Bireswar Dutt Estates Pvt. Ltd., , Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 5(3), Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 1567/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6757 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C J SINGH JCITSRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: I BAN ERJEE
• Keywords: Procedural lapse; Block assessment; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 292BB; 143(2); 148; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH SMC KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S, GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1567/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 BIRESWAR DUTT ESTATES PVT., 32A, BRABOURNE ROAD, KOLKATA-700001 [ PAN NO.AABCB 1670 K ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, C CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-69 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI I. BANERJEE, CA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT, SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 25-02-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28-02-2019 /O R D E R THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-2, KOLKATAS O RDER DATED 11.04.2018 PASSED IN CASE NO.11130 & 1281/CIT(A)-2/15-16, INVOLVING PRO CEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE ASSESSEES FIRST AND FOREMOST GROUND PRESSED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF VALIDITY OF THE IMPUGNED RE-ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON 23.03.2015 MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE / ADDITION IN IS SUE. THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER SUGGESTS IN PARA-2 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD N OWHERE ISSUED SEC. 143(2) NOTICE DURING THIS ASSESSMENT. THIS CLINCHING FACT HAS GON E UNREBUTTED FROM THE REVENUES SIDE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. I FIND THAT HON' BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION IN GA NO.3671 OF 2015 ITAT NO. 152 OF 2015 IN PCIT VS. OBEROI HOTELS ITA NO.1567/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2011 -12 BIRESWAR DUTTA ESTATES PVT. VS. ITO WD- 5(3), KOL. PAGE 2 PVT. LTD . DECIDED ON 22.06.2018 HOLDS THAT SUCH RE-ASSESSME NT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AS FOLLOWS:- THE COURT : THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW THAT H AVE ARISEN ARC IN THE CONTEXT OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 14 7 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PURSUANT TO A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 THEREOF. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS QUASHED THE ENTIRE REASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS 011 THE ASSESSEE'S ASSERTION THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 43(2) OF THE .ACT WAS SECTION 292B8 OF THE ACT, THE GROUND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN URGED BY THE ASSESSEE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE UNDERTAKING THE REASSESSME NT. THE JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS FOUNDED PRIMARILY ON THE RATI O DECIDENDI IN THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT REPORTED AT 321 ITR 362 (ASSISTANT COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX V. HOTEL BLUE MOON). THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AND SAYS THAT IN VIEW OF SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT, THE GROUND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN URGED BY THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PARTICULARLY, AS THE ASSESSEE PARTICIPATE D IN COURSE OF THE REASSESSMENT, THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO THE REASSESSMENT W ERE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT WAS NOT POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO THE REASSESSMENT BEING COMPLETED THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF TH E ACT HAD BEEN ISSUED TO HIM IN RESPECT OF THE REASSESSMENT. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TH E REVENUE SAYS THAT IF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS DEEMED TO BE MANDATORY SO THAT IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER OF ASSESSMENT (OR REASSESSMENT) HA S TO BE ANNULLED, THE MATTER MUST BE RESTORED TO THE STAGE WHERE A NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 143(2) OF THE ACT MAY BE ISSUED FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, AS T HE CASE MAY BE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW ARI SE: '1. WHETHER THE FAILURE TO ISSUE A NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 143(2) OF THE . ACT IN COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WOULD VITIATE TH E REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALTOGETHER? 