ITO, Ward - 2(3), Kolkata, Kolkata v. M/s. Link Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1980/KOL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 198023514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACL7396K
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 1980/KOL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Ward - 2(3), Kolkata, Kolkata
Respondent M/s. Link Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 29-11-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 28-10-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE . . ! '# '# '# '# /AND ' $# ! ) [BEFORE SHRI S. V. MEHROTRA AM & SRI MAHAVIR SINGH JM] #% #% #% #% / I.T.A NO. 1980/KOL/2010 $&' '() $&' '() $&' '() $&' '()/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 INCOME-TAX OFFICER WD-2(3) KOLKATA VS. M/S. LINK CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. (PAN:AAACL 7396 K) (+ /APPELLANT ) (-.+ / RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 25.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.11.2011 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S. K. ROY FOR THE RESPONDENT: N O N E / / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH JM ( ' $# ' $# ' $# ' $# ! ! ! ! ) THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF C IT(A)-I KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.483/CIT(A)-I/WD-2(3) 08-09 DATED 05.08.2010. ASS ESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO WD-2(3) KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HE REINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 30.12. 2008. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT O F PAYMENT OF INTEREST IN THE ABSENCE OF DEDUCTION OF TDS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS REVENUE RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.1: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.76 797/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST WITHOUT MAKING TDS DESPITE THE FACT THAT FROM NO.15G COLLECTED FROM PAYEE WAS NOT DEPOSITED IN THE OFFICE OF CIT-1 KOL KATA. 3. WE HAVE HEARD SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR AND GONE THR OUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COM PLETING ASSESSMENT MADE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.76 797/- AS THE AS SESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED XEROX COPIES OF FORM 15G RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES AND ALSO SUBMITTED ACKNOWLEDGMENT COPY OF FORM 15G SUBM ITTED TO CIT-1 VIDE DATED 31.12.2008. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED ASSESSMENT ON 13.12.2008 AS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THESE 2 ITA 1980/K/2010 LINK CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.. A.Y.0 6-07 DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 31 .12.2008. AGGRIEVED AGAINST DISALLOWANCE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT( A) WHO DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY STATING THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FORM 15G WIT H CIT-1 AND HE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THESE LOAN PARTIES HAVE ALREADY SUBM ITTED FORM 15G FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASS ESSEE AND AGAINST REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT MUMBAI F BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIPIN P. MEHTA VS. ITO ITA NO.3317/MUM/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 DATED 20 TH MAY 2011. SIMILAR VIEW TAKEN BY AHMEDABAD A BENCH IN THE CASE OF VALIBHAI KHAN BHAI MANKAD VS. DY.CIT (OSD) IN ITA NO.2228/AHD/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 DA TED 29.4.2011. AS THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF IT AT MUMBAI F BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIPIN P. MEHTA (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL VIDE P ARAS 6 7 AND 8 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. SECTION 194A PROVIDES FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM THE INTEREST PAI D BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE APPROPRIATE RATE. SECTION 197A(1A) PROVIDES THAT NOTWITHSTANDIN G ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 194A NO DEDUCTION OF TAX SHALL BE MADE UNDER THE SECTION IF THE PAYEE OF THE INTEREST FURNISHED TO THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THE INTEREST A DECLARATION IN WRITING IN DUPLICATE IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE TAX ON HIS ESTIMATED TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHIC H THE INTEREST IS TO BE INCLUDED WILL BE NIL. SUB-SECTION (2) PROVIDES THAT THE PERSON RESPO NSIBLE FOR PAYING INTEREST SHALL DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED TO THE CCIT OR CIT ONE COP Y OF THE DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY THE PAYEE OF THE INTEREST TO THE ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE THE SEVENTH DAY OF THE MONTH NEXT FOLLOWING THE MONTH IN WHICH THE DECLARATION WAS FU RNISHED TO HIM. IF THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THE INTEREST (I.E. THE ASSES SEE) DOES NOT COMPLY WITH SUB-SECTION 2 OF SECTION 197A HE IS LIABLE TO PAY PENALTY OF RS. 100/- FOR EVERY DAY DURING WHICH THE FAILURE CONTINUES. SUCH PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED ONLY BY THE COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AS STATED IN CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION 3 OF SECTION 272A AND SUB-SECTION 4 REQUIRES THAT AN OPPORTUNITY SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ANY PENALTY ORDER IS PASSED. 7. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE IS THAT AT THE TIME OF PAYING THE INTEREST TO THE 34 PERSONS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER HE HAD BEFORE HIM THE APPROPRIATE DECLARATIONS IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM FRO M THE PAYEES STATING THAT NO TAX WAS PAYABLE BY THEM IN RESPECT OF THEIR TOTAL INCOME AN D THEREFORE TAX NEED NOT BE DEDUCTED FROM INTEREST UNDER SECTION 194A AND IN THE LIGHT OF THESE DECLARATIONS HE HAD NO OPTION BUT TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST WITHOUT ANY TAX DEDUCTION. IF THE CLAIM IS TRUE THEN THE CONTENTION MUST BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE UNDER SUB-SECTI ON (IA) OF SECTION 197A IF SUCH A DECLARATION IS FILED BY THE PAYEE OF INTEREST NO D EDUCTION OF TAX SHALL BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE DOUBTED THE ASSESSEES VERSION BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THEM IT IS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPO SED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE INTEREST BY INVOKING THE SECTION 40(A) (IA) IN THE COURSE OF TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DECLARATIONS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEE N SUBMITTED TO HIM BY THE PAYEES OF THE INTEREST IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT(TDS) AS REQUIRED BY SUB-SECTION 2 OF SECTION 197A. APART FROM THIS INFERENCE THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE IN THEIR POSSESSION TO HOLD THAT THE DECLARATIONS WERE NOT SUBMITTED BY THE PAYEES OF TH E INTEREST TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME WHEN THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE. WITHOUT DISPROVING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF OTHER EVIDENCE EXCEPT BY WAY OF INFERENCE IT WOUL D NOT BE FAIR OR PROPER TO DISCARD THE CLAIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED ANY S TATEMENTS FROM THE PAYEES OF THE INTEREST TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY DID NOT FILE ANY D ECLARATIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME OR TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY FILED T HE DECLARATIONS ONLY AT THE REQUEST OF THE 3 ITA 1980/K/2010 LINK CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.. A.Y.0 6-07 ASSESSEE IN SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH DIRECT EVIDENCE WE ARE UNABLE TO REJECT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS STATED IN PARA 4.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT HE FOUND THAT SOME OF THE LOA N CREDITORS WERE HAVING TAXABLE INCOME BUT STILL THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED DECLARA TIONS FROM THEM IN FORM NO. 15G. UNLESS IT IS PROVED THAT THESE FORMS WERE NOT IN FA CT SUBMITTED BY THE LOAN CREDITORS THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BLAMED BECAUSE AT THE TIME OF PA YING THE INTEREST TO THE LOAN CREDITORS HE HAS TO PERFORCE RELY UPON THE DECLARA TIONS FILED BY THE LOAN CREDITORS AND HE WAS NOT EXPECTED TO EMBARK UPON AN ENQUIRY AS TO WH ETHER THE LOAN CREDITORS REALLY AND IN TRUTH HAVE NO TAXABLE INCOME ON WHICH TAX IS PAY ABLE. THAT WOULD BE PUTTING AN IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN ON THE ASSESSEE. THAT APART SUB-S ECTION 1A OF SECTION 197A MERELY REQUIRES A DECLARATION TO BE FILED BY THE PAYEE OF THE INTEREST AND ONCE IT IS FILED THE PAYER OF THE INTEREST HAS NO CHOICE EXCEPT TO DESIST FROM DEDUCTING TAX FROM THE INTEREST. THE SUB-SECTION USES THE WORD SHALL WHICH LEAVES NO C HOICE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER. IN THE CASE OF PAYMENT OF LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION A ND CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE TO EMPLOYEES WHO ARE LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX FROM THE SAL ARY PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 192 THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN CIT VS. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. (2009) 313 ITR 1 THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER NO STATUTORY OBL IGATION UNDER THE ACT OR RULES TO COLLECT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAD ACTU ALLY UTILIZED THE MONEY PAID TOWARDS LEAVE TRAVEL CONCESSION/CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE. THE P OSITION IS STRONGER UNDER SECTION 197A WHICH DOES NOT APPLY TO SECTION 192 BUT WHICH PROVIDES IN SUB-SECTION (1A) THAT IF THE PAYEE OF THE INTEREST HAS FILED THE PRESCRIBED FORM TO THE EFFECT THAT HE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ANY TAX IN COMPUTING HIS TOTAL INCOME THE PAYE R SHALL NOT DEDUCT ANY TAX. THE SUB- SECTION DOES NOT IMPOSE ANY OBLIGATION ON THE PAYER TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH OF THE DECLARATIONS FILED BY THE PAYEE. EVEN IF THE ASSESS EE HAS DELAYED THE FILING OF THE DECLARATIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF THE CIT/CCIT (TDS) WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED IN SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 197A THAT IS A DISTINCT OMI SSION OR DEFAULT FOR WHICH A PENALTY IS PRESCRIBED. SECTION 273B PROVIDES THAT NO PENALTY S HALL BE IMPOSED UNDER ANY OF THE CLAUSES OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 272A FOR THE DELAY IF THE ASSESSEE PROVES THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAME. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THAT UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 272A NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ALL THESE PROVISIONS INDICATE THAT THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS THE PAYER OF THE INTEREST TO FILE THE DECLARATI ONS GIVEN TO HIM BY THE PAYEES OF THE INTEREST WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED IN SUB-SE CTION (2) TO SECTION 197A IS DISTINCT AND SEPARATE AND MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS A FAILURE ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DECLARATIONS TO THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT WITHIN TH E TIME LIMIT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE DECLARATIONS WITH HIM AT THE TIME WHEN HE PAID THE INTEREST TO THE PAYEES. THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE MATTER AND SEPARAT E PROOF AND EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO SHOW THAT EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE PAID THE INTEREST HE DID NOT HAVE THE DECLARATIONS FROM THE PAYEES WITH HIM AND THEREFORE HE OUGHT TO HAVE DEDUCTED THE TAX FROM THE PAYMENT. NO SUCH EVIDENCE OR PROOF HAS BEEN BROUGHT BY THE D EPARTMENT. 8. FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS WE ACCEPT THE ASSESS EES CLAIM THAT SINCE HE HAD THE DECLARATIONS OF THE PAYEES IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM B EFORE HIM AT THE TIME WHEN THE INTEREST WAS PAID HE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX THEREFROM UNDER SECTION 194A. IF HE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS NOT ATTR ACTED. THERE IS NO OTHER GROUND TAKEN BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES TO DISALLOW THE INTEREST . WE THEREFORE ACCEPT THE SSESSEES APPEAL AND DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF R S.7 87 291/-. SINCE THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF VIPIN P. MEHTA (SUPRA) WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AN D THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4 ITA 1980/K/2010 LINK CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.. A.Y.0 6-07 4. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED DIRECT EXPENSES AS THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO FURNISHED DETAILS OF EXPENSES EXECUTED FOR WORK. FOR THIS REVENUE RAISED FOLLOW ING GROUND NO.2: 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DDITION OF RS.27 10 121/- BEING UNEXPLAINED DIR ECT EXPENSES IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS ABOUT THE PE RSONS WHO EXECUTED THE WORK AND SIMILAR TYPE OF EXPENDITURE WERE DEBITED IN P/L A/C. IN ADD ITION TO DIRECT EXPENSES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.27 10 121/- IN THE P&L ACCOUNT UNDER TH E HEAD SALARY BONUS RENT ELECTRICITY CHARGES PROFESSIONAL FEES ETC. AS THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES LIKE GENERAL CHARGES MAILERS PRINTERS CONVEYANCE TO S TAFF RENT AND ELECTRICITY TELEPHONE CHARGES POSTAGE TELEGRAM AUDIT FEES COMPUTER HIRE CHARGES CONSULTANCY COMPUTER SOFTWARE ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED BY STATING THAT ALL TH E ABOVE EXPENSES REFLECTED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT UNDER THE SAME NAME OR WITH SLIGHT VARIOUS IMPLYING SIMILAR NATURE OF EXPENSES. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THESE EXPENSES WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY DOC UMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) WHO DELETED THESE EXPENSES BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDING: I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD TWO OFFICES FOR WHIC H EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED OR DOUBTED B Y THE AO. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN HIGHLY COMPETITIVE BUSINESS OF CORPORATE INSURAN CE AGENCY. THE ASSESSEE HAD TO COMPETE WITH INDIVIDUAL INSURANCE AGENTS. EVEN A SI NGLE SALE REQUIRES MUCH OF MAN HOURS. THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED ALL THE DETAILS UN DER WHICH EXPENSES WERE INCURRED AS REQUIRED BY THE AO. THE AO HAD ALSO VERIFIED THE SA ME. THE MAIN DOUBT AO HAD FOUND THAT SIMILAR EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOS S ACCOUNT AND UNDER DIRECT EXPENSES (PROFESSIONAL FEES). SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD TWO OF FICES SIMILAR HEADS OF EXPENDITURES MAY REOCCUR. IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-08 WHERE A SUM OF RS.85 30 295/- DEBITED UNDER DIRECT EXPENSES (PROFE SSIONAL FEES) WHILE DEALING IN SAME LINE OF BUSINESS AND MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT SIMILAR TO A.Y. 2006-07 WITH SIMILAR HEADS OF EXPENDITURE THE AO HAD NOT MADE AN Y ADDITION. DIRECT EXPENSES (PROFESSIONAL FEES) WERE INCURRED FOR EARNING PROFE SSIONAL INCOME AND ALL PAYMENTS WERE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT INDICATING THE SOU RCE THE AOS STAND OF TREATING TOTAL EXPENDITURE AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S.69C OF T HE I.T. ACT 1961 IS NOT PROPER. THEREFORE IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE APPEL LANT HAD EXPLAINED THE PAYMENTS MADE UNDER THE HEAD DIRECT EXPENSES (PROFESSIONAL FEES). 6. WE FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S. 143(3 ) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED DIRECT EXPENSES FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.85.30 LACS AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE ON THAT ACCOU NT. EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOUND ANY ABNORMALITY IN THAT YEAR AND THE EXPENSES ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR AND THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND COMPETITIVENESS OF BUSINESS WHERE DIR ECT EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR EARNING 5 ITA 1980/K/2010 LINK CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.. A.Y.0 6-07 PROFESSIONAL INCOME TO THE P&L ACCOUNT ARE FOUND R EASONABLE AND FAIR. WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE SAME. THIS ISSUE OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29.11.2011 . SD/- SD/- . . ! ' '' ' $# $# $# $# ! (S. V. MEHROTRA) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( 0 0 0 0) )) ) DATED : 29 TH NOVEMBER 2011 '12 $&34 $5' JD.(SR.P.S.) / 6 -$$7 87(9- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . + / APPELLANT ITO WARD-2(3) KOLKATA. 2 -.+ / RESPONDENT M/S. LINK CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. 18 R. N. MUKHERJEE ROAD KOLKATA-700 013. 3 . $/& ( )/ THE CIT(A) KOLKATA 4. $/& / CIT KOLKATA 5 . '$? -$& / DR KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA .7 -$/ TRUE COPY /&@/ BY ORDER #4 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .