DCIT, Circle - 1, Siliguri, Siliguri V. M/s. Cradle Computers (P) Ltd., Siliguri

ITA 1615/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3143 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SONOWAL SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: S K TULSIYAN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 40A(3); 50C; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1464 & 1615/KOL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2007 - 08 CRADLE COMPUTERS (P) LTD., SEVOKE ROAD, SILIGURI [ PAN NO.AABCC 8672 N ] DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SILIGURI, AAYKAR BHAWAN, PARIBAHAN NAGAR, MATIGARA, SILIGURI, PIN 734 010 / V/S . 1 / V/S . ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, AAYKAR BHAWAN, MATIGARA, SILIGURI M/S. CRADLE COMPUTERS (P) LTD., SEVOKE ROAD, SILIGURI /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI S.K. TULSIYAN, AR /BY REVENUE SHRI D.K. SONOWAL, SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 12-06-2013 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11-07-2013 # # # # /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE CROSS-APPEALS BY ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE AR ISING OUT OF COMMON ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), SILI GURI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) IN APPEAL NO. 132/CIT(A)/SLG/08-09 DATED 05-02-2009. T HE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1 , SILIGURI U/S.143(3) OF ITA NO.1464&1615/KOL/2010 A.YS 06-07 & 07-08 CRADLE COMPUTERS (P) LTD. V. ACIT, RNG-1, SLG PAGE 2 THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 30-12-2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006-07. FIRST WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1464/ KOL/2010. 2. FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINS T THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF SHARE MONEY RECEIVED FRO M SMT. GAYATRI MISHRA AND SRI GOVIND MISHRA AMOUNTING TO RS.3 LAKH AND RS.1 L AKH RESPECTIVELY. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.1:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION AGAINST SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.3,00,000/-- & RS.1,00,00/- RECEIVED FROM SMT. GAYATRI MISHRA & SRI GOVIND MISHRA RESPECTIVELY WITHOUT CON SIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAME WERE RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES FROM PE RSONS WHO WERE INCOME TAX ASSESSEES. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES ON SHARE APPLICANTS, NAMELY, S MT. GAYATRI MISHRA AND SHRI GOVIND MISHRA TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM ABOUT RECEI PT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT AFTER MUCH EFFORTS ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO OBTAIN RELEVANT DETAILS FROM TH ESE APPLICANTS, WHICH ARE FURNISHED AT ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK PAGES FROM 9 TO 12. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THESE SHARE APPLICANTS ARE ASS ESSED TO TAX HAVE FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME REGULARLY. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE T RANSACTIONS OF INVESTMENT IN SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE RE SPECTIVE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PAYMENTS ARE ALSO EFFECTED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT DETAILS I.E., BANK ACCOUNT, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, BALANCE-SHEET AND ACTUAL AMOUNT ARE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCES WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, HE REQUESTED THAT THESE EVIDENCES BE ADMITTED AND THE ISSUE BE R EMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION ON THESE DOCUMEN TS AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE ITA NO.1464&1615/KOL/2010 A.YS 06-07 & 07-08 CRADLE COMPUTERS (P) LTD. V. ACIT, RNG-1, SLG PAGE 3 OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ON QUER Y FROM THE BENCH, LD. SR- DR FAIRLY STATED THAT THESE EVIDENCES CAN BE ADMITT ED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ISSUE CAN BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO. S INCE REVENUE HAS ADMITTED THAT THESE EVIDENCES ARE VITAL TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AND THESE ARE PROCURED AFTER AO AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIR CUMSTANCES. THESE ARE ADMITTED AND ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. COMING TO SECOND ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSE E IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE FOR SALE OF LAND AMOUNTING TO RS.16 LAKH FR OM M/S. SITA PROMOTERS & BUILDERS AS UNEXPLAINED. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAI SED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.2:- 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE A DVANCE FOR SALE OF LAND AMOUNTING TO RS.116,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM M/S. SITA PROMOTER S & BUILDERS AS INGENUINE WITHOUT GIVING COGNIZANCE TO THE FACT THAT THE ADVA NCE WAS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. SITA PROMOTERS & BUILDERS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTED THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVE D ADVANCE OF RS.16 LAKH FROM M/S SITA PROMOTERS & BUILDERS BUT COULD NOT PR ODUCE PARTY FOR EXAMINATION. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF BALANC E-SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BUT NO BANK STATEMENT WAS FILED. ACCORDING TO AO, IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE FIRM M/S. SITA PROMOTERS & BUILDERS IS NOT ESTABLISHED. HENCE, HE TREATED THE SUM OF RS.16 LAKH AS UNEXPLAI NED CASH CREDITED U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFOR E CIT(A), WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO BY OBSERVING IN PAGE-5 O F HIS ORDER AS UNDER:- ORDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE L D. AR AND ALSO PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE COPY OF THE SARAL OF M/S. SITA PROMOTERS AND BUILDER FOR AY 2006-07 AND ITS BALANC E SHEET AS ON 31.03.2006, PROFIT ITA NO.1464&1615/KOL/2010 A.YS 06-07 & 07-08 CRADLE COMPUTERS (P) LTD. V. ACIT, RNG-1, SLG PAGE 4 & LOSS A/C AND SCHEDULE OF THE BALANCE SHEET. BUT T HIS DOCUMENT CAN NOT THROW ANY LIGHT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD RECEIVED ANY MO NEY FROM M/S. SITA PROMOTERS & BUILDERS. THE ASSET OF THIS FIRM AS ON 31.03.2006 A S PER ITS BALANCE SHEET WAS AS UNDER: CLOSING WORKING PROGRESS RS.15,87 589.50 CASH IN HAND & BANK RS. 3,50,350.21 ADVANCED FOR LAND GIVEN RS.26,00,000.00 INVESTMENT RS.10,50,000.00 CHEQUE, THE PROVISION OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT WIL L ATTRACT IN CASE OF THE FIRM AS THE FIRM WAS ENGAGED IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. EVEN, IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED THE MONEY AGAINST SALE OF LAND BUT NO COPY OF SALE AGREEMENT COULD BE PRODUCED SHOWING THE SAME NEITHER THE BALANCE SH EET OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COULD SUPPORT THE SAME. IT IS THUS, HELD THAT ASSES SES COMPANY FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH TRANSACTION WITH ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IS CONFIRMED . AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED T HAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI M. AGARWAL AND RAJESH AGARWAL FROM WHOM AMOUNTS WERE DUE TO THE SAID PARTNERSHIP CONCE RN. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OBTAIN THE EVIDENCES I.E., BANK ACCOUNT OF M. AGAR WAL AND RANESH AGARWAL AND ALSO THE OTHER DOCUMENTS TO ESTABLISH THAT THESE PA YMENTS WERE EFFECTED THROUGH THESE TWO PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE AFTER MUCH PERSUASI ON HAS OBTAINED THE EVIDENCES AND WHICH ARE ENCLOSED IN ASSESSEEA PAPE R BOOK AT PAGES 20 TO 26. THE ASSESSEE ALSO INCLUDED COPY OF SALE AGREEMENT E NTERED INTO ON 04-06-2005 BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND THE SAID PARTY. THIS AGREEMENT FOR SALE IS ENCLOSED AT ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 27 TO 35. IN VIEW OF THESE, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THESE ARE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND IS REQUIRED FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE. ON QUERY FROM THE BENCH, LD. SR-DR STATED THAT THIS CAN BE ADMITTED AND ISSUE CAN BE REMITTED BACK TO T HE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.28 LAKH AS UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT IN LAND. ITA NO.1464&1615/KOL/2010 A.YS 06-07 & 07-08 CRADLE COMPUTERS (P) LTD. V. ACIT, RNG-1, SLG PAGE 5 8. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIR LY CONCEDED THAT HE IS NOT INSISTED IN PROSECUTING THIS ISSUE, HENCE, SAME SHO ULD BE DISMISSED. AS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THIS ISSUE, SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. COMING TO REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1615/KOL/2010. 9. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS SEEN THAT THIS APPEAL BY RE VENUE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION OF 40 DAYS AND REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE CONTENTIO N BY STATING THE REASONS. WHEN THIS CONTENTION WAS CONFRONTED TO LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HE STATED THAT DELAY CAN BE CONDONED. AS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBJECTED FOR CONDONING THE DELAY, WE CONDONE THE DE LAY AND ADMIT THIS APPEAL. 10. THE ONLY ISSUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF STAMP VALUE DETE RMINED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY ON THE BASIS OF CIRCLE RATE ON THE PROPER TY PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE TWO GROUNDS:- 1 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A), SILIGURI WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.34, 99,375/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION U/S. 69B OF THE I .I. ACT ON THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE HAD ACC EPTED THE VALUATION MADE BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT SUB REGISTRAR AND PAID STAMP DUTY ON SUCH ENHANCED VALUATION AND AS SUCH HAD FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE VAL UE DETERMINED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. 2 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THEE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A), SILIGURI HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SMT. AMAR KUMARI SURANA VS. CIT (226 ITR 344) WHERE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN HAS HELD THAT EVEN IN SPITE OF SPECIFIC QUERY, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO POINT OUT AN Y MISTAKE/LACUNA IN ASCERTAINING THE VALUE OF THE PLOT OF LAND BY THE VALUER. IN THESE C IRCUMSTANCES, THE ONLY REASONABLE INFERENCE THAT CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SHOWN LESS AMOUNT IN THE ACCOUNT IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS AND SALE DEED THAN THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PAID. CONSIDERING THE COMPARABLE CASES AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO GROUND TO INTERFERE IN THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 69B OF THE ACT, 1961 ITA NO.1464&1615/KOL/2010 A.YS 06-07 & 07-08 CRADLE COMPUTERS (P) LTD. V. ACIT, RNG-1, SLG PAGE 6 11. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUG H FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED PLOT OF LAND I.E, 13 PROPERTIES AT TOTAL PURCHASE P RICE OF RS.17,25,625/-, WHEREAS THE FAIR MARKET DETERMINED BY SUB-REGISTER, STAMP V ALUATION AUTHORITY AT RS.52.25 LAKH. THE SAID VALUED PROPERTY FOR THE PUR POSE OF REGISTRATION OF THIS DOCUMENT I.E., SALE DEED OF THESE PLOTS. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TREATED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.34,99,375/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANYTHING. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE DELETE D THE ADDITION BY STATING THAT SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WILL NOT APPLY IN THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY RATHER THIS WILL APPLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAINS. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING IN PAGES 12 AND 13 AS UND ER:- ORDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE L D. AR AND ALSO PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WHILE MAKING THE ADDITIONS U/S. 6 9B OF THE ACT, THE LD. AO MAINLY RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SMT AMAR KUMA RI SURANA VS CIT (SUPRA). BUT THERE WERE FACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO CASES AS POINTED OUT BY THE AR IN HIS SUBMISSION. IN THAT CASE, THE AO RELIED ON THE VALU ATION MADE BY THE VDO AND THE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN TH E INADEQUATE PURCHASED CONSIDERATION PAID TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY. AT THE SAME TIME, THE AO ALSO FOUND THAT THE COST OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OF THE AREA WAS M UCH HIGHER AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PRICE. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE IN APPEAL, THE LD. AO RELIE D ON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PU RPOSE OF REGISTRATION. THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY SVA IS APPLICABLE FOR THE PURP OSE OF CAPITAL GAIN, AS PRESCRIBED U/S. 50C OF THE ACT WHICH HAS VERY LIMITED PURPOSE. THIS LEGAL FICTION HAS BEEN CREATED FROM COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN ONLY IN CASE OF TH E SELLER OF ANY ASSET. THE SAME CAN NOT BE EXTENDED IN CASE OF THE PURCHASER TO EST IMATE THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. THE DECISIONS IN CASES OF CIT VS MOTHER INDIA REFER IGERATION INDUSTRIES P LTD. (1985) 48CTR(SC) 176 AND CIT VS AMARCHAND N SHROFF (1963) 48 ITR 59 (SC)ARE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. SECONDLY, THE UNDERHAND DEALING IN CASE OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IS NOT UNKNOWN. FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE SEC. 50C HAS BEEN INTRODUCED. THE RE WAS EVIDENCE OF RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ITSELF HAD ACTUALLY PAID RS.43,75, 035/- FOR ONE PLOT OF LAND WHEREAS THE PURCHASE PRICE WAS SHOWN ONLY AT RS.3,00,000/-. THE INSTANCE OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DOUBT WAS A GOOD GROUND FOR MAKING FURTHER INVESTIGATION. BUT NO ENQUIRY SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE LD AO I N THE INSTANT CASE. HE DID NOT MAKE ANY ENQUIRY FROM THE VENDORS OF THE LAND.. AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE SURVEY PARTY ALSO DID NOT RAISE ANY QUESTION OF UNA CCOUNTED PAYMENTS FOR ACQUIRING ITA NO.1464&1615/KOL/2010 A.YS 06-07 & 07-08 CRADLE COMPUTERS (P) LTD. V. ACIT, RNG-1, SLG PAGE 7 THOSE PLOTS WHEREAS, IN ONE INSTANCE THE HUGE DIFFE RENCE WAS FOUND. THEREFORE, USING THE INSTANCE OF ONE CASE, WITHOUT BRINGING ANY COGE NT MATERIAL ON RECORD IN ALL OTHER CASES AMOUNTS ONLY TO ACT ON SURMISE AND CONJECTURE S. WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT, THERE IS NO SCOPE OF ANY SUSPICION AND SURMISE. THIRDLY, IN A NUMBER OF CASES IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C ARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE CASE OF A SELLER AND THE RAT E DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY CANNOT BE APPLIED AS THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE PURCHASERS (REF.ITO VS OPTEC DISC MANUFACTURING (20087) 11 DDTR (CHD) (TRI B) 264; ITO VS SATYA NARAYAN AGARWAL (2007) 112TTJ (JD) 717. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID LEGAL POSITION AND FACT OF THE CASE, IT IS HELD THAT THE DECISION CITE D BY THE LD AO CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE US.69B BASE D ON THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SVA CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE ADDITION OF THE AO IS DELETED . WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE SELLER FOR THE PURPOS E OF PAID CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASERS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS A PPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (N.S.SAINI) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KOLKATA, *DKP PRONOUNCED BY $%& - 11/07/2013 SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) A.M. J.M. # # # # ''( ''( ''( ''( )(! )(! )(! )(! / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. %%'* + / CONCERNED CIT 4. + - / CIT (A) 5. (,- '''* , '*' / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. -./ 01 / GUARD FILE. BY ORD ER/ # , 2/4 % '*',