DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata, Kolkata V. Shri Beni Prasad Lahoti, Howrah

ITA 2378/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5286 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 201; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B , BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY , JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM ./ ITA NO . 2378 / KOL/ 201 6 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 ) DCIT, CC - 2(2), KOLKATA VS. SHRI BENI PRASAD LAHOTI 7 TH FLOOR, SHREESHYAM GARDEN, 12, HARDUTTA RAI CHAMARIA ROAD, 13, GOLABARI, HOWRAH - 711101. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO.: AAUPL 9647 E ( ASSESSEE ) .. (RE VENUE ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A. K. SINGH, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJEEVA KUMAR, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 04 /0 3 /2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 / 0 5 /201 9 / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 , IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2 0 , KOLKATA (IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A) ] , WHICH IN TURN ARISE S OUT OF AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT ) DATED 31 .03.201 5 . 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE R EVENUE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 3,62,38,369/ - MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT APPRAISING THE FACT THAT THE DISCLOSURE OF RS. 8,63,50,000/ - WAS CORROBORATED BY SEIZED MATERIALS A S WELL AS THE FACT THAT THE BROKER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH COMPLETE PICTURE OF TRANSACTION CLAIMED IN THE SAUDA REGISTER. SHRI BENI PRASAD LAHOTI ITA NO. 2378 /KOL/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 PAGE | 2 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER AND DELETE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT , WAS CONDUCTED ON 18.02.2013 AT THE RESIDENCE, OFFICE S , FACTORIES AND OTHER BUSINESS CONCERN OF THE RASHI GROUP AND I TS ASSOCIATES. THIS SEARCH OPERATION WAS ALSO CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRIL BENI PRASAD LAHOTI AT 7 TH FLOOR, SHREE S HYAM GARDEN, 12, HARDUTTA RAI CHAMARIA ROAD, 13, GOLABARI, HOWRAH - 711101. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DERIVED INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND OTHER SOURCES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14. AS PER THE DISCLOSURE PETITION DATED 16/04/2013, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED RS.8.50 CRORES AS INCOME FROM 'COMMODITY PROFIT' AND RS. 13.50 LAKHS AS INCOME FROM 'BROKERAGE & COMMISSION ' RESULTING IN TOTAL DISCLOSURE OF RS. 8,63,50,000 / - FOR F.Y. 2012 - 13 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2013 - 14. HOWEVER, WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2013 - 14, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY DISCLOSED RS. 5,01,11,631 / - AS INCOME FROM 'COMMODITY PROFIT'. THE REFORE, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,48,88,369/ - (8,50,00,000 - 5,01,11,631) AS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF 'COMMODITY PROFIT'. MOREOVER, HE HAS ALSO NOT DISCLOSED RS. 13.50 LAKHS AS 'COMMISSION & BROKERAGE' INCOME IN THE RETURN O F IN COME. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A SHOW - CAUSE LETTER DATED 04/02/2015 WAS ISSUED BY AO TO THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING THE RE TURN OF INCOME IN LINE WITH THE DISCLOSURE PETITION DATED 16/04/2013. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO AS FOLLOWS : 'JUST AFTER THE SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO DISCLOSE HIS INCOME WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED TILL THAT DATE. ON GOING THROUGH , THE SEIZED PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS THE ASSESSEE ESTIMATED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE NATURE OF COMMODITY PROFIT AND BROKERAGE & COMMISSION AT RS. 8.50 C R ORES AND RS. 13.50 LAKH RESPECTIVELY FOR THE A. Y . 2013 - 14. WHILE DISCLOSING THE INCOME THE ASSESSEE STATED AS FOLLOWS: THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME SO DISCLOSED IS FURNISHED IN THE FORM OF STATEMENT MORE SPECIFICALLY SHOWING ALL THE DETAILS OF SUCH INCOME EARNED AND ITS REFERENCE TO DOCUMENTS SEIZ ED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION. SHRI BENI PRASAD LAHOTI ITA NO. 2378 /KOL/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 PAGE | 3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE BACKGR OUND AND PARTICULARLY THE SHORT TIME WHAT WAS AVAILABLE, THE ESTIMATED WORKINGS MAY CONTAIN CERTAIN ERRORS OF OMISSION / COMMISSION WHICH MAY KINDLY BE EXCUSED. THE ASSESSEE WHILE DISCLOSING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME PARTICULARLY S TATED THAT THERE MIGHT BE ERRORS AND / OR OMISSION IN DISCLOSING THE INCOME WHICH W AS FOUND WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. ON PROPER CONSIDERATION AND NECESSARY VERIFICATION OF THE PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS SO SEIZED THE INCOME IN THE NATURE OF COMMODITY PROFIT WAS ARRIVED AT RS. 5, 01,11,631 / - AND FOUND THAT NO INCOME IN THE NATURE OF BROKERAGE & COMMISSION WAS EARNED DURING THE PERIOD 01 / 04 / 2012 TO 31 / 03 / 2013 WHICH WAS ENTERED INTO THE ACCOUNTS AND AS SUCH THE RETURN OF INCOME WASFILED. THE COPIES OF ICEX SAUDA REGISTER FROM 01 / 04 / 2 012 TO 31 / 03 / 2013 ARE ENCLOSED IN SUPPORT OF THE COMMODITY PROFIT AS ARRIVED AT RS. 5,01,11,631 / - . SO FAR THE ASSESSEE'S KNOWLEDGE GOES NO INCOME WAS KEPT UNDISCLOSED FOR THE F.Y . 2012 - 13 RELEVANT TO A. Y . 2013 - 14. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GONE THROUGH T HE ABOVE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTED THAT AS PER PAGE NO. 1 AND 5 OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL MARKED AS BPL / PO/L, IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED COMMODITY PROFIT OF RS. 8.50 CRORES AND COMMISSION INCOME OF RS. 13.50 LAKHS AND THE ASSESSE E VIDE HIS PETITION DATED 16 / 04/2013 ACCEPTED TO THE EARNING OF COMMODITY PROFIT AND COMMISSION INCOME AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DISCLOSURE WAS ERRONEOUS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 3,48,88,369/ - AND RS. 13,50,000 / - IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE DISCLOSURE WAS NOT MADE UNDER ANY PRESSURE, THREAT OR COERCION AND THE ASSESSEE UNDER A FREE MIND HAD VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 8.50 CRORES AS COMMODITY PROFIT AND RS. 13,50,000 / - AS COMMISSION INCOME. 5. THEREFORE, T HE LD AO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTICED THAT I F ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE WERE PUT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER AND E XAMINED SEQUENTIALLY, IT BEC AME QUITE CLEAR THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SE IZED SHEETS RECORDE D THE DETAILS OF COMMODITY PROFIT AND COMMISSION INCOME FOR THE PERIOD OF F.Y. 2012 - 13 , WHICH WAS DECLARED TO BE UNACCOUNTED AND HENCE O FFERED THE SAME, I.E. A SUM OF RS. 8.5 CRORES AND RS. 13.50 LAKHS RESPECTIVELY AS ADD ITIONAL INCOME FOR TAXATION TO BUY PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CERTIFIED TO HAVE GIVEN THE STATEMENTS U / S 132 (4) VOLUNTARILY. THE SAME ADD ITION CONTINUED TO HOLD GOOD FOR A LONG TIME AND THERE WAS NEVER ANY ALLEGATION THAT THE STATEMENT WAS NOT MADE VOLUNTARILY. NOW WH ILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 153A, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A COMPLETE TURN AROUND AND STATED THAT BECAUSE OF SH ORTAGE OF SHRI BENI PRASAD LAHOTI ITA NO. 2378 /KOL/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 PAGE | 4 TIME, THE ESTIMATED WORKINGS MAY HAVE CONTAINED CERTAIN ERRORS OF O MISSION / COMMISSION WHICH MAY BE EXCUSED. IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE, THE S UBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY AO . THEREFORE, A S STATE ABOVE, THE BALANCE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH HA D NOT BEEN TAKEN IN THE COMPUTATION INCOME BUT EVIDENCED BY THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WAS ADDED BY AO TO THE TOTAL INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2013 - 14 AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,48,88,369/- (8,50,00,000 - 5,01,11,631) AS COMMODITY PROFIT AND RS. 13,50,000 / - AS COMMISSION INCOME , TOTALING TO RS. 3,62,38,369/ - (RS. 3,48,88,369 +RS. 13,50,000 ) . 6 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) , WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION . 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE NOTE THAT THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT U/S 132(4) HAD MADE DISCLOSURE OF RS.8.65 CRORES. BUT THEN, HE LATER CLARIFIED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE DISCLOSURE WAS MADE ON ADHOC BASIS ON THE OBSTINATE INSISTENCE OF THE OFFICERS AUTHORI Z ED T O CONDUCT THE SEARCH AND THAT THE DISCLOSURE TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,62,38,369/ - WAS NOT SUPPORTED OR CORROBORATED BY ANY EVIDENCE EXCEPT PAGE NO.1 & 5 OF THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED & MARKED BP L/ PO/1 WHERE THE INCOME FROM TRADING IN COMMODITIES AND BROKERAGE & COMMI SSION WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.8,50,00,000/ - AND RS.13,50,000/ - RESPECTIVELY FOR THE FY 2012 - 13. AS THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 18.02.2013, THE ASSESSEE MADE NO TRANSACTION IN COMMODITIES THEREAFTER AND NO BROKERAGE & COMMISSION WAS EARNED. 8. WE NOTE THAT DU RING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS , THE LD CIT(A) SENT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS. THE AO FURNISHED HIS REMAND REPORT TO LD CIT(A), ON 01.09.2016 WHEREIN IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE VERIFICATION OF THE QUANTUM OF PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FY 2012 - 13, HE ISSUED NOTICE D A T ED 29.06.2016 U/S.133(6) TO THE BROKER M/S. RANBHUMI TRADERS (P) LTD , WHO INTER - ALIA HIS LETTER D A T ED 04.07.2016 CONFIRMED THAT IT HAD BEEN A MEMBER OF INDIAN COMMODITY EXCHANGE LTD (LCEX) , VIDE MEMBERSHIP SHRI BENI PRASAD LAHOTI ITA NO. 2378 /KOL/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 PAGE | 5 NO.1474, FMC REGD . NO. ICEX/TM/CORP/0470. IT WAS FURTHER CONFIRMED THAT DURING THE FY 2012 - 13, M/S. RANBHUMI TRADERS (P) LTD HAD UNDERTAKEN TRANSACTIONS IN COMMODITIES ON BEHALF OF SHRI BENI PRASAD LAHOTI ON WHICH SHRI LAHOTI EARNED PROFIT OF RS.5,01,11,631/ - . IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE, M / S. RANBHUMI TRADERS (P) LTD SUBMITTED THE COPY OF ICEX SAUDA REGISTER, CONTACT NOTES AND AS NECESSITATED BY THE AO, THE COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN FILING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND LATEST ROC RETURN. THE A O , HOWEVER , STATED THAT THE BROKER M/S. RANBHUMI TRADERS (P) LTD DIDN'T MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THE MODE OF PAYMENT OF THE PROFIT EARNED AND THEREFORE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS COULDN'T BE ASCERTAINED. THE AO FURTHER ASSERTED THAT AS PER PAGE NO. - 1 & 5 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS MARKED BPL/PO/1, THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED COMMODITY PROFIT OF RS.8.5 CRORE AND BROKERAGE INCOME OF RS.13.50 LAC , WHICH WAS ALSO ACCEPTED IN THE DISCLOSURE PETITION SUBMITTED BY HIM. HENCE , THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONLY COMMOD ITY PROFIT OFRS.5,01,1L,631/ - WAS EARNED DURING THE FY 2012 - 13 IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN REPLY TO THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISCLOSURE WAS MADE ON THE INSISTENCE OF THE OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT SEARCH; SECONDLY THE DISCLOSURE MA DE BY HIM WAS UNSUBSTANTIATED AS IT WAS BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED WHERE ONLY ESTIMATED PROFIT FOR THE YEAR FROM TRADING IN COMMODITIES AND BROKERAGE & COMMISSION WAS MENTIONED. THE BROKER CONFIRMED THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED ONLY RS.5,01,11,631/ - FROM TR ADING IN COMMODITIES. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED MORE THAN WHAT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FILED ON 04.12.2014. THERE IS ALSO NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED ANY BROKERAGE & COMMISSION INCOME. SO FAR AS THE ISSUE OF FAILURE OF THE BROKER TO DIVULGE THE 'MODE OF PAYMENT' IS CONCERNED, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE PROFIT EARNED ON COMMODITY TRADING IN CASH FROM THE BROKER. THE ASSESSEE WAS, THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN NOT INCLUDING A SUM OF RS.3,62,38, 369/ - (COMMODITY PROFIT OF RS.3,48,88,369/ - AND BROKERAGE & COMMISSION OFRS.15,00,000/ - ) IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. SHRI BENI PRASAD LAHOTI ITA NO. 2378 /KOL/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 PAGE | 6 9. WE NOTE THAT ASSESSEE FURNISHED HIS EXPLANATION AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. THAT IS, T HE ASSESSEE HAD DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT HE HAD NOT EARNED ANY INCOME OTHER THAN THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD ALREADY RETRACTED HIS ADMISSION PARTLY WHILE FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AND THERE WAS NO CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THE ADMISSION. THE AO, THEREFORE, COULD NOT LAWFULLY REST HIS ASSESSMENT SOLELY ON THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY HIM. FOR THAT WE RELY ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS VIVEKANAND VERMA IN ITA NO.1784/KOL/2012 ,WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT NO ADD ITION COULD LAWFULLY BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF ONLY DISCLOSURE WHEN THERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE OR DIRECT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE DISCLOSURE. WE NOTE THAT , THE CBDT'S CIRCULAR DATED 12 - 03 - 2003 ON THIS ISSUE WHICH WAS RELIED UPON BY THE HON`BLE MADRAS HIGH COUR T IN THE CASES OF M NARAYANAN & BROS VS ACIT [2011]13 TAXMANN.COM, AND CIT VS KHADER KHAN SON [2008] 300 ITR 157 AND THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHETNABEN J SHAH VS IT [ORDER DT.14 - 07 - 2016 IN TAX APPEAL NO.1437 OF 2007] , WHEREINT HE CBDT HAS CLEARLY INSTRUCTED THAT THE AO SHOULD RELY ON CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND THAT THE MATERIAL GATHERED IN SEARCH SHOULD FORM THE BASIS FOR FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE NOTE THAT COORDINATE BENCH OF KOLKATA , ITAT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS USHA AGARWAL (ITA NO.142/KOL/2014) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT ONLY A STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SEARCH CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF ANY ADDITION WITHOUT BRINGING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND FINALLY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO LTD VS STATE OF KERALA [1973] 91ITR 18 NOTED THAT AN ADMISSION IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS CONCLUSIVE AND IT IS OPEN TO THE PERSON WHO MADE THE ADMISSION TO SHOW THAT IT IS INCORRECT. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT APART FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, NO PIECE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS EITHER FOUND DURING THE SEARCH NOR BROUGHT ON RECORD BY FURTHER POST SEARCH INVESTIGATION EITHER BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OFFICER OR BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THEREFORE , THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.3 , 62 , 38 , 369/ - CANNOT BE SUSTAINED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION. THUS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENC H OF ITAT , DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS AND THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE LAWS SHRI BENI PRASAD LAHOTI ITA NO. 2378 /KOL/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 PAGE | 7 REFERRED/DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,48,88,369 . 10. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT SO FAR THE AMOUNT OF RS. 13,50,000/ - , ( WHICH RELATES TO COMMISSION INCOME ) IS CONCERNED THE LD. CIT(A) IS SILENT AND HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RETRACTED ABOUT THE COMMISSION INCOME EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION INCOME OF RS. 13,50,000/ - WHICH HAS ALREADY EXCLUDED IN THE SUM OF RS. 3,62,38,369/ - SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 11 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29 .0 5 .2019 SD/ - ( A.T.VARKEY ) SD/ - (A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATE: 29 / 0 5 / 201 9 ( SB , SR.PS ) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. DCIT, CC - 2(2), KOLKATA 2. SHRI BENI PRASAD LAHOTI 3. C.I.T(A) - 4. C.I.T. - KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES