search as well as the copies of the documents upon which the department placed reliance for the purpose of making the proposed addition as well as the copy of the explanation given by Shri Rohit P. Modi and Smt. Pareshaben K. Modi regarding the on-money received, copies of the assessment orders in case of said persons and also requested the Assessing Officer to permit him to cross-examine the said persons. The Assessing Officer issued summons to the said persons, however, they were out of station and it was not known as to when they would return. In this backdrop, without affording any IT(SS)A No. 08/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Eriabarie Films & Foils Pvt. Ltd. 9 opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the said persons, the Assessing Officer made the addition in question. 18. In this case, it is not the case of the appellant that any incriminating material in respect of the assessment year under consideration was found during the course of search. At the relevant time when the notice came to be issued under section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income. Much later, at the fag end of the period within which the order under section 153A of the Act was to be made, in other words, when the limit for framing the assessment as provided under section 153 was about to expire, the notice has been issued in the present case seeking to make the proposed addition of Rs.l 1,05,51,000/- on the basis of the material which was not found during the course of search, but on the basis of a statement of another person. In the opinion of this court, in a case like the present one, where an assessment has been framed earlier and no assessment or reassessment was pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, while computing the total income of the assessee under section 153A of the Act, additions or disallowances can be made only on the basis of the incriminating material found during the search or requisition. In the present case, it is an admitted position that no incriminating material was found during the course of search, however, it is on the basis of some material collected by the Assessing Officer much subsequent to the search, that the impugned additions came to be made. 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating material is found, notwithstanding that in relation to the year under consideration, no incriminating material is found, it would be permissible to make additions and disallowance in respect of all the six assessment years. In the opinion of this court, the said contention does not merit acceptance, inasmuch as, the assessment in respect of each of the six assessment years is a separate and distinct assessment. Under section 153A of the Act, an assessment has to be made in relation to the search or requisition, namely, in relation to material disclosed during the search or requisition. If in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating material is found, no addition or disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur (supra). Besides, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the decision of this court in the case of Jayaben Ratilal Sorathia (supra) wherein it has been held that while it IT(SS)A No. 08/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Eriabarie Films & Foils Pvt. Ltd. 10 cannot be disputed that considering section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer can reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year. 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to a question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference. The appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed." 12. It is also pertinent to note that, in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its concluding paragraph has observed that, on the date of the search, the assessments for assessment years 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006- 07 already stood completed and the returns in these years were accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act and these acceptance of returns processed under Section 143(1) of the Act was construed by the Hon’ble Delhi Court as completion of assessments and this acceptance of return, according to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, could be tinkered with if some incriminating material was found at the premises of the assessee. 13. The position of law in other decisions referred by the assessee is identical; particularly we have considered the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Salasar Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 14. For buttressing our above conclusion, we further fortify ourselves with the following judgments:- Sl. No. Particulars 1. PCIT –vs.- Kurele Paper Mills (P) Ltd. [2017] 81 taxmann.com 82 (Delhi) 2. PCIT –vs.- Rashmi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITAT 99 of 2019, GA No. 1211 of 2019 (Calcutta HC) 3. CIT –vs.- Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. [2016] 73 taxmann.com 149 (Calcutta) 4. PCIT –vs.- Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. ITAT No. 264 of 2016, GA No. 1929 of 2016 (Calcutta HC) IT(SS)A No. 08/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Eriabarie Films & Foils Pvt. Ltd. 11 5. M/s. Mani Square Ltd. –vs.- ACIT [IT(SS)A Nos. 58/KOL/2019 & others 6. ACIT –vs.- Majestic Commercial (P) Ltd. [2020] 116 taxmann.com 412 (Kolkata Trib.) 7. PCIT –vs.- Anand Kumar Jain & Others[ITA 23/2021 & others (Delhi High Court) 8. DCIT –vs.- Bhavya Merchandise (P) Ltd. [2020] 121 taxmann.com 112 (Kolkata Trib.) 9. Sarva Priya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. –vs.- DCIT [IT(SS)A Nos. 97 & 98/KOL/2014 10. Purulia Metal Casting –vs.- DCIT [ITA No. 1217/KOL/2019) 11. DCIT –vs.- Shri Ram Realcon Pvt. Ltd. [IT(SS)A No. 14 & 15/KOL/2017 12. Vikram Financial Services Ltd. –vs.- DCIT [IT(SS)A No. 81/KOL/2010 13. DCIT –vs.- M/s. Bohra G. & NN Brothers Pvt. Ltd. [IT(SS)A No. 89/KOL/2017 15. The Hon’ble High Courts are in conformity in their approach that the additions u/s 153A/C can be made if incriminating material was found during the course of search. In this case, the original assessment was passed prior to the search which is a scrutiny assessment. A perusal of the records would reveal that no incriminating material was found during the course of search. In view of the above and the position of law as discussed above, we are of the view that this addition of Rs.36,088/- is not sustainable in the assessment made u/s 153C of the Act. However, our finding/observation will not impair or injure the case of the revenue with regard to charging of tax of Rs.32,894/- made in the original assessment u/s 14A of the Act which has attained finality. With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 16. At this stage, Shri P.J. Bhide, FCA, tried to agitate that disallowance made in the assessment u/s 143(3) which attained finality by the ld. IT(SS)A No. 08/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Eriabarie Films & Foils Pvt. Ltd. 12 CIT(A)’s order dt. 05/09/2013 can be agitated before the Tribunal in this appeal. According to him the assessee’s own funds were more and, therefore, there should not be any disallowance. He made reference to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of South India Bank vs. CIT reported in 438 ITR 1 (SC). However, we cannot entertain his arguments because for challenging this aspect the assessee should have challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) dt. 05/09/2013. In the present proceedings that issue cannot be challenged before us and, therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention of the assessee in this regard. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 20 th May, 2022 at Kolkata. Sd/- Sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Kolkata, Dated 20/05/2022 *SC SrPs IT(SS)A No. 08/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Eriabarie Films & Foils Pvt. Ltd. 13 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. संबंͬधत आयकर आय ु Èत / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आय ु Èत)अपील (/ The CIT(A)- 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध ,आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,Kolkata/DR,ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड[ फाईल /Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण ITAT, Kolkata