Braja Kishore Das, Sambalpur V. DCIT, Circle-1, Sambalpur

ITA 110/CTK/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5353 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMBHULAL AGARWAL
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Business income; Depreciation

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.110/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 2012 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.110 /CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 2012 BRAJA KISHORE DAS, SAMBAL BHUMI COLONY, NH - 6, DHANKAUDA, SAMBALPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAMBALPUR PAN/GIR NO. AAUPD 0351 M (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAMBHULAL AGARWAL, AR REVE NUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 25 /10 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : /10 / 2017 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - CUTTACK DATED 11.12.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. 2. IN GROUND NOS.1 7 2, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE PROPRIETORSHIP BUSINESS OF M/S. DAS CONST RUCTIONS U/S.145(3) OF THE ACT AND CALCULATING NET PROFIT @ 8% OF THE NET CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS ON THE GROUND OF LOW RATE OF NET PROFIT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN EXECUTION OF WOR KS CONTRACT AND RUNS THE BUSINESS OF TRAVEL AND HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT @ 1.015% FROM THE GROSS 2 ITA NO.110/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 2012 RECEIPTS OF WORKS CONTRACT AND 2.62% OF NET PROFIT FROM THE GRO SS RECEIPTS FROM TRAVELS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THE NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS VERY LOW AND HIGHLY UNREALISTIC BY ANY STANDARD OF IMAGINATION IN THOSE LINES OF BUSINESS. WHILE VERIFYING THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ACCOUN TS IN THE WORKS CONTRACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ONLY EXPENDI TURE LEDGERS BUT DID NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM WITH ANY BILLS AND VOUCH ERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FELT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED AS THE EXPENDITURES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NEITHER RELIABLE NOR VERIFIABLE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING O FFICER INVOKED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3] OF THE ACT AND REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. AFTER ALLOWING STATUTORY DEDUCTION BY THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AFTER FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HYDERABAD BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. KMC C ONSTRUCTION LIMITED VS. DCIT, CIR - 2(1), HYDERABAD AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C1T VS. S. SAHU CONSTRUCTION PVT. LIMITED (2013), ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT @ 8% OF THE GROSS RECEI PTS FROM WORKS CONTRACTS. THE ASSESSING O FFICER FURTHER FOUND IN THE TRAVEL BUSINESS WHERE TH E ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN VERY LOW NET PROFIT, EXPEN DITURES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRO FIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY CORRESPONDING BILLS AND VOUCHERS TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM. THEREFORE, HE RE JECTED THE ACCOUNTS AND INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) AND ESTIMATED THE NET INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM TRAVEL BUSINESS. 3 ITA NO.110/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 2012 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE COPY OF AUDIT REPORT AND STATED THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SINGLE OUT ANY LACUNA IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY TH E ASSESSEE ALONG WITH BILLS AND VOUCHERS MAINTA INED WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LOW RATE OF NET PROFIT IN THE CASE OF M/S. DAS TRAVELS WAS REPORTED BECAUSE OF HIGHER DEPRECIATION CLAIMED DURING THE YEAR BECAUSE OF ADDITION OF NEW BUS FOR PLYING DURING THE YEAR AND NOT BECAUSE OF HIGHER EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT HE FINDS SUBS TANCE FROM THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LOWER NET PROFIT FROM BOTH THE BUSINESSES I.E. FROM WORKS CONTRACT BUSINESS A ND TRAVELS BUSINESS. IN SUCH LINES OF BUSINESS IF THE SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE ARE NOT PRODUCED, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED WERE PRODUCED, HE ACTUALLY DID NOT TRY TO PRODUCE T HE SAME BEFORE HIM, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FURTHER VERIFICATION. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, HE HELD THAT HE WAS INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT FROM CIVIL CONTRACT WORK @ 8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. FURTHER, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO SUPPORTED FROM PLETHORA OF DECISIONS OF 4 ITA NO.110/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 2012 HIGHER AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THE CUTTACK BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, THE TRIBUNA L CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT FROM CONTRACT WORK AT 8% WHERE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REJECTED.: . I) 1TO VS. NITYANANDA SWAIN IN 1TA NO. - 491/CTK/2011 DATED 22/03/2012 II. ) 1T0 VS. S.N.KANUNGO & ASSOCIATES IN ITA NO. 090/CTK/2011 DATED 27.5.2011. III. ) 1T0 VS. R.K.DAS &PARTNERS IN ITA NO. - 006/CTK/2012 IV) ITO VS. GANGADHAR JENA IN ITA NO. - 495/2013 - 14 THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WITH R EGARD TO ESTIMATION OF PROFIT OF TRAVEL BUSINESS, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER 'S ACTION IN ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT AFTER REJECTING THE ACCOUNTS IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF CLAIMS OF EXPENSES IS UPHELD. HE OBSERV ED THAT THE TRAVEL BUSINESS MAY NOT BE EQUATED WITH WORKS CONTRACT BUSINESS AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED RS.4, 87,696/ - AS DEPRECIATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DEDUCT THE DEPRECIATION FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS AND ESTIMATE THE NET INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM SUCH NET GROSS RECEIPTS @ 6 % OF THE SAME . 7. BEFORE US, THE ONLY SUBMISSION OF LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT ALL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN OBSERVING THAT BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND, THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURES CLAIMED ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. 5 ITA NO.110/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 2012 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF WORKS CONTRACT AND TRAVEL BUSINESS. TH E ASSESSEE MAINTAINS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH WERE AUDITED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT FROM CONTRACT WORKS AT 1.015% AND 2.62% FROM GROSS RECEIPTS FROM TRAVEL BUSINESS. HE OBSERVED THAT THE PROFIT SHOWN IN THESE LIN ES OF BUSINESS WAS LOW. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR THE EXPENDITURES CLAIMED BY HIM IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND, THEREFORE, HE REJECTED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME BY APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE AT 8% IN CASE OF WORKS CONTRACT AND ALSO NET PROFIT AT 8% FROM GROSS RECEIPTS FROM TRAVEL BUSINESS. 9. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENDITURES CLAIMED IN CONTRACT BUSINESS AND TRAVEL BUSINESS. EVEN AFTER THIS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM OR VERIFICATION AND, THEREFORE, HE WAS INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE OBS ERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. WE FIND THAT EVEN BEFORE US, LD A.R. EXCEPT MAKING SUBMISSION THAT WITH RESPECT TO CONTRACT BUSINESS AND TRAVEL BUSINESS THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR VERIFICATION. FURTHER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE RATE OF 8% TO ESTIMATE THE NET PROFIT 6 ITA NO.110/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 2012 FROM CONTRACT BUSINESS WAS BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE CUTTACK BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. NO CONTRARY DECISION TO THE SAME W AS CITED BY LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). 11. AS REGARDS THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME FROM TRAVEL BUSINESS, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ESTIMATION OF PROFI T @ 8% WAS HIGHER AND, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTIMATE THE SAME AT 6%. NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY LD A.R. BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT @ 6% WOULD DETERMINE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT A HIGHER FIGURE AN D THAT ESTIMATION AT A LOWER THAN 6% WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND GROUND NOS.1 & 2 ARE DISMISSED. 12. IN GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL, T HE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE INTEREST EARNED ON FI XED DEPOSITS WITH BANKS AT RS.2 1,61,961/ - AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN PLACE OF BUSINESS INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSE SSEE. 13. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED AN AMOUNT OF RS.21,61,961/ - AS INTEREST I NCOME DURING THE YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME IN PLACE OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILISERS LTD VS CIT, 227 ITR 172 (SC) HAS HELD THAT INTEREST RECEIVED BY 7 ITA NO.110/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 2012 THE ASSESSEE ON FIXED DEPOSIT SHOULD BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES . 14. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT INTEREST OF RS.21,61,961/ - SHOULD BE PART OF THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS IT WAS INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILISERS (SUPRA) CITED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FIXED DEPOSITS WERE MADE WITH THE BANKS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 15. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT NO EVIDENCE REGARDING THE USE OF FIXED DEPOSIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS WAS FILED BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE, HE FOUND THE REASONING AND EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONVINCING THAT THE INCOME FROM FIXED DEPOSITS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 16. BEFORE US, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CERTIFICATE FROM THE ALLAHABAD BANK DATED 17.7.2017 AND 20.7.2017 TO SHOW THAT THESE FIXED DEPOSITS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE T O GIVE AS SECURITY DEPOSITS TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS FROM WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION WORKS WERE ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, CLAIM ED THAT THE FIXED DEPOSITS WERE INEXTRICABLE LINKED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND INTEREST EARNED THEREFROM WAS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHOULD BE TAXED ACCORDINGLY. 17. LD D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND OBJECTED TO THESE EVIDENCES BEING FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL F OR THE FIRST TIME AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE 8 ITA NO.110/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 2012 CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO SUBMIT A T THIS STAGE AS THE SAME WAS NOT FILED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE CIT(A). 18. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN ITS ENTIRETY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN ORDER TO RENDER SUBSTAN TIAL JUSTICE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ALLAHABAD BANK FILED BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE FIXED DEPOSITS WHICH WER E PLACED WITH THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT FROM WHICH THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS WERE OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE.. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 19. IN GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN ASSESSING INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.80,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ACCIDENT OF ASSETS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE M/S. DAS CONSTRUCTIONS AND CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT SEPARATELY AND NOT CONSIDERING THE SAME AS PART OF BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 20. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN INCOME FROM INSURANCE CLAIM AMOUNTING TO RS.80,000/ - . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAME TO THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9 ITA NO.110/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 2012 21. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INSURANCE CLAIM OF RS.80,000/ - WAS CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT SEPARATELY. 22. THE CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SHOW WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR AND CONFI RMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 23. BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD A.R. THAT IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSETS OF THE CONTRACT BUSINE SS WERE DAMAGED AND SAME WAS REPAIRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EXPENSES WERE CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS.80,000/ - FROM INSURANCE COMPANY AS CLAIMED TOWARDS DAMAGES SUFFERED BY THE A SSESSEE WHICH WAS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT RS.80,000/ - RECEIVED AS INSURANCE CLAIM WAS INCLUDED IN THE PROFIT OF THE YEAR AND THEREFORE, SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS.80,000/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. 24. LD D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 25. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT RS.80,000/ - HAS BEEN SEPARATELY CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD CIT(A).. THUS, FURTHER A DEDUCTION OF RS.80,000/ - RECEIVED AS INSURANCE CLAIM CREDITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE 10 ITA NO.110/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 2012 THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.80,000/ - AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 26. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOU N CED ON 26 /10 /2017. SD/ - SD/ - ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ( N.S SAINI) JUDICIALMEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 26 /10 /2017 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : BRAJA KISHORE DAS, SAMBAL BHUMI COLONY, NH - 6, DHANKAUDA, SAMBALPUR 2. THE RESPONDENT. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAMBALPUR 3. THE CIT(A) - CUTTACK 4. PR.CIT - CUTTACK 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//