DCIT, C.C.I, Kolkata V. Sheo Kumar kajaria, Kolkata

ITA 1857/KOL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2491 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 29-04-2010
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2009
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TIBREWAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Tax effect
• Section: 132; 154

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : KOLKATA ( (( ( ) )) ) . .. . . . . . , ,, , ! ! ! ! '#$ '#$ '#$ '#$ . .. .% %% % . . . . &' &' &' &', , , , () () () () [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, VP & HONBLE SR I D. K. TYAGI, JM] $* $* $* $* / ITA NOS. 1857 TO 1859 /KOL/2009 +, #-. +, #-. +, #-. +, #-./ // / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 TO 2003-04 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, -VS- SHEO KUMA R KAJARIA C.C. 1, KOLKATA. (PA NO. AFCPK 7875 A) (01 / APPELLANT ) (2&01/ RESPONDENT ) '#$ '#$ '#$ '#$ /AND $* $* $* $* / ITA NOS. 1789 & 1790 /KOL/2009 +, #-. +, #-. +, #-. +, #-./ // / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 & 2005-06 SHEO KUMAR KAJARIA -VS- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C.C.1, KOLKATA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE DEPARTMENT: / SRI P. K. MISHRA FOR THE ASSESSEE : / SHRI A. K. TIBREWAL (%3 / ORDER PER BENCH : THE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESS EE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), KOLKATA DATED 27.08 .2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2005-06 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2003-04 REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL AGAINST THE DELETION OF THE PENALTY U/S.271( 1)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 THE ASSESSEE I S IN APPEALS AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S. 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. SINCE ALL THE APPEALS BELONGED TO THE SAME ASSESSEE AND WERE HEARD TOGETH ER, THE SAME ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIE NCE. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NOS. 1857 TO 1859/KOL/2009 (REVENUES APPEALS). THE COMMON GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN ALL THE APPEA LS IS AS UNDER : ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS BY DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1 )(C) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS IMMUNIZED FROM PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF EXPLAN ATION-5 TO SECTION 271(1) WHEN THE ASSESSEES CASE DOES NOT COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED THEREIN. 3. AT THE OUT SET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITED THAT THE TAX EFFECT OF ALL THESE REVENUES APPEALS ARE LESS THAN RS. 2 LACS. HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. 4. THE LD. D.R. WAS ASKED WHY THE APPEALS OF THE R EVENUE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR F. NO. 279/MISC. -64/05-ITJ DATED 24 TH OCTOBER, 2005 2 AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. CAMCO COLOUR CO. [ 254 ITR 565 (BOM)] AND THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN TH E CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. [ 267 ITR 2 72 (SC) ]. THE LD. D.R. CONTENDED THAT THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF RANI PALIWAL VS. CIT [268 ITR 220 ] AND ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JUGAL KISHORE ARORA VS. DCIT [ 269 ITR 133 ] HAVE TAKEN THE VIEW THAT O NCE AN APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE, THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT RAISE THE OBJECTION AGAINST THE MAINTAINABILITY OF SUCH APPEAL. 5 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BOT H THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE CBDT V IDE INSTRUCTION NO. 2/2005 DATED 24 TH OCTOBER, 2005 ISSUES GUIDELINES TO THE REVENUE AUT HORITIES WITH REGARD TO FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, HIGH COURT AND SUPREME COURT. FROM THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION, IT IS EVIDENT THAT SINCE 1987, THE CBDT IS INSTRUCT ING ITS OFFICERS NOT TO FILE THE APPEAL WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS BELOW CERTAIN MONETARY LIMI TS. VIDE INSTRUCTION NO. 1903 DATED 28 TH OCTOBER, 1992, THE MONETARY LIMIT WAS REVISED UPWA RD AND THE OFFICERS WERE DIRECTED NOT TO FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE INCOME-T AX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WHERE THE TAX EFFECT WAS BELOW RS.25,000/-. THE ABOVE MONETARY LI MIT WAS FURTHER REVISED UPWARD BY INSTRUCTION NO. 1979 DATED 27 TH MARCH,2000 AND THE OFFICERS WERE DIRECTED NOT TO F ILE THE APPEAL TO ITAT WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS BELOW RS . 