Boinchipota Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Kolkata V. DCIT, Circle - 1, Hooghly, Hooghly

ITA 1702/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4851 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT KR KUREL
• Assessee Lawyers: V N PUROHIT
• Keywords: Business income; Rule of consistency; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 56

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1702 / KOL / 2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2005-06 BOINCHIPOTA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD., P.O. ANANDA NAGAR, DIST. HOOGHLY PIN-712 409 [ PAN NO.AAAAB 2418 A ] V/S . DCIT, CIRCLE-1, HOOGHLY RUPAMATI MAHAL, KHADINA MORE, P.O. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY, PIN-712 102 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI V.N.PUROHIT, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI RAJAT KR. KUREL, JCIT, DR /DATE OF HEARING 07-04-2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11-05-2016 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXVI, KOLKATA DATED 18.05.2010. ASSE SSMENT WAS FRAMED BY DCIT, CIRCLE-1, HOOGHLY U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 07.1 2.2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06. GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED BELOW :- 1) THAT CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING WHILE DISPOSIN G GROUND NO.1 (AS REPRODUCED BELOW) THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT SU FFER ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED BY THIS GROUND ITA NO.1702/KOL/2010 A.Y. 2005-0 6 B.S.K.U.S.LTD. V. DCIT, CIR-1,HG. PAGE 2 THE COMPUTING THE INCOME AT RS7,31,360/- WHICH IS B AD IN LAW AND NOT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THAT FOR THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ORDER PASSED BY A.O COMPUTING INCOME TAXABLE AT RS.7,31,360/- IS BA D AND ALSO BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE HELD AS SUCH. 2) THAT CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT AD DITIONS MADE BY AO WHILE ARRIVING TAXABLE INCOME ARE NOT SO INCLUDABLE IN TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER PROVISIONS OF LAW APPLICABLE TO CO-O PERATIVE SOCIETIES NAMELY NET INTEREST ON RIP AND RD WITH UNITED BANK OF INDIA RS.9,16,971/- AS PER COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME IGNORING THE FAC T THAT ASSESSEE IN HIS COMPUTATION HAS CLAIMED THE SAID AMOUNT AS NOT TAXA BLE U/S. 80P OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.78,685/- ONL Y BEING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RS.9,95,656/- ADDED BY AO AS INCOME FROM DE POSIT MOBILIZATION AND RS.9,16,971/- CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE IN HIS COMPUT ATION AS NOT TAXABLE U/S 80P. 3) THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.30,000/- BEING PROVISION MADE FOR GRATUITY9 FUND AS PER CO-O PERATIVE RULES & REGULATION. 4) THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED STOCK VALUATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8,254/- . SHRI V.N. PUROHIT, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AP PEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAJAT KR. KUREEL, LD. DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, LD. AR D ID NOT PRESS FOR GROUND NO.3 & 4 AND SAME STAND DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO .1 & 2 IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE U /S 80P OF THE ACT. 3.1 FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERAT IVE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE WEST BENGAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1983 AN D ENGAGED IN DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL RELATED MATERIALS. DURING THE FIRST AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LD. CIT(A) ITA NO.1702/KOL/2010 A.Y. 2005-0 6 B.S.K.U.S.LTD. V. DCIT, CIR-1,HG. PAGE 3 NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80 P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT ON THE FOLLOWING INTEREST INCOME. A ) FROM BANKS RS. RS. UBI-RIP 30,59.884/- UBI- RD 7,78,585/- 38,38,469/- LESS: INTEREST PAID UBI-RIP 24,40,865/- UBI-RD 2,75,616/- 27,16,481/- 11,21,988/- THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SEC.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT READS THUS: DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INCOME OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCI ETIES. 80P. (1) WHERE, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING A CO-O PERATIVE SOCIETY, THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME INCLUDES ANY INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (2), THERE SHALL BE DEDUCTED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THE SUMS SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (2), IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. (2) THE SUMS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL B E THE FOLLOWING, NAMELY : ( A ) IN THE CASE OF A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN ( I ) CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS, OR ( II ) A COTTAGE INDUSTRY, OR ( III ) THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN BY I TS MEMBERS, OR ( IV ) THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS, SEEDS, LIVESTOCK OR OTHER ARTICLES INTENDED FOR AGRICULTURE FOR THE PURPOSE O F SUPPLYING THEM TO ITS MEMBERS, OR ( V ) THE PROCESSING, WITHOUT THE AID OF POWER, OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS, OR ( VI ) THE COLLECTIVE DISPOSAL OF THE LABOUR OF ITS MEM BERS, OR ( VII ) FISHING OR ALLIED ACTIVITIES, THAT IS TO SAY, THE CATCHING, CURING, PROCESSING, PRESERVING, STORING OR MARKETING OF FIS H OR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLYING THEM TO ITS MEMBERS, THE WHOLE OF THE AMO UNT OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY ONE OR MORE O F SUCH ACTIVITIES : THE CIT(A) TREATED THE INTEREST INCOME AS INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES AND ACCORDINGLY DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P (2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT WITHOUT ITA NO.1702/KOL/2010 A.Y. 2005-0 6 B.S.K.U.S.LTD. V. DCIT, CIR-1,HG. PAGE 4 ADDUCING ANY REASON THEREON. ACCORDING TO THE ASSE SSEE, IT WAS GIVING LOANS TO AGRICULTURISTS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. THER EFORE INTEREST INCOME WAS PART AND PARCEL OF THE ACTIVITY OF EITHER BANKING O R PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO MEMBERS. THIS CONTENTION WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE CI T(A). 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE F ILED A COPY OF ORDER RENDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RUPNARAYANPUR SAMABAY KRISHIUNNAYAN SAMITY LTD. VS ACIT IN ITA NO.07/KOL/2014 DATED 09.12.2015. IN THE AFORESAID CASE THE IDENTICAL QUESTION AS TO WHETHER INTEREST INCOME HAD TO BE REGARDED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFORESAID DECISI ON ACCEPTED LOANS AND DEPOSITS FROM ITS MEMBERS AND UTILIZED THE SAME TOW ARDS PROVIDING LOANS AND CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. HOWEVER, EXCESS FUNDS WERE UTILIZED IN MAKING DEPOSITS IN BANKS AND INVESTMENTS. THE TRIBUNAL RE LYING UPON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIE TY IN G.A.NO.1838 OF 2010 DATED 22.07.2010 CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT INTERE ST INCOME HAS TO BE REGARDED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF BANKING AND IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALSO DIST INGUISHED THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGAR S CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD VS ITO 188 TAXMANN. 282 (SC). THE FOLLOWING OB SERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL READ AS UNDER :- 7.1.WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS COV ERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESEE BY CATENA OF DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE. THESE DECISIONS ARE ALSO AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT IN ITS ORDER FOR A.YR.2005-06. IN THIS ORDER THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE RELEVANT ORDERS AND HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE. WE MAY GAINFULLY REPRODUCE THE OPERATIVE ORDER OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHICH IS AS UNDER :- ITA NO.1702/KOL/2010 A.Y. 2005-0 6 B.S.K.U.S.LTD. V. DCIT, CIR-1,HG. PAGE 5 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORD ER OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL. IT APPEARS THAT THE POINT INVOLVED .IS WH ETHER INTEREST EARNED OUT OF THE INVESTMENT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE COOPERATIV E CAN BE TREATED TO BE THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY OR F ROM OTHER SOURCES IN ORDER TO APPLY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I ) OF THE I.T. ACT. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACTUAL POSITION THAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROS E BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 TO 2002-2003 AS ALSO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 1995-96 AND 1996-97. THEN AGAIN IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 A SIMILAR POINT AROSE. THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2002-2003 BY ORDER DATE D 10.11.2006 IN ITA NOS. 840 TO 844/KOL/2006 AND AGAIN BY ORDER DAT ED 29.12.2006 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 HA S DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS SHORT TERM AND FIXED DEPOSITS WITH THE BANS AND OTHER INSTITUT IONS WERE DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THIS INCOME WAS NOT BUSINESS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY BUT WAS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD. TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO HELD THAT INCOME FROM INVESTMENT IN BANKS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IS THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND IT IS ELIGIBLE TO GET DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I). THE TRIBUNAL HAS OVERRULED THE DECISIONS RENDERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96 AND 1996-97 ON THE SAME ISSUE IN RELATION T O SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IT WAS FOUND BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE AFFIRMING THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) ON INTERES T ON INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,18,07,645/- IN THIS ASSESSMENT YE AR ALSO. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THIS DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL W AS FOLLOWED BY CIT(A) THERE IS NO REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FEEL THAT WHEN THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE EA RLIER UNCHALLENGED DECISION NO QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED IN THIS MAT TER. NOTHING HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US TO SHOW SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2002-03 AND 2003 -04 HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THIS COURT. IT IS SUBMITTED BY MR.BHOWMICK THAT THERE HAS BEEN CHALLENGE OF THE DECISION IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96, 1996-97 AN D THE SAME IS PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT WE THINK THAT CHALLENGE OF THE AS SESSEE HAS NOW BECOME REDUNDANT AS THE EARLIER VIEW TAKEN IN BOTH THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS HAVE BEEN REVERSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY ITS SUBSEQUENT DECISION . HENCE, THE PENDENCY OF THAT EARLIER MATTER IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE IN THIS MA TTER. HAD THERE BEEN A CHALLENGE OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RELATI ON TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2002-03 AND ALSO 2003-04 TO 2004-05 THE MATTER WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. THE REVENUE DID NOT TAKE ANY STEP W HATSOEVER. THEREFORE, WE PRESUME THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE SUBSEQUENT VIE W OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME NOW HOLD THE FIELD RIGHT NOW. ITA NO.1702/KOL/2010 A.Y. 2005-0 6 B.S.K.U.S.LTD. V. DCIT, CIR-1,HG. PAGE 6 7.2.CONSIDERING THE ABOVE WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE I S SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. IN THIS REGARD WE WOULD LIKE TO PLACE REL IANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS EXCEL INDU STRIES 358 ITR 295 WHEREIN THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY HAS BEEN REITERATED. H ENCE WHEN THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT NO CONVINC ING REASON HAS BEEN POINTED TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW, ANY DEVIATION IS NOT PERMITT ED. 7.3. NOW WE COME TO THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY TH E LD. CIT(A). AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) WE FIND THAT THE SAID DECISIO N IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN TH E SAID DECISION IN PARA 11 HAS ITSELF MENTIONED THAT WE ARE CONFINING THE JUDGMENT TO THE FACTS OF THE P RESENT CASE . THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE THAT ASSESSEES BUSINE SS WAS TO PROVIDE CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND TO MARKET THEIR AGRIC ULTURAL PRODUCE. IN MANY CASES ASSESSEE RETAINED SALE PROCEEDS OF MEMBERS WHOSE PR ODUCE WAS MARKETED BY IT AND SINCE FUNDS CREATED BY SUCH RETENTION WERE NOT REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, IT INVESTED SAME IN SPECIFIED SE CURITIES AND EARNED INTEREST INCOME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE HONBLE APEX COU RT HAD HELD THAT INTEREST EARNED WOULD COME IN CATEGORY OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES TAXABLE U/S 56 OF THE ACT AND WOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION AS BUSI NESS INCOME U/S 80P(2)(A)(I). FROM THE ABOVE IT IS AMPLY EVIDENT IN THE PRESENT C ASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RETAINED ANY AMOUNT DUE TO ITS MEMBERS AND INSTEAD OF PAYING THE SAME HAD INVESTED THE SAME AND EARNED INTEREST. THUS THIS CA SE LAW IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 7.4. AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BIHAR RAJYA SAHKARI BHOOMI BIKASH CO-OP.BANK LTD. (SUPRA) THE SAME IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THA T CASE THE QUESTION WAS THE TREATMENT OF INTEREST EARNED ON PROVIDENT FUND AND RENTAL INCOME AS ATTRIBUTABLE TO BANKING BUSINESS AND THIS QUALIFYING FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 7.5. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENT WE HOLD THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ASSES SEES OWN CASE. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY AS CONVEYED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT MANDATES THAT THE REVENUE DOES NOT TAKE A DIFFERENT STAND. ACCORDINGL Y WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAOVU R OF THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF HON'BL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO-OP SALE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA) AND TAKING DOWN THE FACT THAT INTEREST INCOME IN THE PRESENT CASE IS IDENTICAL TO THE INTE REST INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE DECISION REFERRED TO ABOVE. WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST INCOME. IN THIS ITA NO.1702/KOL/2010 A.Y. 2005-0 6 B.S.K.U.S.LTD. V. DCIT, CIR-1,HG. PAGE 7 VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AND THE COMMON GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 11/05 /2016 SD/- SD/- (S.S.VISHWANETHRA RAVI) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP !- 11 / 05 /201 6 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-BOINCHIPOTA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMAI TY LTD., P.O. ANANDA NAGAR, DIST. HOO GHLY, PIN-712 409 2. /RESPONDENT-DCIT, CIRCLE-1, HOOGHLY RUPAMATI MAHAL, KHADINA MORE, P.O. CHINSURAH, DI ST. HOOGHLY, PIN-712 102 3. ) *+ , , - / CONCERNED CIT HOOGHLY 4. , , -- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 012 33*+, , *+ , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 267 89 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , , /TRUE COPY/ / , *+ ,