Gautam Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 25(4), Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 1356/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1854 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RABIN CHOUDHURY
• Assessee Lawyers: P R KOTHARI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift
• Section: 54

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 1356/KOL/2017 GAUTAM JHUNJHUNWALA, AY 2012-13 , B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA ( ) . . , . ' # $% % , '( ) [BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, A M] I.T.A. NO. 1356/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 GAUTAM JHUNJHUNWALA (PAN: ACVPJ5088N) VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-25(4), KOLKATA APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 04.09.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07.09.2018 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI P. R. KOTHARI, FCA FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI RABIN CHOUDHURY, ADDL. CIT. SR. DR ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-7, KOLKATA DATED 12.01.2017 FOR AY 2012-13. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE IS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) TO ITS LTCG OF RS.15,04,361/-. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO HAD SOLD A FLAT VIDE REGISTERED DEED OF CONVEYANCE DATED 26/27.12.2011. THE SALE DEED HAS BEEN EXECUTED IN PURSUANCE OF AN AGREEMENT TO SALE WHICH HAS BEEN EX ECUTED ON 16.09.2011 AND OUT OF THE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 30 LACS, RS. 1 LAC HAS BEEN RE CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ADVANCE/EARNEST MONEY WHEN THE AGREEMENT TO SALE HA S BEEN EXECUTED AND A NEW RESIDENTIAL FLAT HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 04.10.20 10. THE AO HAS TAKEN THE DATE OF 2 ITA NO. 1356/KOL/2017 GAUTAM JHUNJHUNWALA, AY 2012-13 REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY SOLD AS DATE OF TRANSF ER AND SINCE THE NEW PROPERTY HAS BEEN PURCHASED ON 04.10.2010, THEREFORE, THE AO HAS HELD THAT SINCE THE NEW PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN PURCHASED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF TRA NSFER OF THE OLD ASSET, THE AO DENIED THE ASSESSEE BENEFIT OF SEC. 54 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS CON FIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO, AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE NOTE THAT THE DATES OF TRANSACTION ST ATED THEREIN ARE NOT DISPUTED AND, THEREFORE, ARE NOT REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY . THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION OF HIS CAPITAL GAIN AS PER SEC 54(1) OF THE ACT HAS BE EN DENIED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PURCHASE THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF SALE OF THE OLD ASSET. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE OLD HOUSE HAS BEEN TRANSFERRE D BY THE ASSESSEE ON 27.12.2011 WHEREAS THEY HAD PURCHASED NEW FLAT ON 04.10.2010. THUS THE NEW ASSET WAS PURCHASED MORE THAN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF THE OLD RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAD BEEN EFFECTED. FOR THE SAID REASON THE AO DID NOT GRANT BENEFIT U/S. 54 OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A O. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE A CT WHICH DEFINES THE TERM TRANSACTION WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN AN INCLUSIVE DEFINITION AND AS PER THE SAID DEFINITION, WHENEVER THERE IS AN EXTINCTION OF ANY RIGHT IN RESPECT OF A CAPIT AL ASSET SUCH AN EXTINCTION WOULD MEAN TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT BY EXECUTING THE AGREEMENT TO SALE, A RIGHT HAS BEEN CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE BUYER OF TH E PROPERTY AND CERTAIN RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE OLD RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WHICH THE ASSESSEE ENJOYE D HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED AND, THEREFORE, THE AGREEMENT DATED 16.09.2011 OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN C ONSIDERED AS THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND NOT THE REGISTRATION DATE 27.12.2011 AS TAKEN BY TH E AO/LD. CIT(A). FOR THE SAID PROPOSITION, THE LD. AR CITED THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN SANJIV LAL IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5899-5900 OF 2014 (SC) WHICH IS PL ACED FROM PAGES 1 TO 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK (PB). 5. WE NOTE THAT IN ORDER TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF SE C. 54 OF THE ACT, ONE MUST PURCHASE A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE/NEW ASSET WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH 3 ITA NO. 1356/KOL/2017 GAUTAM JHUNJHUNWALA, AY 2012-13 TRANSFER OF THE OLD RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAD ARISEN. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE SALE DEED REGISTERED ON 27.12.2011. THE SALE DEED HAS B EEN EXECUTED IN PURSUANCE OF AN AGREEMENT TO SELL WHICH HAD BEEN EXECUTED ON 16.09. 2011 AND OUT OF THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 30 LACS, RS. 1 LAC HAS BEEN RE CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ADVANCE/EARNEST MONEY (CHEQUE DATED 16.09.2011 THOU GH ENCASHED ON 21.11.2011). SO WE NOTE THAT WHEN THE AGREEMENT TO SALE HAS BEEN EXECU TED A NEW RESIDENTIAL FLAT HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 04.10.2010 WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SELL THE OLD ASSET. AS PER SEC. 2(47) OF THE ACT WHICH D EFINES THE WORD TRANSFER IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET IT CAN BE SAID THAT IF A RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY IS EXTINGUISHED BY AN AGREEMENT TO SELL, THE CAPITAL ASSET CAN BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED. RELEVANT PORTION OF SEC. 2(47) OF THE ACT DEFINED THE WORD TRANSFER IS AS UNDER: 2(47) TRANSFER, IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET I NCLUDES (I). (II) THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEREIN, OR .. 6. SO, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DEFINITION OF TRANSFER AS DEFINED U/S. 2(47) OF THE ACT IT IS CLEAR THAT WHEN ANY RIGHT IN RESPECT OF ANY CAPITAL ASSETS IS EXTINGUISHED AND THAT RIGHT IS TRANSFERRED TO SOMEONE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DEFINITION AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE EXECUTED AN AGREEMENT TO SELL FOR RS. 30 LACS CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF ITS CAPITAL ASSET ON 16.09.2011 FOR TRANSFERRING THE OL D RESIDENTIAL HOUSE/ORIGINAL ASSET IN QUESTION AND A SUM OF RS. 1 LAC IN CHEQUE WAS RECEI VED AS ADVANCE CONSIDERATION THOUGH ENCASHED ONLY ON 21.11.2011, WE NOTE THAT THE SAID CHEQUE HAS NOT BOUNCED/DISHONOURED. SO, AS PER THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT DECISION IN SANJEEV LAL, SUPRA, WE NOTE THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID FACTS A ND IN VIEW OF THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM TRANSFER IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT SOME RIGHT IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL ASSET (OLD ASSET) IN QUESTION HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED IN FAVOUR OF THE VEN DEE AND, THEREFORE, SOME RIGHT WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUE STION HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED BECAUSE AFTER EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL, IT WOULD NOT OP EN TO THE ASSESSEE TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO 4 ITA NO. 1356/KOL/2017 GAUTAM JHUNJHUNWALA, AY 2012-13 SOMEONE ELSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. AS OBSERVED B Y THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT A RIGHT IN PERSONAM HAD BEEN CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VEND EE IN WHOSE FAVOUR THE AGREEMENT TO SALE HAD BEEN EXECUTED AND WHO HAD ALSO PAID RS. 1 LAC BY WAY OF ADVANCE/EARNEST MONEY. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO/LD. CIT(A) THAT THE VE NDEE AS PER AGREEMENT TO SALE IS NOT THE VENDEE WHEN THE REGISTRATION OF CONVEYANCE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 26.12.2011 AND, THEREFORE, AS PER THE RATIO LAID BY THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT IN SANJEEV LAL (SUPRA), WE FIND FORCE IN THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO CL AIM EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT AND WE HOLD THAT ONCE AN AGREEMENT TO SALE IS EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF VENDEE, THE SAID VENDEE GETS A RIGHT TO GET THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED IN HIS FAVOUR BY FILING A SUIT UNDER SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACT AND, THEREFORE, SOME RIGHT IN RESPE CT OF THE SAID PROPERTY (OLD RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE HAD EXTINGUISHE D AND SOME RIGHTS HAVE BEEN CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE/TRANSFEREE WHEN THE AGREEMENT TO SALE HAS BEEN EXECUTED. THUS, A RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL ASSET (OLD RESIDENT IAL PROPERTY IN QUESTION) HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE /TRANSFEREE ON 16.09.2011 AND, THEREFORE, SINCE PURCHASE OF THE NEW PROPERTY ON 04.10.2010 WH ICH FACT HAS BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO/LD. CIT(A) THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY IS WELL WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER AS PER SEC. 2(47) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, W E ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UNDERSTANDIN G THE RATIO DECIDENDI LAID BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN SANJEEV LAL, SUPRA AND, TH EREFORE, HE ERRED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, SO WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) AND WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT AO TO GRANT EXEMPTION U/S. 54 O F THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW. 7. BEFORE WE PART FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, WE NOTE THAT THE AGREEMENT TO SELL IS AN UNREGISTERED DOCUMENTS AND A QUESTION MAY ARISE AS TO WHETHER THE SAID UNREGISTERED DOCUMENT IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE IN A SUIT FOR SP ECIFIC PERFORMANCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISION OF SEC. 17(1)(A) OF THE REGISTRATION ACT, 1908. WE NOTE THAT AN UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT TO SELL CANNOT BE LOOKED INTO FOR SEEKING BENEFIT OF PART PERFORMANCE U/S. 53A OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 IN VIEW OF AMENDMENT OF SEC. 53A BY ACT 48 OF 2001 WITH EFFECT FROM 24.09.2001, HOWEVER, AN UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT TO SELL CAN ALWA YS BE A BASIS FOR A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IN VIEW OF SEC. 49 OF REGISTRATION ACT . THE HONBLE 5 ITA NO. 1356/KOL/2017 GAUTAM JHUNJHUNWALA, AY 2012-13 SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S. KADEVI VS. V. R. SO MASUNDARAM 2013 (4) MPHT HAS HELD IN PARA 11, 12 AND 16 OF THE SAID DECISION IN PARTI CULAR, WHICH READS THUS '11. THE MAIN PROVISION IN SECTION 49 PROVIDES THAT ANY DOCUMENT WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED, IF NOT REGISTERED, SHALL NOT AFFECT ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY COMPRISED THEREIN NOR SUCH DOCUMENT SHALL BE RECEIVED AS EVIDENCE OF ANY TRANSACTION AFFECTING SUCH PROPERTY. PROVISO, HOWEVER, WOULD SHOW THAT AN UNREGISTERED D OCUMENT AFFECTING IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND REQUIRED BY 1908 ACT OR THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT , 1882 TO BE REGISTERED MAY BE RECEIVED AS AN EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRACT IN A SUIT F OR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR AS EVIDENCE OF ANY COLLATERAL TRANSACTION NOT REQUIRED TO BE EFFEC TED BY REGISTERED INSTRUMENT. BY VIRTUE OF PROVISO, THEREFORE, AN UNREGISTERED SALE DEED OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF THE VALUE OF RS. 100/- AND MORE COULD BE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AS EVI DENCE OF A CONTRACT IN A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT. SUCH AN UNREGISTERED S ALE DEED CAN ALSO BE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AS AN EVIDENCE OF ANY COLLATERAL TRANSACTI ON NOT REQUIRED TO BE EFFECTED BY REGISTERED DOCUMENT. WHEN AN UNREGISTERED SALE DEED IS TENDERED IN EVIDENCE, NOT AS EVIDENCE OF A COMPLETED SALE, BUT AS PROOF OF AN OR AL AGREEMENT OF SALE, THE DEED CAN BE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE MAKING AN ENDORSEMENT THAT IT IS RECEIVED ONLY AS EVIDENCE OF AN ORAL AGREEMENT OF SALE UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 49 OF 1908 ACT. 12. RECENTLY IN THE CASE OF K.B. SAHA AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED V. DEVELOPMENT C ONSULTANT LIMITED1 , (2008) 8 SCC 564 THIS COURT NOTICED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF MULLA IN HIS INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT, 7TH EDITION, AT PAGE 189:- '......THE HIGH COURTS OF CALCUTTA, BOMBAY, ALLAHAB AD, MADRAS, PATNA, LAHORE, ASSAM, NAGPUR, PEPSU, RAJASTHAN, ORISSA, RANGOON AND JAMMU & KASHMIR; THE FORMER CHIEF COURT OF OUDH; THE JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER'S