Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
D.C.I.T., Circle-10, Kolkata, Kolkata vs M/S Vatican Commercial Ltd., Kolkata on 26 July, 2017
I . T. A . N o. 2 6 2 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3
A s s e s s m e n t Ye a r : 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 0 5
Page 1 of 12
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
KOLKATA 'C' BENCH, KOLKATA
Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member and
Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member
I.T .A. No. 2623/KOL/ 2013
Assessment Year: 2004-2005
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,........ .........................Appellant
Circle-10, Ko lkata,
Aayakar Bhawan,
P-7, Chowringhee Square, 3 r d Floor,
Kolkata-700 069
-Vs.-
M/s. Vatic an Commercial Limited,.......................................Respondent
Vaibhav, 4, Lee Road,
Kolkata-700 020
[PAN: AAACV 0690 G]
Appearances by:
Shri M.K. Chanda, JCIT, Sr. D.R., for the Department
Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA, for the assessee
Date of concluding th e hearing : Ju ly 05, 2017
Date of pronouncing the order : Ju ly 26, 2017
O R D E R
Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, A.M..:
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII, Kolkata dated 13.08.2013.
2. In Ground No. 1, the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in cancelling the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 of the Act by holding that the initiation of the re-assessment proceedings by the Assessing Officer itself was invalid.
3. The assessee in the present case is a non-Banking Finance Company, which is engaged in the business of dealing in shares and securities as well as investment and financing. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 11.10.2004 declaring total I . T. A . N o. 2 6 2 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3 A s s e s s m e n t Ye a r : 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 0 5 Page 2 of 12 income at 'Nil' and book profit of Rs.86,43,592/- under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Although the said return was initially processed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) on 09.05.2005, he subsequently reopened the assessment and issued a notice under section 148 after recording the reasons. In pursuance of the said notice, assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 of the Act vide an order dated 26.12.2008 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,69,53,757/- after making additions on account of disallowance of provision for doubtful debts, disallowance of interest, disallowance under section 14A and addition on account of interest. Thereafter the assessment was again reopened by the Assessing Officer for the second time for the reasons that 15% share of the assessee from joint venture business amounting to Rs.52,93,587/- had escaped assessment. Accordingly, a notice under section 148 was issued by him on 26.05.2010, in reply to which a letter dated 28.06.2010 was filed by the assessee stating that the return filed originally on 11.10.2004 may be treated as the return filed in response to notice under section 148. During the course of second reassessment proceedings, it was submitted by the assessee that the speculation profit of Rs.52,93,587/- received from joint venture was already included in the total speculation profit of Rs.95,95,588/- offered filed by it in the return of income. This explanation of the assessee, however, was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer as, according to him, it was not ascertainable as to whether the profit of Rs.52,93,587/- received from joint venture was included by the assessee in the speculation profit of Rs.95,95,588/-. He held that the entire speculation profit of Rs.3,52,71,950/- of the joint venture actually belonged to the assessee and accordingly the same was added by him to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed under section 143(3)/147 vide an order dated 15.12.2011.
4. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 on 15.12.2011, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the validity of the said I . T. A . N o. 2 6 2 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3 A s s e s s m e n t Ye a r : 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 0 5 Page 3 of 12 assessment as well as disputing the addition made by the Assessing Officer therein on account of entire speculation profit of the joint venture business. During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals), detailed submission was made by the assessee in support of its case, which was forwarded by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the Assessing Officer for the later's comments. In the remand report submitted to the ld. CIT(Appeals), the Assessing Officer offered his comments on the written submission made by the assessee and after taking into consideration the same as well as the other material available on record, the ld. CIT(Appeals) found merit in the preliminary issued raised by the assessee challenging the validity of assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 and cancelled the same by holding it invalid in law for the following reasons given at pages 25 to 29 of his impugned order:-
"As regards the re-assessment proceedings, it may be seen th at the following twin conditions are to be satisfied for i nvoking pro visio ns o f sec. 147 of the Act -
Condition one:- The Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income o r profit s or gains chargeable t o income-tax had escape d assessment .
Condition two: - The Assessing Officer must also have reason to believe that such escapement had occurred by reaso n of either omissio n or failure o n the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material fac1s necessary for his assessment of that year o r failure on the part of the assessee to make a return of income under section 139 or in response to notice issued under section 142(1) o r
148. When both these conditions should be satisfied to t ake action under sec. 147- Both these conditio ns should be satisfied if the original assessment was made under sect ion 143(3)/147 and th e Assessing Officer wants to tak e action after the expiry of 4 years fro m the end of the assessment year [pro viso to sectio n 147 ].
When only co ndition one should be satisfied to take action under section 147- in the following cases only condition o ne shoul d be satisfied-
If the Assessing Officer wants to t ake action within 4 years (from the end of the assessment year) and the original assessment was completed under section 143(1), 143(3), 144; or I . T. A . N o. 2 6 2 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3 A s s e s s m e n t Ye a r : 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 0 5 Page 4 of 12
(b) If the Assessing Officer want s to take action after the expiry of 4 years (but not beyond 6 years) fro m the end of assessment year and the original assessment was co mplet ed under section 143( 1) or 144.
In case (a) and case (b] the Assessing Officer is free to initiat e proceedings under section 147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render th e Assessing Officer powerless to initiat e reassessment proceedings even wh en intimation under sect ion 1 43(1)(a) had been issued - C IT v.Raiesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P)Ltd., [20 07J 161 Taxman 316 (SC).
The appellant's case is covered by condition No.2. The re-assessment proceedings h ave been initiated after the expiry of four years. There is no fresh material brought on reco rd to believe th at escapement of income had occurred by reason of either omission o r failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all mat erial facts necessary for his assessment of that year o r fail ure on the part of the appellant to make a ret urn of income under section 139 or in respo nse t o notice issued under sect ion 142(1) or 148. It is well-settled law t hat oh assessment cannot be reopened only because of change of opinion. The mere change of opinion or wrong legal reference will not empower the Assessing Officer to reopen assessment - CIT v, Bhnji Lavji [l971J 79 ITR 582 (SC). Similarly, reassessment cannot be made on fresh opinion on the same facts - Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. V. ITO [1978J 114 ITR 404 (AP) or in view of ch anged legal position - Maharaja Sh ri Umaid Mills Ltd. vs.- ITO (1962) 44 IT R 303 (Punj.). In Kamalchand v. ITO (1981) 128, ITR 290/ (l980J 4 Taxman 216 (MP), an assessment was sough t to be reopened by the Assessing Officer on the ground that his predecessor-in office had committed on error in allowing cert ain deductio ns. The Madhya Pradesh High Court h eld that since no fresh information had come into po ssession of the Assessing Officer, th e assessment co uld not be reopened. The Court held that if amounts only to change of opinion without anything else. Reassessment without any additio nal info rmation amounts to change o f opinio n - Fluo rescent Fixtures (P.) Lt d. V. IT O [2009] 34 SOT 48 (Mum). Simil arly, where full facts and information regarding claim of depreciation at higher rate o n commercial vehicles were furnish ed by the assessee and th e Assessing Officer had consistently taken a view that higher depreciat ion was avail able, he co uld not re- open assessments subsequently under section 147 on mere ch ange of opinion that higher depreciation was not available -Pressmen Advertising & Mark eting Ltd. V. CIT [2005] 142 Taxman 17 (Kol.). Section 147 does not empower the Assessing Officer to review already concluded issues - CIT v. Ranji Kaur [200 3] 81 TTJ (Chd) 269. Section 147 does not authorize the Assessing Officer to reopen assessment under garb of ' reason to bel ieve' to review its own decision - CIT v. Smithkline Beecham Consumer Brands Lt d. [2003] 126 Taxman 104 (Chd.) (Mag.).
In Oil & Natural G as Corpn. Ltd. V. C IT [2003] 133 Taxman 27 (Uttaranchal ), it h as been held th at if th e assessee has disclosed fully and truly all material fact s necessary for purpose of assessment , an action under section 147 cannot be taken after expiry of 4 years fro m relevant assessment year on basis of mere ch ange of o pinio n of the Assessing Officer that a larger sum ought t o [have been disallowed under original assessment. "
I . T. A . N o. 2 6 2 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3 A s s e s s m e n t Ye a r : 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 0 5 Page 5 of 12 The Allahabad High C ourt in J.P. Bajpai (H UF) v. CIT [2004] 140 Taxman 34 held that the respo nsibilit y of the assessee is limited to the disclosure of all primary facts and nothing beyond. Once the assessee has disclosed all the primary fact s that is the end of his duty. It is th en for the assessing autho rity to draw the proper conclusions fro m the fact s. If the conclusions drawn by the Assessing Officer fro m the primary fact s disclosed by the assessee are erro neous, t he assessing autho rit y cannot reopen th e assessment merely on the basis of a ch ange in o pinion. A mere ch ange in opinion would not confer jurisdictio n upon the Assessing Officer to initiate proceeding under section 147. If, however, 'reason to believe' of the Assessing Officer is founded on an informatio n which might have been received by the Assessing Officer after completion of assessment , it may be a so und foundatio n for exerci sing power under section 147, read wit h section 148 - CIT -vs.- Kelvinato r of India Lt d. [2002] 123 Taxman 433 / 256 ITR 1 (Delhi) (FB). Moreover, there is nothing in section 1 47 to suggest th at an Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment where he h ad failed to invest igat e and find o ut truth at initial stage - Ram Prasad v. IT O [1995] 82 Taxman 199 (All). However, the action under section 147 can be taken only on the basis of rules mentioned supra.
Fro m the fo regoing legal: propo sitions, it abundantly clear t hat an assessment completed under section 143(3) or 147 con be reo pened after 4 years only if an income h as escaped assessment because of an omissio n on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts.
Now, in the present case, the Assessing Officer h aving examined t he issue relating to the inclusion of share of joint vent ure profits in the profit s declared in th e original assessment and h aving not made any addit ion after being satisfied with the explanatio n of the appellant in th e matt er, had specifically expressed a view or o pinion on the said issue and therefo re , the reo pening of the said assessment o n the basis of t he same issue without there being anyth ing new brought on record clearly amounted to a mere change of o pinio n. The Assessing Officer has not brought on record any iota of evidence to justify his finding th at 85% of the share profit att ribut able to joint venture part ner, Mackertich Consultanc y Services Pvt. Ltd., is assessable in the appellant' s hands. Even the remand report is silent on the issue.
In view of the facts o f the case and the emerging legal posit ion, I am of the considered view that the initiat ion of reassessment proceedings in the present case by t he Assessing Officer being merely on th e basis of change of opinion was not permissible under sec. 147 read with section
148 of the Act and such the re-assessment proceedings are invalid".
5. The ld. D.R., at the outset, invited our attention to the copy of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment to point out that the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully I . T. A . N o. 2 6 2 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3 A s s e s s m e n t Ye a r : 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 0 5 Page 6 of 12 and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the year under consideration was specifically pointed out by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded. He contended that requirement of first proviso to section 147 thus was duly complied with by the Assessing Officer and the initiation of reassessment proceedings by him beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was in accordance with law. He also placed on record a copy of the confidential letter dated 09.11.2009 addressed to the ld. CIT, Kolkata-XI by Ld. CIT, Central-I, Kolkata pointing out that all the activities of the joint venture were being conducted by the assessee and the joint venture agreement was executed with an intention to divert the profits assessable in the hands of the assessee, a profit making concern, to the extent of 85% to MCS, which had incurred huge loss during the relevant year. He contended that this new information received by the Assessing Officer vide a letter dated 09.11.2009 after completion of the first assessment on 26.12.2008 was the basis of reopening of assessment for the second time and the ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, was not justified in holding the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 vide an order dated 15.12.2011 as invalid on the ground that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion. He contended that there was thus no legal infirmity in the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 143(3)/147 as alleged by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and there is no justification in the action of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in cancelling the said assessment by treating the same as bad-in-law.
6. In reply, the ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer to point out that there is no mention whatsoever to the letter dated 09.11.2009 as now relied upon by the ld. D.R. He contended that the said letter not referred to by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded is thus an exterior material, which cannot be taken into account while deciding the validity of reopening. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Limited -vs.- ACIT & Others I . T. A . N o. 2 6 2 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3 A s s e s s m e n t Ye a r : 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 0 5 Page 7 of 12 reported in 268 ITR 332. He once again invited our attention to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and pointed out that the assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer to bring to tax the income of Rs.52,93,587/- being 15% of the profit of joint venture business as the same, according to the Assessing Officer, had escaped assessment. In this regard, he invited our attention to the written submission dated December 10, 2008 filed before the Assessing Officer during the course of original reassessment proceedings to show that a specific query was raised by the Assessing Officer in this regard and while replying the same, it was categorically submitted by the assessee that the speculation profit of Rs.95,95,588/- declared by it was inclusive of a profit of Rs.52,93,587/- being 15% of the profit from joint venture. He contended that there was thus no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the relevant information or material as allegedly pointed out by the ld. D.R. from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and the reopening of assessment after the expiry of four years was barred by limitation as per the first proviso to section 147. The ld. counsel for the assessee thus strongly supported the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) cancelling the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 by holding the same to be invalid and urged that the same may be upheld on this issue.
7. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material available on record. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the ld. representatives of both the sides and decide the preliminary issue relating to the validity of reopening, it would be relevant to refer to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment, which are extracted below:-
"M/s. MCS Lt d. claimed to have made a joint venture with M/s. Vatican Commercials Ltd. (Vatican), the assessee-company, w.e.f. 01.07.2003 under the name and st yle "Vatican Machertich JV" as per agreement dt. 24.07.2003. The said agree ment was shown to h ave been notarized on 25.06.2 003 i.e. prio r to the date of agreement dt. 24.07.2003 having effect fro m I . T. A . N o. 2 6 2 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3 A s s e s s m e n t Ye a r : 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 0 5 Page 8 of 12 01.07.2003. The profit of the joint vent ure "Vatica n Machertich JV' from August 2003 to March, 2004 was for Rs.3,52 ,71,950/-. The share of M/s. MCS Ltd. and Vatican Commercial Ltd. is in the ratio of 85% and 15%, hence their share of profit co mes to Rs.2 ,99,78,363/- and Rs.52 ,93,587/- respectively. These are also a related parties.
Comput ation and th e balance sheet of t he assessee co. are examined to find as to whether the income of Rs.52 ,93,587/- (i.e. 15% sh are of the J.V.) has been disclosed as inco me o r not . But no such inco me are found disclosed.
M/s. MCS Ltd. and th e joint venture "M/s. Vatican M achertich JV" are a related part y as per Act , hence necessary info rmation w.r.t. investment/t ransactio n was required to be furnished in the "Notes forming part of the audit ed acco unts" . The same was examined vide Sch. 17(5) and noticed t he comment of the Audito r-
"Disclosure as required by Accounting Standard 18 (AS-18) 'Related Part y Disclo sures' issued by th e Institute of Chartered Accountants of India are as follows:-
Names of the relat ed parties and descript ion of rel ationship: Key Management Personnel: Anand Krish na Martin (Directo r) Sanjay Kumar Thard (Director Pawan Kumar G oel (Directo r) There were no transactions between the co mpany and the aforesaid related parties during the year.
The above fact s conclusively pro ves that total inco me of Rs.52 ,93,587/- i.e. 15% of the J.V. earning as per agreement (supra) have not been disclosed by the assessee co mpany which h as escaped assessment and to tax th e same pro po sal fo r re-opening the assessment for A.Y. 2004-05 is submitted" .
A perusal of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer shows that the assessment originally completed under section 143(3)/147 vide an order dated 26.12.2008 was reopened by the Assessing Officer to bring to tax the income of Rs.52,93,587/- representing share of profit of 15% of the assessee from joint venture, which according to the Assessing Officer ha d escaped assessment as a result of the failure of the assessee to disclose the same. In this regard, the ld. counsel for the assessee has relied on the submissions made in writing by the assessee vide letter dated 10.12.2008 filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer during the course of the first re-assessment proceedings, wherein it was submitted by the I . T. A . N o. 2 6 2 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3 A s s e s s m e n t Ye a r : 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 0 5 Page 9 of 12 assessee in reply to a specific query raised by the Assessing Officer that it had earned a speculation profit of Rs.95,95,588/-, which was inclusive of a profit of Rs.52,93,587/- being 15% of the profit from joint venture with MCS. It was also clarified by the assessee that all these transactions inclusive of 15% of Rs.3,52,71,950/- being profit from joint venture business were shown as speculation profit in the Profit & Loss Account. Keeping in view these submissions made by the assessee in writing categorically during the course of first re-assessment proceedings, we find that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose its share of profit of 15% from joint venture as alleged by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded and initiation of reassessment proceedings by him after the completion of four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration was not valid as per the first proviso to section 147.
8. It is also observed that the reopening of assessment as made by the Assessing Officer for the second time is treated as invalid by the ld. CIT(Appeals) vide his impugned order on the ground that the same was based merely on the change of opinion. In this regard, the ld. D.R. has relied on the confidential letter dated 09.11.2009 stated to be available on record before the Assessing Officer. He has contended that the information coming to the possession of the Assessing Officer vide the said letter after the completion of the first reassessment on 26.12.008 formed the basis of the reopening of assessment for the second time, which cannot be said to be merely on the basis of change of opinion. We are unable to accept this contention of the ld. D.R. First of all, it is observed that there is no mention whatsoever to the said letter dated 09.11.2009 referred to and relied upon by the ld. D.R. in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, the contents of the said letter call for the protective assessment of the whole of the income of Rs.3,52,71,950/- of the joint venture in the hands of the assessee while the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment were based on the belief of the Assessing Officer about the I . T. A . N o. 2 6 2 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3 A s s e s s m e n t Ye a r : 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 0 5 Page 10 of 12 escapement of income of the assessee only to the extent of Rs.52,93,587/- being the share of profit of 15% of the joint venture earning. The entire income of the joint venture was considered by the Assessing Officer in the hands of the assessee only in the assessment finally completed under section 143(3)/147 while the reasons recorded by him for reopening confined only to the share of profit of 15% of the assessee of the joint venture, which was alleged to have escaped assessment. It is thus difficult to accept the contention of the ld. D.R. that the letter dated 09.11.2009 was available on record before the Assessing Officer at the relevant time and the same formed the basis of reopening of assessment. In any case, there was no reference whatsoever to the said letter in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer as rightly pointed out by the ld. counsel for the assessee. In the case of Hindustan Lever Limited -vs- ACIT & Others (supra) cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible. It is for the Assessing Officer to disclose and open his mind through reasons recorded by him and he has to speak through his reasons. The reasons are the manifestation of the mind of the Assessing Officer and the same should be self-explanatory and should not keep the assessee guessing for the reasons. The Assessing Officer, in the event of challenge to the reasons, must be able to justify the same based on material available on record. He must disclose in the reasons such material relied upon by him so as to establish the vital link between the reasons and evidence. It was held that such vital link is the safe guard against arbitrary reopening of the concluded assessment and the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer cannot be supplemented by filing an affidavit, or making an oral submission. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Limited (supra) and having perused the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which clearly show that there is no new information or material which has been referred to or relied upon by the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment, we fully agree with the ld. CIT(Appeals) I . T. A . N o. 2 6 2 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3 A s s e s s m e n t Ye a r : 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 0 5 Page 11 of 12 that the reopening of assessment made by the Assessing Officer was based on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible in law. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) cancelling the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 of the Act by treating the same as invalid and dismiss Ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal.
9. Keeping in view our decision rendered above on the preliminary issue raised in Ground No. 1 upholding the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), whereby he cancelled the assessment order made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147, the other grounds raised in the appeal of the Revenue relating to the addition made on account of joint venture profit on merit have become infructuous and the same are accordingly dismissed.
10. During the course of appellate proceedings before the Tribunal, the assessee has filed a petition under Rule 27 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 supporting the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) cancelling the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 on one legal ground, which has been decided by the ld. CIT(Appeals) against the assessee. However, keeping in view our decision rendered above upholding the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) cancelling the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 on the other grounds, the issue raised by the assessee in its petition under Rule 27 has become infructuous or academic. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary or expedient to adjudicate upon the same.
11. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on July 26, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (P.M. Jagtap)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Kolkata, the 26 t h day of July, 2017
I . T. A . N o. 2 6 2 3 / KO L . / 2 0 1 3
A s s e s s m e n t Ye a r : 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 0 5
Page 12 of 12
Copies to : (1) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle-10, Ko lkata,
Aayakar Bhawan,
P-7, Chowringhee Square, 3 r d Floor,
Kolkata-700 069
(2) M/s. Vatic an Commercial Limited,
Vaibhav, 4, Lee Road,
Kolkata-700 020
(3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals )-XII, Kolk ata (4) Commissio ner of Income Tax ,Kolk ata (5) The Depart ment al Represent ative (6) Guard File By order Senior Private Secretary, Head of Office/DDO Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S.