Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Mukul Roy, Siliguri vs Assessee on 20 November, 2009
आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, Ûयायपीठ - "B", कोलकाता,
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH- B , KOLKATA
[सम¢ ौी बी. आर. िमƣल,् Ûयायीक सदःय एवं ौी सी.
बी. आर. सी. डȣ.
डȣ. राव,
राव, लेखा सदःय ]
Before Shri B.R.Mittal, Judicial Member & Sri C.D. Rao, Accountant Member
आयकर अपील संÉया / ITA No. 191 (Kol) of 2010
िनधॉरण वषॅ/Assessment Year 2004-05
Mukul Roy, Siliguri, -वनाम- Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(1),
(PAN-ADEPR8586R) -Versus- Siliguri.
(अपीलाथȸ/APPELLANT) (ू×यथȸ/RESPONDENT)
आयकर अपील संÉया / ITA No. 452 (Kol) of 2010
िनधॉरण वषॅ/Assessment Year 2004-05
Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(1), -वनाम- Mukul Roy, Siliguri,
Siliguri. -Versus- (PAN-ADEPR8586R)
(अपीलाथȸ/APPELLANT) (ू×यथȸ/RESPONDENT)
Assessee by : Sri Subash Agarwal,
Department by : Sri Piyush Kolhe
आदे श/ORDER
सी.
सी.डȣ.
(सी डȣ.राव), राव लेखा सदःय (C.D. Rao), Accountant Member :
These cross appeals for assessment year 2004-05 are filed by the assessee and the department against order of ld. C.I.T.(A), Siliguri dated 20/11/2009. As common issues are involved in these two appeals, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The first ground in the assessee's appeal is against confirming the addition of Rs. 2,64,661/- by the ld. C.I.T.(A) as income from undisclosed sources. The assessee is a distributor of the products of Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Indexport Ltd and he runs this proprietary business under the name & style of M/s. P.M. Enterprise. The assessee's books of account are duly audited. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. impounded the books of accounts and on verification of pages 32 to 36, which were the cash book, he observed that although there was negative cash balance, but the 1 assessee deposited cash in his bank account on three consecutive dates on 3rd, 4th & 5th June, 2003. Details of the cash book on the relevant dates have been reproduced on pages 2 & 3 of the assessment order. The A.O. stated that in spite of opportunity given, the assessee could not explain the shortage of cash in the sums of Rs.86,623/-, Rs.1,39,239/- and Rs.38,799/- as on 3/6/2003, 4/6/2003 and 5/6/2003 respectively. She, therefore, treated the aggregate sum of Rs.2,54,661/- as unexplained cash and added back the same to the total income of the assessee.
3. The assessee came in appeal before the ld. C.I.T.(A) and submitted that he maintained a manual cash book where balance was drawn page-wise and not date-wise, which resulted in negative balance. He also produced before the ld. C.I.T.(A) a computer print out of cash book abstracted from manual cash book showing day-to-day cash balance in support of his submission that there was no negative cash balance as alleged by the A.O. The ld. C.I.T.(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and perusing the assessment order, upheld the addition of Rs.2,64,661/- by observing as under :-
"I have carefully considered the submission of the assessee and also perused the assessment order. The submission of the assessee is found to be baseless. Firstly, in course of assessment proceedings, the assessee only produced another cash book which was impounded by the Ld. AO. When the show-cause was given, the assessee failed to submit that he had another computerized cash book showing day-to-day balance. Secondly, in normal course ul' business, as per accountancy policy, day-to- day cash balance is drawn in the cash book, not page-wise. Thirdly, the assessee failed to furnish any explanation before the Ld AO. Fourthly, the computerized copy furnished by the assessee claimed to be the extract of his original cash book was not corroborated with any other evidence. Even, the corresponding ledgers were not produced. Only one small part of this cash book was produced, not the cash book for the whole period. Fifthly, in this part of the cash book. the assessee has shown huge cash balance accumulated in his hand and one point of time, it has exceeded Rs.15,72,317/- which was impossible considering the nature of business of the assessee. [here was no reason why this huge cash the assessee kept with him when he was having huge outstanding loan from the Bank. Sixthly, The opening cash balance as per his computerized cash book us on 3 1.05.2003 was Rs.15,72,317/- whereas in the cash book produced before the Ld AU, she found the opening cash balance of Rs.49,72 1.35 only. Even page-wise balance was drawn by the assessee, this much difference cannot arise. Seventhly, in course of appellate proceedings., when the assessee filed one revised submission on 17.1 1.2009, he could not reconcile this issue with any documentary evidence.2
In view of the above fact, it is held that the copy of the computerized cash book produced by the assessee in course of appellate hearing has no basis and I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. AO. The same is confirmed."