COURT AT PESHA WAR, AJMER AND HIMACHAL PRADESH AND THE SUPREME COURT HAVE HELD THAT A DOCUMENT WHICH R EQUIRES REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 17 AND WHICH IS NOT ADMISSIBLE FOR WANT OF REGISTRATI ON TO PROVE A GIFT OR MORTGAGE OR SALE OR LEASE IS NEVERTHELESS ADMISSIBLE TO PROVE THE CHARA CTER OF THE POSSESSION OF THE PERSON WHO HOLDS UNDER IT......' THIS COURT THEN CULLED OUT THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES :- '1. A DOCUMENT REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED, IF UNREGI STERED IS NOT ADMISSIBLE INTO EVIDENCE UNDER SECTION 49 OF THE REGISTRATION ACT. 2. SUCH UNREGISTERED DOCUMENT CAN HOWEVER BE USED A S AN EVIDENCE OF COLLATERAL PURPOSE AS PROVIDED IN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 49 OF THE REGISTRATION ACT. 3. A COLLATERAL TRANSACTION MUST BE INDEPENDENT OF, OR DIVISIBLE FROM, THE TRANSACTION TO EFFECT WHICH THE LAW REQUIRED REGISTRATION. 4. A COLLATERAL TRANSACTION MUST BE A TRANSACTION N OT ITSELF REQUIRED TO BE EFFECTED BY A REGISTERED DOCUMENT, THAT IS, A TRANSACTION CREATIN G, ETC. ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF THE VALUE OF ONE HUNDRED RUPE ES AND UPWARDS. 5. IF A DOCUMENT IS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE FOR WA NT OF REGISTRATION, NONE OF ITS TERMS CAN BE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AND THAT TO USE A DOCUMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVING AN IMPORTANT CLAUSE WOULD NOT BE USING IT AS A COLLATERAL PURPOS E.' 6 ITA NO. 1356/KOL/2017 GAUTAM JHUNJHUNWALA, AY 2012-13 TO THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLES, ONE MORE PRINCIPLE MAY BE ADDED, NAMELY, THAT A DOCUMENT REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED, IF UNREGISTERED, CAN BE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AS EVIDENCE OF A CONTRACT IN A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. ............... 16. THE ARGUMENT OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPOND ENTS WITH REGARD TO SECTION 3(B) OF 1963 ACT IS NOTED TO BE REJECTED. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE SAID PROVISION HELPS THE RESPONDENTS AS THE SAID PROVISION PROVIDES THAT NOT HING IN 1963 ACT SHALL BE DEEMED TO AFFECT THE OPERATION OF 1908 ACT, ON DOCUMENTS. BY ADMISSI ON OF AN UNREGISTERED SALE DEED IN EVIDENCE IN A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AS EVID ENCE OF CONTRACT, NONE OF THE PROVISIONS OF 1908 ACT IS AFFECTED; RATHER COURT ACTS IN CONSONAN CE WITH PROVISO APPENDED TO SECTION 49 OF 1908 ACT. 8. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS OPINED THAT WHEN AN UNREGISTERED DOCUMENT IS TENDERED IN EVIDENCE, NOT AS EVIDENCE OF A COMPLETE D SALE, BUT AS PROOF OF AN AGREEMENT OF SALE, THE DEED CAN BE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE MAKING A N ENDORSEMENT THAT IT IS RECEIVED ONLY AS EVIDENCE OF AN ORAL AGREEMENT OF SALE UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 49 OF THE ACT OF 1908. THE HONBLE APEX COURT WENT ON TO OBSERVE THA T ADMISSION OF AN UNREGISTERED SALE DEED BY THE COURT IN SUCH CASES WOULD BE IN CONSONA NCE WITH THE PROVISO APPENDED TO SECTION 49 OF THE ACT OF 1908. 9. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT THOUGH THE AGREEMENT TO SELL IS NOT REGISTERED, THE VENDEE CAN SEEK DECREE OF SP ECIFIC PERFORMANCE ON THE BASIS OF UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT TO SELL IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW AS LAID BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN DEVINDER SINGH VS. HARI SINGH (DECISION ON 26.04.2017) AND HONBLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN AKSHAY DOOGAD VS. DR. LAXMANRAO DHOLE (DEC ISION ON 18.08.2015). SO AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 5 & 6 SUPRA, IN THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT GRANT OF EXEMPTIO N U/S. 54 OF THE ACT. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7TH SEPT EMBER, 2018 SD/- SD/- (DR. A. L. SAINI) (ABY. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 JD.(SR.P.S.) 7 ITA NO. 1356/KOL/2017 GAUTAM JHUNJHUNWALA, AY 2012-13 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT SHRI GAUTAM JHUNJHUNWALA, FLAT NO. 2 3L, TOWER-3, SOUTH CITY, 375, PRINCE ANWAR SHAH ROAD, KOLKATA-700 068. 2 RESPONDENT ITO, WARD-25(4), KOLKATA 3. 4. CIT(A)-7, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) CIT , DURGAPUR. 5. DR, ITAT, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SR. PVT. SECRETARY