Prasanta Kumar Gunin , Kolkata V. ACIT, Circle - 37, Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 1780/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2783 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP LAKRA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 142(1); 250; 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. NO. 1780/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PRASANTA KUMAR GUNIN.................................................................. APPELLANT [PAN : ADOPG 1402 D] VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA........................................... RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADV., APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . SHRI SANDEEP LAKRA, JCIT, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : AUGUST 21 ST , 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : AUGUST 30 TH , 2019 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11, KOLKATA, DATED 08.05.2018 PASSED U/S 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG) AND LAUNCH HIRING. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) RECORDED REASONS OF RE-OPENING AS FOLLOWS: DATE: 30.01.2015 IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX FOR RS. 6,03,230/- ON 07/11/2014 IN THE A.Y.-2014-15. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 210 WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PAY THE ADVANCE TAX FOR THE A.Y.-2015-16 IN A REGULAR MANNER. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THERE WAS INCOME LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN A.Y.-2013-14 AND THE SELF- ASSESSMENT TAX WAS PAID FOR THE A.Y.-2013-14 THOUGH BY MISTAKE IT WAS DEPOSITED FOR A.Y.2014-15 AND REQUIRED FOR NECESSARY CORRECTION. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y.-2013-14. NOW, IT IS VERIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENT ON 07/11/2014, BUT DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y.2013-14 TILL DATE. BY SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS 2 I.T.A. NO. 1780/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PRASANTA KUMAR GUNIN CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED TAXABLE LTCG BY SELLING OF PROPERTY, BUT DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF TAXABLE LTCG HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE I.T.ACT. ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 148. 4. THEREAFTER HE ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DATED 30.01.2015 TO THE ASSESSEE RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.11.2015. THE ASSESSEE ASKED FOR COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THE AO ON 26.11.2015 ISSUED A COPY OF THE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE RE- OPENING ON 16.12.2015, A COPY OF WHICH IS AT PAGE-16 & 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK (PB). THE AO REJECTED THE REASONS VIDE LETTER DATED 06.01.2016. THEREAFTER AN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED ON 31.03.2016 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,36,33,290/-, INTER ALIA DETERMINING THE LTCG ON SALE OF PROPERTY AT RS. 2,33,76,477/-. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 08.05.2018 GRANT PART RELIEF. FURTHER, AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING REVISED GROUNDS: 1. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE QUASHED THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S 147 R.W. 143(3) DATED 31.03.2016 HOLDING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO BE INVALID IN LAW. 2. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION VALUE OF RS. 20 LACS AS PER THE SALE DEED IN PLACE OF THE ERRONEOUS FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RS. 30,24,819/- DETERMINED BY THE DVO IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY AT DIAMOND HARBOUR ROAD (MADHABPUR). 3. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE FMV OF THE ASSESSEES SHARE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT CHOWBGA (WEST) AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS. 12,70,020/- IN PLACE OF RS. 14,825/- ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED BY THE A.O. 4. (A) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GIVING DIRECTIONS TO THE A.O. TO ADOPT THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING DEEMED SALE VALUE U/S 50C IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT CHOWBAGA (WEST), WHICH WAS SOLD BY EXECUTING POA. (B) FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN DIRECTION TO THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY SOLD BY EXECUTING POA TO RE-COMPUTE THE LTCG ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL SALE VALUE VIS-A-VIS LTCG ARRIVED AT AFTER CONSIDERING DVOS REPORT IN RESPECT OF THE SIMILAR PROPERTY AT CHOWBAGA (WEST), BEING SUBJECT MATTER OF GROUND NO. 3. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD FURTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR ALTER THE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3 I.T.A. NO. 1780/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PRASANTA KUMAR GUNIN 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. SUBASH AGARWAL SUBMITTED THAT, THE RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW FOR THE REASON THAT, THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 30.01.2015 AND WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD TIME TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14, UPTO 31.03.2015 U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT. HE POINTED OUT THAT AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE HAD OCCURRED IN THE INCOME TAX PAYMENT CHALLAN AS, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS WRONGLY MENTIONED AS 2014-15 AND WHEREAS IT HAD TO BE MENTIONED AS 2013-14. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX WAS PAID ON 07.11.2014 AND THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKE IN MENTIONING OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 21.01.2015. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE MISTAKE WAS CORRECTED BY THE AO IN RESPONSE TO HIS LETTER REQUESTING RECTIFICATION AND THAT IT WAS ONLY THEREAFTER THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS FOR THE PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT, AN ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE RE-OPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT, BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. 1) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALS (ITAT) SMC(B) BENCH, KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF SH. JAGMOHAN SHARMA VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-3(1), ASANSOL IN ITA NO. 1384/KOL/2013 DATED 05.09.2014. 2) LUCKNOW B BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF UP HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 229/LKW/2009 DATED 05.09.2014. 7. HE PRAYED THAT SUCH ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY ISSUE OF THE NOTICE U/S 147 OF THE ACT SHOULD BE QUASHED AS BAD IN LAW. 8. ON MERITS HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER OF VALUATION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, WAS REFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER (DVO), BY THE AO, AND AS THE AO HAD NOT RECEIVED THE REPORT OF THE DVO, HE PROCEEDED TO ADOPT THE SDV VALUATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF LTCG, BY ADOPTING THE VALUE FIXED BY THE SDO FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AS SALE CONSIDERATION. 9. AS THE DVOS REPORT WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HE DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS ARRIVED AT BY THE DVO, FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS OF SALE OF PROPERTY AT (1) MOUZA MASHAPUR, P.S. DIAMOND HARBOUR, (2) CHOWBAGA [WEST][SALE THROUGH SALE DEEDS]. AS REGARDS THE PROPERTY NO.-3 AT CHOWBAGA (WEST) WHICH WAS SOLD THROUGH POA, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS LOCATED IN SUCH A LOCALITY, THAT IT BECAME IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SALE FOR VARIOUS REASONS AND HENCE A POA WAS GIVEN TO POLITICALLY CONNECTED PERSONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO APPLY THE SDV RATE THAT IS ADOPTED 4 I.T.A. NO. 1780/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PRASANTA KUMAR GUNIN FOR STAMP DUTY LEVY PURPOSE. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE AO, IN THE ABSENCE OF STAMP DUTY VALUE, AS THE PLOTS WERE ADJACENT, ADOPTED THE VALUE ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS AND THAT THE LD. DVO HAS NOT DONE ANY VALUATION AS THERE WAS NO CONVEYANCE DEED. HE PRAYED THAT THE DVO VALUE FIXED FOR THE ADJACENT SITE OF CHOWBAGA (WEST) BE ADOPTED FOR THE SALE OF THIS SITE ALSO, AND ALTERNATIVELY THAT THE DVO SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO FIX THE VALUE OF THIS 3 RD SITE AND THEN ONLY THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS TO BE ARRIVED AT. 10. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE RE- OPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS VALID, AS THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT FILED EVEN TILL THE DATE PERMITTED U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT FOR FILING OF BELATED RETURN OF INCOME AND WAS FILED ONLY AFTER A NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DATES AND EVENTS SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENTION OF FILING HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON OR BEFORE 31.03.2015. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME BE UPHELD. 11. ON THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF LTCG, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT THE DVOS VALUATION FOR THE TWO PROPERTIES AND TO ADOPT THE SDO VALUE FOR THE THIRD PROPERTY THERE WAS NO REGISTERED CONVEYANCE DEED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTIONS WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND CALLS FOR NO INFERENCE. 12. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND A PERUSAL OF THE CASE LAW CITED AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 13. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.11.2015. THE AO RECORDED REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON 30.01.2015 AND ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON THE SAME DAY I.E. 30.01.2015. THE ASSESSEES CASE IS THAT, HE HAD TIME TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 UPTO 31.03.2015 U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT AND HENCE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT PRIOR TO THAT DATE IS BAD IN LAW. 14. THE REVENUES CONTENTION IS THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE DUE DATE ALLOWED EITHER U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT OR U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SH. 5 I.T.A. NO. 1780/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PRASANTA KUMAR GUNIN JAGMOHAN SHARMA (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 21.01.2007 AND THEREAFTER THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 01.11.2017. IN OTHER WORDS NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT SUCH NOTICE CANNOT BE GIVEN BY THE AO BY IGNORING THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS IN THE CASE ARE DIFFERENT AND HENCE THIS CASE DOES NOT APPLY. IN THE CASE OF UP HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD (SUPRA) LUCKNOW BENCH OF ITAT WAS DEALING WITH THE CASE WHERE THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT ON 31.03.2006. THE TRIBUNAL AT PAGES-7 AND 8 HELD AS FOLLOWS: IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AS PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ISSUE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142(1)(I) AS UNDER: '142(1) (I) WHERE SUCH PERSON HAS NOT MADE A RETURN WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 OR BEFORE THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR TO FURNISH A RETURN OF HIS INCOME OR THE INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THIS ACT, IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED.' 5.1 FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142(1)(I) OF THE ACT, WE FIND THAT WHEN AN ASSESSEE DOES NOT FILE ITS RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ASK THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME. SIMILARLY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HE CAN ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RECORD HIS REASONS FOR BELIEF AND THEN ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, TILL THE TIME AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FILING RETURN U/S 139(4) HAS NOT EXPIRED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SUCH TIME HAS NOT EXPIRED ON 30/03/2006 WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 148 AND THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT VALID BECAUSE NO INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT TILL THAT DATE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY ASSESSING OFFICER BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT VALID AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3)/148 HAS NO LEGS TO STAND AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS QUASHED. IN THE CASE ON HAND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT AND WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF UP HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30.03.2006. THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE 31.03.2010. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ONLY ON 26.11.2015. THUS WE CANNOT APPLY THE RATIO OF THIS ORDER TO THE CASE ON HAND. 6 I.T.A. NO. 1780/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PRASANTA KUMAR GUNIN 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE HOLD THAT RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS VALID. HENCE THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 16. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF MERITS, THERE WERE A TOTAL OF THREE PROPERTIES WHICH WERE SOLD. AS REGARDS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT MOUZA MASHAPUR, P.S. DIAMOND HARBOUR AND PROPERTY LOCATED AT CHOWBAGA (WEST) WHICH WAS SOLD BY WAY OF A REGISTERED SALE DEED, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ADOPT THE VALUE AS FIXED BY THE DVO. IN THE CASE OF THE SALE OF THE THIRD PROPERTY I.E. CHOWBAGA (WEST) WHICH WAS SOLD BY WAY OF A POWER OF ATTORNEY THERE IS NO VALUE FIXED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AS THERE WAS NO SALE DEED. THIS WAS THE REASON WHY THE DVO DID NOT FIX ANY VALUE TO THE PROPERTY. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, AS THE PROPERTIES AT CHOWBAGA (WEST) ARE LOCATED ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER, THE VALUE FIXED BY THE DVO FOR PLOT NO. 2, MAY BE TAKEN AS THE VALUE OF PLOT NO. 3 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. WHEN THIS IS COMPUTED ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS, THE SALE VALUE OF PROPERTY WOULD WORK OUT TO RS. 6,87,382.39. IN OUR VIEW THIS VALUE WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE AND MAY BE CONSIDERED AS THE VALUE FIXED BY THE DVO. HENCE WE DIRECT THE AO TO ADOPT THIS FIGURE OF RS. 13,94,126 AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION U/S 50C OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING LTCG OF PROPERTY NO. 3 AS THIS IS THE SALE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS IN EXCESS OF RS. 6,87,382.39 COMPUTED ABOVE. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. 17. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE 30 TH AUGUST, 2019. SD/- SD/- [S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI] [J. SUDHAKAR REDDY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 30.08.2019 BIDHAN 7 I.T.A. NO. 1780/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PRASANTA KUMAR GUNIN COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. PRASANTA KUMAR GUNIN, C/O. SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES, SIDDHA GIBSON, 1, GIBSON LANE, SUITE-213, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 069. 2. ACIT, CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA-700 001. 3. CIT(A)-11, KOLKATA. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES