Tapan Kumar Saha , Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 23(2), Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 1156/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5906 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KUMAR CIT SRDR
• Keywords: Salary income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Question of law
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1156/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 TAPAN KUMAR SAHA C/O SRI S.L. KOCHAR, ADVOCATE, 5, ASHUTOSH CHOWDHURY AVENUE KOLKATA-700019 [ PAN NO.AIOPS 0091 F ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-23(2), 169, A.J. C. BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-14 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI ANIL KOCHAR, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SAURABH KUMAR, ADDL. CIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 03-07-2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25-07-2018 /O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 CALLS INTO QUESTION COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-16, KOLKATAS ORDER DATED 20.03.2018 PASSED IN CASE NO.148/CIT(A)-16/WD-52(1)/2014-15 UPHOLDING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IMPOSING PENALTY OF 2,09,032/- IN HIS ORDER DATED30.09.2014, INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. IT EMERGES AT THE OUTSET THAT SOLE ISSUE HEREIN OF CORRECTNESS OF THE IMPUGNED PENALTY CONTAINS FROM THE FACTUAL BACKDROP OF THE C ASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FRAMED REGULAR ASSE SSMENT IN QUESTION ON 27.03.2014 ITA NO.1156/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2011- 12 TAPAN KR. SAHA VS. ITO WD-23(2), KOL. PAGE 2 INTER ALIA ADDING UNDISCLOSED SALARY INCOME, UNDISC LOSED OTHER INTEREST INCOME OF 6,52,211/-, 50,000/- AND 9,546/-; RESPECTIVELY WHICH HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. HE THEREAFTER LEVIED TO IMPOSE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT QUA THE SAID THREE QUANTUM ISSUES. THE CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IN HIS LOWER APPELLATE FINDINGS. 3. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RI VAL SUBMISSIONS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF IMPUGNED PENALTY. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS PENALTY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 23.03.2014 NOWHERE SPECIFIES AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FUR NISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. WE NOTICE IN THIS FACTUAL BACKDROP THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS QUOTED CATENA OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE TO CONCLUD E THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IN ABSENCE OF SUCH VAGUE OF SHOW CAUSE IS NOT SUSTAINA BLE AS UNDER:- 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDER ED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD .DR. WE FIND THE SAME SET OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED BEFORE THE COORDI NATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JEETMAL CHORARIA IN ITA 956/KOL/16 F OR AY 2010-11, WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE FAC TS IN THE DECISIONS AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.DR AND PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE R ESPECTIVE HONBLE HIGH COURTS AT BOMBAY AND PATNA AND PREFERRED TO FOLLOW THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF MANJ UNATHA COTTON AND GINNING SUPRA BY TAKING SUPPORT OF THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPL E ENUNCIATED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD REPORTED IN 88 ITR 192 (SC). WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE REASONIN G OF THE IN ITS ORDER DT:01-12-2017 OF COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF JEETMAL CHORARIA AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED FOR READY REFERENCE: 7. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE CA LCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR.SYAMAL BARAN MONDAL VS. CIT (2011 ) 244 CTR 631 (CAL) HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT SEC.271 DOES NOT MANDAT E THAT THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION ABOUT CONCEALMENT OF INCO ME MUST BE IN SPECIFIC TERMS AND WORDS AND THAT SATISFACTION OF A O MUST REFLECT FROM THE ORDER EITHER WITH EXPRESSED WORDS RECORDED BY T HE AO OR BY HIS OVERT ACT AND ACTION. IN OUR VIEW THIS DECISION IS ON THE QUESTION OF RECORDING SATISFACTION AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF SP ECIFIC CHARGE IN THE MANDATORY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. TH EREFORE REFERENCE TO THIS DECISION, IN OUR VIEW IS NOT OF ANY HELP TO TH E PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. 8. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THREE DECISIONS OF MU MBAI ITAT VIZ., (I) DHANRAJ MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ITA NO.3830 & 3833 /MUM/2009 DATED 21.3.2017; (II) EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATION VS. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI, (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 51 (III) MAHESH M.GANDHI VS. ACIT VS. ACIT ITA NO.2976/MUM/2016 DAT ED 27.2.2017. ITA NO.1156/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2011- 12 TAPAN KR. SAHA VS. ITO WD-23(2), KOL. PAGE 3 RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON TWO DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT VIZ., (I) CIT VS. KAUSHALYA 216 ITR 660(BOM) AND (II) M/S.MAHARAJ GARAGE & CO. VS. CIT DATED 22.8.2017. THIS DECISION WAS REFERRED TO IN THE WRITTEN NOTE GIVEN BY THE LE ARNED DR. THIS IS AN UNREPORTED DECISION AND A COPY OF THE SAME WAS NOT FURNISHED. HOWEVER A GIST OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE DECISI ON HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE WRITTEN NOTE FILED BEFORE US. 9. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAUSHALYA (SUPRA), THE H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT SECTION 274 OR ANY OTHER PROVISION IN THE ACT OR THE RULES, DOES NOT EITHER MANDATE THE GIVING OF NOTICE OR ITS ISSUANCE IN A PARTICULAR FORM. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE QUASI-CRIM INAL IN NATURE. SECTION 274 CONTAINS THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE OF THE ASSESSEE BEING HEARD BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY. RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE CANNOT BE IMPRISONED IN ANY STRAIGHT-JACKET FORMULA . FOR SUSTAINING A COMPLAINT OF FAILURE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL J USTICE ON THE GROUND OF ABSENCE OF OPPORTUNITY, IT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED TH AT PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE CONCERNED PERSON BY THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED. THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICE FOR INFORMING TH E ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO LEVY PENALTY IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. MERE MISTAKE IN THE LANGUAGE US ED OR MERE NON- STRIKING OF THE INACCURATE PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF DHANRAJ MILLS PVT.LTD. (SUPRA) FOLLOWED THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONA L HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAUSHALYA (SUPRA) AND CHO SE NOT TO FOLLOW DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA). RELIANCE WAS ALS O PLACED BY THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THIS DECISION ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MITHILA MOTOR 'S (P.) LTD. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (PATNA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT THE ASSESSE E SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE. NO STATUTORY NOTICE HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED IN THIS BEHALF. HENCE, IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE ASSESSE E WAS AWARE OF THE CHARGES HE HAD TO MEET AND WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. A MISTAKE IN THE NOTICE WOULD NOT INVALIDATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 10. IN THE CASE OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE C ORPORATION (SUPRA), THE ITAT MUMBAI DID NOT FOLLOW THE DECISIO N RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) FOR THE REASON THAT PENALTY IN THAT CASE WAS DELETED FOR SO MANY R EASONS AND NOT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF DEFECT IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THIS IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. ONE OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE G ROUP OF ASSESSEES BEFORE THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJ UNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) WAS AN ASSESSEE BY NAME M/S.VEERABH ADRAPPA SANGAPPA & CO., IN ITA NO.5020 OF 2009 WHICH WAS A N APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THA T IT IS A STANDARD PROFORMA USED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. BEFORE IS SUING THE NOTICE THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS AND PARAGRAPHS WERE NEITHER STR UCK OFF NOR DELETED. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS NOT SURE AS TO WHETHER SHE HAD ITA NO.1156/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2011- 12 TAPAN KR. SAHA VS. ITO WD-23(2), KOL. PAGE 4 PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EITHER CONCEALED ITS INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE DETAILS. THE NOT ICE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PARTICULAR S ECTION AND THEREFORE IT IS A VAGUE NOTICE, WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PA TENT NON APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. FURTHE R, IT HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT BEING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. IN THE APPEAL, THE SAID FIN DING WAS SET-ASIDE. BUT ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED ON A NEW GROUND, THAT IS UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. SINCE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAD IN ITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BASED ON THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTI ON 69 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS STRUCK DOWN BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, T HE INITIATED PENAL PROCEEDINGS, NOLONGER EXISTS. IF THE APPELLATE AUTH ORITY HAD INITIATED PENAL PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITION SUST AINED UNDER A NEW GROUND IT HAS A LEGAL SANCTUM. THIS WAS NOT SO IN T HIS CASE AND THEREFORE, ON BOTH THE GROUNDS THE IMPUGNED ORDER P ASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING AUTHOR ITY WAS SET-ASIDE BY ITS ORDER DATED 9TH APRIL, 2009. AGGRIEVED BY THE S AID ORDER, THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT. THE HONBL E HIGH COURT FRAMED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW IN THE SAID AP PEAL VIZ., 1. WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IN THE PR INTED FORM WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON THE GROUND OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR ON ACCOUNT OF FU RNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS IS VALID AND LEGAL? 2. WHETH ER THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS LEGAL AND VALID? THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE AND AGAIN ST THE REVENUE ON BOTH THE QUESTIONS. THEREFORE THE DECISION RENDERE D BY THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATION (SUPRA) IS OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THE PLEA OF THE REVE NUE BEFORE US. 11. IN THE CASE OF M/S.MAHARAJ GARAGE & CO. VS. CI T DATED 22.8.2017 REFERRED TO IN THE WRITTEN NOTE GIVEN BY THE LEARNED DR, WHICH IS AN UNREPORTED DECISION AND A COPY OF THE SAME WAS NOT FURNISHED, THE SAME PROPOSITION AS WAS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.KAUSHALYA (SUP RA) APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN REITERATED, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE EXTRAC TS FURNISHED IN THE WRITTEN NOTE FURNISHED BY THE LEARNED DR BEFORE US. 12. IN THE CASE OF TRISHUL ENTERPRISES ITA NO.384 & 385/MUM/2014, THE MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.KAUSHALYA (SUP RA). 13. IN THE CASE OF MAHESH M.GANDHI (SUPRA) THE MUM BAI ITAT THE ITAT HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAK A HIGH COURT IN THE CASE MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) WILL NOT B E APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THAT CASE BECAUSE THE AO IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER WHILE INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS HELD THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND MERELY BECAUSE IN THE SHO W CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO MENTION WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS ARE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALING PAR TICULARS OF INCOME, THAT WILL NOT VITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IN T HE PRESENT CASE THERE IS ITA NO.1156/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2011- 12 TAPAN KR. SAHA VS. ITO WD-23(2), KOL. PAGE 5 NO WHISPHER IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ON THIS ASPE CT. WE HAVE POINTED OUT THIS ASPECT IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER. HENCE, THIS DECISION WILL NOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE PLEA OF THE RE VENUE BEFORE US. EVEN OTHERWISE THIS DECISION DOES NOT FOLLOW THE RATIO L AID DOWN BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNA THA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) IN AS MUCH AS THE RATIO LAID DOWN I N THE SAID CASE WAS ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE COURT DID NOT LAY DOWN A PROPOSITION THAT T HE DEFECT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WILL STAND CURED IF THE INTENTION OF THE CHARGE U/S.271(1) (C ) IS DISCERNIBLE FROM A READING OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH THE PENALTY WAS INITIATED. 14. FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION IT CAN BE SEEN T HAT THE LINE OF REASONING OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT IS THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS AN ADMINIS TRATIVE DEVICE FOR INFORMING THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO LEVY P ENALTY IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DO NE. MERE MISTAKE IN THE LANGUAGE USED OR MERE NON-STRIKING OF THE INACC URATE PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE TRIBUN AL BENCHES AT MUMBAI AND PATNA BEING SUBORDINATE TO THE HONBLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT AND PATNA HIGH COURT ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE AFORESAID VIEW. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHS AT BANGALORE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. AS FAR AS BENCHES OF TRIBUN AL IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE CONCERNED, THERE ARE TWO VIEWS ON THE ISSUE, ONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE RENDERED BY THE HONBLE KARN ATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) AND OTHER OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.KAUSHA LYA. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE AVAILABLE O N AN ISSUE, THE VIEW FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. WE THEREFORE PREFER TO FOLLOW THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA). 15. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE N OTICE ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY TH E CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALING PARTICU LARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SH OW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT STRIKE OUT THE INAPPROPRIAT E WORDS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSITION O F PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE WHICH IS BASED ON THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT IMPOSITION OF PENA LTY IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED T O BE CANCELLED. 7.WE FIND THAT THE NOTICE DT. 27-03-2014 ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S 271 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE OF OFFENCE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE VIZ WHETHER HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HENCE THE SAID NOTICE IS TO BE HELD AS DEFECTIVE. ITA NO.1156/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2011- 12 TAPAN KR. SAHA VS. ITO WD-23(2), KOL. PAGE 6 8. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAD PREFERRE D A SLP BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THIS JUDGMENT WHICH W AS DISMISSED IN CC NO. 11485/2016 DATED 5.8.2016 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- UPON HEARING THE COUNSEL, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOW ING ORDER DELAY CONDONED. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS PETITION. THE SPE CIAL LEAVE PETITION IS, ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. PENDING APPLICATION, IF ANY, STANDS DISPOSED OF. 4. WE ADOPT THE ABOVE EXTRACT REASONING MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. 5. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25/07/2018 SD/- SD/- ( &) (( &) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *DKP-SR.PS ) - 25/07/2018 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-TAPAN KR. SAHA, C/O SRI S.L. KOCHA,R ADV OCATE, 5, ASHUTOSH CH OWDHURY AVENUE, KOLKATA-19 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO WARD-23(2), 169, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-14 3. , - / CONCERNED CIT 4. - - / CIT (A) (E-MAIL) 5. . ((, , , /DR, ITAT, KOLKATA (E-MAIL) 6. 2 / GUARD FILE. BY ORD ER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO ,,