2. WHAT IS THE EFFECT IN VIEW OF SECTION 292BB OF T HE ACT WHEN A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT IS NOT ISSUED AT ALL?' THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN HOTEL BLUE MOON HAS F IRST TO BE REFERRED TO SINCE SUCH JUDGMENT STILL HOLDS THE FIELD. IN COURSE OF A BLOCK ASSESSMENT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER REPUDIATED THE RETURN FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE BUT FAILED TO ISSUE ANY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WITHIN THE P RESCRIBED PERIOD OF TIME, THE SUPREME COURT HELD, AT PARAGRAPH 15 OF THE JUDGMENT , INTER ALIA, AS FOLLOWS:- '15 .... BUT SECTION 143(2) ITSELF BECOMES NECESSAR Y ONLY WHERE IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO CHECK THE RETURN, SO THAT WHERE BLOCK RETURN CONFORMS TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME INFERRED BY THE AUTHORITIES, THE RE IS NO REASON, WHY THE AUTHORITIES SHOULD ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2 ). HOWEVER, IF AN ASSESSMENT IS TO BE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 158 BC, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) SHOULD BE ISSUED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF BLOCK RETURN. OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) CANNOT BE A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY AND THE SAME IS NOT CURABLE AND, THEREFORE, THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 143(2) CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH ... ' IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DICTUM OF THE SUPREME COURT IN HOTEL BLUE MOON IS THAT A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS MANDATORY IF THE RETURN AS FILED IS NOT ACCEPTED AND AN ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TO BE MADE AT VARIANCE WITH THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ITA NO.1567/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2011 -12 BIRESWAR DUTTA ESTATES PVT. VS. ITO WD- 5(3), KOL. PAGE 3 ALSO EVIDENT THAT THE ISSUE IS NOT LIMITED TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT BUT WOULD APPLY TO EVERY CASE WHERE A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT IS NECESSARY. IN THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IMPUGNED HEREIN DAT ED MAY 14, 2015, THE TRIBUNAL NOTICED A JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT OF APRIL, 8, 2014 RENDERED IN !TAT 149 OF 2013 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. V. HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDI A PUT. LTD.) WHERE THIS COURT HAD EXPRESSED AN OPINION THAT WHEN AN ORDER OF ASSE SSMENT WAS PASSED IN COURSE OF REASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF ACT, 'THE OMIS SION COULD HAVE BEEN A REASON FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, BUT THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A REASON, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, FOR NULLIFYIN G THE EXERCISE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT.' SUCH VIEW TAKEN BY THIS COURT IN HUMBOLDI WEDAG IND IA PUT. LTD WAS WITHOUT NOTICING THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN HOTEL BLUE M OON. THE RELEVANT BENCH ALSO DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION A PREVIOUS ORDER OF THIS COURT OF APRIL 4, 2013 WHEN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE QUASHED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSE E BEFORE MAKING THE REASSESSMENT. IT IS NECESSARY TO SEE THE SHORT ORDER OF APRIL, 4, 2013 PASSED IN ITAT 27 OF 2013 (CIT V. 1. S. LEATHERY: 'ADMITTEDLY, NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE 1. T. ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE MAKING THE RE-ASSESSMENT. THE LEARN ED TRIBUNAL, RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ACIT -VS- HOTEL BLUEMOO N, REPORTED IN (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) AND THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT -V S- C. PALANIYAPPAN, REPORTED IN (2006) 284 ITR 257 (MADRAS), OPINED THA T THE RE-ASSESSMENT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND WAS, THEREFORE, QUASHED. I T IS AGAINST THIS ORDER THAT THE REVENUE HAS COME UP. 'WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN T HE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE. THE APPEAL IS AS SUCH DISMISSED. ' THE REVENUE HAS SOUGHT TO RELY ON A MADRAS HIGH COU RT JUDGMENT REPORTED AT 294 ITR 233 (AREVA T & D INDIA LTD. V. ACIT WHERE THE V IEW TAKEN WAS THAT 'THE NON- ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE AC T, WILL NOT MAKE THE REASSESSMENT NULLITY IN LAW, WHICH IS VALIDLY INITIATED UNDER SE CTION 148 OF THE ACT'. HOWEVER, SUCH JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT WAS NOTICED AND D ISCUSSED IN A LATER JUDGMENT OF THE SAME COURT REPORTED AT 2010 TAXMAN 78 (SAPTHAGI RI FINANCE & INVESTMENTS V. ITO). IT WAS HELD THEREIN THAT THE VIEW TAKEN IN AR EVA T & D INDIA LTD WAS NO LONGER GOOD LAW IN VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN H OTEL BLUE MOON. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED ON ANOTHER UNREPORTED JUDGMENT OF T HE MADRAS HIGH COURT OF NOVEMBER 19, 2014 IN TAX CASE (APPEAL) 766 OF 2014 (N. AHAMED ALI V. ITO) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF T HE ACT WAS MANDATORY AND THE JUDGMENT IN AREVA T' & D INDIA LTD WAS NOT GOOD LAW . SECTION 148 OF THE ACT PERMITS THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES W HEN IT IS DISCOVERED THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND SUB-SECTION (1) THEREOF MAND ATES A RETURN TO BE FILED UPON AN ASSESSEE BEING SERVED A NOTICE UNDER SUCH PROVISION , WHEREUPON 'THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY ACCORDINGL Y AS IF SUCH RETURN WERE A RETURN REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139.' SECTION 143 OF THE ACT PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT AND I N ITS OPENING WORDS REFERS TO A RETURN BEING MADE UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT OR I N RESPONSE TO A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT. AT THE TIME RELEVANT FO R THE ASSESSMENT THAT WAS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT HAD BEEN ISSUED, SECTION 143(2) IN ITS THEN FORM HAD TW O CLAUSES AND A PROVISO AFTER ITA NO.1567/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2011 -12 BIRESWAR DUTTA ESTATES PVT. VS. ITO WD- 5(3), KOL. PAGE 4 CLAUSE (II) THAT PRECLUDED A NOTICE UNDER CLAUSE (I I) BEING SERVED BEYOND A PARTICULAR PERIOD. FURTHER, SECTION 153 (2) OF THE ACT DIRECTS AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION TO BE MADE UNDER SECT ION 147 OF THE ACT WITHIN A PARTICULAR PERIOD. THE RELEVANT PERIODS, BOTH IN TE RMS OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT AND IN TERMS OF SECTION 153 THEREOF, HAV E EXPIRED. AS NOTICED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN HOTEL BLUE MOON AND IS QUOTED ABOV E THE TIME IS OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE AND NOTICES CAN NO LONGER BE ISSUED AF TER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD MANDATED THEREFOR NOR CAN PROCEEDINGS BE CONTINUED AFTER THE TIME LIMIT SET THEREFOR BY THE STATUTE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, PARTICULARLY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN HOTEL BLUE MOON, IT IS INESCAPABLE THAT THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT IS MANDATO RY IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SEEKS NOT TO ACCEPT ANY PART OF THE RETURN AS FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE OR MAKE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER CONTRARY THERETO AND, EVEN IN COURSE OF REASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, SUCH NOTICE CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH. ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE REV ENUE IS THAT IN COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ONCE A NOTICE IS ISSUED UN DER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS MADE AWARE OF WHAT PART OF THE INCOME O R ON WHAT COUNT THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME IS PERCEIVED TO HAVE ESCAPED ATTENTION. IT I S SUBMITTED THAT IN SUCH A SCENARIO, THE REQUIREMENT OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) MA Y BE SOMEWHAT DILUTED, IF NOT UNNECESSARY. APART FROM THE FACT THAT SUCH ARGUMENT CANNOT BE COUNTENANCED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DICTUM IN HOTEL BLUE MOON, IT IS EVIDE NT THAT AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IS CONSEQUENT UPON A HEARING AND THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE ON SUCH POINTS ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY HARB OUR DOUBTS AND ARE INDICATED IN HIS NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT CONTEMPLATES AN ASSESSMENT UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UPON MATERIAL BEING PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ON GROUNDS WHICH ARE INDICATED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IN HIS NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT WHEREOF THE AS SESSING OFFICER MAY HAVE MISGIVINGS OR MAY DISAGREE WITH THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IMPLICIT IN THE WORDING OF SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IS THE INDISPE NSABILITY OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) THEREOF. APROPOS THE SECOND QUESTION FRAMED ABOVE, IT IS NEC ESSARY THAT SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT BE NOTICED IN ITS ENTIRETY: '292BB NOTICE DEEMED TO BE VALID IN CERTAIN CIRCU MSTANCES WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN ANY PROCEEDING OR COOPERATED IN ANY INQUIRY RELATING TO AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT, WHICH IS RE QUIRED TO BE SERVED UPON HIM, HAS BEEN DULY SERVED UPON HIM IN V TIME IN ACC ORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND SUCH ASSESSEE SHALL BE P RECLUDED FROM TAKING ANY OBJECTION IN ANY PROCEEDING OR INQUIRY UNDER THIS A CT THAT THE NOTICE WAS - (A) NOT SERVED UPON HIM; OR (B) NOT SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME; OR (C) SERVED UPON HIM IN AN IMPROPER MANNER: PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHA LL APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED SUCH OBJECTION BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF SUCH ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT. ITA NO.1567/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2011 -12 BIRESWAR DUTTA ESTATES PVT. VS. ITO WD- 5(3), KOL. PAGE 5 EVEN IF THE PROVISION DOES NOT CARRY A NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE, SINCE SECTION 292BB IS A PROVISION OF GENERAL APPLICATION, IT WOULD BE APPLI CABLE IN ALL SITUATIONS; BUT ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT PROCLAIMS TO OPERATE. SECTION 292BB OF TH E ACT, READ IN THE CONTEXT OF SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHICH MANDATORILY REQUIRE NOT ICES TO BE ISSUED IN DIVERS SITUATIONS, CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE DISPENSED WITH T HE ISSUANCE OF SUCH NOTICES ALTOGETHER. SECTION 292BB MUST BE UNDERSTOOD TO ~RE ANY DEFECT IN THE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE AND NOT AUTHORISE THE DISPENSATION OF A NOTI CE WHEN THE APPROPRIATE INTERPRETATION OF A PROVISION MAKES THE NOTICE PROV IDED FOR THEREUNDER TO BE MANDATORY OR INDISPENSABLE. THIS IS NOT A CASE WHE RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SAYS THAT A NOTICE HAD BEEN ISSUED AND HERE IS A CONTRADICTION THEREOF BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE OBJECTION BEF ORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE COMMISSIONER BRUSHED ASIDE THE OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS A TECHNICALITY WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OR APPLYING HIS MIND T O SUCH ASPECT OF THE MATTER. FURTHER, IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER IMPUGNED PASS ED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT HAD, IN F ACT, BEEN ISSUED IN THIS CASE. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WHERE A NOTICE THAT IS MANDATORILY REQ UIRED TO BE ISSUED IS FOUND NOT TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED, SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT HAS NO M ANNER OF OPERATION. THE TWO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE ANSWERED. ACCORDINGLY AS FOLLOWS: (1) IF THE TIME FOR ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS EXPIRED OR THE TIME FOR COMPLETING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153(2) OF THE ACT HAS RUN OUT, THE FAILURE TO ISSUE SUCH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WOULD RESULT IN THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING ANY ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, TO BE QUASHED. (2) SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH THE ISSUANCE OF ANY NOTICE THAT IS MANDATED TO BE ISSUED UNDER THE ACT, BUT MERELY CURES THE DEFECT OF SERVICE OF SUCH NOTICE IF AN OBJECTIO N IN SUCH REGARD IS NOT TAKEN BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT OR RE ASSESSMENT. IN ADDITION, IT IS HELD THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE SU PREME COURT DICTUM IN HOTEL BLUE MOON, THE VIEW EXPRESSED IN HUMBOLDT WED AG INDIA PUT. LID IS PER INCURIAM AND, AS SUCH, NOT GOOD LAW. I ADOPT THE ABOVE DETAILED DISCUSSION MUTATIS MUTAN DIS TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED RE- ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF NON-ISSUANCE OF SEC. 143(2 ) NOTICE THEREFORE. 3. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28/02/2019 SD/ - (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBE R KOLKATA, *DKP/SR.PS - 28/02/2019 ITA NO.1567/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2011 -12 BIRESWAR DUTTA ESTATES PVT. VS. ITO WD- 5(3), KOL. PAGE 6 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-BIIRESWAR DUTT ESTATES PVT. 32A, BRABOUR NE ROAD, KOL-001 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO WD-5(3), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, CHOWRINGHE E SQ. KOLKATA-69 3. ' % / CONCERNED CIT 4. % - / CIT (A) 5. & ))' , ' / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. + / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ / ',