Smt. Swapna Manna, Purba Medinipur V. Pr.CIT-9, Kolkata

ITA 1072/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2447 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-05-2021
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JOHN VINCENT D LONGSTICH
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Gift; Business income; Depreciation; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Competent authority; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Set aside
• Section: 44AD; 142(1); 143(1); 143(2); 13; 22; 147; 145; 263

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 1072/KOL/2019 SMT. SWAPNA MANNA, AY 2014-15 , A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM] I.T.A. NO. 1072/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SMT. SWAPNA MANNA (PAN: ADYPM 0343 H) VS. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-9, KOLKATA APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING (VIRTUAL) 06.05.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23.06.2021 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI JOHN VINCENT D. LONGSTICH, CIT DR ORDER PER SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. PCIT-9, KOLKATA DATED 21.02.2019 PASSED U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE INVOCATION OF REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE LD. PCIT WITHOUT SATISFYING THE COND ITION PRECEDENT AS PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 263 OF THE ACT I.E. WITHOUT MAKING OUT A CASE THAT THE AOS ORDER WAS E RRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE . THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. A.R. SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL THE VERY INVOCATION OF THE REVISIONARY JURI SDICTION BY THE LD. PCIT IS BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE NEED TO BE QUASHED. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2014- 15 ON 30.11.2014 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 11,50, 200/-. THE AO NOTED THAT THE RETURN WAS DULY PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTE R, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 143(1) WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE/SUBMIT CERTAIN DETAILS/DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE HER RETURN OF INC OME. THE AO NOTED THAT THE LD. A.R OF 2 ITA NO. 1072/KOL/2019 SMT. SWAPNA MANNA, AY 2014-15 THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION , DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS AS CALLED FOR BY HIM AND THEREAFTER HE MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1 8,726/- IN RESPECT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES CLAIMED AND MADE AN ADDITION TO THE TUNE O F RS. 54,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM OIL TANKER LORRY AND FRAMED ASSESSMENT ORDER D ATED 30.09.2016. THEREAFTER, THE LD. PCIT-9, KOLKATA PROPOSED TO EXERCISE HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY TAKING NOTE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELEC TED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY UNDER CASS DUE TO MISMATCH OF SALES TURNOVER REPORTED IN AUDIT REP ORT AND ITR. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO LD. PCIT ON EXAMINATION OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS, HE FOUND FAULT WITH THE AO IN NOT ENQUIRING INTO THREE ISSUES EVEN THOUGH THE FACT WAS THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ONLY FOR ONE PURPOSE I.E. ALLEGED MISMATCH IN THE SALES TURNOVER REPORTED IN AUDIT REPORT AND ITR . HOWEVER ACCORDING TO LD. PCIT IN ADDITION TO THE ISSUE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS PICKED UP FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY, THREE (3) MORE ISSUES NEED TO HAVE BEEN LOOKED INTO/SCRUTINIZED WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: I) REASON FOR SHARP DROP IN THE GP RATE DURING THE YEAR. II) WHETHER SUBSTANTIAL RECEIPTS FROM IOCL WAS IN A NY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE BUSINESS OF PLYING, HIRING ETC. OF GOODS CARRIAGES AND III) WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS IN LAWFUL POSSESSION OF CAPITAL WHICH WAS INTRODUCED IN THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF M ATURED LIC AND GIFTS. 4. THUS ACCORDING TO LD. PCIT, EVEN THOUGH THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY FOR ONE ISSUE, THE OTHER ISSUES WHICH HE P OINTED OUT (SUPRA) ALSO SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENQUIRED INTO BY THE AO AS PER THE GUIDELINE LAID D OWN BY THE BOARD INSTRUCTION NO. 5/2016 DATED 14.07.2016 (INFRA) AND THEREBY THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE EXPANDED THE SCOPE OF THE LIMITED SCRUTINY TO COMPLETE SCRUTINY OR FOR TH E SCRUTINY OF THE AFORESAID THREE ISSUES. THIS OMISSION OF THE AO, ACCORDING TO LD. PCIT, HAS MADE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.09.2016 ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, HE WAS PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF AO DATED 30.09.2016 AND DIRE CTED HIM TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3 ITA NO. 1072/KOL/2019 SMT. SWAPNA MANNA, AY 2014-15 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ACTION OF THE LD. PCI T, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US CHALLENGING THE INVOCATION OF REVISIONARY JURISDICT ION U/S 263 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SATISFYING THE CONDITION PRECEDENT AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 26 3 OF THE ACT I.E. AOS ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD BY LD. PCIT TO BE ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PR EJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW . 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. BEFORE WE ADVERT TO THE FACTS AND LAW INVOLVED IN THIS LIS BEFORE US, LET U S REVISE THE LAW GOVERNING THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE VERY USURPATION OF JURISDICTION BY LD. PRINCIPAL CIT TO INVOKE HIS REV ISIONAL POWERS ENJOYED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, FIRST WE HAVE TO SEE WHETHER THE RE QUISITE JURISDICTION NECESSARY TO ASSUME REVISIONAL JURISDICTION IS THERE EXISTING BEFORE TH E PR. CIT TO EXERCISE HIS POWER. FOR THAT, WE HAVE TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER IN THE FIRST PLACE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND FAULT BY THE PRINCIPAL CIT IS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. FOR THAT, LET US TAKE THE GUIDANCE OF JUDICIAL PREC EDENCE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIP HAVE HELD THAT TWIN CONDITIONS NEEDS TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE EXERCISING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE CIT. THE TWIN CONDITIONS ARE THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST BE ERRONEOUS AND SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER OF THE AO CAN BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS ORDER, THAT IS (I) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER WAS PASSED ON INCORRE CT ASSUMPTION OF FACT; OR (II) INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW; OR (III)ASSESSING OFFICERS ORD ER IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE; OR (IV) IF THE ORDER IS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND; (V) IF THE AO HAS NOT INVESTIGATED THE ISSUE BEFORE HIM;[ BECAUSE AO HAS TO DISCHARGE DUAL ROLE OF AN INVESTIGATOR AS WELL AS THAT OF AN ADJUDICATOR ]THEN IN AFORESAID ANY EVENT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS ORDER. COMING NEXT TO THE SECOND LIMB, WHICH IS REQUIRED T O BE EXAMINED AS TO WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE AO CAN BE TERMED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER EST OF REVENUE. WHEN THIS ASPECT IS EXAMINED ONE HAS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUST RIES (SUPRA) HELD THAT THIS PHRASE I.E. PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS 4 ITA NO. 1072/KOL/2019 SMT. SWAPNA MANNA, AY 2014-15 ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEIR LORDSHIP HEL D THAT IT HAS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN O RDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVEN UE. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RE SULTED IN LOSS TO THE REVENUE, OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE CIT DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOU S ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 7. KEEPING THE AFORESAID LEGAL PRINCIPLE IN OUR MIN D LET US EXAMINE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. PCIT AS TO WHETHER THE CONDITION PRECEDE NT AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CI T REPORTED IN [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) IS SATISFIED OR NOT. IN THIS CASE, THE ADMITTED FAC T IS THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE/RETURN OF INCOME WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY AND THIS FACT IS EVIDENT FROM A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. PCIT WHEREIN HE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED T HIS FACT IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH AS WELL AS CORROBORATED BY THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY MADE BY AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH IS FOUND PLACED AT PAGE 1 OF PB. THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE LIMITED SCRUTINY WAS POINTED OUT BY THE CASS WAS IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED MISMA TCH IN THE SALES TURNOVER REPORTED IN AUDIT REPORT AND ITR. THIS ISSUE WAS ENQUIRED INTO BY THE AO BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 14.01.2016 WHEREIN THE AO HAD ASKE D THE PERTINENT QUESTION NO. 4 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4. YOUR DISCLOSED SALES TURNOVER IN YOUR RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION IS FOUND TO THE IN VARIANCE WITH YOUR AUDIT REPORT. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT A JUSTIFICATORY CLARIFICATION TOWARDS THE SAID VARIAN CE SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS AS PER BELOW: 5. PARTY-WISE DETAILS OF PURCHASE IN THE FOLLOWING FORMAT DURING THE CORRESPONDING: NAME & ADDRESS OF VENDOR OPENING BALANCE, IF ANY TOTAL BILL RECEIVED TOTAL PAYMENT MADE CLOSING BALANCE 8. FOR THE AFORESAID QUERY, THE ASSESSEE HAD REPLIE D VIDE LETTER DATED 29.06.2016 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD REPLIED AT PAGE 4 OF PB A S UNDER: 4. DURING THE SAID PERIOD ASSESSEE DISCLOSED TURNO VER OF SALES RS. 15,03,96,582.13 IN HER RETURN OF INCOME WHICH TALLY WITH THE TAX AUDIT REP ORT SO THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF ANY FURTHER JUSTIFICATION. 5 ITA NO. 1072/KOL/2019 SMT. SWAPNA MANNA, AY 2014-15 9. ON THIS ISSUE THE LD. A.R DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 22 OF PB WHICH SHOWS THAT THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE IS RS. 15,03,96,582/ - WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FORM NO. 3CD. THEREAFTER, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE PROFI T AND LOSS ACCOUNT PLACED AT PAGE 24 OF PB WHEREIN THE SALES TURNOVER IS RS. 15,03,96,582/ -. SO, WE NOTE THAT THERE WAS NO MISMATCH AND THE AMOUNT IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT AND ITR IS THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE AO BEING SATISFIED ON THIS ISSUE DID NOT DRAW ANY ADVE RSE VIEW AGAINST THE ASSESSEE; AND FURTHER, THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 54,000 /- AS INCOME FROM THE TANKER LORRY AND ALSO MADE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF TRAVELLING EXP ENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 18,726/- AND FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R ON 30.09.2016 WHICH HAS BEEN INTERDICTED BY THE LD. PCIT EXERCISING HIS JURISDIC TION U/S 263 OF THE ACT WHEREIN HIS MAIN ALLEGATION IS THAT THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN UP WI TH THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR COMPLETE SCRUTINY [ IN RESPECT OF THE THREE (3) ISSUES WHICH HE FOUND F AULT SUPRA ]. THE MAIN FAULT ACCORDING TO LD. PCIT IS THAT THE AO DURING ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS FAILED TO TAKE UP WITH THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF SCRU TINY AS PER THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT NO. 5/2016 DATED 14.07.2016. ACCORDING TO LD. PCIT ON T HREE ISSUES THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE ENQUIRED OTHER THAN THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE LIMITED SCRUTINY WAS SELECTED BY CASS AS UNDER: I) REASON FOR SHARP DROP IN THE GP RATE DURING THE YEAR. II) WHETHER SUBSTANTIAL RECEIPTS FROM IOCL WAS IN A NY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE BUSINESS OF PLYING, HIRING ETC. OF GOODS CARRIAGES AND III) WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS IN LAWFUL POSSESSION OF CAPITAL WHICH WAS INTRODUCED IN THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF M ATURED LIC AND GIFTS. 10. SO, WE NEED TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE AFORESAID IS SUES COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN UP BY THE AO AS PER THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT NO. 5/2016 DATED 14.07.2016 FOR ENLARGING THE SCOPE OF SCRUTINY FOR THESE THREE ISSUES. FOR THAT WE HA VE TO FIRST LOOK INTO THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6 ITA NO. 1072/KOL/2019 SMT. SWAPNA MANNA, AY 2014-15 INSTRUCTION NO. 5/2016 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, THE 14 TH OF JULY, 2016 SUBJECT: DIRECTION REGARDING SCOPE OF ENQUIRY IN CA SES UNDER LIMITED SCRUTINY SELECTED THROUGH CASS 2015 & 2016- REGD.- VIDE INSTRUCTION NO. 20/2015 DATED 29.12.2015 IN FI LE OF EVEN NUMBER, BOARD HAS LAID STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING OF CASES UNDER LIMITED SCRUTINYWHICH WERE SELECTED THROUGH COMPUTER AIDED SCRUTINY SELECTION IN CASS CYCLE 2015. IN THESE CASES, IT WAS STATED THAT THE GENERAL SCOPE OF ENQUIRY IN SCRUTINY PROCE EDINGS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE RELEVANT PARAMETERS WHICH FORMED THE BASIS FOR SELECTING THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY. HOWEVER, IN REVENUE POTENTIAL CASES, IT WAS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT COMP LETE SCRUTINY COULD BE CONDUCTED. IF THERE WAS POTENTIAL ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ABOVE A PRESCRIBED M ONETARY LIMIT, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE PR. CIT/CIT/PR. DIT/DIT. 2. IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT MAXIMUM OBJECTIVITY IS M AINTAINED IN CONVERTING A CASE FALLING UNDER LIMITED SCRUTINY INTO A COMPLETE SCRUTINY CASE, THE MATTER HAS BEEN FURTHER EXAMINED AND IN PARTIAL MODIFICATION TO PARA 3(D) OF THE EAR LIER ORDER DATED 29.12.2015. BOARD HEREBY LAYS DOWN THAT WHILE PROPOSING TO TAKE UP COMPLETE SCRU TINY IN A CASE WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY EARMARKED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY, THE AO SHALL BE R EQUIRED TO FORM A REASONABLE VIEW THAT THERE IS POSSIBILITY OF UNDER ASSESSMENT OF INCOME IF THE CA SE IS NOT EXAMINED UNDER COMPLETE SCRUTINY. IN THIS REGARD, THE MONETARY LIMITS AND REQUIREMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FROM PR. CIT/CIT/PR. DIT/DIT, AS PRESCRIBED IN PARA 3(D) OF EARLIER INST RUCTION DATED 29.12.2015, SHALL CONTINUE TO REMAIN APPLICABLE. 3. FURHTER, WHILE FORMING THE REASONABLE VIEW, THE AO WOULD ENSURE THAT: A. THERE EXISTS CREDIBLE MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AV AILABLE ON RECORD FOR FORMING SUCH VIEW; B. THIS REASONABLE VIEW SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON MERE SUSPICION, CONJECTURE OR UNRELIABLE SOURCE; AND C. THERE MUST BE A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE AVAILAB LE MATERIAL AND FORMATION OF SUCH VIEW. 4. IT IS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT IN CASES UNDER LIM ITED SCRUTINY, THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WOULD INITIALLY BE CONFINED ONLY TO ISS UES UNDER LIMITED SCRUTINY AND QUESTIONNAIRES, ENQUIRY, INVESTIGATION ETC. WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO SUCH ISSUES. ONLY UPON CONVERSION OF CASE TO COMPLETE SCRUTINY AFTER FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE O UTLINED ABOVE, THE AO MAY EXAMINE THE ADDIITONAL ISSUES BESIDES THE ISSUE(S) INVOLVED IN LIMITED SCRUTINY. THE AO SHALL ALSO EXPEDITIOUSLY INTIMATE THE TAXPAYER CONCERNED REGAR DING CONDUCTING COMPLETE SCRUTINY IN SUCH CASES. 5. IT IS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT ONCE A CASE HAS BEEN CONVERTED TO COMPLETE SCRUTINY, THE AO CAN DEAL WITH ANY ISSUE EMERGING FROM ONGOING SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE REASON FOR SUCH ISSUE HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE NOTE. 6. TO ENSURE PROPER MONITORING IN CASES WHICH HAVE BEEN CONVERTED FROM LIMITED SCRUTINY TO COMPLETE SCRUTINY, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 144A OF THE ACT MAY BE INVOKED IN SUITABLE CASES. TO PREVENT POSSIBILITY OF FISHING A ND ROVING ENQUIRIES IN SUCH CASES, IT IS DESIRABLE 7 ITA NO. 1072/KOL/2019 SMT. SWAPNA MANNA, AY 2014-15 THAT THESE CASES SHOULD INVARIABLY BE PICKED UP WHI LE CONDUCTING REVIEW OR INSPECTION BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES. 7. THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION SHALL BE APPLICABLE FROM T HE DATE OF ITS ISSUE AND WOULD COVER THE CASES SELECTED UNDER CASS 2015 WHICH ARE PENDING SC RUTINY CASES AS WELL AS CASES SELECTED /BEING SELECTED UNDER THE CASS 2016. 8. THE CONTENTS OF THIS INSTRUCTION MAY BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ALL FOR NECESSARY COMPLIANCE. 9. HINDI VERSION TO FOLLOW. 11. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR IT IS VIVID THAT THIS CIRCULAR HAS NARROWED DOWN THE PLAY IN THE JOINTS/DISCRETION WHICH THE AO HAD EARLIER ENJOYED AS PER THE EARLIER CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 20/2015 DATED 29.12.2015, WHER EIN THE CONDITION PRECEDENT TO TAKE UP THE CASE FOR COMPLETE SCRUTINY FROM LIMITED SCRU TINY WAS IN POTENTIAL ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME OF RS. 10 LAKHS IN METRO CITY. THUS AO COUL D HAVE TAKEN UP THE CASE SEEKING APPROVAL FOR COMPLETE SCRUTINY, IF THERE WAS POTENT IAL ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME OF RS. 10 LAKH. HOWEVER, IT IS NOTED THAT BY ISSUING THE INST RUCTION NO. 5/2016 DATE 14.07.2016(SUPRA) [WHICH CBDT CIRCULAR THE LD. PR. CIT IS RELYING UPON TO FIND FAULT WITH THE AO IN NOT SEEKING APPROVAL FOR ENLARGING THE SC OPE OF SCRUTINY], THE CBDT HAS NARROWED DOWN THE DISCRETION/SCOPE/POWER OF AO TO D O SO AND IT HAS SPELLED OUT THE CONDITION PRECEDENT BEFORE THE AO SEEKS APPROVAL IN THIS REGARD BY OBSERVING THAT IN ORDER TO ENSURE MAXIMUM OBJECTIVITY IN CONVERTING THE CAS E FALLING UNDER THE LIMITED SCRUTINY TO COMPLETE SCRUTINY, THE AO CAN TAKE UP THE CASE ONLY IF HE CAN FORM A REASONABLE VIEW THAT THERE IS POSSIBILITY OF UNDER ASSESSMENT OF INCOME, IF THE CASE IS NOT EXAMINED UNDER COMPLETE SCRUTINY. FURTHER, FOR FORMING THE REAS ONABLE VIEW, THE AO HAS TO ENSURE THAT A. THERE EXISTS CREDIBLE MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AV AILABLE ON RECORD FOR FORMING SUCH VIEW; B. THIS REASONABLE VIEW SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON MERE SUSPICION, CONJECTURE OR UNRELIABLE SOURCE; AND C. THERE MUST BE A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE AVAILAB LE MATERIAL AND FORMATION OF SUCH VIEW. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID CONDITIONS/PARAMETE RS LAID DOWN BY THE CBDT IT CAN BE DISCERNED THAT BEFORE THE AO PROPOSES TO THE COMPET ENT AUTHORITY FOR APPROVAL FOR ENLARGING THE SCOPE OF SCRUTINY FROM LIMITED SCRUTI NY, HE SHOULD FIRST OF ALL FORM A REASONABLE VIEW THAT IN CASE IF THE ASSESSMENT OF T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT SCRUTINIZED FOR 8 ITA NO. 1072/KOL/2019 SMT. SWAPNA MANNA, AY 2014-15 COMPLETE ASSESSMENT THERE WOULD BE UNDER ASSESSMENT OF INCOME. THE PARAMETERS/STANDARD LAID DOWN BY THE CBDT IS ALMOST SIMILAR TO THAT ENVISAGED FOR THE AO TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE ACT. BEFO RE REOPENING AN ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE ACT, THE AO SHOULD HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE ESC APEMENT OF INCOME. WHEREAS AS PER THE INSTRUCTION NO. 5/2016 THE CBDT, BEFORE THE AO INTENDS TO PUT UP A PROPOSAL TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR ENLARGING THE SCOPE OF LIMI TED SCRUTINY TO COMPLETE SCRUTINY, THE AO HAD TO FORM A REASONABLE VIEW THAT THERE IS PO SSIBILITY OF UNDER ASSESSMENT OF INCOME. FURTHER CBDT EXPLAINS THAT AO WHILE FORMIN G THE REASONABLE VIEW, AND WHILE TAKING SUCH VIEW HE HAS TO ENSURE THAT THERE EXISTS CREDIBLE MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD FOR FORMING SUCH A VIEW. AND C IRCULAR FURTHER STATES THAT THERE MUST BE A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL AND F ORMATION OF SUCH A REASONABLE VIEW. AND THE CIRCULAR ALSO CAUTIONS THAT AOS VIEW (I.E. REASONABLE VIEW) SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON MERE SUSPICION, CONJECTURE OR UNRELIABLE SOURCE. SO THESE ARE THE CONDITIONAL PRECEDENT WHICH THE AO SHOULD KEEP IN MIND BEFORE HE FORMS A REASONABLE VIEW THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF UNDER ASSESSMENT, IF THE CASE IS NOT TAKEN UP FOR COMPLETE SCRUTINY, WHICH WOULD ENABLE THE AO TO TAKE UP FOR APPROVAL AN ASSE SSMENT FROM LIMITED SCRUTINY TO COMPLETE SCRUTINY. SO WE HAVE TO TEST WHETHER THE T HREE ISSUES RAISED BY THE LD. PCIT, SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW AS PRESCRIBED BY T HE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5/2016 AND THEN ONLY THE AO COULD HAVE TAKEN UP THE CASE FOR FURTHE R SCRUTINY AS ENVISAGED IN THE IBID CIRCULAR. 12. FIRST OF ALL LET US EXAMINE THE ISSUE RAISED BY LD. PCIT IN RESPECT OF SHARP DROP IN THE GP RATE. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINES S WENT UP FROM RS. 9.84 CRORE TO RS. 15.03 CRORE, BUT GP RATIO HAS FALLEN DOWN FROM 3.62 % TO 1.61%. ACCORDING TO LD. A.R IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE TURNOVER INCREASES WITH THE REDUCTION IN PRICE, WHICH IN TURN AFFECT THE PROFIT I.E. REDUCTION IN PROFIT; AND SO WHEN THERE WAS IN THIS CASE SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN SALE, CORRESPONDING G.P. DROPPED. FURTH ER ACCORDING TO LD. AR, THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOKA REFRACTOR IES (P) LTD. VS. CIT 279 ITR 457 (CAL), WHILE APPROVING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE 9 ITA NO. 1072/KOL/2019 SMT. SWAPNA MANNA, AY 2014-15 CASE OF PANDIT BROTHERS 26 ITR 159 (PUNJ), HAS HELD THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE REJECTED MERELY DUE TO LOW GP THE RELEVANT FINDING IS REPRODUCED HERE: 6.7. WE MAY DRAW SUPPORT FOR OUR VIEWS FROM THE D ECISIONS RELIED UPON BY MR. KHAITAN. IN PANDIT BROS. V. CIT (SUPRA), THE PUNJAB HIGH COU RT IN A DIVISION BENCH HELD THAT IN ORDER TO REJECT THE ACCOUNTS, THE ITO MUST EITHER HOLD TH AT THERE WAS NO METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OR THAT THE METHOD EMPLOYED WAS SUCH THAT IT DID NOT DISCLO SE THE TRUE PROFIT AND LOSS OF THE FIRM . IN THAT CASE, THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED WERE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT, BUT ONLY IN THE ABSENCE OF STOCK REGISTER, THE ACCOUNTS WERE REJECTED. THE LEARNED C OURT HELD THAT THE ABSENCE OF STOCK REGISTER WAS NOT SUCH A SERIOUS DEFECT IN THE METHOD OF ACCO UNTING EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ITO COULD NOT DETERMINE THE CORRECT STATEMENT OF PR OFITS AND LOSSES . THIS DECISION WAS DEALING WITH SECTION 13 OF THE IT ACT, 1922, WHICH IS PARI MATERIA THE SAM E AS SECTION 145 STOOD AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME VIZ., BEFORE THE AMENDMENT. IN THE SAID DECISION, IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THERE MUST BE MATERIAL BEFORE THE ITO TO LEAD HIM T O THE CONCLUSION THAT THE METHOD EMPLOYED WAS DEFECTIVE OR THAT THE INCOME COULD NOT BE DEDUC ED. IN THE SAID DECISION, IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE PROFITS WERE LOW WAS MERELY A WARNING TO T HE ITO TO LOOK INTO THE ACCOUNTS MORE CAREFULLY AND TO SHOW WHETHER THERE WAS MATERIAL TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING FALSE IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS. THE MERE FACT THAT THE PROFITS WERE LOW WAS NOT MA TERIAL UPON WHICH A FINDING UNDER SECTION 13 CAN BE BASED, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE MAY BE INCOMPET ENT OR HIS METHOD OF BUSINESS MAY BE UNECONOMIC. THE MERE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO STOCK REGISTER WOU LD NOT LEAD TO HOLD THAT THE ACCOUNT BOOKS WERE FALSE. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED AS CORRECT AND DISCLOSING A TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS, THE ABSENCE OF ONE REGISTER CANNOT AMOUNT TO BE MATERIAL AND THERE MUST BE A CLEAR FINDING BEFOR E THE ITO COULD APPLY PROVISIONS OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 13 . THE COURT CANNOT 'LEAP IN THE DARK' AS WAS HELD B Y THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN CIT V. MAHARAJADHIRAJA KAMESHWAR SINGH OF DARBHANGA (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC). (EMPHASIS GIVEN BY US) 13. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ON HAND, THE ASSESSEE IS R UNNING THE BUSINESS OF PETROL PUMP AND SHE HAS INCREASED THE TURNOVER FROM RS. 9.84 CR. TO RS. 15.03 CRORES WHICH IS SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN BUSINESS TURNOVER. IN ORDER TO ATTRACT MORE CUSTOMERS TO HER PETROL/DIESEL PUMP IT WAS TOLD TO US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN INCE NTIVES/DISCOUNTS WHICH WOULD HAD BROUGHT DOWN THE PROFIT MARGIN OR AS OBSERVED BY THE HONBL E HIGH COURTS OBSERVATION SUPRA, MAY BE THE ASSESSEE IS INCOMPETENT OR HER METHOD OF BUSINESS MAY BE UNECONOMIC. MOREOVER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE STATUTORILY AUDITED AND THE AO HAD ACKNOWLEDGED TO HAVE GONE THROUGH IT AND HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME. SO IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CAN SAFELY INFER THAT AO AFTER GO ING THROUGH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEES BOOKS D ISCLOSES TRUE PROFIT AND LOSS OF THE BUSINESS. IN SUCH A SCENARIO, WE HAVE TO EXAMINE TH E LD. PCITS OBSERVATION THAT SINCE THERE WAS DROP IN G.P, HE (THE AO) SHOULD HAVE TAKE N UP THE CASE FOR COMPLETE SCRUTINY AND FAILURE TO DO SO, MAKES THE ORDER ERRONEOUS. WH EN WE EXAMINE SUCH A CONTENTION OF LD. PCIT, FIRST WE HAVE TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE AO C OULD HAVE TAKEN UP THIS ISSUE FOR COMPLETE SCRUTINY AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5/20 16. WE ARE AFRAID THE AO COULD NOT 10 ITA NO. 1072/KOL/2019 SMT. SWAPNA MANNA, AY 2014-15 HAVE DONE SO, BECAUSE FOR DOING SO HE SHOULD HAVE C REDIBLE MATERIAL OR INFORMATION FROM THE RECORDS BEFORE HIM FOR FORMING SUCH A REASONABL E VIEW THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF UNDER ASSESSMENT OF INCOME. SINCE THERE WAS NO SUCH CREDIBLE MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND BEING SATISFIED BY THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO MIGHT HAVE MADE A CONSCIOUS DECISION NOT TO TAKE UP THE CASE FOR COMPLETE SCRUTINY AS STIPULATED IN CBDT CIRCULAR WHICH INFERENCE WE DRAW BECAUSE THE LD. PCIT HAS NOT MENTIONED ABOUT ANY SUCH CREDIBLE MATERIAL OR INFOR MATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO TAKE THE OPPOSITE VIEW. SO WHEN THERE IS NO SUCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORDS, THE AO COULD NOT HAVE FORMED A REASONABLE VIEW OF UNDER ASSESSMENT OF INCOME ON THE ISSUE OF DROP IN G.P. THEREFORE SINCE THERE IS NO CREDIBL E INFORMATION OR MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO FORM A REASONABLE VIEW THAT THERE IS A PO SSIBILITY OF UNDER ASSESSMENT, THE LD. PCITS ALLEGATION ON THIS ISSUE IS NOTED TO HAVE BE EN BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES, SO WE ARE TO THE OPINION THAT AO OUGHT NOT TO HAVE TAK EN UP THIS ISSUE (DROP IN G.P) FOR EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY AS PER THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 5/2016 DATED 14.07.2016. SO THE FAULT POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PCI T ON THIS SCORE IS ERRONEOUS. 14. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF RECEIPTS WHICH ASSESSEE RECEIVED FROM IOCL RELATING TO TANKER LORRY IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS THE OWNER OF THE PETROL PUMP AND SHE ALSO OWNS AN OIL TANKER. THE LD. PCIT HAS RAISE D THE ISSUE THAT THE A.O. HAS MADE ADDITION U/S 44AE OF THE ACT OF RS.54,000/- IN REGA RD TO THE INCOME FROM THE OIL TANKER BUT FAILED TO DISALLOW THE DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF RS.1,2 5,516/-. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS NOTED THAT ENQUIRY WAS INITIATED BY THE A.O. ON THIS ISSUE WHI CH IS DISCERNABLE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER SHEET NOTING ON 01.09.2016 (PAGE 1 OF P/B) WH EREIN IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE A.O. HAD ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE TANKER IN COME WAS NOT SHOWN SEPARATELY IN HER COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2014-15. PURSUANT TO THE QUERY THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LETTER ON 19.09.2016 (COPY AT PAGE 5) IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD REPLIED/CLARIFIED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY SEPARATE INCOME FROM TAN KER LORRY. IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO AOS NOTICE THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PLYING, HIRING OR LEASING OF GOODS CARRIAGE AND SINCE IT HAS USED THE TANKER LORRY ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTING THE OIL TO HER PETROL PUMP FROM IOCL, THERE IS NO BUSINESS RECEIPT FROM THE TANKER LORRY. IT IS NOTED THAT ON THIS ISSUE THE A SSESSEE HAD CATEGORICALLY ASSERTED THAT HER 11 ITA NO. 1072/KOL/2019 SMT. SWAPNA MANNA, AY 2014-15 TANKER LORRY WAS NOT GIVEN TO ANY OTHER PERSON ON HIRE AND THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY INCOME FROM RUNNING OF THE TANKER LORRY. THEREF ORE IT IS NOTED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ENQUIRED INTO AND CONSIDERED BY THE AO; AND THEREAF TER, THE AO HAD PROCEEDED TO TAX SEPARATELY THE INCOME BY ESTIMATING AT RS. 54,000/- AS THE INCOME FROM TANKER U/S 44AE OF THE ACT. SO THEREFORE IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO HAD E NQUIRED ABOUT THE ISSUE AND EVEN THOUGH THE AOS VIEW OF ADOPTING THE PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT U/S 44AE OF THE ACT, STRICTLY DOESNT FALL IN ITS KEN, HOWEVER ADOPTION OF PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT/ESTIMATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE CANNOT BE GROUND ON WHICH THE LD. PCIT CAN EXERCISE HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION BECAUSE, ASSESSEES CASE IS THAT THERE IS NO BUSINESS INCOME FROM THE TANKER LORRY. HOWEVER, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 54,000/-. SO THERE IS NO PREJUDICE CAUSED TO THE REVENUE; AND MOREOVER IT IS NOT THE C ASE OF THE LD. PCIT THAT DESPITE THERE WAS CREDIBLE INFORMATION OR MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THA T THE ASSESSEES TANKER LORRY WAS USED FOR TRANSPORT BUSINESS OF PLYING/RUNNING OF TANKER LORRY, THEN ALSO THE AO FAILED TO TAKE UP THE ISSUE FOR SCRUTINY BY SEEKING APPROVAL AS ENVIS AGED IN THE CBDT CIRCULAR. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL, THE AO COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN UP THE CASE FOR ENLARGING THE SCOPE OF SCRUTINY AND FURTHER THE DECISION OF A O TO APPLY PRESUMPTIVE TAX RATE U/S 44AD IS IN LINE WITH JUDICIAL PRECEDENT AS GIVEN BE LOW: 1. CIT-XII VS. SUBODH GUPTA, 54 TAXMANN.COM 343 ( DELHI) [2015] 2. CIT-XIII VS. LOVISH OBEROI, 54 TAXMANN.COM 23 (DELHI) [2015] 3. ECOASFALT SA VS. ADDL. DIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATI ON,RANGE-3, NEW DELHI, 24 TAXMANN.COM 349 (DELHI) [2012] 4. ALLIED ENGINEERS VS. CIT, KARNAL, 180 TAXMAN 7 0 (DELHI) (MAG) [2009] 5. CLT VS. JAIN CONSTRUCTION CO., 34 TAXMANN.COM 84 (RAJASTHAN) [2013] 6. EASTERN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. ITO, 59 ITJ 7 23 (DELHI) [1997] 7. ITO VS. D.G. HOUSING PROJECTS LTD., 20 TAXMANN.COM 58-7 (DELHI) [2012] THEREFORE, THE LD. PCIT ERRED IN FINDING FAULT ON T HIS ISSUE. 15. COMING TO THE FAULT OF NON-EXAMINATION BY THE A O IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL INTRODUCTION BY WAY OF LIC / MUTUAL FUND MATURITY AND GIFT ETC. IT IS NOTED THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF LD. PCIT THAT DESPITE THERE WAS CREDIBLE MATERIAL OR IN FORMATION WITH THE AO TO FORM A REASONABLE VIEW THAT THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY OF UND ER ASSESSMENT UNLESS THIS ISSUE WAS NOT SCRUTINIZED, STILL THE AO FAILED TO ACT AS ENVISAGE D IN CBDT CIRCULAR (SUPRA). SO WHEN THERE WAS NO CREDIBLE MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAIL ABLE TO THE AO HE COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN 12 ITA NO. 1072/KOL/2019 SMT. SWAPNA MANNA, AY 2014-15 UP THE MATTER FOR FURTHER SCRUTINY ON THIS ISSUE. A ND THE LD. PCIT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAVE NOT MENTIONED ABOUT ANY CREDIBLE MATERIAL OR INFORMATION ON THIS ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD WHICH COULD HAVE PROMPTED THE AO TO HAVE TAKEN UP THE CASE FOR FURTHER SCRUTINY AND THEREFORE THE LD. PCIT ERRED IN FINDIN G FAULT WITH THE AO FOR NOT TAKING UP THIS ISSUE FOR SCRUTINY AS STIPULATED BY INSTRUCTIO N NO. 5/2016 DATED 14.07.2016 OF CBDT. 16. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT LD. PCIT MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN LAW AND FACTS TO FIND T HAT AO FAILED TO TAKE UP THE CASE OF ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSEE FROM LIMITED SCRUTINY TO COM PLETE SCRUTINY AS STIPULATED BY CBDT IN INSTRUCTION NO. 5/2016 DATED 14.07.2016. THEREFO RE, THE IMPUGNED ACTION OF LD. PCIT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THEREFORE WE ARE INCLINED T O QUASH IT. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD JUNE, 2021 SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23.06.2021 SB, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT- SMT. SWAPNA MANNA, AT DHANDIGHI, PO. CON TAI, DIST. PURBA MEDINIPUR, WEST BENGAL-721442 2. RESPONDENT PCIT-9, KOLKATA 3. THE PCIT- 9, KOLKATA 4. CIT- , KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA 13 ITA NO. 1072/KOL/2019 SMT. SWAPNA MANNA, AY 2014-15