4. At the time of hearing before us, the assessee's ld. counsel submitted that the ld. C.I.T.(A) ought to have appreciated the computer print out of cash book drawn on day- to-day basis depicting actual cash position and that not being done, the allegation of shortage of cash in comparison to cash deposited in the bank on three dates was beyond the actual facts on this issue and hence the addition sustained in this respect was arbitrary and should be deleted. In support of his submission, he referred to pages 5 to 20 and 21 to 29 of the paper book, which are copies of computerized cash book and manual cash book respectively. The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, support the orders of the authorities below on this issue.
5. We have heard the parties and perused the material placed on record. We observe that during course of assessment proceedings when the books of account were called for, the assessee submitted the same which included cash book also. The A.O. impounded that cash book and finding shortage of cash on three consecutive dates as against cash deposits made in the bank account on those dates, he issued show cause notice to explain such shortage. The assessee then only produced another computerized cash book showing day-to-day balance and claimed that cash balance was drawn on page-wise. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the ld. C.I.T.(A) has rightly inferred that as per accounting policy, day-to-day cash balance is drawn in the cash book and not page-wise as claimed by the assessee. Before us also, the assessee could not satisfactorily explain to discard the finding of ld. C.I.T.(A). Further, as stated above, the assessee filed the computerized cash book after receipt of show cause notice and, therefore, possibility cannot be ignored that such computerized cash book was an afterthought. We further find that the assessee did not produced corresponding ledgers before the authorities below. It has also not been explained how the accumulated cash balance exceeding Rs.15,72,317/- was lying in the computerized cash balance at one point of time. It is further pertinent to note that in the cash book produced for the first time before the A.O., the opening balance was for a sum of Rs.49,721/-, which rose up to the extent of Rs.15,72,317/- in the computerized cash book drawn on 32/5/2003.
3This discrepancy could not be explained with any evidence. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. C.I.T.(A). We, therefore, uphold his order in confirming the addition of Rs.2,64,661/- on account of shortage found in the cash book.
6. The next ground of the assessee was against confirmation of addition to the tune of Rs.1,493/- out of the total addition of Rs.17,88,387/- made by the A.O. as bogus liability, whereas the Revenue has agitated deletion of addition to the extent of Rs. 17,86,894/-, although in the ground of appeal, the department has wrongly mentioned the amount of Rs.17,88,387/-.
6.1. The A.O. issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act and requisitioned copies of accounts with the assessee from Hindustan Lever and Indexport Ltd. and on verification of the same, she found huge discrepancy between the accounts of the aforesaid two companies and transactions shown by the assessee as under :-
Supplier Advance received Outstanding Difference
(as per statement liability (as per
furnished by the balance sheet of the
company u/s. assessee)
133(6)
Hindustan Lever Ltd. 6,80,798 9,91,293 16,72,091
Indexport Ltd. 20,426 95,870 1,16,296
Total 17,88,387
Although the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings filed a reconciliation statement, but the A.O. found the same to be unsatisfactory without there being any supporting evidence. The A.O., therefore, treated the entire difference of Rs.17,88,387/- as bogus liability and added the same to the total income of the assessee.
7. The assessee came in appeal before the ld. C.I.T.(A). The assessee clarified the matter before the ld. C.I.T.(A) and the same has been summarized by him in the following manner :-
"Regarding the addition of Rs.16,72,091/-, the assessee submitted that as per the ledger account furnished by HLL, they had received advance payment of Rs.6,80,798/- from me at the year end, whereas as per my balance sheet, a sum of Rs.9,9 I ,293/- was shown payable to them as on 31,03.2004. Hence, as per the AO there was discrepancy of Rs.16, 72,091/- as on 31-03-2004.4
The assessee thus submitted that as per the prevailing system. cheques are given in advance to HLL by the distributor and immediately on the dispatch of goods they discount the cheques for the corresponding amount from their bank and intimate to the distributor accordingly. During the relevant period, there were three cheques which were discounted by them from their banker but the same could not be encashed from my bank account due to insufficient balance. However, the credit effect has been shown against all three cheques discounted by them in the statement furnished to the AO. Subsequently he made payments by demand drafts in lieu of those three cheques during the same financial year and credits were given in the statement against those demand drafts. Thus, in the statement furnished by HLL, there are double credits for those three amounts - one at the time of discounting of cheques and secondly at the time of receipt of demand drafts. Details of those transactions were as under:
Date of credit against Date of credit against Amount
discounting of cheques receipt of demand drafts
26/02/2004 18/03/2004 2,13,215.74
04/03/2004 27/03/2004 2,03,466.00
08/03/2004 27/03/2004 2,62,623.64
Total 6,79,305.38
The assessee further submitted that HLL reversed (debited) the credits given earlier against the dishonored cheques on 04/05/2004, i.e. in the next financial year as may be found from the statement furnished by them. In view of the above facts, the correct advance figure as on 31/03/2004 as per the statement furnished by HLL was given in the next page :-
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Advance as per statement 6,80,798.57
Less: Credits shown twice 6,79,305.38
In the statement
Balance 1,493.19
Regarding the outstanding amount of Rs.9,91,293/- as shown in his Balance sheet, the assessee submitted that the payments against five cheques against the sale bills were credited, by HLL during the year 2003-04 itself by discounting the cheques, but the same were accounted for in his books in the next assessment year, i.e. Fin year 2004-05 as the payments were debited by my bank in the Fin year 2004-05.
However, the purchases were recorded in his books in the Fin year 2003-04. Thus, though, there was outstanding amount payable as per his books, but these were not outstanding as per the statement of HLL. Then he has given the details of the outstanding payments as under:
Date of Credit (as per Date of payment (as per Cheque Nos. Amount 5 statement of Hindustan bank statement and books Lever Ltd.) of the assessee) 18/03/2004 03/04/2004 471126 1,72,211.02 22/03/2004 07/04/2004 471127 1,18,758.77 25/03/2004 07/04/2004 471128 96,924.03 29/03/2004 12/04/2004 471129 3,42,707.77 31/03/2004 15/09/2004 471130 2,60,691.59 Total 9,91,293.18 The assessee has furnished copies of statement of HLL, bank statement (FY 2004-05) and ledger account of Hindustan Lever Ltd. in his books for A.Y 2004-
05). In view of the above facts and documentary evidences, discrepancy should be Rs.1,403.10 only which was due the debit / credit notes.
Regarding addition of Rs. 1,16,296/- on account of the transactions with M/s Indexport, the assessee submitted that [he outstanding amount relates to the accounting of purchase bills received by him during the Fin year 2003-04 but accounting of the payments against the same was made in the Fin. year 2004-05 as per the debits shown in his bank statement. However, the credits were given by the supplier in the Fin year 2003-04 themselves. The nature of transactions is similar to the transactions discussed in the case of M/s. HLL.
Date of Credit (by Date of payment (as per Cheque Nos. Amount(Rs.)
Index Port) bank statement of the
appellant)
22/03/2004 05/04/2004 471139 10,710.36
25/03/2004 05/04/2004 471140 29,714.28
29/03/2004 15/04/2004 471141 38,995.67
31/03/2004 19/04/2004 471152 16,450.22
Total 95,870.53
The advance shown by Index Port is due to the credit notes which could not be adjusted in Fin year 2003-04 in his books of account. The assessee also filed copies of the statement of Index Port, bank statement of the appellant (F.Y. 2004-05) and ledger account in the books of your appellant (F.Y. 2004-05) with his submission. The assessee thus submitted that in view of the above facts and documentary evidences, the additions made in Part-C of the assessment order cannot he sustained."
8. On the above submissions of the assessee, the ld. C.I.T.(A) discussed the issue with the A.O., who also, according to him, failed to clarify the actual position. The assessee also filed copies of relevant documents. After considering all these, the ld. C.I.T.(A) restricted the addition to Rs.1,493/- for lack of reconciliation by the assessee in the case of Indexport 6 Ltd. and the balance addition of Rs.17,86,894/- [Rs.17,88,387 - Rs.1,493] was deleted. The finding of the ld. C.I.T.(A) is reproduced below :-
"I have carefully considered the submission of the Assessee and also perused the assessment order. 1 have also gone through the documents submitted by the assessee in support of his claim. There is lack of clarity in this part of the assessment order. Therefore, the issues were discussed with the AO who also failed to clarify the actual position. Then, another opportunity was provided to the assessee for further clarification along with supporting documents. The assessee also filed revised submission with xerox copies of the relevant documents. On verification of the record along with the Bank statement, the submission made by the assessee appears to be correct. In view of the same, the addition made by the Ld. AO is deleted except the addition of Rs.1,493/- which could not be reconciled in case of M/s Indexport Ltd. Thus, addition to the extent of Rs.l,493/- is confirmed."
Against the confirmation of addition of Rs.1,493/-, the assessee is in appeal, whereas the revenue has also filed appeal vide ground No.1 of the appeal against such deletion of addition of Rs.17,86,894/-.
9. We have heard the parties and perused the material placed on record. We have also gone through several documents placed in the paper book of the assessee. On consideration of all these, we observe that the A.O. on the basis of ledger account furnished by Hindustan Steel Ltd. (HLL) found that HLL had received advance payment of Rs.6,80,798/- from the assessee, whereas as per balance sheet of the assessee, sum of Rs.9,91,293/- was shown as payable to HLL as on 31/3/2004. Therefore, the A.O. found discrepancy of Rs.16,72,091 (Rs.6,80,798 + Rs. 9,91,293). In respect of discrepancy of Rs.6,80,798/-, the assessee's learned counsel explained that as per prevailing system, cheques are given in advance to HLL and on dispatch of goods, HLL discount the cheques for the corresponding amount from its bank and intimate accordingly to the assessee. It was further submitted that during the year under consideration, although the assessee had issued three cheques to HLL for the aggregate sum of Rs.6,79,305/-, but the same could not be discounted by HLL due to insufficient balance in assessee's bank account. However, credit effect against these three dishounoured cheques has been shown by HLL in the statement furnished to the A.O. Subsequently, the assessee issued demand draft for the sum of Rs.6,79,305/- against those three undiscounted cheques towards payment to HLL during the same assessment year and HLL gave credit of this amount also in their statement, which has resulted in 7 double credit for the same three cheques, one at the time of discounting of cheques and secondly at the time of receipt of demand draft. It was pointed out by the learned counsel referring to page-54 of the paper book that HLL debited (reversed) the credits given earlier against the dishonoured cheques in the next assessment year on 04/5/2004 and the correct advance figure as on 31/3/2004 as per statement of HLL stood as under:-
Advance as per statement of HLL Rs.6,80,798
Less : Credit shown twice in the statement Rs.6,79,305 Rs.1,493/-
In regard to other outstanding amount of Rs.9,91,293/- shown in the balance sheet of the assessee, it was explained that five cheques totaling to Rs.9,91,293/- against sale bills were issued by the assessee in favour of HLL between 18/3/2004 and 31/3/2004, relevant to A.Y. 2004-05 and the proceeds of these cheques were credited by HLL during A.Y. 2004-05 itself by discounting the cheques. However, as the bank of the assessee debited the assessee's account by aforesaid amount of five cheques on subsequent date falling within A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee accounted for these payments in its accounts in the subsequent assessment year on the basis of debit entry of the bank, although purchases made in A.Y. 2004-05 were recorded in that assessment year itself. Therefore, in the books of the assessee although there appeared to be outstanding amount payable by the assessee, but as per statement of HLL, the amount of the five cheques amounting to Rs.9,91,293/- was not outstanding. Copies of statement of HLL, statement of account of the assessee for A.Y. 2005-06 and ledger account of HLL are placed on record. On consideration of the above, we are of the view that the difference found by the A.O. on the basis of statement of HLL has been clarified by the assessee on the basis of evidence on record and there is actually no difference between the actual payment by the assessee and receipt thereof by HLL, except the sum of Rs.1,493/- being the difference of amount of undiscounted cheque and subsequent demand draft in lieu of such undiscounted cheque. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order of ld. C.I.T.(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.17,86,894/- out of total addition of Rs.17,88,387/-. We, therefore, uphold the order of ld. C.I.T.(A) on this issue and grounds of appeal of both the assessee well as Revenue stand rejected.
810. The only other ground raised in the Revenue's appeal is against grant of relief of Rs.4,73,516/- by the ld. C.I.T.(A) on account of undisclosed income. The facts in brief on this issue are that that the A.O. on verification of assessee's bank statement with reference to his books of account found that there were some deposits in the bank account through transfer entries. The assessee stated that he received cheques from his customers against credit sales, which was not accepted by the A.O., the details of which are given on page-5 of the appellate order. According to the A.O., in the case of M/s. K.M. Construction, the assessee had produced evidence of 11 credit sales for the period 11/5/2003 to 18/9/2003, but the name of this party has not been mentioned in the ledger of the assessee. Therefore, the A.O. disbelieved the total sale figure of Rs.3,68,237/- shown in the cash book against K.M. Construction as credit sales and payment received against such alleged credit sale was disallowed by the A.O. In regard to other party M/s. Prakash Bros., the A.O. observed that there was no such credit sale appeared in the ledger of the assessee, although the invoice dated 31.11.2003 for the amount of Rs.80,863/- was found to be the credit sale memo and the assessee claimed the same as cash sale. The A.O., therefore, held that the assessee had introduced his own money in the guise of sales and thus she added Rs.4,73,516/- to the total income of the assessee as his undisclosed income.
11. The assessee came in appeal before the ld. C.I.T.(A) and submitted that in respect of M/s. Prakash Bros., credit sale was made to that party vide bill No. 1188 dated 30.11.2003 and was duly posted in the ledger account. He further stated that the A.O. misdirected himself in alleging that the assessee made cash sales, because there was aggregate sale of Rs.1,26,431/- both in cash and by cheque, out of which credit sale to the said party was for Rs.80,863/- and the remaining amount of sale was by cash only. Subsequently on 18.12.2003 when the assessee received the cheque for Rs.78,516/- against credit sale of Rs.80,863/- the same was duly recorded in the ledger. He, therefore, submitted that the allegation of the A.O. that there was cash sale to M/s. Prakash Bros. not recorded in the books was untrue and beyond the facts of the case. In regard to M/s. K.M. Construction, the assessee submitted that the accounting procedure followed in respect of M/s. Prakash Bros was also followed in the case of this party, i.e. 9 both credit as well as cash sales were recorded in the cash book and the corresponding credit sales were recorded in the ledger account. All the ledger accounts and cash book were produced before the A.O., who has verified the same. The cash book produced before the A.O. also showed entry of receipt of cheque of Rs.3,75,000/- on 14.8.2003, which was deposited on the same day with the assessee's bank account with S.B.I. In support of the submissions, the assessee also produced before the ld. C.I.T.(A) copies of ledger account and cash book. The ld.C.I.T.(A) observed that on the facts of the case and evidence on record, no addition can be sustained alleging undisclosed deposits in the bank. He, therefore, deleted the addition of Rs.4,73,516/- made by the A.O. with the following observation :-
"I have carefully considered the submission of the assessee and also perused the assessment order. I have also perused the documents submitted by the assessee in course of hearing. The submission made by the assessee is found to be acceptable. Apparently, the Ld. AO could not follow the basis of accounting principle of the assessee. Actually, the assessee received those payments against credit sales made by the assessee in earlier occasions and the assessee received the payment by cheque subsequently. The same has been recorded in the Cash Book and in the corresponding Ledgers. On the other hand, to make addition u/s. 68 of the Act, the Ld. AO did not conduct any enquiry regarding the particulars of the cheques found to have been deposited in the bank A/c of the assessee. No material was brought to record. In view of the aforesaid fact, the addition made by the Ld. AO cannot be sustained. The same is deleted."
12. The ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the ld. C.I.T.(A). A paper book has also been filed which, inter alia, contained copies of relevant pages of cash book & ledger account of M/s. K.M. Construction and M/s. Prakash Bros. (pages 35 to 40), sale bills in respect of the said two parties (pages 41 to
52) and reconciliation statement showing payment by cheque and cleared in the next financial year (pages 56 & 57). He submitted that cash as well as credit sales are recorded in the cash book first and when cheque is received against credit sale, the same is recorded in the ledger account of the respective parties and deposited to the bank accordingly. He further submitted that the A.O. has confused himself in appreciating this accounting system followed by the assessee and when she only considered the aggregate amount of sales reflected on the receipt side of the cash book as cash sales but omitted to go through the corresponding entry in the name of the said parties on the 10 disbursement side of the same cash book on the same day. He further submitted all the cash and credit sales are duly recorded in the cash book and ledger account of the respective parties and the same were produced before the authorities below. According to him further, the ld. C.I.T.(A) has rightly appreciated the facts of the case on this issue and, therefore, the addition deleted by him should be upheld.
13. The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied on the reasoning adopted by the A.O. in her assessment order. He further submitted that although the assessee stated that the transactions were recorded in the ledger accounts of the parties, but no name of the party was mentioned against such entries in the ledger account. Therefore, in absence of such details in the ledger account, the A.O. has rightly doubted undisclosed income out of undisclosed source of investment introduced in his business. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the ld. C.I.T.(A) on this issue should be quashed and that of A.O. be restored.
14. We have heard the parties and perused the material placed on record. The A.O. on the basis of bank statement found that although there was no corresponding entry in the ledger/cash book, but cash deposits on different dates were made by the assessee to his bank account. It was the claim of the assessee that credit as well as cash sales are recorded in the cash book and when the cheque against credit sale is received, necessary entry is made in the ledger account and the cheque is deposited to the bank on the same day. It was also submitted that the A.O. failed to look into the disbursement side of the cash book when he only acted on the basis of receipt side of the said cash book. We have perused the copies of ledger accounts in respect of the aforesaid parties and cash book, which are placed in the paper book. On going through the same, we find substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee. Moreover, the A.O. has treated the sales as assessee's undisclosed income earned from undisclosed source, which is covered by the provisions of sec. 68 of the Act. In our considered opinion, the A.O. has not enquired into the matter as required under the said section. There is no evidence on record to hold that the A.O. issued any notice to the parties concerned to verify the cash/credit sales with them. He has also not obtained any report from the bank where the assessee had deposited cheques, which in the opinion of the 11 A.O. were transfer entries. Before coming to a conclusion that the deposit of amounts by way of cheques to the bank, claimed to have been received from M/s. K.M. Construction and M/s. Prakash Bros. on sales made to them, was transfer entries only out of assessee's undisclosed income, the A.O. should have verified the authenticity of the transactions from those parties and bank, the details of which were available to him. But we find that there was no such effort being taken by the A.O. Therefore, in our opinion, the A.O. has not verified and examined the matter in proper perspective and made the addition on his whims and suspicion without appreciating the ledger accounts and cash book in appropriate manner. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld. C.I.T.(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,73,516/-. The same is upheld and the ground of appeal of the department on this issue is dismissed.
15. In the result, both the appeals by the assessee and the department are dismissed.
यह आदे श खुले Ûयायालय मɅ सुनाया गया है This order is pronounced in the open Court on 28.02.2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
ौी बी
(ौी बी.. आर
आर.. मीƣल)् Ûयायीक सदःय सी.
सी.डȣ.
(सी डȣ.राव
राव) लेखा सदःय
(B.R.Mittal), Judicial Member (C.D.Rao), Accountant Member
(तारȣख)
तारȣख) Date: 28 - 02-2011
आदे श कȧ ूितिलǒप अमेǒषतः-
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant :Mukul Roy, M/s. P.M.Enterprise, Roy Bhawan, Bagdogra, Siliguri.
2 ू×यथȸ / The Respondent : I.T.O., ward-2(1), Siliguri.
3. आयकर किमशनर (अपील) : The CIT(A), Siliguri
4. आयकर किमशनर/The CIT, Siliguri 5 वभािगय ूितनीधी / DR, ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata 6 Guard file.
स×याǒपत ूित/True Copy, आदे शानुसार/ By order,
(dkp)
उप पंजीकार/Dy./Asstt. Registrar.
12