Shri Nirmal Kumar Bose, Siliguri V. ITO, Ward - 3(1), Siliguri, Siliguri

ITA 1463/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3196 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SONOWAL JCIT LD
• Assessee Lawyers: S K TULSIYAN LD
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 1462 & 1463/KOL/10-B-MVS 1 , B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B BENCH: KO LKATA BEFORE SRI N.S. SAINI, AM & SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM () . . , ! ! ! ! ' #!' , !$ / I.T.A NOS. 1462 & 1463/KOL/2010 #% &'/ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 200 3-04 & 2004-05 SRI NIRMAL KUMAR BOSE VS. I.T.O WARD 3(1) , SILIGURI PAN: ADDPB 4108Q (+, /APPELLANT ) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT ) +, / FOR THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: / / SHRI S. K TULSIYAN, ADVOCATE, LD. AR: -.+, / FOR THE RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT: / / SHRI D.K. SONOWAL, JCIT, LD. SR.DR 0 1 2 3 /DATE OF HEARING: 12-06-2013 4& 2 3 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21-6-2013 5 /ORDER ' #!' , SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF ORDERS OF CIT(A), SILIGURI IN APPEAL NOS.127/CIT(A)/SLG/07-08 AND 28 5/CIT(A)/SLG/06-07 VIDE DATED 29/01/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 3-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY. ASSESSMENTS IN THESE TWO CASES WERE FRAMED BY ITO, WARD 3(1), SI LIGURI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2004-05 U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDERS DATED 31.12.2007 AND 29.12.2006. FIRST WE TAKE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL NO. 1462/KOL/20 10 A.Y 2003-04. 2. 1 ST & 2 ND INTER-CONNECTED ISSUE IN THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL, ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF, ADVANCES RECEIVED AGAINST THE SALE OF FLATS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,80,000/- AS UN-EXPLAINED CASH C REDIT AND THEREBY ALSO CONFIRMING ITA NOS. 1462 & 1463/KOL/10-B-MVS 2 CASH RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,00,000/- FROM THREE UNIDENTI FIED PERSONS, RS. 70,000/- AND RS. 10,000/- FROM SRI SARADINDU SARKAR AND SRI SUJOY GH ATAK AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. FOR THIS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROU NDS:- 1. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE ADVANCE RECEIVED AGAINST THE SALE OF FLATS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,80,000/- ASSESSMENT UNE XPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE CASH RECEIPTS OF RS.70,000/- AND RS.10,000/- FROM SRI SARADINDU SARKAR AND SRI SUJOY GHATAK RESPECTIVELY AS UNEXPLAINED IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNTS GIVE N BY THEM WERE CONFIRMED BY THEM AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE AND THE AO HAD AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ACCEPTED THE ADVANCE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS TREATED THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,80,000/- F OR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- TO SUM UP, INSTEAD OF SEVERAL EFFORTS MADE, THE LD .AR COULD NOT EXPLAIN WITH EVIDENCE THE CASH RECEIPT OF RS. 1,00,000/- FROM TH REE UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS AND RS. 70,000/- FROM SRI SARADINDU SARKAR AND RS. 10,000/- FROM SRI SUJOY GHATAK. THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,80,000/- IS HELD TO BE EXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. ADDITION TO THE EXTENT IS CO NFIRMED. 4. FROM THE ABOVE AND ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT EVEN NOW BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE CASH RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,00,000/-, RS. 70,000/- AND RS. 10,000/- FROM THE ABOVE NAMED PERSONS AS MENTI ONED IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). IT MEANS THAT EFFECTIVELY THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.80 LAK H WAS SUSTAINED BY CIT(A). EVEN BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE THE DIF FERENCE AND COULD NOT FILE THE DETAILS. HENCE, WE HAVE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO CONFI RM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ADDITION RESTRICTED BY CIT(A) IS ONL Y RS. 1.80 LAKH AND NOT AGAIN THE ADDITION OF RS.1.80 LAKH AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS GROUND OF APPEAL. THESE ISSUES OF ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE DECIDED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 5. THIRD ISSUE IN THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,85,500/- MADE BY THE AO IN TRE ATING THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM SMT. REKHA GUHA AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND:- ITA NOS. 1462 & 1463/KOL/10-B-MVS 3 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN TREATING THE ADVANCE OF RS. 1,85,500/- RECEIVED FROM SMT. REKHA GUHA AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SAME WAS RECEIVED THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNELS AND IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE REPAYMENT DETAILS OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND FROM THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.13,43,340/- FROM 5 PERSONS AS ADVANCE AGAINST SALE OF FLATS. 5 PERSONS ARE S/SRI ABIR KR. CHAKRABORTY, SUJAY GHAT AK, SARADINDU SARKAR, MR. J.SUBBIAH AND MRS. REKHA GUHA. THE AO REQUIRED THE INFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT, BUT NO RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED. HENCE, THE AO TREATED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SMT. REK HA GUHA AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS. 1,85,500/-. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 7. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) HAS FIL ED DETAILS OF CHEQUES AS UNDER:- 19.09.2002 CHEQUE NO.043619 RS.10,000/- 10.09.2000 CHEQUENO.043620 RS.40,000/- + RS.1,35, 500 FROM THE ABOVE AND THE STATEMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE BANK CERTIFICATE AND CERTIFICATE OF BANK PASS BOOK WERE PRODUCE BEFORE CIT(A) FROM WHERE IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN AND PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THIS IS ESTABLISHED THAT THESE AMOUNTS ARE PAID OUT OF BANK ACCOUNT AND PAID BY CHEQUE, THESE ARE FULLY EXPLAINED BECAUSE THE REVENUE HAS N OT BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THESE ARE UNEXPLAINED FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS D EPOSITED HIS OWN MONEY FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SMT. REKHA GUHA. HENCE, WE DELETE THIS ADDITION. ITA NO.1463/KOL/2010 A.Y 2004-05 (BY THE ASSESSEE ) 8. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF GIFT RECEIVED OF RS. 3, 00,000/- FROM 6 PERSONS. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE GIFT OF RS. 3,0 0,000/- RECEIVED FROM 6 PERSONS ASSESSMENT UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF TH E ITA NOS. 1462 & 1463/KOL/10-B-MVS 4 APPELLANT WITHOUT GIVING ANY COGNIZANCE TO THE GIF T CONFIRMATIONS AND THE INCOME TAX RECORDS OF THE DO NEES FILED AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS DISCLOSED GIFTS RECEIVED OF RS. 3,00,000/- FROM 6 PERSONS @ RS.49,500/- FROM 5 PERSONS AND @ RS.52,500/- FROM 1 PERSON. THE CIT(A) HAS NARRATED THE DETAILS OF GIF T RECEIPT OF RS.3,00,000/-, INCOME, DRAWINGS, OPENING CAPITAL, NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF T HE DONORS AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- S. NO. NAME OF DONOR & PAN INCOME DISCLOSED DRAWING OPENING CAPITAL ADDRESS GIFT AMOUNT 1. PINTU DEY RS.51,600 RS.15,000 RS.1,08,500/ - BIDHAN NAGAR RS.49,500/- 2. SAILESH SHARMA RS.53,000 RS.26,500 RS. 90,100/- 11 PARK LOCATION, KURSEONG RS.49,500/- 3. PRADIP BANIK RS.63,500 RS.21,500 RS.2,11,634/ - UPPER BAGDOGRA RS.49,500/- 4. PARESH DAS RS.70,500 RS.24,500 RS.1,60,811/ - BIHARMORE, BAGDOGRA RS.49,500/- 5. TAPAN KANTI DEY RS.64,900/ RS.25,500/ RS.3,35,612/ - UPPER BAGDOGRA RS.49,500/- 6. MAHAMAY A KUNDU RS.81,375 RS.15,000 RS.2,48412/- STATIONMORE, BAGDOGRA RS.52,500/- WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE CAPACITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN HIS APPELLATE O RDER RATHER JUST APPLYING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT REPORTED IN 214 ITR 801 (SC) CONFIRMED THE AD DITION. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) HAS FILED COMPLETE DETA ILS I.E. IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, APART FROM FILING OF DETAILS OF INCOME-TAX DOCUMENTS OF THE DONORS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. DATAWARE PRIVATE LIMITED, ITAT NO.263 OF 2011, GA NO.2856 OF 2011 DATED 21.09.2011, WHEREIN HONBLE H IGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: IN OUR OPINION, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE THE BURDEN OF ASSESSING THE PROFIT AND LOSS AC COUNT OF THE CREDITOR WHEN ADMITTEDLY THE CREDITOR HIMSELF IS AN INCOME TAX AS SESSEE. AFTER GETTING THE PAN NUMBER AND GETTING THE INFORMATION THAT THE CREDITO R IS ASSESSED UNDER THE ACT, THE ITA NOS. 1462 & 1463/KOL/10-B-MVS 5 ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD ENQUIRE FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE CREDITOR AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND WHETHER SUCH TRA NSACTION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE CREDITOR BUT INSTEAD O F ADOPTING SUCH COURSE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF COULD NOT ENTER INTO THE RETURN OF THE CREDITOR AND BRAND THE SAME AS UNWORTHY OF CREDENCE. SO LONG IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE RETURN SUBMI TTED BY THE CREDITOR HAS BEEN REJECTED BY ITS ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OF FICER OF THE ASSESSEE IS BOUND TO ACCEPT THE SAME AS GENUINE WHEN THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR AND THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE HAS BEEN E STABLISHED. WE FIND THAT BOTH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEAL) AND THE TRIBUNAL BELOW FOLLOWED THE WELL-ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE WHICH ARE REQU IRED TO BE FOLLOWED IN CONSIDERING THE EFFECT OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND WE THUS FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT RECO RDED BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES. THE APPEAL IS THUS DEVOID OF ANY SUBSTANCE AND IS S UMMARILY DISMISSED. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE GIFTS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE IN ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE RETURN O F INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND WE DELETE THE SAME. 11. THE 2 ND ISSUE IN THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF LOAN OF RS.3,00,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME RECEIVED FROM SMT. PUTUL BOSE. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS R AISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE LO AN OF RS. 3,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM PUTUL BOSE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF T HE APPELLANT WITHOUT GIVING COGNIZANCE TO THE FACT THAT THE INCO ME TAX RECORDS OF THE LOAN CREDITOR AND THE LOAN CREDITOR IS THE WIF E OF THE APPELLANT. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE AO DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT THE LOAN CREDITOR WAS WIFE O F THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE COPIES OF INCOME-TAX RETURN, INCOME STATEMENT, CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET OF SMT. PUTUL BOSE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE AO HAS RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED ONLY ONE BANK ACCOUNT AND IN THAT ACCOUNT NO SUCH TRANSACTION IS REFLECTED. THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE LOAN CREDITOR AND TO PROVE THE SAME BY DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCES. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN DEPOSIT OF THIS AMOUNT IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT, THE AO ITA NOS. 1462 & 1463/KOL/10-B-MVS 6 TREATED THE AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD AR AND ALSO PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE COPY OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND BALANCE SHEET OF THE ALLEGED CREDITOR. I N THE SET OF DOCUMENTS, THE NATURE OF BUSINESS WAS NOT MENTIONED . THE INCOME-TAX DOCUMENT CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE SAME WERE PREPA RED AS A CAPITAL BUILDING FILE WHICH IS FURTHER EVIDENT FROM THE DES CRIPTION GIVEN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. AT THE LAST ENTRY OF THE BALANCE SHE ET WAS DESCRIBED AS CASH IN HAND & CASH AT BANK: RS,60,515/-. IT MEAN S, THE CREDITOR HAD A BANK A/C BUT IN THE SARAL WHERE FURNISHING THE BANK A/C WAS REQUIRED. THE CREDITOR DID NOT MENTIONED THE PARTICULAR OF BANK A /C. ON THE OTHER HAND, GIVING THE COMBINED FIGURE OF CASH IN HAND AND CASH AT BANK IS AN EVASIVE ATTITUDE NORMALLY INDULGED IN THE CAPITAL BUILDING FILES. O T E SAME TIME, IF THE CREDITOR HAD A BANK ACCOUNT, THERE WAS NO REASO N TO GIVE THE LOAN IN CASH WHEN THE SAME TRANSACTIONS WILL ATTRACT THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 271D OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 13. EVEN NOW BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODU CE THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE LOAN CREDITOR THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS MADE BY CHEQUE O R AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK WHERE CASH WITHDRAWAL WAS MADE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTAN CES, WE AGREE WITH THE FINDING OF CIT(A) IN TREATING THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,00,000 /- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 14. NEXT ISSUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN C ONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED LOAN TAKEN FROM WEST BENGAL STATE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS R AISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN TAKING THE VIEW THAT THE LOAN OF RS. 10,00,000/- TAKEN FROM WEST BENGAL STATE AGRICULTUR AL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED WAS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE APPELLAN T FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR AND WAS SHOWN TO COVER UP THE INVESTMENT IN CONSTRU CTION WORK EVEN AFTER ACCEPTING THAT LOAN WAS TAKEN AND IT WAS REPAID ALO NG WITH INTEREST DURING THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2003-04. ITA NOS. 1462 & 1463/KOL/10-B-MVS 7 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE TH ROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS OBTAINED THE BANK LOAN OF RS. 10,00,000/- ON 18-6-2003 AND THIS WAS SHOWN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE AO HAS TREATED THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS. 10,00,000/- A S BOGUS FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN REPAYMENT OF RS. 5,50,000/- DU RING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. THIS REPAYMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE FROM ANY SOURCE S OF INCOME, WHICH IS NOT AN ISSUE BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT ONCE LOAN IS TAKEN FROM WEST BENGAL STATE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED, T HIS IS EXPLAINED AND TAKEN IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, WHERE IT IS ASS ESSED. HENCE, NO ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE CAN BE MADE. THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 16. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY AL LOWED. ' 5 0 6 0 7 ' 3 21 -06-2013 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21-06-2013 SD/- SD/- [ . . , ] [ ' #!' , ] [N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] M AHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER] (3) DATED : 21-06-2013 *PP 9: #;< #= /SR.P.S. 5 2 -##> ?>&@- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . +, /APPELLANT- SRI NIRMAL KUMAR BOSE, SARAT BOSE R OAD, HAKIM PARA, SILIGURI. 2 -.+, / RESPONDENT : ITO, WARD 3(1), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, HAKIMPARA , SILIGURI 3 . #5 / THE CIT, 4 . #5 ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 5 . E#7 -# / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA .> -#/ TRUE COPY, 50/ BY ORDER, ' !< /ASSTT. REGISTRAR