ITO, WD-39(2), MIDNAPORE, Midnapore V. G. S. Sharma & Ors., Paschim Medinipur

ITA 1233/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1595 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Rejection of books of accounts; Invalid notice; Competent authority; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELL ATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA (BENCH D) BEFORE SHRI ABY. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1233/KOL/20 15 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH , AM THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF C IT(A)-11, KOLKATA VIDE APPEAL NO.544/CIT(A)-11/WARD-39(2)/MID/14-15/KOL DA TED 24.07.2015 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY I.T.O, WD -39 (2), MIDNAPORE UNDER SECTION 147/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28.03. 2013. I.T.O WD-39(2), MIDNAPORE [PAN : AAGFG5967J] -VS- G. S. SHARMA & ORS. (APPELLANT/REVENUE) (RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE) FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI A. K. SINHA, ADDL. CIT FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 09.06.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07.07.2017 2 I.T.A. NO.1233KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 G.S. SHARMA & ORS. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS A S TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE BRIEF FACT OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF MINING AND TRANSPORTATION. 4. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2008-09 WAS FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.09.2008 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.9264/-. TH E ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE LD. A.O U/S 144 OF THE ACT ON 30.12.2010 AFT ER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT AND INCOME ESTIMATED AT RS.4,24,382/- BY APPLYING 8% OF TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. HEREAFTER, THE LD . A.O ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 07.03.2012 WHICH WAS WITHIN FOUR YEARS F ROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE SAID NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED AFTER SEEKING PRIOR APPROVAL OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-XIX, KOLKAT A. THE REASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 147/143(3) OF THE ACT ON 28.03.2013 D ETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.37,60,630/- FOR THE A.Y 2008-09. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE REASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE LD. A.O SUFFERS FROM THE BASIC INFIRMITY IN AS MUCH AS THE SAID REOPENING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE AC T WAS ISSUED AFTER OBTAINING THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF LD. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER I NSTEAD OF LD. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN TERMS OF SECTION 151( 2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) VERIFIED THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE LD. A.O HAD REOPENE D THE SAME AFTER OBTAINING THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE LD. CIT INSTEAD OF JCIT. THE LD. CIT(A) ANNULLED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY MAKING THE FOLLOWING OB SERVATIONS: 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE RE CORDS. THE SHORT ISSUE 3 I.T.A. NO.1233KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 G.S. SHARMA & ORS. FOR MY CONSIDERATION IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF A PPEAL IS THAT WHETHER THE APPROVAL U/S.151(1) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN OBTAINED FR OM THE PROPER AUTHORITY OR NOT. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS PERTINENT TO REFE R TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151 OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER: 'SECTION 151. SANCTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE: (1) IN A CASE WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR SECTION 147 HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSME NT YEAR, NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER , WHO IS BELOW THE RANK OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, U NLESS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED B Y SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE; PROVIDED THAT, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNL ESS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED, ON THE R EASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFORESAID, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. (2) IN A CASE OTHER THAN A CASE FALLING UNDER SUB-S ECTION (1), NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER , WHO IS BELOW THE RANK OF JOINT COMMISSIONER, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEA RS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS THE JOINT COMMISSI ONER IS SATISFIED, ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE.' 6.1 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT S. 151 OF TH E ACT PROVIDES THE PROCEDURE WHICH IS TO BE FOLLOWED BEFORE ISSUE OF N OTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 151 OF THE A CT WOULD BE APPLICABLE WHERE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER S ECTION 143(3) AND SUB-SECTION (2) WOULD BE APPLICABLE WHERE THE ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(1). IN THE INSTANT CASE , IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SE CTION 144 READ WITH S. 143(3) WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FOLLOWING OBSERVAT ION OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S. 147/143(3) OF THE ACT THAT FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT THAT . THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR S CRUTINY U/S-143(3). ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 30-12-2010 U/S-L44/143( 3) AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS......' 4 I.T.A. NO.1233KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 G.S. SHARMA & ORS. 6.2 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AO AT TH E TIME OF RECORDING REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT HAS CATEGORICAL LY STATED THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 144/143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2008-09. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ORIGINAL ASS ESSMENT RECORDS WERE CALLED FOR AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSES SMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144. IN THE FACE OF THESE ADMITTED FA CTS, I ACCEPT THE ARGUMENTS THAT REGULAR ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UND ER SECTION 144 AND, THEREFORE, SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 151 WOULD BE APPLICABLE. 6.3 UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE ACT, THE AUTHORITIES A RE IDENTIFIED WHO CAN ISSUE NOTICE FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECT ION 148 OF THE ACT AFTER FORMING A BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. AS PER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 151, WHERE AN ASSESS MENT IS FRAMED UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR 147, NO NOTICE SH ALL BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER WHO IS BELOW TH E RANK OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX UN LESS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IS SATISFIED ON THE REAS ONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUE O F SUCH NOTICE. IN CASE AN ASSESSMENT REQUIRES REOPENING AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN APPROVAL/SANCTION FROM THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CO MMISSIONER BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. IN THE INSTAN T CASE, UNDISPUTEDLY ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTIONS 144. IT IS ALS O AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED WAS WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, I.E., 2008-09, AS NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED ON 07-03-2012. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPU TED FACT THAT SANCTION/APPROVAL WAS ACCORDED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND NOT BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER AS MENTIONED IN THE REASONS RECORDED B Y THE AO. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE AO WAS BELOW THE RANK OF AS SISTANT COMMISSIONER OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, AS REQUIRED IN SEC. 151(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, HE HAD TO TAKE THE PERMISSION FROM JOINT COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX BUT THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED AFTER TAKING PERMISSION FROM COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XIX, KOLKATA. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COU RT HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SPL'S SIDDHARTHA LTD. [2012]345 ITR 223, WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER:-- 'HELD, THAT UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE ACT, IT WAS ON LY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OR ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, WHO COULD GRANT THE APPROVAL FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. THE APPROVAL WAS NOT 5 I.T.A. NO.1233KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 G.S. SHARMA & ORS. GRANTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER. INSTEAD, IT WAS TAKEN FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THIS WAS NOT AN IRREGUL ARITY CURABLE UNDER SECTION 292B. THE NOTICE WAS NOT VALID.' FURTHER, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM K. KHABRANI VS. ACIT [2012] 346 ITR 443, WHEREIN IT WA S HELD AS UNDER:- 'THERE IS MERIT IN THE CONTENTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 151(2) COULD HAVE ONLY BEEN FULFILLED BY THE SATISFACTION OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. SECTION 151 (2) MANDATES THAT THE SATISFACTION HAS TO BE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER. T HAT EXPRESSION HAS A DISTINCT MEANING BY VIRTUE OF THE DEFINITION IN SEC TION 2(28C). THE COMMISSIONER IS NOT A JOINT COMMISSIONER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(28C). IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISS IONER FORWARDED THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE COMMISSIONER. THE APPROVAL WHICH HAS BEEN GRANTED IS NOT BY THE ADDIT IONAL COMMISSIONER BUT BY THE COMMISSIONER. THERE IS NO STATUTORY PROV ISION UNDER WHICH POWER TO BE EXERCISED BY AN OFFICER CAN BE EXERCISE D BY A SUPERIOR OFFICER. WHEN THE STATUTE MANDATES THE SATISFACTION OF A PAR TICULAR FUNCTIONARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF A POWER, THE SATISFACTION MUST BE O F THAT AUTHORITY. WHERE A STATUTE REQUIRES SOMETHING TO BE DONE IN A PARTIC ULAR MANNER, IT HAS TO BE DONE IN THAT MANNER.' 6.4 THE RATIOS OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE AND, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AFTER TAKING APPRO VAL FROM COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XIX, KOLKATA INSTEAD OF JOINT COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, MIDNAPORE IS NOT AND THEREFORE, THE AO DID NOT ASSUME PROPER JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. T HUS, NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT IS INVALID AND, THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT FR AMED CONSEQUENT THERETO IS VOID AB INITIO. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED CONSEQUENT TO ILLEGAL/INVALID NOTICE IS HEREBY ANNULLED. 7. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ITSELF HAS BEEN QUASHED, TH E OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH ARE AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT DO NOT SURVIVE ADJUDICATION. 5. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 6 I.T.A. NO.1233KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 G.S. SHARMA & ORS. 1. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY HOLDING THAT THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IS VOID AB-INITIO WITHOUT APPRECIATING T HE FACT THAT THE PROCEEDING U/S. 147 WAS INITIATED AFTER ISSUING LEG AL NOTICE U/S. 148 ON THE BASIS OF REASONS RECORDED U/S. 148(2) AND AFTER HAV ING TAKEN APPROVAL FROM LD. CIT. 2. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN OBSERVING THAT RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 BECOME WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND RE-ASSESSMENT FRAMED IS TO BE ANNU LLED WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS J OINED THE PROCEEDINGS CONSEQUENT TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, HE HA S NO RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT IN THE LIG HT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS WHICH NEEDS TO BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BE RE STORED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 6. THE LD. D.R RELIED ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COOPERATED IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS AND HENCE, CANNOT QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT THEREAFTE R. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD. A.R RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE DELHI AN D BOMBAY HIGH COURT SUPRA RELIED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE O N THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF THE LUCKNOW TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SAR DAR BALBIR SINGH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER REPORTED IN [2015] 39 ITR (TRIB.), 574 (LUCKNOW TRIB.) DATED 13.03.2015. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOT I N DISPUTE THAT THE SECTION 148 NOTICE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS BEEN ISSUED AFTER GE TTING APPROVAL OF THE LD. CIT INSTEAD OF LD. JCIT. THE LD. CIT(A) BY PLACING RELI ANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT SUPRA HAD QUASHED THE REAS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE 7 I.T.A. NO.1233KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 G.S. SHARMA & ORS. SAME ARE NOT REITERATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. WE FIND THAT THE DECISION RELIED BY THE LD. A.R ON THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF LUCKNOW TRI BUNAL CLEARLY SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 16. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDGMENTS OF THE HON'BL E DELHI AND BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO V. TIRUPATI CYLINDERS LTD., NEW DELHI (SUPRA) H AS ALSO HELD THAT UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE ACT, IT WAS ONLY THE JOINT COMMI SSIONER OR ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER WHO COULD GRANT THE APPROVAL FOR ISSUA NCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND IF THE APPROVAL IS NOT G RANTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OR ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND INSTEAD IT WAS GRANTED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THEN THE SA ME WAS NOT AN IRREGULARITY CURABLE UNDER SECTION 292F OF THE ACT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WOULD BE INVALID AND VOID AB INITIO. THE TRIBUNAL ACCORDINGLY QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT AFTER HOLDING THAT REOPENING WAS NOT DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 17. AGAIN THE SAME VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAHUL CONSTRUCTIONS V. DEPUTY CIT (SUPRA). 18. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE JUDGMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SANCTION ACCORDED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT PROPER, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NO T ASSUME PROPER JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF T HE ACT. THUS, NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IS INVALID AND, THEREF ORE, ASSESSMENT FRAMED CONSEQUENT THERETO IS INVALID AND VOID AB INITIO. W E ACCORDINGLY QUASH THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED CONSEQUENT TO ILLEGAL/INVALID NOT ICE.' IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID LEGAL POSITION, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, SINCE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED WITHOUT OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NO TICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IS INVALID AND, THEREFORE, T HE ASSESSMENT FRAMED CONSEQUENT THERETO IS NOT A VALID ASSESSMENT AND VO ID AB INITIO. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT. 8 I.T.A. NO.1233KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 G.S. SHARMA & ORS. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN QUASHING THE REASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GRO UNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 07.07.2017. SD/- SD/- [ABY. T. VARKEY] [M. BALAGANESH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 07.07.2017 {RS SPS} COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT I.T.O., WD-39(2), MIDNAPORE. 2. RESPONDENT- G. S. SHARMA & OTHERS, MADHU BHAVAN, SO UTH INDA, KHARAGPUR, DIST. PASCHIM MIDNAPORE, W.B. 721301. 3. CIT(A)- KOLKATA 4. CIT , KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE, DDO, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA