Umaballav Mohapatra, Puri V. ITO, Puri Ward, Puri

ITA 1/CTK/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2785 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S OBESH MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: P R MOHANTY
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 54F; 191; 13; 54

Judgement Text

P A G E 1 | 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 01 /CTK/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 UMABALLAV MOHAPATRA, AT: SUARA SAHI, PURI VS. ITO, PURI WARD, PURI PAN/GIR NO. ABDPM 4396 B (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.R.MOHANTY , AR REVENUE BY : SHRI S OBESH MOHANTY , DR DATE OF HEARING : 23 / 1 1 / 20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 / 1 1 /20 20 O R D E R PER C.M.GARG,JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 2 , BHUBANESWAR DATED 28.8.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL: 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER OF THE FORUM BELOW IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED AND ERRONEOUS AND HAS BEEN PASSED ON IMPROPER APPLICATION OF FIND, BEING DEVOID OF MERIT AS SUCH DESERVES TO BE QUASHED IN LIMINE. 2. FOR THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.46,97,992/ - TO TH E TOTAL INCOME DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE I.T.ACT DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS CONTRARY TO LEGISLATIVE INTENTIONS BUT ALSO UNWARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. ITA NO.01/CTK/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 P A G E 2 | 8 3. FOR THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.53,020/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT NOT ONLY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS CONTRARY TO LEGISLATIVE INTENTIONS BUT ALSO UNW ARRANTED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. 3. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LD CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE THE INDEXED COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE PROPERTY WHICH IS VERY UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE. LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE AO PROCEEDED TO ACCEPT THE DETAILS OF PROPERTY FILED BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT AND IGNORING THE OTHER RELEVA NT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUCH AS PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING IMPROVEMENT IN THE LAND WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO HIGHER SALE PRICE FROM THE PURCHASERS. LD SR DR SUPPORTING THE ACTION OF THE AO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A LI TIGA TION BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT REGARDING T HE DISPUTE AROSE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER PARTIES AND THE AO WAS RIGHT IN DENYING THE DETAILS OF PROPERTY PLACED AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT, WHICH CLEARLY REVEALS THAT NO IMPROVEMENT WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN DONE ON THE SAID PROPERTY. THEREFORE , THERE WAS NO NEED OF ALLOWING ANY IMPROVEMENT COST OR INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ON BEING ASKED BY THE BENCH, IN ALL FAIRNESS, LD A.R. ADMITTED THA T PROPERTY WAS JOINTLY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE AND NO COST OF IMPROVEMENT HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO , IN THE CASE OF WIFE, DENYING COST OF IMPROVEMENT HAS ATTAINED FINALITY AS THERE IS NO APPEAL BY THE WIFE OF THE ITA NO.01/CTK/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 P A G E 3 | 8 ASSESSEE ON ANY ISSUE INCLUDING DENIAL OF INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE DETAILS OF PROPERTY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT IS HAVING WEIGHTAGE OF SUCH ACTION OF FACTUAL MATRIX AND EVIDENCE CANNOT B E DENIED AT THE THRESHOLD IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUSTAINABLE AND ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE SHOWING IMPROVEMENT BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE LAND SOLD BY HIM. FROM THE RELEVANT PART OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PARA (III) AT PAGE 5, IT IS CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE THAT THE AO WHILE DENYI NG COST OF IMPROVEMENT, CLEARLY OBSERVED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING S, OUT HOUSE, BOUNDARY WALL ETC CANNOT BE CONCLUSIVELY PROVED IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING BILLS/VOUCHERS/INVOICE AND PHOTO, HENCE, SAME CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE ABOUT EXISTENCE OF ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON THE DISPUTED LAND, WHICH LEADS TO AN IRRESISTIBLE INFERENCE THAT THE DESCRIPTION/CHARACTER OF PROPERTY IN THE COMPROMISE PETITION BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT STAND CONFIRMED. 4.1 FROM PERUSAL OF ORDER OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE OBSERVE THAT LD CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED SOME PHOTOGRAPHS AT PAGES 4 & 5 OF THE ORDER, WHICH SHOWS SOME ABUNDANT STRUCTURE BUT THESE STRUCTURES SHOW BOUNDARY WALL, GATE, WINDOWS, FITTING ETC BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS LOCATED ON THE SAME LAND WHICH WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE . AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEES WIFE WHO WAS HOLDING 50% TITLE ON THE SAID LAND, HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED COST OF IMPROVEMENT OR INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT BY THE AO AND NO FURTHER APPEAL OR ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.01/CTK/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 P A G E 4 | 8 HAVE BEE N INITIATED BY HER ACCEPTING THE REJECTION OF CLAIM BY THE AO. IN VIEW OF TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND CONSEQUENT I NDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT. THEREFORE, THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT SUSTAINABLE, STANDS DISMISSED. 5. THE SECOND CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AO DENIED BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F TO THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT NO INVESTMENT WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN MADE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. LD COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF LAND SOLD WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE AND HAVE JOINTLY INVESTED THE SAME AMOUNT TOWARDS PURCHASE OF ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE AND SON SHRI RAJIV MOHAPATRA TO AVOID FURTHER FAMILY LITIGATION AFTER THEIR DEATH. LD COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: I) LATE MIR GULAM ALI KHAN VS CIT, 165 ITR 228 (AP) II) CIT VS RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA, 3 42 ITR 38 (DEL) III) CIT VS KAMAL WAHAL, 351 ITR 4 (DEL) IV) N.RAM KUMAR VS ACIT, 79 DTR TRIB 386 (HYD) V) SMT. A TAMIL PONNI ORDER DATED 25.2.2020 IN ITA NO.3112/CHN/2019 VI) ITAT F DELHI IN SHRI RAMPHAL HOODA IN ITA NO.8478/DEL/2019 DATED 2.3.2020. 6. HONBLE A.P HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE MIR GULAM ALI KHAN (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO.01/CTK/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 P A G E 5 | 8 RELYING UPON THE EXPRESSION 'ASSESSEE' OCCURRING IN S. 54 OF THE ACT, IT IS CONTENDED FOR THE DEPARTMENT THAT IN ORDER TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION, THE PERSON WHO SOLD THE HOUSE MUST BE THE SAME AS THE PERSON WHO PURCHASED THE HOUSE, THAT IS, THE ASSESSEE MUST BE ONE AND THE SAME PERSON. THE IDENTITY MUST BE THE SAME. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION. THE OBJECT OF GRANTING EXEMPTION UNDER S. 54 OF THE ACT IS THAT A PERSON WHO SELLS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING ANOTHER CONVENIENT HOUSE MUST BE GIVEN EXEMPTION SO FAR AS CAPITAL GAINS ARE CONCERNED. AS LONG AS THE SALE OF THE HOUSE AND PURCHASE OF ANOTHER HOUSE ARE PART OF THE SAME SCHEME, THE LAPSE OF SOME TIME BETWEEN THE SALE AND PURCHASE MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. THE WORD 'ASSESSEE' MUST BE GIVEN A WIDE AND LIBERAL INTERPRETATION SO AS TO INCLUDE HIS LEGAL HEIRS ALSO. THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR GIVING TOO STRICT AN INTERPRETATION TO THE WORD 'ASSESSEE' A S THAT WOULD FRUSTRATE THE OBJECT OF GRANTING THE EXEMPTION AND WHAT IS MORE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE VERY SAME ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SALE OF THE HOUSE, ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASING ANOTHER HOUSE AND PAID A SUM OF RS. 1,000 AS EARNEST MONEY AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE COMPLETED THE TRANSACTION WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF TH E DEATH OF THE DECEASED. THE SALE AND PURCHASE ARE TWO LINKS IN THE SAME CHAIN. WE ARE FORTIFIED IN THIS VIEW BY A DECISION OF THE MAD RAS HIGH COURT IN C. V. RAMANATHAN VS. CIT (1980) 17 CTR (MAD) 322 : (1980) 125 ITR 191 (MAD) : TC22R.230. 7. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA (SUPRA) IN PARA S 11 & 12 OF ITS ORDER HELD AS UNDER: OBJECTIVE OF S. 54F AND THE L IKE PROVISION SUCH AS S. 54 IS TO PROVIDE IMPETUS TO THE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION AND SO LONG AS THE PURPOSE OF HOUSE CONSTRUCTION IS ACHIEVED, SUCH HYPER TECHNICALITY SHOULD NOT IMPEDE THE WAY OF DEDUCTION WHICH THE LEGISLATURE HAS ALLOWED. PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTI ON IS TO BE PREFERRED AS AGAINST THE LITERAL CONSTRUCTION, MORE SO WHEN EVEN LITERAL CONSTRUCTION ALSO DOES NOT SAY THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD BE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY. SEC. 54F OF THE ACT IS THE BENEFICIAL PROVISION WHICH SHOULD BE INTERPR ETED LIBERALLY IN FAVOUR OF THE EXEMPTION/DEDUCTION TO THE TAXPAYER AND DEDUCTION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED ON HYPER TECHNICAL GROUND. ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE MIR GULAM ALI KHAN VS. CIT (1986) 56 CTR (AP) 144 : (1987) 165 ITR 228 (AP) HAS HELD THAT THE OBJECT OF GRANTING EXEMPTION UNDER S. 54 OF THE ACT IS THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO SELLS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FOR PURCHASING ANOTHER HOUSE MUST BE GIVEN EXEMPTION SO FAR AS CAPITAL GAINS ARE CONCERNED. THE WORD 'ASSESSEE' MUST BE GIVEN WIDE AND LIBER AL INTERPRETATION SO AS TO INCLUDE HIS LEGAL HEIRS ALSO. THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR GIVING TOO STRICT AN INTERPRETATION TO THE WORD 'ASSESSEE' AS THAT WOULD FRUSTRATE THE OBJECT OF GRANTING EXEMPTION. WE ALSO FIND JUDGMENTS OF OTHER HIGH COURTS GIVING BENEFIT OF S. 54F(1) OF THE ACT WHEN THE HOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE IS PURCHASED JOINTLY WITH HIS WIFE. ITA NO.01/CTK/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 P A G E 6 | 8 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. V. NATARAJAN (2006) 203 CTR (MAD) 37 : (2007) 287 ITR 271 (MAD) THOUGH THIS CASE W AS DECIDED IN RELATION TO S. 54 OF THE ACT, THE SAID SECTION IS PARI MATERIA OF S. 54F(1) OF THE ACT. LIKEWISE, THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GURNAM SINGH (2008) 218 CTR (P&H) 674 : (2008) 6 DTR (P&H) 83 : (2010) 327 ITR 278 (P&H) TOOK THE SAME VIEW WHILE DISCUSSING THE PROVISIONS OF S. 54 OF THE ACT WHICH IS AGAIN PARI MATERIA OF S. 54F(1) OF THE ACT. 8. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAMAL WAHAL (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: 7. WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN AGREEING WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL. APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE JUDGMENTS OF THE MADRAS AND KARNATAKA HIGH COURTS (SUPRA) ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REVENUE FAIRLY BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE A SIMILAR VIEW OF THIS COURT IN CIT VS. RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA : (2012) 342 ITR 38 (DEL.) . THAT WAS ALSO A CASE WHICH AROSE UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED IN THE JOINT NAMES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES RESTRICTE D THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F TO 50 PERCENT ON THE FOOTING THAT THE DEDUCTION WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON THE PORTION OF THE INVESTMENT WHICH STANDS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE. THIS VIEW WAS DISAPPROVED BY THIS COURT. IT NOTED THAT THE ENTIRE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID ONLY BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT A SINGLE PENNY WAS CONTRIBUTED BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE. IT ALSO NOTED THAT A PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE PREFERRED AS AGAINST A LITERAL CONSTRUCTION, MORE SO WHEN EVEN APPLYING THE LITERAL CONSTRUCTIO N, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE SECTION TO SHOW THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD BE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, SECTION 54F IN TERMS DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SHALL BE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE; IT MERELY SAYS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE PURCHASED/CONSTRUCTED 'A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE'. 8. THIS COURT IN THE DECISION CITED ALONE ALSO NOTICED THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT (SUPRA) AND AGREED WITH THE SAME, OBSERVING THAT THOUGH THE MADRAS CASE WAS DECIDED IN RELATION TO SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, THAT SECTION WAS IN PARI MATERIA WITH SECTION 54F. THE JUDGMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GURNAM SINGH : (2014) 327 ITR 278 IN WHICH THE SAME VIEW WAS TAKEN WITH REFERENCE TO S ECTION 54F WAS ALSO NOTICED BY THIS COURT. 9. IT THUS APPEARS TO US THAT THE PREDOMINANT JUDICIAL VIEW, INCLUDING THAT OF THIS COURT, IS THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 54F, THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE NEED NOT BE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS OWN NAME N OR IS IT NECESSARY THAT IT SHOULD BE PURCHASED EXCLUSIVELY IN HIS NAME. IT IS MOREOVER TO BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS NOT PURCHASED THE NEW HOUSE IN THE NAME OF A STRANGER OR SOMEBODY WHO IS UNCONNECTED WITH HIM. HE HAS PURCHASED IT ONLY IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE. ITA NO.01/CTK/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 P A G E 7 | 8 THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT HAS COME OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS AND THAT THERE WAS NO CONTRIBUTION FROM THE ASSESSEES WIFE. 9. LD DR PLACING STRONG RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED ANY PROPERTY IN HIS NAME AND THAT EXEMPTION U/S.54F CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE EVEN IF HE PURCHASES RESIDENTIAL UNIT BY UTILI ZING THE MONEY RECEIVED AGAINST SALE OF LAND FOR PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE AND SON. 10. WHEN WE ANALYSE THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT SEC. 54F OF THE ACT IS TH E BENEFICIAL PROVISION WHICH SHOULD BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY IN FAVOUR OF THE EXEMPTION/DEDUCTION TO THE TAXPAYER AND DEDUCTION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED ON HYPER TECHNICAL GROUND. SIMILARLY, ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE MIR GULAM ALI KHAN (SU PRA) HAS HELD THAT THE OBJECT OF GRANTING EXEMPTION UNDER S. 54 OF THE ACT IS THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO SELLS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FOR PURCHASING ANOTHER HOUSE MUST BE GIVEN EXEMPTION SO FAR AS CAPITAL GAINS ARE CONCERNED. THE WORD 'ASSESSEE' MUST BE GIVEN WIDE AND LIBERAL INTERPRETATION SO AS TO INCLUDE HIS LEGAL HEIRS ALSO. THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR GIVING TOO STRICT AN INTERPRETATION TO THE WORD 'ASSESSEE' AS THAT WOULD FRUSTRATE THE OBJECT OF GRANTING EXEMPTION. SIMILAR VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN BY HONBLE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAMAL WAHAL (SUPRA). ITA NO.01/CTK/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 P A G E 8 | 8 11. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE AND SON AND HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE NOTED DECISIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXEMPTION U/S. 54F CANNOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DIRECT THE AO TO RECALCULATE THE EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT KEEPING IN VIEW THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF SAID FLAT AS PER PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. 12. AS REGARDS TO ADDITION OF RS.53,020/ - , LD A.R. DID NOT ADVANCE ANY ARGUMENTS AND HENCE, ADDITION OF RS.53,020/ - IS CONFIRMED. 1 3 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 24 /1 1 /20 20 . S D/ - SD/ - (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) ( CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 24 / 1 1 /20 20 B.K.PARIDA, SPS (OS) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER SR . PVT. S ECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : UMABALLAV MOHAPATRA, AT: SUARA SAHI, PURI 2. THE RESPONDENT. ITO, PURI WARD, PURI 3. THE CIT(A) - 2 , BHUBANESWAR 4. PR.CIT - 2 , BHUBANESWAR 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//