ITO, Ward - 2(3), Siliguri, Siliguri V. Smt. Saroj Rani Gupta, Siliguri

ITA 1613/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5221 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANKAR HALDER
• Section: 54; 6; 143(3); 54F

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1613/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2013-2 014 SMT. SAROJ RANI GUPTA 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1613/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-2014 INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ........................................APPELLANT WARD-2(3), SILIGURI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, PARIBAHAN NAGAR, MATIGARA, SILIGURI-734 010 -VS.- SMT. SAROJ RANI GUPTA,............................. ...................................RESPONDENT C/O. JUGAL KISHORE GUPTA, OPPOSITE GANPATI APARTMENTS, VIDYASAGAR ROAD, KHALPARA, SILIGURI-734 005 [PAN:ALLPG 5290 J] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SANKAR HALDER, ADDL. CIT(D.R) , FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : NOVEMBER 29, 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 06, 2019 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ):- THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SILIGURI DATE D 05.05.2017 AND THE SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED THEREIN RELATING TO THE ASS ESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F IS RAISED THEREIN BY WA Y OF THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (1) THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY THE PROVISIO N OF SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HENCE, CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. (2) WHETHER, THE PHRASE A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE USED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 54F MEANS ONE RESIDENTIA L ITA NO. 1613/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2013-2 014 SMT. SAROJ RANI GUPTA 2 HOUSE OR MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE INDEPENDENTLY LOCATED IN THE SAME BUILDING? (3) WHETHER FOR PURCHASE OF TWO RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS ALLOWABLE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 54F. (4) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COUNTER- ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE AO MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L, WHO FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION O N 20.03.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,81,800/-. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD LAND ADMEASURI NG 58.3 DECIMAL SITUATED AT MOUZA-DEBGRAM, PARGANA-BAIKUNTHAPUR, DI STRICT JALPAIGURI VIDE SIX SEPARATE DEEDS FOR A TOTAL SALE CONSIDERAT ION OF RS.1,10,00,000/- AND THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE SAID S ALE WAS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54F ON ACCOUN T OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WORKING OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED BY THE A SSESSEE AS WELL AS HER CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F WAS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON SUCH EXAMINATION, HE FOUND THAT THE MAR KET VALUE OF THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,10 ,00,000/- WAS DETERMINED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY AT RS.1,16, 98,750/-. HE ALSO FOUND THAT TWO SEPARATE FLATS WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT TOO AFTER THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THESE ADVE RSE FINDINGS AND SHE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY HER CLAIM FOR EXEMPT ION UNDER SECTION 54F SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE A SSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT TOWARDS PURCHASE OF FLATS WAS PAID BY HER WI THIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AND SINCE THE REQUIREMENT OF SE CTION 54F FOR INVESTING THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN WAS SATISFIED, THE PURCHASE OF THE FLAT BEYOND OF PERIOD OF TWO YEARS WAS NOT RELEVANT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TWO UNITS OF FLATS PURCHASED BY HER ON THE SAME ITA NO. 1613/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2013-2 014 SMT. SAROJ RANI GUPTA 3 FLOOR OF THE BUILDING WERE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER A ND THE SAME WERE CAPABLE OF BEING USED AS ONE RESIDENCE. THESE SUBMI SSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT PURCHASED THE NEW FLAT WITH IN THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 54F WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F. HE FURTHER HELD BY RELYING ON THE DECI SION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF SUSHILA M. JHAVERI [107 ITD 327] THAT THE TWO FLATS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVING SEPARATE ENT RANCE AND IN CAPABLE OF JOINING TOGETHER COULD NOT BE TREATED AS ONE RES IDENTIAL HOUSE FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F. HE ACCORDINGL Y DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 5 4F AND BY ADOPTING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE A S DETERMINED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY AT RS.1,16,98,750/- AS SALE C ONSIDERATION AND AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INDEXED COST OF AC QUISITION AT RS.10,22,400/-, COMPUTED THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN ASSESSABLE TO TAX AT RS.1,06,76,350/- IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 30.03.2016. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 143(3), AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION UND ER SECTION 54F FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 4.3 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- 4.3. I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMI SSIONS MADE BY THE LD. A/R OF THE APPELLANT. THE FIRST QUE STION UNDER CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAS CONSTRUCTED THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THREE YEAR S OR PURCHASED IT WITHIN TWO YEARS, TO SAVE HER FROM THE LIABILITY OF PAYING CAPITAL GAIN TAX IN TERMS PROVISIONS OF S EC. 54F. THE A.O., IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAS CONTENDED TH AT THE CONSTRUCTION OF FIATS, IN WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS M ADE INVESTMENT, WAS NOT COMPLETE EVEN AFTER EXPIRY OF STIPULATED TIME AND THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE REGISTERED SALE DEED FOR THE SAME DURING ASSESSMENT . THE LD. A/R OF THE APPELLANT MADE SUBMISSION THAT THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT U/S 54F IS THAT THE ITA NO. 1613/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2013-2 014 SMT. SAROJ RANI GUPTA 4 CAPITAL GAIN SHOULD BE PARTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND I NVESTED EITHER IN PURCHASING OR CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTI AL HOUSE AND MERELY BECAUSE THE SALE DEED NOT BEEN EXECUTED OR THE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT COMPLETED DOES NOT DISENTITLE T HE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM RELIEF U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE LD . A/R ALSO MADE CITATION OF A NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT S IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION. IN CIT V. SARDARMAL KOTH ARI (2008) 302 ITR 286 (MAD), IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSE SSEE, IN ORDER TO GET THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54F, NEED NO T COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE AND OCCUPY I T AND IT WAS ENOUGH IF THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED THE INVESTME NT OF THE ENTIRE NET CONSIDERATION WITHIN STIPULATED PERI OD. SECONDLY, THE A.O. CONTENDED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED TWO DIFFERENT FLATS FOR WHICH AGREEMENTS WERE EXECUTED AND CONTIGUOUS UNITS CANNOT BE TREATED AS ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FOR CLAIMING BENEFITS UNDER SECTI ON 54F. THE LD. A/R OF THE APPELLANT MADE SUBMISSION THAT ' A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE' IN THE STATUTE SHOULD NOT BE UND ERSTOOD TO INDICATE A SINGULAR NUMBER AND THE WORD 'A' WAS SUBSTITUTED BY 'ONE' BY THE FINANCE ACT 2015, WHICH IS EFFECTIVE FROM 01/04/2015. THE LD. A/R ALSO CITED V ARIOUS CASE LAWS IN WHICH HON'BLE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS MAD E PRONOUNCEMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE UNDER SIGNED IS INCLINED TO FOLLOW THE RULINGS OF HON'BLE HIGH C OURTS AND TRIBUNALS AND IN VIEW OF JUDGEMENTS MADE, THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXEM PTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AND GROUNDS OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS BEHALF ARE ALLOWED . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE NEW FLAT WAS NOT PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF TWO YEARS SO AS TO MAKE HER ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F ON ACCOUNT OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE FLATS CLAIMED TO B E PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE TWO DIFFERENT FLATS HAVING DIFFERENT ACCESS AND SINCE THE SAME WERE INCAPABLE OF JOINING TOGETHER, IT WAS NOT A CASE OF PURCHASE OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BY THE ASSESSEE AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F. HE CONTENDED THAT THESE ADVERSE FINDIN GS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F, HOWEVER, WERE NOT PROP ERLY APPRECIATED BY ITA NO. 1613/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2013-2 014 SMT. SAROJ RANI GUPTA 5 THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F WAS ALLOWE D BY HIM MERELY GOING BY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE HIM. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, SUBMITTED THAT HER LAND WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ON 27.04.2012 AND SINCE THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS MADE BY H ER ON 17.07.2012 AND EVEN THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID TO THE BUILD ER WELL WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, SHE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- SARDARMAL KOTHARI [302 ITR 28 6] AND THAT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- MRS. HILLA J.B. WADIA [216 ITR 376], HE CONTENDED THAT THE ONLY REQUIREME NT FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F IS TO MAKE THE INVESTME NT IN PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW HOUSE SHOULD BE COMPLETED WITHIN THAT PERIOD AN D THE ASSESSEE GETS POSSESSION OF THE SAID FLAT. AS REGARDS THE OTHER R EASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DENYING THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVEST MENT IN TWO SEPARATE FLATS HAVING SEPARATE ACCESS BY RELYING ON THE DECI SION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF SUSHILA M. JHA VERI (SUPRA), THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE NOW STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS- SMT. K.G. RUKMINIAMMA [331 ITR 211] AND THAT OF THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS.- SYED ALI ADIL [352 ITR 418], WHEREIN IT WAS HELD TH AT THE EXPRESSION A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE USED IN SECTION 54 NECESSARILY H AS TO INCLUDE BUILDINGS OR LAND APPURTENANT THERETO AND IT CANNOT BE CONSTR UED AS ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT SECTION 54 ONLY REQUIR ES THAT PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS SHOU LD BE OF RESIDENTIAL NATURE AND THE FACT THAT RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CONSISTE D OF SEVERAL INDEPENDENT UNITS COULD NOT BE AN IMPEDIMENT FOR GR ANTING RELIEF UNDER ITA NO. 1613/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2013-2 014 SMT. SAROJ RANI GUPTA 6 THE SAID SECTION, EVEN IF SUCH INDEPENDENT UNITS WE RE SITUATED SIDE BY SIDE ON DIFFERENT FLOORS AND WERE PURCHASED UNDER S EPARATE SALE DEEDS. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALS O PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERV ED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN UN DER SECTION 54F WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON TWO GROUNDS. FIRSTLY HE HELD THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, HAVING N OT BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD AND THE ASSESSEE HAVIN G NOT GOT THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID NEW HOUSE, THE REQUIREMENT F OR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F WAS NOT SATISFIED. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ON THE OTHER HAND, FOUND THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS IN VESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PURCHASE OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WIT HIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD AND THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HAD SATISFIED T HE REQUIREMENT FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONCLUSION, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- SARDARMAL KOTHARI (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO GET BENEFIT UNDER SEC TION 54F WAS NOT REQUIRED TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE AND OCCUPY THE SAME AND IT WAS ENOUGH IF THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED THE ENTI RE NET CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE/CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSE WITHIN THE S TIPULATED PERIOD. THIS POSITION GETS FURTHER FORTIFIED BY THE DECISIO N OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- MRS. HILLA J.B. WADIA (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE ONLY REQUIREMENT FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F IS TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE O F A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD AND THERE IS NO REQUIR EMENT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSE SHOULD BE COMPLETED WITHI N THAT PERIOD AND THE ASSESSEE GETS POSSESSION OF THE SAID FLAT. 7. SECONDLY THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR DENYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54F WAS THAT TWO SEPARATE FLATS WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVING SEPARAT E ENTRANCE AND THE ITA NO. 1613/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2013-2 014 SMT. SAROJ RANI GUPTA 7 SAME BEING INCAPABLE OF JOINING TOGETHER COULD NOT BE TREATED AS ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECT ION 54F. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONCLUSION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON TH E DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF SUSHILA M. JHA VERI (SUPRA). AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, THIS ISSUE ALSO NOW STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS- SMT. K .G. RUKMINIAMMA (SUPRA) AND THAT OF THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- SYED ALI ADIL (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS HEL D THAT THE EXPRESSION A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE USED IN SECTION 54 NECESSARILY H AS TO INCLUDE BUILDINGS OR LAND APPURTENANT THERETO AND IT CANNOT BE CONSTR UED AS ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. AS FURTHER HELD IN THE SAID JUDICIAL PRONOUN CEMENTS, SECTION 54 ONLY REQUIRES THAT PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESS EE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS SHOULD BE OF RESIDENTIAL NATURE AND THE FA CT THAT RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CONSISTED OF SEVERAL INDEPENDENT UNITS COULD NOT BE AN IMPEDIMENT FOR GRANTING RELIEF UNDER THE SAID SECTION, EVEN IF SUCH INDEPENDENT UNITS WERE SITUATED SIDE BY SIDE ON DIFFERENT FLOORS AND WERE PURCHASED UNDER SEPARATE SALE DEEDS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE LEGAL POSI TION EMANATING FROM THESE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F AND THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH EXEMPTION. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) GIVING RELIE F TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD AND THIS APPEAL FI LED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FEBRUARY 06, 2019. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE -PRESIDENT (KZ) KOLKATA, 6 TH THE DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 ITA NO. 1613/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2013-2 014 SMT. SAROJ RANI GUPTA 8 COPIES TO : (1) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), SILIGURI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, PARIBAHAN NAGAR, MATIGARA, SILIGURI-734 010 (2) SMT. SAROJ RANI GUPTA, C/O. JUGAL KISHORE GUPTA, OPPOSITE GANPATI APARTMENTS, VIDYASAGAR ROAD, KHALPARA, SILIGURI-734 005 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SILIGURI , (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.