1 LAC. THEREAFTER IN PARTIAL MODIFICATION OF THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION, THE BOARD VI DE INSTRUCTION NO. 2/2005 DATED 24.10.2005, HAS FURTHER RAISED THE ABOVE MONETARY L IMIT TO RS.2 LAKHS WITH THE SAME DIRECTIONS. THUS, THE CBDT SINCE 1987 HAS NOT ON LY TAKEN A CONSISTENT APPROACH OF INSTRUCTING ITS OFFICERS FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS BELOW THE MONETARY LIMIT, BUT SUCH MONETARY LIMIT IS ALSO REV ISED UPWARD FROM TIME TO TIME. THE CIRCULAR UNDER INSTRUCTION 1979 DATED 27.3.2006 WAS CONSIDERED BY THE BONBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CAMCO COLOUR CO. ( SUPRA ) AND THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AT PAGE 568 AS UNDER:- IT APPEARS THAT DESPITE THE ABOVE CIRCULAR, THE RE VENUE HAS CHOSEN TO FILE THE PRESENT APPEAL KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT THE CORRIDORS OF THE COURTS ARE FLOODED WITH PENDING LITIGATIONS. THE PRESENTATION OF THIS APPEAL IS QU ITE CONTRARY TO THE INSTRUCTION ISSUED IN THE CIRCULAR WHICH IS BINDING ON THE REVENUE. IN THE ABOVE VIEW OF THE MATTER, CONSIDERING THE IN STRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE BO ARD HAS TAKEN A POLICY DECISION NOT TO FILE APPEAL IN A TYPE OF CASE IN HAND AND THE SAME IS FINDING ON THE REVENUE (APPELLANT HEREIN). IN THE RESULT, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL ON THIS COUNT IN LIMINE WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 3 6 THE LD. D.R. HAS RELIED UPON THE CONTRARY DECISIO NS GIVEN BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RANI PAL IWAL (SUPRA) AND ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JUGAL KISHORE ARORA ( SUPRA ). HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT RECENTLY THE APEX COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE EFFECT OF CIRCULAR IS SUED BY THE CBDT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. REPORTED IN 267 ITR 272. THEIR LORDSHIPS EXAMINED THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF T HE APEX COURT WITH REGARD TO BINDING NATURE OF THE CIRCULAR AND LAID DOWN THE FO LLOWING PRINCIPLES AT PAGE 277 OF THE REPORTS:- THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY ALL THESE DECISIONS A RE (1) ALTHOUGH A CIRCULAR IS NOT BINDING ON A COUR T OR AN ASSESSEE, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO RAISE A CONTENTION THAT IS CONTRARY TO A BINDING CIRCULAR BY THE BOARD. WHEN A CIRCULAR REMAINS IN OPERATION, THE REVENUE IS BOU ND BY IT AND CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO PLEAD THAT IT IS NOT VALID NOR THAT IT IS CONTRARY TO THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE. (2) DESPITE THE DECISION OF THE COURT, THE DEP ARTMENT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO TAKE A STAND CONTRARY TO THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE BO ARD. (3) A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND DEMAND CONTRARY TO EXIS TING CIRCULARS OF THE BOARD ARE AB INITIO BAD. (4) IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO ADVANCE AN ARG UMENT OR FILE AN APPEAL CONTRARY TO THE CIRCULARS. ( EMPHASIS SUPPLIED ) FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS LAID DOWN THAT IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO ADVANCE AN ARGUMENT OR FILE AN APPEAL CONTRARY TO THE CIRCULAR. THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS CERTAINLY BEEN F ILED CONTRARY TO THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR F. NO. 279/MISC-64/05-ITJ DATED 24 TH OCTOBER, 2005. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX C OURT WOULD BE SQUARELY APPLICABLE. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE REVENUE HAS BEEN TAKING A CONSI STENT APPROACH SINCE 1987 NOT TO FILE APPEAL WHERE THE REVENUE EFFECT IS BELOW CERTA IN MONETARY LIMIT TO REDUCE THE LITIGATION PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE COUR TS. IF THE APPEALS CONTRARY TO SUCH CIRCULAR ARE ADMITTED, IT WOULD FRUSTRATE THE PURPO SE OF ISSUING SUCH INSTRUCTIONS. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CAMCO COLOUR CO. ( SUPRA ) WHICH HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN FOLLOWED IN CIT VS- PITTHWA ENGG. WORKS (2005) 276 ITR 519 (BOM) AND RECENTLY IN CIT VS- ZOEB Y. TOPIWALA (2006) 284 ITR 379 (BOM) HOLD THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE APPEAL CONTRARY TO THE CIRCULAR BY THE CBDT. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE NOT ADMITTED AND BEING DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 4 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. 8. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE ITA NOS. 1789 & 1790/KOL/200 9 (ASSESSEES APPEALS). THE COMMON GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE (EXCEPT VARIANC E IN AMOUNT) IS AS UNDER : 1.THAT, AFTER MAKING A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT F ROM THE ABOVE STATEMENT IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ADMITTED AN INCOME OF R S.5,90,62,895/- UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (PAGE 15 OF T HE APPELLATE ORDER), THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL) ERRED IN OBSERV ING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY AN D ON THE BASIS OF SUCH MISCONCEIVED OBSERVATION HE FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN AN AMOUNT OF RS.23,21,740/- U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. THAT, ON THE ADMITTED FACT ON RECORD THAT THE AP PELLANT-ASSESSEE HAD VOLUNTARILY MADE DISCLOSURE OF RS.5,90,62,895/- U/S. 132(4) AND THAT IN ASSESSMENT U/S. 153-A THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND ANY UNDISCLOSED INCO ME IN EXCESS OF WHAT HAD BEEN VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 132(4), THE LD. C.I.T.(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE IMMUNITY GRAN TED UNDER CLAUSE (2) OF EXPLANATION - 5 OF SEC.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AND THUS CONFIRMIN G LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.23,21,740/-. 3. THAT, THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. C.I.T.(A) IN PAGES 10 & 11 OF HIS ORDER ARE WHOLLY IRRELEVANT AND ON THE BASIS OF SUCH IRRELEVA NT CONSIDERATIONS, THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY HIM IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C ) IS BAD IN LAW AND PERVERSE. 9. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEAR CH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON 23.8.2006 UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE BUILDER GROUP OF CASES. THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE INDIVID UALS BELONGING TO THIS GROUP. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.8 .2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.84,56,893/- IN PURSUANCE OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 1 53A OF THE ACT DATED 12.7.2007. ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S. 153A/143(3) ON THE RETURNE D TOTAL INCOME OF RS.84,56,893/-. THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS DISCLOSURE PETITION DATED 2.1 0.2006 DISCLOSED AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,90,62,895/-, THE DETAILS OF WHICH THE AO HAS G IVEN IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT. FOR THE PURPOSE OF OFF ERING THE AFOREMENTIONED UNACCOUNTED/UNEXPLAINED RECEIPTS AND TRANSACTIONS T O TAX, THE AMOUNT/VALUE OF ALL SUCH ISSUES WERE QUANTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER CALCUL ATIONS AND WORKINGS IN THE MONTH WISE CASH FLOW CHART FILED SEPARATELY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2007-08. THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSE SSEE IN HIS RETURN FILED U/S. 153A/139(1). THE AO, THEREFORE, OBSERVED FROM THE SAID CASH FLOW CHART THAT IN THE AYS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED AN AMOUNT OF RS.77,39,135/- AND RS.1,23,02,449/- AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THIS INCOME WAS ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 153A/143(3). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONCEALMENT OF I NCOME, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED BY THE AO AND P ENALTY OF RS.23,21,740 AND 5 RS.41,63,276/- FOR AY 2004-05 & 2005-06 RESPECTIVEL Y WERE IMPOSED. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO VIDE IMPU GNED ORDER DATED 27.08.2009. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND SIMULTANEOUSLY HE FILED AN APPLICATION U/S. 154/250 OF THE I. T. ACT AGAINS T THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER : IN RELATION TO THE APPEAL ORDER AS MENTIONED ABOVE YOUR KIND ATTENTION MAY BE DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT THE FINAL CONCLUSION DRAWN FOR AFF IRMING THE PENALTY IS BASED ON A FACTUALLY INCORRECT OBSERVATION THAT TAX DUE ON RET URNED INCOME FILED U/S. 153-A HAD NOT BEEN PAID FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06. THE APPEAL FOR DELETION OF PENALTY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS REFERRED ABOVE HAD BEEN REJECTED WITH THE REMARK THAT THE APPELLANT, HAVING NOT SATISFIED ALL THE CONDIT IONS CUMULATIVELY, IN CLAUSE (2) TO EXPLANATION (5) TO SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE I. T. A CT, 1961 IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF WAIVER OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I . T ACT, 1961 FUR A. YRS 2004-05 AND 2005-06. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. FOR A. YRS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 IS CONFIRMED. HOWEVER, THE ABOVE OBSERVATION IS FACTUALLY WRONG A S THE SAME IS BASED ON THE ORDERS AND DEMAND NOTICES ISSUED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF T HE ASSESSMENT U/S. 153-A WHEREIN THE OUTSTANDING TAX DEMAND HAS BEEN RECORDED AS RS. 13,32,745/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND RS.20,16,709/-FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06. HOWEVER, AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENTS, APPLI CATIONS FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 154 WERE FILED AND THE SAME HAD BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE FINAL DEMAND HAD BEEN RECALCULATED AND BROUGHT DOWN TO RS 9,20,284/-FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND RS.11,98,845/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06. SUCH DEMANDS OF TAXES HAD BEEN PAID FULLY ON 01.06.2009 IN BOTH THE CASES AND THE COPIES OF THE PAID CHALLANS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS REC ORD. PHOTOCOPIES OF SUCH ORDERS U/S 154 ALONG WITH CHALLANS EVIDENCING PAYMENTS MADE AR E ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE AND TO SUBSTANTIATE MY CLAIM. IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES NARRATED ABOVE I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT THE AFFIRMATION OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AS THE SAME IS BASED ON AN ERRONEOUS APPRECIATI ON OF FACT WHICH IS APPARENT FROM RECORDS. THEREFORE, SUCH MISTAKE NEEDS RECTIFICATIO N U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.4.2010 ALLOW ED THE PRAYER FOR RECTIFICATION U/S. 154 OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : SO, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE AP PARENT IN THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 27.8.2009 PASSED IN THIS CASE IN ASCERTAINING THE CORRECT FACTUAL POSITION RELATING TO PAYMENT OF TAX WITH INTEREST MADE BY THE APPELLANT/ APPLICANT ON THE DISCLOSURE OF INCOME MADE BY HIM IN COURSE OF THE SEARCH. SUCH M ISTAKE NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AS WELL AS IN TERMS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT SINCE ALL TAXES HAVING BEEN PAID BY THE APPELLANT/APPLICANT, HE HAS SATISF IED THE REQUIREMENTS OF AVAILING ITSELF OF THE IMMUNITY GRANTED AS PER EXPLANATION (5) U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, THE PRAYER FOR RECTIFICATION U/S. 154 OF THE ACT IS ALLOWED ON MERIT BY THIS COMBINED ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-0 5 AND 2005-06. SUCH RECTIFICATION HAS THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING THE APPEALS ALSO FOR THE SE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH WERE DISMISSED PREVIOUSLY BY THE ORDER DATED 27.8.2009 O N AN APPARENTLY ERRONEOUS FINDING OF FACT. 6 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) RECT IFIED THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.8.2009 AND ALLOWED THE APPEALS FOR THESE TWO ASS ESSMENT YEARS ALSO. THUS, THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT STANDS DELETED BY THE RECTIFIED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THIS, THE APPEA LS NOW FILED BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DI SMISSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- . .. . . . . . , , , , ! ! ! ! . . . . % %% % . . . . &' &' &' &', , , , () (G. D. AGRAWAL) (D. K. TYAGI) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER ( (( (4 4 4 4) )) ) DATED :12TH JULY, 2010 #56 +7 +8# JD.(SR.P.S.) (%3 9 2++: %:-;- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. 01 /APPELLANT DCIT, CC-1, KOLKATA 2 2&01 / SHRI SHEO KUMAR KAJARIA, 4, ASHOKA ROAD, KOLKATA- 27.. . 3. +3/ THE CIT, KOLKATA 4. +3 ()/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 5. #B+' 2+ / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA &: 2+/ TRUE COPY , (%3C/ BY ORDER , $ / DEPUTY REGISTRAR .