ITO, Ward - 25(1), Kolkata , Kolkata V. Late Rathindra Nath Bhattacharya, Legal Heir Sumita Bhattacharjee (Das), Kolkata

ITA 2347/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1619 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANKAR HALDAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SAUMITRA CHOUDHARY
• Section: 15; 143(3); 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH D, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SH.S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2347/KOL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15) ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.08.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, KOLKATA [HEREINAFTER CIT(A)] FOR AY 2014-15. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IS TO BE DECIDED AS TO WHETHER THE CIT(A) JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SALE CONSIDERATION AND MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTIES IN THE HANDS OF ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS EMANATING FROM THE RECORD LEADING TO THE ISSUE ON HAND ARE THAT THE DECEASED ASSESSEE I.E. RATHINDRANATH BHATTACHARYA WHILE HE WAS ALIVE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,60,030/- ON 11.08.2014 AND HE EXPIRED ON 27.03.2015. ACCORDING TO AO, SCRUTINY NOTICE DATED 28.08.2015 U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) WAS SERVED ON THE DECEASED ASSESSEE ON 03.09.2015. A NOTICE DATED 04.05.2016 U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS SERVED ON THE ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 25(1), KOLKATA. VS LATE RATHINDRANATH BHATTACHARYA L/H SUMITA BHATTACHARJEE(DAS), 126, B.B.CHATTERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA- 700 042. PAN-AEGPB6067C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH.SANKAR HALDER, JCIT RESPONDENT BY SH.SAUMITRA CHAUDHURY, ADV. DATE OF HEARING 21 .0 6 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 6 .0 9 .2019 ITA NO.2347/KOL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15) PAGE | 2 ON 05.05.2016. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICES, SH. A.K. CHAKRABARTY REPRESENTING THE ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR, APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME BEFORE THE AO AND PRODUCED DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS AS CALLED FOR. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE, THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE DECEASED ASSESSEE AND NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT ON HIS ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR I.E. SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS) AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE THEREON IN THE NAME OF SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS), THE ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR. 4. IN THE SAID SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND THAT DECEASED ASSESSEE RATHINDRANATH BHATTACHARYA SOLD THREE PROPERTIES AND ASKED THE AR TO PRODUCE DETAILS OF THE SAID THREE PROPERTIES. ON AN EXAMINATION OF SALE DEEDS OF ABOVE SAID THREE PROPERTIES, THE AO FOUND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SALE CONSIDERATION AND MARKET VALUE AS UNDER: SLNO DEED NO/SERIAL NO/QUERY NO SALE CONSIDERATION MARKET VALUE DIFFERENCE (MV - SC) 1 1 - 04242 OF 2013/05068 OF 2013 /1606L000009881 OF 2013 RS 21,00,000/- RS.55,70,000/- 34,70,000/- 2 1 - 04243 OF 2013/05069 OF 2013 /1606L000009884 OF 2013 RS 18,00,000/- RS.55,70,000/- 37,70,000/- 3 1 - 04241 OF 2013/05067 OF 2013 /1606L000009885 OF 2013 RS 21,00,000/- RS.55,70,000/- 34,70,000/- TOTAL DIFFERENCE(MARKET VALUE-SALE CONSIDERATION) 1,07,10,000 5. THE AO ASKED THE ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ABOVE MENTIONED DIFFERENCE SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. WE NOTE THAT THE AO OBSERVED IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE LEGAL HEIR VIDE REPLY DATED 29.07.2016, ACCEPTED THE DIFFERENCE AS FOUND BY HIM OF THE SAID THREE PROPERTIES IN RESPECT OF SALE CONSIDERATION AND MARKET VALUE AND ACCORDINGLY, HE PROPOSED TO ADD THE SAID DIFFERENCE TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 1,07,10,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. FURTHER, TO THE ABOVE, HE RECEIVED AN INFORMATION FROM AIR THAT THE DECEASED ASSESSEE RATHINDRANATH BHATTACHARYA SOLD ANOTHER PROPERTY HAVING MARKET VALUE OF RS. 39,36,000/- FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 20,00,000/- AND FOUND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARKET VALUE AND SALE ITA NO.2347/KOL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15) PAGE | 3 CONSIDERATION OF RS, 19,36,000/- (RS. 39,36,000 RS. 20,00,000). IT IS NOTED THAT IN REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE, THE AR DURING THE HEARING ON 19.08.2016 REPORTED NO REPLY AND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,26,46,000/- (1,07,10,000+19,36,000/-) TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE IN THE HANDS OF SUMITA DAS, THE ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 26.08.2016 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR CHALLENGED THE SAME BEFORE THE CIT(A), CONTENDING THAT THE DECEASED ASSESSEE WAS UNMARRIED AND LEFT NO SUCCESSOR / LEGAL HEIR AND AS SUCH NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT ISSUED TO SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS), ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR IS INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. IT WAS CONTENDED FURTHER, THAT THERE WAS NO DOCUMENT TO SHOW THAT THE ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR IS THE SUCCESSOR OF DECEASED ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THE ASSESSMENT MADE THEREON IN THE HANDS OF THE ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS) IS VOID. FURTHER, CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO THAT IS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE SUCH AS LEGAL HEIR CERTIFICATE FROM THE COURT OF LAW, LEGAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LEGAL REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THE SURVIVING MEMBER CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE STATE/CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, REGISTERED WILL AND PENSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE STATE/CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, THE ADDITION MADE THEREON IN THE HANDS OF ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR IS INVALID. HAVING CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE NOTICE DATED 28.08.2015 ISSUED U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF PERSON IS FORBIDDEN BY LAW AND DELETED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR THE REASONS AS UNDER: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE ASSESSEE ISSUED BY BIDHANNAGAR MUNICIPALITY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPIRED ON 27.03.2015. AS CAN BE CLEARLY SEEN FROM COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) ISSUED BY THE A.O. ON 28.08.2015, THAT THE SAID NOTICE IS IN THE NAME OF SHRI RATHINDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA. THEREFORE, ON THE DAY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE THE PERSON CEASED TO EXIST HAVING EXPIRED BACK ON 27.03.2015. SUCH NOTICE IS THEREFORE NULL AND VOID AB-INITIO AND THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING BASED ON THE SAID NOTICE IS ALSO LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THE FACT THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE ONE A.K. CHAKRABORTY APPEARED AS THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE AND PRODUCED THE DETAILS IS THEREFORE NOT MAINTAINABLE IN LAW. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM COPY OF THE INSTRUMENT OF WILL OR FINAL TESTAMENT DATED 20.03.2015, WHICH IS MADE SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO HIS DEATH, SHRI RATHINDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA MENTIONED THAT HE WAS A BACHELOR AND BOTH HIS BROTHERS WERE DEAD AND THAT THERE WERE TWO SONS AND ITA NO.2347/KOL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15) PAGE | 4 TWO DAUGHTERS OF HIS ELDER BROTHER AND ONE SON AND ONE DAUGHTER OF HIS YOUNGER BROTHER. THE SAID WILL NOWHERE CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS) (BHATTACHARJEE) SHALL BE HIS LEGAL HEIR AFTER HIS DEATH. IN FACT IN THE SAID WILL SHRI RATHINDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT ALL HIS PROPERTIES AFTER HIS DEATH SHALL VEST IN A TRUST IN THE NAME OF HIS DECEASED FATHER AND THE NAME OF THE SAID TRUST WILL BE 'RAMESH CHANDRA SMRITI RAKSHA TRUST'. IN THE SAID WILL IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT SINCE SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS) (BHATTACHARJEE) BEING ONE OF HIS MANY NEPHEWS AND NIECES, SHALL BE ENTITLED TO LIVE AND RESIDE IN A ROOM AT 161, RAJDANGA ROAD AND IN THE SOUTH EASTERN OF THE FLAT IN THE FIFTH STORIED AT 126, B.B. CHATTERJEE ROAD TILL HER LIFE TIME, DECLARATION NO WAY MEANS THAT IN THE EYES OF LAW SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS) (BHATTACHERJEE) IS HIS LEGAL HEIR. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT INITIAL NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE IT ACT DATED 20.08.2015 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PERSON IS FORBIDDEN BY LAW AND THEREFORE, GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. I AM FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT SUBSEQUENT NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE IT. ACT, 1961, DATED 4.5.2016 ISSUED ON SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS) (BHATTACHERJEE) TO BE THE LEGAL HEIR OF LATE RATHINDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA IS INVALID AND BAD IN LAW AS THE SAID FLAT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED/CERTIFIED BY ANY COURT OF LAW OR BY ANY WILL OF THE DECEASED OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.2, 3 & 4 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE UPHELD AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) IS VOID AB-INITIO. 8. HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO ON 28.08.2015 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE FOR THE FACT THAT LATE RATHINDRANATH BHATTACHARYA WAS NO MORE AS ON 28.08.2015 AS HE EXPIRED ON 27.03.2015. WE NOTE THAT THE CIT(A) EXAMINED THE RECORD AND FOUND THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO WAS IN THE NAME OF RATHINDRANATH BHATTACHARYA WHO WAS NO MORE AS ON THAT DAY AND HELD THE NOTICE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND IS INVALID. THE LD. AR PLACED ON RECORD THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BIDHANNAGAR MUNICIPALITY, KOLKATA WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THE DATE OF DEATH OF RATHINDRANATH BHATTACHARYA WAS ON 27.03.2015. THE FACT OF DATE OF DEATH IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE APPELLANT REVENUE. THEREFORE, WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. AR THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED ON A DEAD PERSON IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND WE FIND THE FINDING OF CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT IS JUSTIFIED. 9. FURTHER TO THE ABOVE, THAT THE AO ISSUED NOTICE DATED 04.05.2016 U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT TO SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS) ADDRESSING HER TO BE LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED ASSESSEE RATHINDRANATH BHATTACHARYA. WE NOTE THAT ITA NO.2347/KOL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15) PAGE | 5 THE SAID ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE HANDS OF ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE SUCH AS LEGAL HEIR CERTIFICATE FROM COURT OF LAW, LEGAL HEIR CERTIFICATE FROM ANY LOCAL REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THE SURVIVING FAMILY MEMBER CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ANY AUTHORITY, REGISTERED WILL AND PENSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE STATE OR CENTRAL GOVERNMENTS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE AO HAVING NO SUCH EVIDENCE ON RECORD THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS), THE ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR. THE CIT(A) ALSO HELD THE ASSESSMENT WHICH IS MADE IN THE HANDS OF SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS) IS NOT MAINTAINABLE TO THE FACT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR WHATSOEVER ESTABLISHING THAT SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS) IS THE LEGAL HEIR OF LATE RATHINDRANATH BHATTACHARYA. 10. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSIONS MADE HEREIN ABOVE, THE ISSUE STANDS FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS AS TO WHETHER SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS) IS HEIR TO THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE LATE RATHINDRANATH BHATTACHARYA. 11. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE DECEASED ASSESSEE AND ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS) ARE THE HINDUS. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE SUCCESSION OPENS WHEN A HINDU MALE OR FEMALE DIES INTESTATE I.E. WITHOUT EXECUTING A WILL OR FINAL DECLARATION REGARDING THE SUCCESSION TO THEIR ESTATE. THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 IS AN ACT ENACTED TO AMEND AND CODIFY THE LAW RELATING TO INTESTATE SUCCESSION AMONG HINDUS. PROVISIONS U/S 8 AND 15 OF THE SAID ACT EXPLAINS THE GENERAL RULES OF SUCCESSION IN THE CASES OF MALE AND FEMALE HINDUS RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE DECEASED ASSESSEE IS A MALE, THE GENERAL RULES OF SUCCESSION IS PROVIDED IN SECTION 8 OF THE SAID ACT IS MADE APPLICABLE IF SUCH MALE HINDU DIES INTESTATE. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE DECEASED ASSESSEE DIED TESTATE I.E. EXECUTED A WILL IN FAVOUR OF A TRUST AND THEREFORE THE GENERAL RULES OF SUCCESSION CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 8 OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 12. IN ORDER TO SUCCEED TO THE PROPERTY OF A PERSON DYING INTESTATE ONE MUST HAVE EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE SUCCEEDING PERSON IS THE LEGAL HEIR OF ITA NO.2347/KOL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15) PAGE | 6 THE SAID DECEASED PERSON. IN THE PRESENT CASE AS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS) IS THE LEGAL HEIR OF LATE RATHINDRANATH BHATTACHARYA. THE LD. AR PLACES ON RECORD A WILL DATED 20.03.2015 WHEREIN IT IS NOTED THAT LATE RATHINDRANATH BHATTACHARYA CREATED A TRUST IN THE NAME OF HIS DECEASED FATHER I.E. RAMESH CHANDRA SMRITI RAKSHA TRUST. HE DECLARED THAT THE GOAL OF THE TRUST IS TO EXPANSION OF SCIENCE, EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, TREATMENT OF POOR PERSONS AND CULTURAL AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES. FURTHER, HE DECLARED ALL HIS IMMOVABLE AND MOVABLE PROPERTIES SHALL DEVOLVE ON THE SAID TRUST. HE ALSO APPOINTED SH. JAINI BURMAN AND SH. BIMAL KR PAL AS THE JOINT EXECUTORS OF THE SAID WILL. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID WILL WE NOTE THAT THE ENTIRE IMMOVABLE AND MOVABLE PROPERTIES SHALL DEVOLVE ON THE TRUST CREATED BY THE DECEASED ASSESSEE AND NOWHERE HE INTENDED THAT SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS), THE ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR IS TO BE HIS HEIR TO SUCCEED HIS ESTATE. THEREFORE THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS) IS THE LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED RATHINDRANATH BHATTACHARYA IS NOT BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE SHE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE LEGAL HEIR OF LATE RATHINDRANATH BHATTACHARYA IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE. 13. THE LIABILITY IN SPECIAL CASES REGARDING LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES IS PROVIDED IN SECTION 159 IN CHAPTER XV OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE PROVISION U/S 159 OF THE ACT EXPLAINS THAT WHERE A PERSON DIES, HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY ANY SUM WHICH THE DECEASED HAVE BEEN LIABLE TO PAY IF HE HAD NOT DIED, IN THE LIKE MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THE DECEASED. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE HANDS OF THE AO TO TREAT SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS) AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE. THE DEFINITION OF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IS PROVIDED IN SUB- SECTION 11 OF SECTION 2 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE MEANS A PERSON WHO IN LAW REPRESENTS THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED PERSON IN A REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER THE PERSON ON WHOM THE ESTATE DEVOLVES ON THE DEATH OF THE PARTY. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE DECEASED ASSESSEE LATE RATHINDRANATH BHATTACHARYA LEFT A WILL GIVING EFFECT TO THE SAME AFTER HIS DEATH DECLARING THAT ALL HIS IMMOVABLE AND MOVABLE PROPERTIES WOULD ITA NO.2347/KOL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2014-15) PAGE | 7 DEVOLVE ON THE TRUST AND NOTHING OF HIS ESTATE DEVOLVED ON SMT. SUMITA BHATTACHARYA(DAS), ALLEGED LEGAL HEIR. IT IS NOTED FROM THE WILL THAT HE IS A BACHELOR HAVING INTENDED TO CREATE A TRUST AFTER HIS DEATH IN THE NAME OF HIS DECEASED FATHER FOR THE ACTIVITIES DISCUSSED THEREIN. THEREFORE, IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT LATE RATHINDRANATH BHATTACHARYA DIED EXECUTING A WILL DECLARING ALL HIS IMMOVABLE AND MOVABLE PROPERTIES TO BE DEVOLVED IN THE SAID TRUST AFTER HIS DEATH. IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT HE DIED TESTATE AND WHEN HE DIED TESTATE DECIDED DECLARING THE SAID TRUST WOULD SUCCEED TO HIS ESTATE AND THE QUESTION OF LEGAL HEIR DOES NOT ARISE. THEREFORE, SMT. SUMITA (BHATTACHARYA) DAS CANNOT BE SAID TO HIS LEGAL HEIR. THUS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND IT IS JUSTIFIED. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE INVOLVING THE ISSUE ARE DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.09.2019. SD/- SD/- (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE:- 06.09.2019 BIDHAN COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT- ITO, WARD- 25(1), KOLKATA. 2. RESPONDENT- LATE RATHINDRANATH BHATTACHARYA, L/H SUMITA BHATTACHARJEE(DAS), 126, B.B.CHATTERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA- 700 042. 3. CIT-KOLKATA 4. CIT(APPEALS)-7, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH MAIL) 5. DR: ITAT -KOLKATA BENCHES (SENT THROUGH MAIL) BY ORDER AR/H.O.O ITAT, KOLKATA