M. R. Rajaram, Haryana V. DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA, Kolkata

CO 28/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2973 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KUMAR
• Keywords: Business income; Salary income; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM ./ ITA NO.2315/KOL/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-2007) DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 3 RD FLOOR, KOLKATA-700069 VS. M.R. RAJARAM, DLF PLAZA TOWER, 10 TH FLOOR,DLF QUTUB ENCLAVE, PHASE-1,GURGAON, HARYANA- 122002 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO.: AFUPR 0894 L ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) AND CO NO.28/KOL/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-2007) M.R. RAJARAM, DLF PLAZA TOWER, 10 TH FLOOR,DLF QUTUB ENCLAVE, PHASE- 1,GURGAON, HARYANA- 122002 VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 3 RD FLOOR, KOLKATA-700069 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AFUPR 0894 L ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /REVENUE BY : SHRI SAURABH KUMAR, ADDL.CIT DR /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANUP SINHA, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 11/04/2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28/04/2017 / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, AND CRO SS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XII KOLKATA, IN APPEAL NO.333/CIT(A)-XII/ CIR-10/2008-09 DATED 14.05.2013, WHICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF AN ORDER PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING ITA NO.2315/2013 & CO NO.28/16 M.R.RAJARAM 2 OFFICER (AO) UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), DATED 10.12.2008. 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OB JECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE, SAME ASSE SSMENT YEAR, COMMON ISSUES INVOLVED, THEREFORE, THESE HAVE BEEN CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE QUA THE ASSESSEE ARE THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.7.2006 SHOWING TOT AL INCOME OF RS.1,93,58,950/-. THE ASSESEES RETURN OF INCOME WA S PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT ON 15.06.2007. LATER ON, THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT AND THE AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHO RT TERM CAPITAL GAIN (STCG) AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN(LTCG) SHOWN BY TH E ASSESSEE. WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF STCG AND LTCG AT RS.2,12,27,162/- THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENGAGED DURIN G THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF SECURITIES/MUTUAL FUNDS. THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED LARGE QUANTITY OF SHARES AND SUBSEQUENTLY DISPOSED THE SAME IN A SYSTEMATIC MANNER TO EARN PROFITS. IT MAY BE NOTE D THAT PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES HAVE YIELDED PROFITS TO THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEA LING IN SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MA DE INVESTMENT TO DERIVE THE BENEFIT BY WAY OF DIVIDEND ETC. SUCH AS BONUS, RIGHT ISSUE ITA NO.2315/2013 & CO NO.28/16 M.R.RAJARAM 3 ALLOTMENT, BUT THESE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WIL L BE IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE RECEIPTS OR BUSINESS INCOME. THE AO ALSO OB SERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL TRANSACTION S AND THERE IS FREQUENT PURCHASE AND SALES OF SHARES. THE ORDINARY PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WITH THE MOTIVE OF REALIZING PROFIT WOULD LEAD TO I NFERENCE OF TRADE/ADVENTURE. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS MAKING FREQUENT PURCHASES AND SALES, THEREFORE, NO ANY OTH ER CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN EXCEPT THAT THESE SHARES WERE PURCHASED AND S OLD BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE MOTIVE OF EARNING OF PROFITS BY S UCH PURCHASE AND SALES AND NOT WITH THE OBJECT OF INVESTING ITS CAPITAL IN THESE SHARES, IN ORDER TO DERIVE INCOME FROM THAT INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, CONS IDERING THE VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS, THE FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTIONS, THE SY STEMATIC AND ORGANIZED MANNER OF UNDERTAKING THE TRANSACTIONS STRONGLY POI NTED OUT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SHARES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PURC HASED AS AN INVESTMENT TO EARN INCOME FROM DIVIDENDS AND THAT T HE PURCHASES OF THESE SHARES WERE WITH THE OBJECT OF SELLING THEM SUBSEQU ENTLY AT A PROFIT. THE AO ALSO WORKED OUT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A, R.W. RULE 8D AT RS.3,09,490/-, (I.E. UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) RS.3,03, 400/- AND UNDER RULE 8D(2)(I) RS.6,090/-.) 4. AGGRIEVED FROM THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, T HE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO PARTLY. LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TO PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS ARE NOT TR ADING IN SHARES AND ITA NO.2315/2013 & CO NO.28/16 M.R.RAJARAM 4 MUTUAL FUNDS, RATHER IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS INV ESTMENTS. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT THE PURCHASES OF SHARES AN D MUTUAL FUNDS IN EARLIER YEARS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS IN VESTMENT ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONVERTED SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS IN STOCK-IN-TRADE IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. F URTHER THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE ACTIVITY OF A SSESSEES DEALING IN SHARE AND MUTUAL FUNDS AS INVESTMENT FOR THE PAST M AY YEARS. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE AR HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TH E ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE I N LATER YEARS WHERE THE DEPARTMENT HAS AGAIN ACCEPTED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF LTCG AND STCG TREATING ASSESSEES ACTIVITY AS INVESTMENT THEN ON SAME FACTS IN ONE ISOLATED YEAR TREATING ASSESSEES ACTIVITY AS TRADI NG ACTIVITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1.WHETHER THE LD CIT(A)-XII, KOLKATA, WAS JUSTIFIED ON FACTS AND ON LAW ON ACCEPTING ASESSEE`S CLAIM THAT HIS TRANSACTI ON IN SHARE, MUTUAL FUND ETC IS NOT BUSINESS IN NATURE, BUT INVE STMENT WITHOUT DISQUALIFYING THE FACTS DISCUSSED BY THE AO? 2. WHETHER THE LD CIT(A)-XII, KOLKATA, WAS JUSTIFIE D ON LAW ON PARTIALLY ACCEPTING ASSESSEE`S CLAIM BY REJECTING T HE COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE I.TAX ACT,1961? THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING CROSS OBJECTIONS(C O-28/16): 1.THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XII, K OLKATA ERRED IN UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INC OME TAX ACT AT 1% OF THE TOTAL EXEMPTED INCOME OF RS.20,06,800/- A MOUNTING TO RS.20100/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NO BUSINESS INCOME DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THAT THE SAID PROVISION IS NOT APPLICABLE IN COMPUTING INCOME UND ER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. ITA NO.2315/2013 & CO NO.28/16 M.R.RAJARAM 5 6.GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT WHETHER PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES, M.F. & SECURITIES, IS BUSINESS INCO ME OR INVESTMENT INCOME? 6.1 THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE SKILLFULLY MADE TO OVERCOME THE R ISK WHICH ACCORDING TO THE AO WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO MAXIMIZATION OF GAINS/PR OFITS. THIS, ACCORDING TO THE AO, PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED ON THE TRANSACTION IN A SYSTEMATIC AND ORGANIZED MANNER TO EARN BUSINESS IN COME. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INT O APPROXIMATELY 270 TRANSACTIONS FOR SHORT TERM AND ABOUT 100 TRANSACTI ONS FOR LONG TERM. THIS CONSTITUTES BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. SOME OF THE TRANSA CTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT WITHIN A VERY SHORT PERIOD. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT SINCE EVERY YEARS PROCEEDINGS, UNDER THE I.T. ACT IS AN INDEPE NDENT PROCEEDINGS, THE FACTS WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN EARLIER YEARS CAN BE RE-EXAMINED TO ASCERTAIN THE REAL FACTS AND INTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.2. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE AND NOT A FULL TIME BUSINESSMAN. HE INVESTS HIS SAVINGS IN SHARES, MUTUAL FUNDS, AND SE CURITIES TO EARN DIVIDEND AND INTEREST INCOME. THE ASSESSEE ALWAYS C ONSIDERS PURCHASE OF SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS ETC. AS INVESTMENT IN EARLIE R AS WELL AS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, AND THE DEPARTMENT ALSO ACCEPTED THE SAID STAND AND HENCE INCOME ARISING FROM SALE OF SHARES/MUTUAL FUN DS ETC. SHOULD BE TREATED AS LTCG/STCG, AS INVESTMENT INCOME AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT MAINTAIN ANY OFFICE A ND ALL THE PURCHASE ITA NO.2315/2013 & CO NO.28/16 M.R.RAJARAM 6 AND SALES ORDERS WERE PLACED ON TELEPHONE AND DIDN' T REQUIRE ANY ORGANIZED AND SYSTEMATIC EFFORT ON HIS PART FOR SUC H PURCHASE/SALE. AS AND WHEN HE NOTICED THAT THERE WERE RISKS IN ANY OF THE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS, HE CHOSE TO SWITCH OVER TO OTH ER INVESTMENT AVENUES TO MAXIMIZE HIS RETURN. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EMPLOYEE AND SALARY INCOME WAS THE MAJOR SOURCE OF HIS EARNI NG IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THE PURCHASE OF SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS ETC. HAD ALL ALONG BEEN CONSIDERED AS HIS INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES AND AS SUCH THE SAME HAD BEEN SHOWN AS INVESTMENT IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE RES PECTIVE YEARS AND NEVER TREATED IT AS STOCK-IN- TRADE. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON CIRCULAR NO. 6/2016 DATED 29-02-2016 WHEREIN T HE CBDT HAS CLARIFIED THE FOLLOWING: '3.(A) DISPUTES, HOWEVER, CONTINUE TO EXIST IN THE APPLICATION OF THESE PRINCIPLES TO THE FACTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL CASE SINCE THE TAXPAYERS FIND IT DIFFICULT TO PROVE THE INTENTION IN ACQUIRING SUCH SHARES/SECURITIES. IN THIS BACKGROUND, WHILE RECOGN IZING THAT NO UNIVERSAL PRINCIPAL IN ABSOLUTE TERMS CAN BE LAID D OWN TO DECIDE THE CHARACTER OF INCOME FROM SALE OF SHARES AND SECURIT IES (I.E. WHETHER THE SAME IS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL GAIN OR BUSINE SS INCOME), CBDT REALIZING THAT MAJOR PART OF SHARES/SECURITIES TRAN SACTIONS TAKES PLACE IN RESPECT OF THE LISTED ONES AND WITH A VIEW TO REDUCE LITIGATION AND UNCERTAINTY IN THE MATTER, IN PARTIA L MODIFICATION TO THE AFORESAID CIRCULARS (I.E. CIRCULAR NO. 412007 DTD. 15-06-2007 & INSTRUCTION NO. 1827 DTD. 31-08-1989), FURTHER INST RUCTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS IN HOLDING WHETHER THE SURPLUS G ENERATED FROM SALE OF LISTED SHARES OR OTHER SECURITIES WOULD BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GAIN OR BUSINESS INCOME, SHALL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT TH E FOLLOWING: A) WHERE THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE P ERIOD OF HOLDING THE LISTED SHARES AND SECURITIES, OPTS TO TREAT THE M AS STOCK-IN-TRADE, THE INCOME ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF SUCH SHARES /SE CURITIES WOULD BE TREATED AS ITS BUSINESS INCOME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE NEVER TREATED HIS INVESTMENTS AS STOCK-IN TRADE THEREFORE THESE ARE TO BE TREATED AS INVESTMENTS AND NOT THE BUSINESS INCOME. ITA NO.2315/2013 & CO NO.28/16 M.R.RAJARAM 7 6.3 HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE NOTICED THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE GAIN/LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS AS STCG/LT CG OR STCL/LTCL, AS THE CASE MAY BE. THE SAID TREATMENT HAD BEEN MAD E IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. SIMIL AR TREATMENT IS BEING MADE FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS ALSO. FURTHER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES FOR PURCHASE/SAL E OF SHARES, MUTUAL FUNDS ETC. AND HE HAD NOT SHOWN THE GAIN/LOSS ON SA LE OF SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS ETC, AS BUSINESS INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME IN ANY OF THE EARLIER OR SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE DEPARTMENT HAD ALSO ACCEPT ED THE SAID STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ORDER UN DER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR EARLIER AS WELL AS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL POSITION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFI RM THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). 6.4 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON G ROUND NO.1, IS DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJE CTION NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO ISSUE OF DISALLOW ANCE U/S.14A R.W.RULE 8D OF THE ACT. SINCE, GROUND NO.2 RAISED B Y THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ON THE SAME IDENTICAL ISSUE AND FACTS, THEREFORE, THESE ARE BEI NG ADJUDICATED TOGETHER. ITA NO.2315/2013 & CO NO.28/16 M.R.RAJARAM 8 7.1. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS STATED THAT ASS ESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPT INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.20,06,800/-. IN ORD ER TO EARN THE SAID EXEMPTED INCOME, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE INCURRED S OME EXPENDITURE WHICH THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE CLAIMED IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPTED INCOME SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN SUCH HUGE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO, THE ASSESSEE NECESSARILY HAVE INCURRED SOME EXPENSES WH ICH SHOULD BE DISALLOWED. 7.2. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE AND HE HAS NOT DEDU CTED ANY EXPENDITURE TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IN FACT , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREPARED ANY PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND HAS NOT CL AIMED ANY EXPENDITURE WHATSOEVER. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ANY QUESTION FOR DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. IN THE CASE UNDER CO NSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREPARED THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOU NT AT ALL AND HE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY EXPENSES IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACC OUNT, THEREFORE, NO ANY QUESTION ARISES TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W.RU LE 8D. 7.3. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SECTION 14A R.W.RULE 8D DOE S NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER CONSIDERATION. FIRST OF ALL, THE ASS ESSEE IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE AND HE DID NOT PREPARE ANY PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND HE DID NOT CLAIM ANY EXPENDITURE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS AC COUNT RELATING TO THE EXEMPTED INCOME, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ANY QUESTIO N FOR DISALLOWANCE. ITA NO.2315/2013 & CO NO.28/16 M.R.RAJARAM 9 HAD THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE IN THE PRO FIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THEN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W .RULE 8D. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREPARED ANY PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND NOT CLAIMED ANY EXPENDITURE WHATSOEVER, THEREFORE, SECT ION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D DO NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER CONSIDER ATION. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL POSITION, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) NEEDS TO BE DELETED. AC CORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 7.4 IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENU E IN ITA NO.2315/KOL/2013 IS DISMISSED AND GROUND NO.1 RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION NO.28/KOL/2016, IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, IS DISMISS ED AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE, IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28/04 /2017. SD/ - (N.V.VASUDEVAN) SD/ - (DR. A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA ; $% DATED 28/04/2017 & ()* /PRAKASH MISHRA ,SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) % & , / ITAT, KOLKATA 1. / THE APPELLANT-DCIT, CIR-10, KOLKATA. 2. / THE RESPONDENT.-M.R.RAJARAM 3. 4 ( ) / THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 4. 4 / CIT 5. 56 7 8 , 8 , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 7 9 / GUARD FILE. 5 //TRUE COPY//