Kolkata Port Trust, Kolkata v. ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata, Kolkata

MA 16/KOL/2011 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1623524 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAAJK0361L
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number MA 16/KOL/2011
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Kolkata Port Trust, Kolkata
Respondent ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata, Kolkata
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 21-12-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 21-12-2011
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 14-03-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE . . ! '# '# '# '# /AND ' # ' # ' # ' # ! ) [BEFORE SHRI S. V. MEHROTRA AM & SHRI MAHAVIR SING H JM] $'$' $'$' $'$' $'$' ' % ' % ' % ' % #& #& #& #& /M. A. NOS. 1 11 1 6/KOL/2011 ARISING OUT OF M.A. NO.314/KOL/2007 #& #& #& #& /IN I.T.A NO.1041/KOL/2007 %( ')* %( ')* %( ')* %( ')*/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 & $'$' ' % $'$' ' % $'$' ' % $'$' ' % #& #& #& #& /M. A. NOS. 24/KOL/2011 #& #& #& #& /IN I.T.A NO.1041/KOL/2007 %( %( %( %( ')* ')* ')* ')*/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 KOLKATA PORT TRUST VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (PAN: AAAJK 0361 L) CIRCLE-35 KOLKATA. (' /APPLICANT ) ( -.// RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 21-10-2011 DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT: 21-10-2011 ' 0 1 /FOR THE APPLICANT: SHRI N. K. PODDAR -./ 0 1 /FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI R. GUPTA 2 / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH JM/ ' # ' # ' # ' # ! ! ! ! : VIDE THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS THE ASSESSEE RE QUESTED TO RECALL OUR EX PARTE ORDER DATED 24 TH SEPTEMBER 2007 AS WELL AS MA ORDER DATED 1 ST AUGUST 2008 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 . 2. THE APPEAL BEING ITA NO.1041/ KOL/ 2007 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE KOLKATA PORT TRUST AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) -XXII KOLKATA DATED 26 TH MARCH 2007 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WAS MA NOS. 16 & 24/KOL/2011 KOLKATA PORT TRST VS. ACIT CIR-35 KOL- 2 DISMISSED BY TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 24TH SEP TEMBER 2007 ON THE GROUND OF NON APPEARANCE OF ASSESSEE HEREIN DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE ON 24TH SEPTEMBER 2007 ON WHICH DATE THE HEARING OF THE SAID APPEAL IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN FIXED. IN ABSENCE OF ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FROM THE ASSESSEE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE SAID APPEAL AS UNADMITTED FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CIT V MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1 991) 38 ITD 320 (DEL). BUT TRIBUNAL IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF ITS SAID ORDER INTER ALIA OBSERVED THAT IF THE A SSESSEE BY AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE CAUSE BEHIND SUCH FAILURE ON HIS PART T HE TRIBUNAL MAY AT ITS DISCRETION RECALL THIS ORDE R. ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 26.12. 2007 STATED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF HEARING AND WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE HEARING OF THE SAID APPEAL BEARING I TA NO.1041/ KOL / 2007 WAS FIXED ON 24.09.2007. THAT ON RECEIPT OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 24.09.2007 ASSESSEE THROUGH AR MS. SAHELI DUTT OF M/S. RAY & RAY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS MADE AN INSPECTION OF TH E RECORDS OF TRIBUNAL BY PAYING INSPECTION FEE BUT CAME TO KNOW ON SUCH INSPECTION THAT ONE NOTICE DAT ED 02.08. 2007 WAS ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 03.08.2007 BUT NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE C ARD WAS FOUND. ASSESSEE CONTENDED IN ITS LETTER DATED 26.12.2007 (MA.314/KOL/2007)THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NOTICE OF HEARING OF THE SAID APPEAL BEING ITA NO.1041 / KOL / 2007 SAID TO HAVE BEEN FIXED ON 24.09.2007. THIS MA NO 314/KOL/2007 WAS HEARD ON 01.08. 2008. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE SAID MA NO.314/ KOL / 2007 ASSESSEES AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FILED A LETTER BEFORE TRIBUNAL INDICATING THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF PERMISSION FROM COMMITTEE OF DISPUTES (COD) TO PURS UE THE SAID APPEAL BEING ITA NO.1041 / KOL/2007 THE SAID MA NO 314/KOL/2007 HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS . IN VIEW OF LETTER DATED 01.08.2008 FILED BY ASSESSEE THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAGRAPH 5 OF ITS ORDER DATED 01.08.2008 PASSED IN MA NO.314 / KOL / 2007 DISMISSED THE SAID MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AS WI THDRAWN. 3. FROM FACTS STATED ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT NO OR DER ON MERITS IN THE APPEAL ITA NO1041/ KOL/2007 HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL EITHER IN ITS ORIGI NAL EX PARTE ORDER DATED 24.09.2007 AND/OR IN THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER IN MA NO 314/ KOL/2007 DATED 01.08 .2008. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SENIOR ADVOCATE SHRI N.K PODDAR STATED UNDISPUTED POSITI ON OF LAW THAT COMMITTEE OF DISPUTES (COD IN SHORT) HAD BEEN CONSTITUTED IN TERMS OF THE DIRECTI ONS ISSUED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN VARIOUS JUDGMENTS REPORTED IN (I) (1995) (SUPP) 4 SCC 541 ( SC) (II) (2004) 6 SCC 437 (SC) AND (III) (2007) 7 SCC 39 (SC) REQUIRING EVERY PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKI NG WHERE THERE IS DISPUTE BETWEEN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING TO OBTAIN PERMISSION OF THE HIGH POWERED COMMITTEE OF DISPUTES TO PURSUE ITS APPEAL. HE FURTHER STATED T HAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT BY ITS JUDGMENT DATED MA NOS. 16 & 24/KOL/2011 KOLKATA PORT TRST VS. ACIT CIR-35 KOL- 3 17.O2.2011 IN THE CASE OF ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA (2011) 332 ITR 58 (SC) WHEREIN AFORESAID EARLIER JUDGMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN RECALLE D. FOR THIS HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ELEC TRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.(SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER:- THE IDEA BEHIND SETTING UP OF THIS COMMITTEE INIT IALLY CALLED A HIGH POWERED COMMITTEE (HPC) LATER ON CALLED COMMITTEE OF SECRETARIES ( COS) AND FINALLY TERMED COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES (COD) WAS TO ENSURE THAT RESOURCES OF THE STATE ARE NOT FRITTERED AWAY IN INTER SE LITIGATIONS BETWEEN ENTITIES OF THE STATE WHICH CO ULD BE BEST RESOLVED BY AN EMPOWERED COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES. THE MACHINERY CONTEMPLATED W AS ONLY TO ENSURE THAT NO LITIGATION COMES TO COURT WITHOUT THE PARTIES HAVING HAD AN OP PORTUNITY OF CONCILIATION BEFORE AN IN-HOUSE COMMITTEE (SEE PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE ORDER DATED JANUA RY 7 1994(2004) 6 SCC 437. WHILST THE PRINCIPLE AND THE OBJECT BEHIND THE AFORESAID ORDER S IS UNEXCEPTIONABLE AND LAUDATORY EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT DESPITE THE BEST EFFORTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES THE MECHANISM HAS NOT ACHIEVED THE RESULTS FOR WHICH I T WAS CONSTITUTED AND HAS IN FACT LED TO DELAYS IN LITIGATION. WE HAVE ALREADY GIVEN TWO EXA MPLES HEREINABOVE. THEY INDICATE THAT ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS CLEARANCE IS GIVEN IN ONE CA SE AND REFUSED IN THE OTHER. THIS HAS LED A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING TO INSTITUTE A SPECIAL LE AVE PETITION IN THIS COURT ON THE GROUND OF DISCRIMINATION. WE NEED NOT MULTIPLY SUCH ILLUSTRAT IONS. THE MECHANISM WAS SET UP WITH A LAUDATORY OBJECT. HOWEVER THE MECHANISM HAS LED TO DELAY IN FILING OF CIVIL APPEALS CAUSING LOSS OF REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE IN MANY CASES OF EXEM PTIONS THE INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT GIVES EXEMPTION WHILE THE SAME IS DENIED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. SIMILARLY WITH THE ENACTMENT OF REGULATORY LAWS IN SEVERAL CASES THERE COULD BE OVERLAPPING OF JURISDICTIONS BETWEEN LET US SAY SEBI AND INSURANCE REGULATORS. CIVIL APPEALS LIE TO THIS COURT. STAKES IN SUCH CASES ARE HUGE. ONE CANNOT POSSIBLY EXPECT TIMELY CLEARANCE B Y THE COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES. IN SUCH CASES GRANT OF CLEARANCE TO ONE AND NOT TO THE OTH ER MAY RESULT IN GENERATION OF MORE AND MORE LITIGATION. THE MECHANISM HAS OUTLIVED ITS UT ILITY. IN THE CHANGED SCENARIO INDICATED ABOVE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TIME HAS COME UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES TO RECALL THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS COURT IN ITS VARIOUS ORDERS REPO RTED AS (I) ONGC V. CCE [1995] SUPP 4 SCC 541 DATED OCTOBER 11 1991; (II) ONGC V. CCE [2004] 6 SCC 437 DATED JANUARY 7 1984; AND (III) ONGC V. CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPO RATION [2007] 7 SCC 39 DATED JULY 20 2007. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HEREBY RECALL THE FO LLOWING ORDERS REPORTED IN: (I) ONGC V. CCE [1995] SUPP 4 SCC 541 DATED OCTOBER 11 1991; (II) ONGC V. CCE[2004] 6 SCC 437 DATED JANUARY 7 1994; AND (III) ONGC V. CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [2007] 7 SCC 39 DATED JULY 20 2007. 4. LD. COUNSEL SHRI PODDAR STATED THAT ASSESSEE F ILED ANOTHER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DATED 28.03.2011 STATING THAT IT WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW I TS SAID EARLIER APPLICATION DATED 01.08.2008 AND IT WAS PRAYED THAT ITA NO.1041 / KOL / 2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 BE HEARD ON MERITS. ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUN AL) RULES 1963 PROVIDES THAT WHERE ON THE DAY FIXED FOR HEARING THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT APPEAR IN P ERSON OR THROUGH AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WHEN THE APPEAL IS CALLED ON FOR HEARING THE TRIBUNAL MAY D ISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE RESPONDENT. PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN APPEAL HAS BEEN DISPOSED OFF AS PROVIDED ABOVE AND THE ASSESSEE MA NOS. 16 & 24/KOL/2011 KOLKATA PORT TRST VS. ACIT CIR-35 KOL- 4 APPEARS AFTERWARDS AND SATISFIES THE TRIBUNAL THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR HIS NON APPEARANCE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING THE TRIBUNAL SHALL MAKE AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE EX PARTE ORDE R AND RESTORING THE APPEAL. HE NARRATED THE FACTS IN RESP ECT TO THE PRESENT CASE THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT ON RECORD THAT THE SAID APPEAL BEAR ING ITA NO.1041/KOL / 2007 HAD NOT BEEN DISPOSED OF BY TRIBUNAL ON MERITS AS LAID DOWN IN RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES 1963 AN D THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER SERVED WITH THE N OTICE OF HEARING SAID TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY TRIBUN AL ON 03.08.2007 THE ASSESSEE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE SAID APPEAL BEING 24.09.2007 AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT C AUSE FOR ITS NON APPEARANCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 24.09.2007. ACCORDINGLY LD. COUNSEL ARGUED THAT AS PER REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 24 OF THE SAID RULES HAVE BEEN FULLY SATISFIED IN THE INSTANT CASE MORE SO WHEN THE ORIGINAL EX PARTE ORDER DATED 24.09.2007 H AD NOT BEEN PASSED BY TRIBUNAL ON MERITS OF THE ISSUES RAI SED BY ASSESSEE THE SAID APPEAL BEING ITA NO.1041 / KOL /2007 BE RECALLED AND TO BE HEARD ON MERITS. LD . COUNSEL IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS STATED THAT IN VIE W SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN ELE CTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD CONSTITUTE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS WI THIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 254 OF THE ACT. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND LD.SR DR SHRI R.GUPTA STATED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS WITHDRAWN THE APPEAL AS INFRUCTUOUS THE SAME CANNOT BE RESTO RED AND CANNOT BE RECALLED. 6. WE HAVE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE CASE LAWS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND HONBLE HIGH COURTS AND S UBMISSIONS BASED THEREON WERE CONSIDERED. ADMITTED FACT IS THAT ITA NO.1041/K/2007 WAS DISMIS SED FOR NON-APPEARANCE DESPITE ONLY ON ASSUMPTION THAT NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 24.9.2007 WAS SERVED. TH IS WAS CONTESTED BY ASSESSEE AND LD. COUNSEL OF ASSESSEE MADE STATEMENT AT BAR THAT NO SUCH NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE O N RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT SUCH NOTICE WAS EVER SE RVED. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE IN THE CASE OF RAJENDRA PRASAD B ORAH V. ITAT & ORS (2008) 302 ITR 243 (GAU) HELD THAT SECTION 254 OF THE ACT MAKES IT INCUMBENT ON T RIBUNAL TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES 1963 AS IT IS STAND PER SE DOES NOT EMPOWER TRIBUNAL TO DISMISS AN APPEAL FOR DEFAULT IN ABSENCE OF ASSESSE E. FOR THIS PROPOSITION THEIR LORDSHIPS RELIED UPO N INTER ALIA EARLIER DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN CIT V. S. CHENNIAPPA MUDALIAR (1969) 74 ITR 4 1 (SC). AND TRIBUNAL WAS DIRECTED TO DECIDE APPEAL ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. MA NOS. 16 & 24/KOL/2011 KOLKATA PORT TRST VS. ACIT CIR-35 KOL- 5 7. NOW HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ELECTR ONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) HAS RECALLED ITS DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN ITS VARIOUS ORDERS REPRODUCED IN PARA 3 OF THIS ORDER. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF DR SURESH CHANDRA VERMA & ORS. V. THE CHANCELLOR NAGPUR UNIVERSITY & ORS. (1990) 4 SCC 55 (PARA 15) (SC) INTER ALIA HELD AND OBSERVED AS UNDER: IT IS UNNECESSARY TO POINT OUT THAT WHEN THE COURT DECIDES THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF A PARTICULAR PROVISION AS GIVEN EARLIER WAS NOT LEGAL IT IN EFF ECT DECLARES THAT THE LAW AS IT STOOD FROM THE BEGINNING WAS AS PER ITS DECISION AND THAT IT WAS NEVER THE LAW OTHERWISE. THIS BEING THE CASE SINCE THE FULL BENCH AND NOW THIS COURT HAS TAKEN THE VIE W THAT THE INTERPRETATION PLACED ON THE PROVISIONS OF LAW BY THE DIVISION BENCH IN BHAKRE-C ASE (WRIT PETITION NO. 1876 OF 1984 DECIDED ON DECEMBER 7 1984 (NAG HC) WHICH WAS ERRONEOUS IT W ILL HAVE TO BE HELD THAT THE APPOINTMENTS MADE BY THE UNIVERSITY ON MARCH 30 1985 PURSUANT T O THE LAW LAID DOWN IN BHAKRE CASE (WRIT PETITION NO. 1876 OF 1984 DECIDED ON DECEMBER 7 1 984 (NAG HC) WERE NOT ACCORDING TO LAW. HENCE THE TERMINATION OF THE SERVICES OF THE APPEL LANTS WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 57(5) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE APEX COUR T IN THE CASE OF ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD (SUPRA) WHEREBY RECALLED ITS EARLIER ORD ERS THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED MISTAKE APPARENT FR OM RECORD WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS OUR REASONS ARE THAT WHEN A SUPERIOR COURT DECLARES THE LAW IT IS NOT MAKING LAW ON THE DATE OF JUDGMENT BUT MERELY DECLARING THE LAW. THE DECISION BEING AN ENUNCIATION OF THE TRUE AND CORRE CT POSITION OF LAW BECOMES APPLICABLE FROM THE DAT E WHEN THE CONCERNED LAW CAME INTO EFFECT. IF THEREF ORE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OR CONCERNED HIGH COURT DECLARED THE TRUE POSITION ON THE POINT OF LAW IT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF ENACTMENT ITSELF. IF SO THE LAW SO DECLARED IS DEEMED TO HAVE EXISTED AND APPLIED ON THE DATE OF THE ORDER WHICH IS SO TO BE RECTIFIE D. HENCE THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER WILL NECESSARILY H AVE TO BE EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE LEGAL POSI TION AS ENUNCIATED BY THE SUPREME COURT EVEN THOUGH SUC H ENUNCIATION MAY BE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. IF SO DONE IT WOULD BE SEEN THAT THE O RDER TO THE CONTRARY SUFFERS FROM AN ERROR APPAREN T FROM THE RECORD. TO PUT IT DIFFERENTLY UNLESS HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN ANY CASE EXPRESSLY DECLARES TH AT ITS DECISION IN THE CASE WOULD OPERATE PROSPECTIVEL Y ANY DECLARATION MADE IN REGARD TO ANY LEGAL PROVISION OF A STATUTE IN SUCH DECISION WILL OPERAT E RETROSPECTIVELY. IN OTHER WORDS THE LEGAL POSITI ON SO CLARIFIED COULD BE DEEMED TO BE OPERATIVE FROM THE DATE FROM WHICH THE LEGAL PROVISION IN QUESTION OF THE STATUTE HAS COME INTO FORCE. AND IN THE CASE BE FORE HONBLE APEX COURT IN ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD (SUPRA) RECALLED THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN ITS VARIOUS ORDERS AND ONCE HONBLE APEX COURT RECALLED ITS EARLIER ORDERS THE POSITION IS THAT T HERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF PERMISSION FROM COD. MA NOS. 16 & 24/KOL/2011 KOLKATA PORT TRST VS. ACIT CIR-35 KOL- 6 8. IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES INCLUDING CASE DECISIONS AND SUBMISSIONS BASED THEREON WE; I RECALL EARLIER ORDER DATED 24.09. 2007 PASSED IN ITA NO.1041/KOL/2007 AND; II. DIRECT RESTORATION OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.1041/K OL/2007 FILED BY ASSESSEE HEREIN IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 BY RECALLING TRIBUNALS ORDER IN MA NO.16/KOL/2007 DATED 01.08.2008; SO THAT THE SAID APPEAL MAY NOW BE HEARD ON MERITS. 9. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES MISC. PETITIONS STAND ALLOWED. 10. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21.10.2011 SD/- SD/- . . ! ' # ' # ' # ' # ! (S. V. MEHROTRA) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( 3 3 3 3) )) ) DATED:21ST OCTOBER 2011 '45 %67 8' JD.(SR.P.S.) 2 0 $ 9$):- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. ' /APPLICANT KOLKATA PORT TRUST 15 STRAND ROAD KOLKATA-700 001.. 2 -./ / RESPONDENT ACIT CIRCLE-35 KOLKATA. 3. 2% ()/ THE CIT(A) KOLKATA 4. 2%/ CIT KOLKATA 5. '? % / DR KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA -$ / TRUE COPY 2%@/ BY ORDER #7 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .