ICI INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri M. Balaganesh, AM & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM]

I.T.A No.2125/Kol/2005 Assessment Year: 1999-2000

AKZO Nobel India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (formerly known as I C I India Ltd.) Circle-10, Kolkata. (PAN: AAACI6297A (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A No.2568/Kol/2005 Assessment Year: 1999-2000

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. AKZO Nobel India Ltd. Circle-10, Kolkata. (formerly known as I C I India Ltd.) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Date of hearing: 02.03.2017 Date of pronouncement: 08.03.2017

For the Assessee: Shri R. N. Bajoria, Sr. Advocate For the Revenue: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR

ORDER Per Shri M. Balaganesh, AM: These cross appeals by assessee and revenue are arising out of order of CIT(A)-X, Kolkata vide appeal No. 44/CIT(A)-X/Cir-10/05-06 dated 01.09.2005. Assessment was framed by DCIT, Circle-10, Kolkata u/s. 147/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 1999-2000 vide his order dated 30.03.2005. Since both the appeals arise out of the same order of CIT(A), we dispose of the same by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. The first preliminary issue to be decided in this appeal of the assessee is as to whether the reassessment framed by the ld AO without issuance of valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act could be taken as valid in law in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2 ITA Nos.2125 & 2568/K/2005 AKZO Nobel India Ltd., AY 1999-2000 and gains derived from industrial undertaking. In the instant case, the gross total income includes income from other sources, long term capital gain and loss from business meaning thereby that there was no profit from the business. Further, it was also observed that there was no brought forward capital loss of Rs. 8.44 crores as set off by the assessee from long term capital gains. It was also observed that the assessee has earned gross dividend of Rs 4.77 crores and claimed the gross amount as exempt u/s 10(33) of the Act without allocating any expense on account of interest and other administrative expenditure. According to ld AO , it is the net dividend after deducting expenses which is exempt u/s 10(33) of the Act. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 29.8.2003. The ld AO issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 18.11.2004 to the assessee. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee vide its letter dated 11.3.2005 filed a letter requesting the ld AO to treat the earlier return as a return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee filed detailed written submissions vide its letter dated 21.3.2005 on various issues on merits of the case and the ld AO completed the reassessment accordingly after making several additions and disallowances.

The ld AR fairly stated that the said legal ground on jurisdiction was not specifically raised before the lower authorities and hence is being raised before this tribunal for the first time as it goes into the root of the matter. He also stated that the reasons for not claiming this ground before the lower authorities was in view of the amendment brought in the statute at that point of time in section 148 of the Act validating all the proceedings for the assessments framed during the period 1.10.1991 to 30.9.2005. He stated the assessee filed a letter dated 11.3.2005 requesting the ld AO to treat the earlier return filed as a return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Admittedly no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the ld AO to the assessee thereafter till the completion of reassessment on 30.3.2005. He argued that even though the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on the assessee on 18.11.2004 , that was much prior to the date of filing the return by the

3 ITA Nos.2125 & 2568/K/2005 AKZO Nobel India Ltd., AY 1999-2000 assessee and hence the same cannot be given any relevance. He stated that the scheme of the Act provides that the ld AO on verification of the return filed by the assessee, if, he considers it expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under paid the tax in any manner, then he may issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within the prescribed time to the assessee by selecting the case for scrutiny and take the next step forward for framing assessment u/s 143(3) or 144 of the Act, as the case may be. Hence the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act gets triggered only after filing of the return by the assessee. In case if the return is not filed at all by the assessee, then the scheme of the Act provides for framing of assessment u/s 144 of the Act after issuing notice u/s 142(1) of the Act to the assessee. Accordingly he argued that the reassessment framed in the instant case without issuance of valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act deserves to be quashed. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs Hotel Blue Moon reported in (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) dated 2.2.2010.

4.1. The ld AR further pointed out that there is a judgement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s Humdoldt Wedag India Pvt Ltd in ITAT No. 149 of 2013 G.A. NO. 2598 of 2013 dated 8.4.2014 wherein it was held that the assessee was made aware of the pending proceedings before the ld AO and given proper opportunity of being heard and hence non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act would not per se vitiate the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. He argued that this decision did not have an occasion to consider the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Hotel Blue Moon reported in 321 ITR 362 (SC). He also placed reliance on yet another Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s I.S. Leather in GA 277 of 2013 ITAT 27 of 2013 dated 4.4.2013 which placed reliance on the judgement of the apex court in Hotel Blue Moon supra and upheld the quashing of reassessment proceedings for non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. He also stated that one of the Judges was common in both the judgements rendered herein. He further placed reliance on the recent decision of the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of Oberoi Hotels Private Limited vs DCIT in ITA No. 472 /Kol/2012 for Asst Year 2006-07 dated 14.5.2015 which had considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon supra and the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the

4 ITA Nos.2125 & 2568/K/2005 AKZO Nobel India Ltd., AY 1999-2000 case of CIT vs M/s Humdoldt Wedag India Pvt Ltd in ITAT No. 149 of 2013 G.A. NO. 2598 of 2013 dated 8.4.2014.

5 ITA Nos.2125 & 2568/K/2005 AKZO Nobel India Ltd., AY 1999-2000 6. In defence, the ld AR pointed out that the decisions relied upon by the ld DR have been rendered prior to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon supra and hence they are of no relevance. Even the decision rendered by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had not considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon supra. Moreover, the said order was passed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court after hearing the learned counsel for the revenue alone and there was no appearance made by the learned counsel for the assessee respondent as could be evident from the said judgement. Hence there could not have been any occasion for the said court to look into the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the impugned subject. He also placed on record a subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sapthagiri Finance & Investments vs ITO reported in (2012) 25 taxmann.com 341 (Mad) wherein their Lordships had rendered the judgement after considering the earlier decision of that court in 294 ITR 233 (Mad) supra and by placing reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Hotel Blue Moon held that the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act stipulated in the statute is mandatory and accordingly the reassessment framed thereon could not be held to be validly made. It also held that merely because the assessee had participated in the proceedings and his signature is affixed in the records, it does not mean that the rest of procedure of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act stood complied with.

Date of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act by the ld AO - 29.8.2003 Date of issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act by the ld AO - 18.11.2004 Date of filing the return by the assessee in compliance to Notice u/s 148 of the Act - 11.3.2005 Date of completion of reassessment - 30.3.2005

It is not in dispute that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the ld AO after 11.3.2005 and on or before 30.3.2005 and nor the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was waived by the assessee. We have also perused the order sheet entries that were placed before us . We find that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was served on the assessee

6 ITA Nos.2125 & 2568/K/2005 AKZO Nobel India Ltd., AY 1999-2000 after 11.3.2005 and before 30.3.2005. The scheme of the Act is designed in such a way that once the return is filed by the assessee, the ld AO, if he considers it necessary and expedient to ensure that the assessee had not under paid the tax in any manner nor had not understated his income etc, then the statute provides the ld AO to select the case for scrutiny by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act intimating the assessee that further details are required for completion of assessment. There is no difference in this regard with regard to assessment or reassessment proceedings. All the returns filed by all the assessees are not taken up for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. That is why the legislature in its wisdom had provided a leeway for the revenue to select the cases for scrutiny only in those cases where the ld AO deems it desirable to make further enquiries on the return filed by the assessee. Hence the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act becomes a jurisdictional issue and accordingly to be held as mandatory in nature and cannot be brushed aside as a mere procedural formality. For the sake of convenience, the provisions of section 143(2) of the Act are reproduced hereunder:-

Assessment. 143. ………………… 43[(2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub- section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case may be, if, considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend the office of the Assessing Officer or to produce, or cause to be produced before the Assessing Officer any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return: Provided that no notice under this sub-section shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished.]

7.1. We find that the ld DR placed reliance on the proviso to section 148 of the Act for non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the provisions of section 148 of the Act are reproduced hereunder:- Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment. 148. (1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139 : Provided that in a case—

7 ITA Nos.2125 & 2568/K/2005 AKZO Nobel India Ltd., AY 1999-2000 (a) where a return has been furnished during the period commencing on the 1st day of October, 1991 and ending on the 30th day of September, 2005 in response to a notice served under this section, and (b) subsequently a notice has been served under sub-section (2) of section 143 after the expiry of twelve months specified in the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 143, as it stood immediately before the amendment of said sub-section by the Finance Act, 2002 (20 of 2002) but before the expiry of the time limit for making the assessment, re-assessment or recomputation as specified in sub-section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice: Provided further that in a case— (a) where a return has been furnished during the period commencing on the 1st day of October, 1991 and ending on the 30th day of September, 2005, in response to a notice served under this section, and (b) subsequently a notice has been served under clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143 after the expiry of twelve months specified in the proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143, but before the expiry of the time limit for making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation as specified in sub-section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in the first proviso or the second proviso shall apply to any return which has been furnished on or after the 1st day of October, 2005 in response to a notice served under this section. (2) The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reasons for doing so.

From the bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it could be inferred that the said proviso would come to the rescue of the revenue only if the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been served on the assessee beyond the period of 12 months as specified in the said section and thereby even though the said notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued beyond the stipulated time of 12 months, it would be deemed to be treated as a valid notice and reassessment proceedings cannot be challenged on that count by the assessee. In our considered opinion, the proviso would be applicable only in a case where notice u/s 143(2) has been served on the assessee but beyond the stipulated period of 12 months. The legislature in its wisdom had provided this leeway to the revenue in order to regularize or validate the deficiencies in issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act in respect of returns filed during the period commencing from 1.10.1991 to 30.9.2005. The Explanation given further clearly states that the same would not apply for the returns filed on or after 1.10.2005. Hence from the above, the following conclusions could be safely drawn :- (i) Issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is mandatory in nature. (ii) In respect of returns filed during the period 1.10.1991 to 30.9.2005, the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act shall be deemed to be a valid notice eventhough the same was served beyond the stipulated period of 12 months.

8 ITA Nos.2125 & 2568/K/2005 AKZO Nobel India Ltd., AY 1999-2000

In the instant case, admittedly there was no issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act after the filing of the return by the assessee on 11.3.2005 and before the completion of reassessment on 30.3.2005. Hence, we hold that the proviso to section 148 of the Act would not advance the case of the revenue.

7.2. We find lot of force in the various arguments of the ld AR as detailed hereinabove and the same are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. We are not inclined to accept to the argument of the ld DR that the assessee should not be rewarded for its non- compliance by delayed filing of return by 18 months. We find that in such a scenario, nothing prevented the ld AO from proceeding to complete the reassessment u/s 144 of the Act after issuance of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. This is very clearly provided in the scheme of the Act. Admittedly, the impugned reassessment has been framed by the ld AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. We also hold that shelter u/s 292BB of the Act cannot be taken by the revenue for jurisdictional issue. In the instant case, admittedly no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was served on the assessee after the filing of the return on 11.3.2005. Hence the provisions of section 292BB of the Act would not advance the case of the revenue.

7.3. We find that the issue under dispute is squarely covered by the recent decision of the co-ordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of Oberoi Hotels Private Limited vs DCIT in ITA No. 472/Kol/2012 and DCIT vs Oberoi Hotels Private Limited in ITA No. 601/Kol/2012 for Asst Year 2006-07 dated 14.5.2015 wherein it was held that :- “3. Since the additional ground taken by the assessee being a legal ground is going to the root of the validity of the assessment, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the c ase of National Thermal Power Co. Limited –vs.- CIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 383, we, therefore, admit the additional ground raised by the assessee. 4. Ld. A.R. before us vehemently contended that the notice under section 143(2) has been served on the assessee and, therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT & Another – vs.- Hotel Blue Moon reported in 321 IT R 362, the assessment b e quashed in considering the failure of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice under section 143(2) in respect of the re-assessment. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the Assessing Officer, if for any reason, repudiates the return filed by the assessee in response to notice under section 158BC(a), the Assessing officer must necessarily issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act within the time prescribed in the proviso to section 143(2) of the Act. If an assessment is to be completed under section 143(3) read with section 158BC, notice under section 143(2) should be issued within one year from the date of filing of the block return. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (supra) did not accept the submission of the revenue that it has a procedural irregularity, copy of the order- sheet was filed before us.

9 ITA Nos.2125 & 2568/K/2005 AKZO Nobel India Ltd., AY 1999-2000

10 ITA Nos.2125 & 2568/K/2005 AKZO Nobel India Ltd., AY 1999-2000

only. In case of default in not filing the return or not complying with the notice under Sections 143(2)/142, the assessing officer is authorized to complete the assessment ex-parte under Section 144. Clause (b) of Section 158 BC by referring to Section 143(2) and (3) would appear to imply that the provisions of Section 143(1) are excluded. But Section 143(2) itself becomes necessary only where it becomes necessary to check the return, so that where block return conforms to the undisclosed income inferred by the authorities, there is no reason, why the authorities should issue notice under Section 143(2). However, if an assessment is to be completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 158-BC, notice under Section 143(2) should be issued within one year from the date of filing of block return. Omission on the part of the assessing authority to issue notice under Section 143(2) cannot be a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. The other important feature that requires to be noticed is that the Section 158 BC(b) specifically refers to some of the provisions of the Act which requires to be followed by the assessing officer while completing the block assessments under Chapter XIV- B of the Act. This legislation is by incorporation. This Section even speaks of subsections which are to be followed by the assessing officer. Had the intention of the legislature was to exclude the provisions of Chapter XIV of the Act the legislature would have or could have indicated that also. A reading of the provision would clearly indicate, in our opinion, if the assessing officer, if for any reason, repudiates the return filed by the assessee in response to notice under Section 158BC(a), the assessing officer must necessarily issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Act within the time prescribed in the proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act. Where the legislature intended to exclude certain provisions from the ambit of Section 158 BC(b)it has done so specifically. Thus, when Section 158BC(b) specifically refers to applicability of the proviso thereto cannot be exclude. We may also notice here itself that the clarification given by CBDT in its circular No.717 dated 14th August, 1995, has a binding effect on the department, but not on the Court. This circular clarifies the requirement of law in respect of service of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act. Accordingly, we conclude even for the purpose of Chapter XIV-B of the Act, for the determination of undisclosed income for a block period under the provisions of Section 158 BC, the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 are applicable and no assessment could be made without issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. However, it is contended by Sri Shekhar, learned counsel for the department that in view of the expression “So far as may be” in Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh’s case [1985] 155 ITR 166(SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that “the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section 165 has to be generally followed. The expression “so far as may be” has always been construed to mean that those provisions may be generally followed to the extent possible. The learned counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice the observations made by this Court in the case of Maganlal Vs. Jaiswal Industries, Neemach and Ors., [(1989) 4 SCC 344], wherein this Court while dealing with the scope and import of the expression “as far as practicable” has stated “without anything more the expression `as far as possible’ will mean that the manner provided in the code for attachment or sale of property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied.” 16) The case of the revenue is that the expression `so far as may be apply’ indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, subsections 2 and 3 of

11 ITA Nos.2125 & 2568/K/2005 AKZO Nobel India Ltd., AY 1999-2000

Section 143 strictly for the purpose of Block assessments. We do not agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the revenue, since we do not see any reason to restrict the scope and meaning of the expression `so far as may be apply’. In our view, where the assessing officer in repudiation of the return filed under Section 158 BC(a) proceeds to make an enquiry, he has necessarily to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143. 17) Section 158 BH provides for application of the other provisions of the Act. It reads : “Save as otherwise provided in this Chapter, all the other provisions of this Act shall apply to assessment made under this Chapter.” This is an enabling provision, which makes all the provisions of the Act, save as otherwise provided, applicable for proceedings for block assessment. The provisions which are specifically included are those which are available in Chapter XIV-B of the Act, which includes Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143. 18) On a consideration of the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Act, we are in agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion reached by the High Court”. 9. From the said decision, we noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the proposition of the law that if Assessing Officer for any reason refuses the return filed by the assessee in response to the notice under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act relating to block assessment. The Assessing Officer must necessarily issue notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act within the time prescribed in the proviso to section 143(2) of the Act. By making the issue of notice mandatory, section 158BC, dealing with block assessments, makes such notice the very foundation for jurisdiction. Such notice is required to be served on the person who is found to have undisclosed income. We noted that the expression ‘so far as may be’ has always been construed to mean that those provisions may be generally followed to the ex tent possible’. It indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143 strictly for the purpose of b lock assessments. Thus understanding these provisions in the background of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that in completing the assessment under section 148 of the Act, compliance of the procedure l aid down under section 142 and 143(2) is mandatory. It is a fact that gathered from the record that no notice was issued under section 143(2) and no evidence in this regard was placed before us by the ld. D.R. No doubt, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case as relied by the ld. D.R. has taken a contrary view but in that case, we noted that the Assessing Officer has recorded a finding that he has refused the notice under section 143(2). We also noted that in that decision, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been referred to. Now before us since both the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court are there and since law has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that we are bound to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ld. D.R. even though relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court could not state before us how the case of the assessee is not covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court quash the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 as in our opinion, this issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT & Another –vs.- Hotel Blue Moon reported in 321 ITR 362. 10. Since we have already quashed the assessment s, therefore, the other grounds taken by the assessee in ITA No. 472/Kol/2012 as well as the grounds taken by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA No.601/Kol/2012 have become infructuous and does not require any adjudication. We accordingly allow the grounds taken by the assessee and dismiss the grounds taken by the Revenue. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.”

12 ITA Nos.2125 & 2568/K/2005 AKZO Nobel India Ltd., AY 1999-2000

7.4. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hold that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was served on the assessee after the date of filing the return on 11.3.2005 and accordingly the reassessment framed thereon deserves to be quashed and declared void. Hence the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the reassessment for the Asst Year 1999-2000 is cancelled as void abinitio , we refrain to go into the other grounds raised by the assessee as well as by the revenue on merits of the case.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 08.03.2017 Sd/- Sd/- (Partha Sarathi Chaudhury) (M. Balaganesh) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated : 8th March, 2017 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:

APPELLANT – AKZO Nobel India Ltd. (formerly known as ICI India 1. Ltd.), “Geetanjali Apartment”, 1st floor, 8B, Middleton Street, Kolkata- 700 071 2 Respondent – DCIT, Circle-10, Kolkata. 3. The CIT(A), Kolkata 4. CIT, Kolkata. 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata

/True Copy, By order,

Asstt. Registrar.