Late Nilambar Jha Through L/H Smt. Manorma Jha, Gorakhpur V. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Gorakhpur

ITA 249/VNS/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8769 (ITAT-VARANASI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Competent authority; Set aside
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 139; 142(1); 143(2); 22

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH, VARANASI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 249/VNS/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Manorma Jha, Legal Heir of Late Mr. Nilambar Jha Asuran Chauraha, Pipraich Road, Near Gita Garden, Gorakhpur-273001, U.P. v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Gorakhpur-273001, U.P. PAN:BCRPJ4715K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 03.11.2022 Date of pronouncement: 09.11.2022 O R D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed by assessee, being ITA No.249/VNS/2019, is directed against the appellate order dated 12.07.2019 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Gorakhpur (hereinafter called "the CIT(A)”) in Appeal No. CIT(A)/GKP/2017-18, for assessment year (ay) 2009-10, the appellate proceedings had arisen before Learned CIT(A) from assessment order dated 21.12.2016 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called “the AO”) under Section 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”). We have heard both the parties through Virtual Court through Virtual hearing mode. ITA No.249/VNS/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Manorma Jha Legal Heir of Mr. Neelambar Jha, Gorakhpur, U.P. v. ITO, Ward 1(1), Gorakhpur, U.P. 2 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Varanasi (hereinafter called “the tribunal”) in ITA no. 249/Vns/2019 for assessment year 2009-10, reads as under: “1- That the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and facts in passing the appellate order. 2- That the learned CIT (Appeals) has not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.22,17,420.00 as unexplained investment in construction of property. 3- That the appellant has shown money received against the sale of land amounting to Rs.40,00,000.00 as against which the learned A.O as well as CIT (Appeals) have accepted only Rs. 35,82,580.00. 4- That the learned authorities have not justified in not accepting the sale proceed of Rs. 4,14,420.00 which was invested in construction of property. 5- That the learned authorities have not justified in not accepting the money shown by the appellant as advances received from the intended purchasers of the shop. 6- That the appellant has received Rs.20,40,000.00 as advances from the intended purchasers of the shop which has been deposited in bank account and out of that Rs.1800000.00 has been invested in construction of the property. 7- That the property was constructed from the F.Y.2006-07 TO 2008-09 as admitted by the assessee before the ADIT (Inv.) whereas the additions have been made only in the year 2008-09 i.e. a.y.2009-10 which is bad in law. 8- That the whole appellate order is illegal, ultra virus and against the provisions of law.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that an enquiry report on Tax Evasion Petition was received by AO from the learned ADIT (Investigation), Gorakhpur vide his letter F. No. ADIT/GKP dated 11 th August, 2015, in which it is stated that the assessee had constructed a four storied commercial complex with about 7000-8000 sq. feet area. The assessee himself admitted that the approximate cost of construction of building was Rs. 70,00,000/- , but the assessee failed to file any documentary evidences and sources of investment of above construction of Building at Rs. 70,00,000/-. The AO observed from the saving bank account number 507402010010233 with Union Bank of India , Medical College Road , Gorakhpur, that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/- on 27.04.2008 and Rs. 40,000/- on 09.02.2009. The AO further observed that the assessee has received saving bank interest of Rs. ITA No.249/VNS/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Manorma Jha Legal Heir of Mr. Neelambar Jha, Gorakhpur, U.P. v. ITO, Ward 1(1), Gorakhpur, U.P. 3 6,823/- on the above saving bank account. The AO observed that the assessee had admitted before the learned ADIT (Inv.), Gorakhpur that he had never filed return of income. The AO verified the records with its office, and observed that the assessee has not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2009-10. The AO recorded reasons and obtained necessary sanction / approval from ld. Principal CIT, Gorakhpur and notice dated 17.03.2016 u/s 148 of the 1961 Act was issued by the AO, which was claimed by the AO to have been duly served on the assessee , on 28.03.2016 , requiring assessee to file return of income for ay: 2009-10. The assessee, however, did not comply with the aforesaid notice and no return of income was filed by the assessee, even in response to notice u/s 148. The AO issued notice u/s 142(1) dated 25.05.2016 which was also claimed by the AO to have been duly served on 27.05.2016, but again there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. Thereafter, further notices u/s 142(1) were issued by the AO but again there was no compliances by the assessee. Since the matter was getting time barred, the AO issued SCN dated 05.12.2016 for completion of assessment u/s 144 which was claimed by the AO to have been duly served on the assessee , but again there was no compliance by the assessee. The AO then proceeded to frame ex-parte assessment u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act. The AO observed that the assessee has admitted before learned ADIT(Inv.), Gorakhpur in the statement recorded that the approximate cost of construction of commercial complex is Rs. 70,00,000/- The AO observed that the assessee in his statement recorded before ld. ADIT(Inv.) , Gorakhpur has stated that the construction expenses were met as under: “1. Money received against sale of land situated at Padri Bazar, Gorakhpur in year 2006, 2007 & 2008 Rs. 40,00,000/- 2. Loan from Shri Umesh Pandy, R/o Jatepur (North) Gorakhpur Rs. 18,00,000/- ITA No.249/VNS/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Manorma Jha Legal Heir of Mr. Neelambar Jha, Gorakhpur, U.P. v. ITO, Ward 1(1), Gorakhpur, U.P. 4 The rest amount has been invested out of money received from purchasers of the shops in the year 2006,2007 and 2008. Since, the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence, as per AO the sources of investment of Rs. 70,00,000/- in commercial complex remained unexplained, which led AO to make additions to the tune of Rs. 70,00,000/- to the income of the assessee. Further on going through saving bank account No. 507402010010233 of the assessee maintained with Union Bank of India , Medical College Road , Gorakhpur , the AO observed that there was cash deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/- on 27.04.2008 and Rs. 40,000/- on 09.02.1999, which as per AO remained unexplained despite several opportunities being granted to the assessee, and the AO added the same to the income of the assessee. Further, there was an addition of Rs. 6,823/- on account of interest received in the above saving bank account which was also added to the income of the assessee by the AO. Thus, the income of the assessee was assessed by AO at Rs. 90,46,820/- vide assessment order dated 21.12.2016 passed by AO u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act , while the assessee has neither filed his return of income originally u/s 139 nor in pursuance to notice issued by the AO u/s 148 of the 1961 Act . 4. Being aggrieved by assessment framed by AO, the assessee filed first appeal with learned CIT(A). The assessee entered appearance before ld. CIT(A) through Advocate. The assessee filed appeal belatedly with ld. CIT(A) late by 350 days beyond the time statutorily allowed u/s 249(2), and the ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay. It is pertinent to mention that the appeal before ld. CIT(A) was filed by Smt. Manorma Jha who is legal heir to Shri Nelambar Jha( assessee), as the assessee has in the meantime expired. The assessee ITA No.249/VNS/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Manorma Jha Legal Heir of Mr. Neelambar Jha, Gorakhpur, U.P. v. ITO, Ward 1(1), Gorakhpur, U.P. 5 explained before learned CIT(A) that the money in construction of commercial complex was invested , from the following sources:- 1. Money received against the sale of land Rs. 40,00,000/- 2. Loan from Shri Umesh Pandey Rs. 12,00,000/- 3. Money received from the purchaser of shops Rs. 18,00,000/-/ Further, it was explained by assessee that cash deposits in the saving bank account with UBI were made out of advance received from the purchasers of the shops , as under:- Shri Kanahaiya Baitha Rs. 5,01,000/- Shri K.P. Singh Rs. 5,00,000/- Mohd. Salim Khan Rs. 16,95,000/- Shri Uma Shankar Rs. 40,000/ The appellant submitted the copies of sale deed and agreement made with Shri Umesh Pandey in support of the contention. The ld. CIT(A) forwarded the documents to the AO for his comments. The AO submitted remand report vide letter dated 22.10.2018 . The AO observed in remand report that the copies of sale deeds of the immovable properties , as provided by the assessee through which following sales proceeds have been admitted to have been invested in the construction of shopping complex: S.No. Date of sale of property Amount 1. 23.02.2006 Rs. 1,50,000/- 2. 22.01.2007 Rs. 4,00,000/- 3. 22.01.2007 Rs. 4,30,000/- 4. 06.06.2007 Rs. 9,98,300/- 5. 27.08.2007 Rs. 8,00,000/- 6. 23.10.2007 Rs. 3,91,000/- 7. 23.11.2007 Rs. 4,13,280/- ITA No.249/VNS/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Manorma Jha Legal Heir of Mr. Neelambar Jha, Gorakhpur, U.P. v. ITO, Ward 1(1), Gorakhpur, U.P. 6 Total Rs. 35,82,580/- The AO observed that so far as Rs. 12,00,000/- invested in the construction of commercial complex, the assessee has filed copy of agreement dated 25.06.2005 with Mr. Umesh Pandey . Thus, after considering the submission of the assessee , the AO observed that an investment of Rs. 22,17,420/- in construction of commercial complex remained unexplained , detailed as under: Total Investment in the construction of Commercial Complex, during the year under consideration Rs. 70,00,000/- Less: Amount invested against sale proceeds Rs. 35,82,580/- Less: Amount invested against advance received Rs. 12,00,000/- -------------------- Unexplained investment Rs. 22,17,420/- The AO, further , observed in remand proceedings that the so far as cash deposits of Rs. 20,40,000/- in bank is concerned, the assessee has explained that he has received advance of Rs. 27,36,000/- from following persons , as under: SI. No. Name Amount Date 1 Shri Kanahaiya Baitha Rs. 5,01,000/- 29.03.2008 2 Shri K.P. Singh Rs. 5,00,000/- 05.04.2008 3 Mohd. Salim Khan Rs. 16,95,000/- 15.04.2008 4 Shri Uma Shankar Rs. 40,000/ 16.02.2009 As per AO , that since, the assessee could not explain the identity and creditworthiness of the aforesaid deposits with their PAN , ITR’s , capital accounts etc, the AO observed in remand report that the aforesaid addition is liable to be confirmed. The learned CIT(A) forwarded remand report of the AO ITA No.249/VNS/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Manorma Jha Legal Heir of Mr. Neelambar Jha, Gorakhpur, U.P. v. ITO, Ward 1(1), Gorakhpur, U.P. 7 to the assessee, for his comments. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee failed to submit evidence of sale made on 07.12.2007 , for Rs. 4,45,910/- . The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee has failed to submit any evidence to substantiate its claim that Rs. 18,00,000/- were received from the money received from the purchaser of the shops and hence in the absence of cogent evidence regarding the source of investment of Rs. 22,17,420/- ,out of total investment at Rs. 70,00,000/- made by assessee in construction of commercial complex, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions to the tune of Rs. 22,17,420/-. So far as additions of Rs. 20,40,000/- as was made by AO on account of cash deposits in UBI, the assessee explained that the said cash was deposited in the bank out of aforesaid advance of Rs. 27,36,000/- received from the four parties, but in the absence of cogent evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) did not accepted the claim of the assessee. The assessee had submitted copies of FIR filed by Shri K.P. Singh and Mr. Mohd. Salim Khan against the assessee for recovery of the amount given by them to the assessee. The assessee also submitted copy of judgment given by Session Judge, Gorakhpur in a bail application filed by the assessee in which the assessee has accepted to return the amount received from Mr. K P Singh . The ld. CIT(A) did not accepted the contentions of the assessee as the matter was sub-judice ,as well as per ld. CIT(A) merely filing of FIR is not sufficient to prove that the assessee has received the money from complainants. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has submitted a copy of receipt issued to Shri Kanhaiya Baitha, in support of his contention . The ld. CIT(A) observed that the said receipt is on stamp paper of Rs. 100/- , but these receipts are neither notarized nor any evidence has been filed by the assessee regarding identity and creditworthiness of Shri Kanhaiya Baitha, and hence ld. CIT(A) observed that the contentions of the assessee with respect to cash ITA No.249/VNS/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Manorma Jha Legal Heir of Mr. Neelambar Jha, Gorakhpur, U.P. v. ITO, Ward 1(1), Gorakhpur, U.P. 8 deposit of Rs. 20,40,000/- in his bank account with UBI remained unsubstantiated and the addition as were made by AO stood upheld by ld. CIT(A), vide appellate order dated 12 th July, 2019. 5. Aggrieved by appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed second appeal before tribunal , and has raised as many as eight grounds of appeals. This appeal was taken up for hearing before Division Bench(DB) on 21 st April, 2022 , when none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was filed . The DB adjourned the hearing. On the next date of hearing before DB on 26 th May, 2022, none appeared for assessee the hearing was adjourned by DB to 07 th July, 2022 on the written request of the assessee. When this matter again came up for hearing before DB on 7 th July, 2022 , again none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the matter was adjourned to 25 th August, 2022 at the written request of the assessee. On 25 th August, 2022, when this matter again came up for hearing before DB, Advocate Shri S N Mani appeared before DB and request was made for adjourning the matter, the DB adjourned the matter to 13 th October, 2022. When this matter came up for hearing through Virtual Court before DB on 13.10.2022, there was internet problem and the Bench could not function properly, and matter got adjourned to 03 rd November , 2022. . When this matter came up for hearing before DB on 3 rd November, 2022, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was filed, and DB proceeded to adjudicate this appeal after hearing ld. Sr. DR and after considering material on record, on merits in accordance with law. However , it is observed that on 25 th August, 2022 , the assessee has filed paper-book containing 22 pages, in which the assessee has also filed written submissions before the tribunal, copy of sale deed dated 7 th December, 2007 and copy of ITA No.249/VNS/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Manorma Jha Legal Heir of Mr. Neelambar Jha, Gorakhpur, U.P. v. ITO, Ward 1(1), Gorakhpur, U.P. 9 written submission as were filed before ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. DR on the other hand submitted that there are three additions as were being made by the AO. There was an enquiry report on Tax Evasion Petition received by AO from ld. ADIT(Inv.), Gorakhpur. The assessee had construction commercial complex of 7000-8000 Sq. feet , and invested of Rs. 70,00,000/- , but the assessee could not explain the sources of investment in the said commercial complex. Further, there was cash deposit of Rs. 20,40,000/- in the saving Bank of the assessee maintained with UBI. The ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee has not filed any return of income u/s 139, and the case of the assessee was reopened by invoking Section 147/148 after recording reasons and obtaining proper approval from competent authority . The assessee did not filed any return of income even in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that this appeal is filed by Smt. Manorma Jha who is the legal heir of the assessee namely, late Shri Neelambar Jha. It was submitted that the assessee has filed written submission and the issue in this appeal related to construction of commercial complex by the assessee in which the assessee has incurred total expenditure of Rs. 70,00,000/- , there was also deposit of cash in the bank account of the assessee with the Union Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 20,40,000/- during the year under consideration. It was submitted that the assessee did not appear before AO during re-assessment proceedings , but, however, the assessee appeared before ld. CIT(A) and filed some evidences . The ld. CIT(A) called for remand report from AO . It was submitted that the assessee did not file sale agreement for Rs. 4,45,910/- and also did not file evidences with respect to advance of Rs. 18,00,000/- received from purchaser of shops, and hence additions to the tune of Rs. 22,17,420/- were confirmed by ld. CIT(A). Further , the ld. Sr. DR ITA No.249/VNS/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Manorma Jha Legal Heir of Mr. Neelambar Jha, Gorakhpur, U.P. v. ITO, Ward 1(1), Gorakhpur, U.P. 10 submitted that cash deposit of Rs. 20.40 Lac in the bank account remained unsubstantiated. On being asked by the Bench as to the details of the persons from whom the assessee claimed to have received Rs. 27,36,000/- as advance and claim is made that two of the persons filed FIR against the assessee and the copy of judgment of Session Judge in bail application filed by the assessee, as to whether any verification was done by ld. CIT(A) and/or AO during remand proceedings, under Section 133(6)/131 with respect to explanation given by the assessee, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that as it emerges from records, the contentions of the assessee were rejected by the authorities below without making any verifications. Further, on being asked by the Bench, that the assessee has claimed that cash was deposited in the bank account out of the advance received from sale of shops, and whether is it the double additions as to firstly advance was added and secondly when the cash as claimed by the assessee was deposited in bank account out of the advance received, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that this need verification. It was also submitted by ld. Sr. DR that the assessee has now filed for the first time before tribunal, sale deed dated 07 th December , 2007 for Rs. 4,45,910/- which is an additional evidence which requires verification by authorities below. The ld. Sr. DR prayed that the matter can be restored to the file of AO for denovo assessment . 6. We have considered and perused written submissions filed by the assessee , contentions of ld. Sr. DR and material on record. We have observed that based on enquiry report on tax evasion petition received by the AO from learned ADIT(Inv), Gorakhpur, it transpired that the assessee has invested Rs. 70,00,000/- in construction of commercial complex wherein approx. 7000- 8000 square feet area stood constructed by the assessee, and the assessee ITA No.249/VNS/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Manorma Jha Legal Heir of Mr. Neelambar Jha, Gorakhpur, U.P. v. ITO, Ward 1(1), Gorakhpur, U.P. 11 could not give satisfactory reply as to sources of aforesaid investments. The AO further observed that the assessee has deposited Rs. 20,40,000/- in his saving bank account with UBI. The assessee has also earned interest on saving bank , to the tune of Rs. 6823/-. The AO observed that the assessee has never filed any return of income u/s 139, including the return of income for the impugned assessment year. The AO re-opened the assessment for the impugned assessment year by invoking provisions of Section 147/148 of the 1961 Act, after recording of reasons and after seeking approval from competent authorities. The notice u/s 148 was issued , requiring assessee to file return in response to notice u/s 148, but the assesse never filed return of income. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) as well SCN u/s 144 , were issued by AO from time to time, but the assessee did not appear in re- assessment proceedings. The assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) and entered appearance through counsel before ld. CIT(A) and filed details. The evidences filed by the assessee were forwarded by ld. CIT(A) to AO for remand report . The AO submitted remand report and ld. CIT(A) forwarded the same to the assessee for rebuttal. After considering the entire material on record and explanations/evidences submitted by assessee, the ld. CIT(A), so far as addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- made by the assessee in construction of commercial complex, upheld the addition to the tune of Rs. 22,17,420/-, mainly for the reason that sale deed dated 07 th December, 2007 for Rs. 4,45,910/- has not been submitted by the assesssee as well the assessee could not substantiate its claim so far as advance of Rs. 27,36,000/- received , as to identity and creditworthiness of the parties from whom the assessee has claimed to have received the advance, out of which claim was made by the assessee that he invested Rs. 18 lacs in construction of commercial complex. ITA No.249/VNS/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Manorma Jha Legal Heir of Mr. Neelambar Jha, Gorakhpur, U.P. v. ITO, Ward 1(1), Gorakhpur, U.P. 12 The assessee has claimed before us through written submissions that the sale deed dated 07 th December, 2007 for Rs. 4,45,910/- was duly submitted before ld. CIT(A) , and the finding of ld. CIT(A) is factually incorrect that no sale deed dated 07 th December, 2007 was submitted. In any case, the assessee has now filed sale deed dated 07 th December, 2007 for Rs. 4,45,910/- , which is treated as additional evidence and since it goes to root of the matter and also in the interest of justice, we admit this additional evidence and remit the matter to the file of AO for verification and framing of denovo assessment. So far as advance of Rs. 27,36,000/- received by the assessee , out of which Rs. 18,00,000/- stood added as part of unexplained construction cost, the assessee has submitted that two of the persons namely Mr. Mohammad Salim Khan and Mr. K P Singh, filed FIR against the assessee , and documents connected with bail application as well judgment of the Session Court was filed. Further, the assessee has filed receipt on stamp paper of Rs. 100 were filed. But all these evidences were discarded by the authorities below without making any independent verifications , and on being asked by the Bench, it was submitted by ld. Sr DR that as is emerging from records no such independent verification was done by authorities below. Even for cash deposited by the assssee in the saving bank account maintained with UBI, to the tune of Rs. 20,40,000/- , it is claimed vide ground number 6 that the same was deposited out of advance received from intended purchaser of the shop and Rs. 18,00,000/- was invested in the construction of shop, thus, prima-facie it appears that double addition is made by the AO , firstly while treating Rs. 18,00,000/- as unexplained investment in the construction of commercial complex and secondly when the said cash was claimed to be deposited in bank and out of it aforesaid Rs. 18,00,000/- claimed to be used for construction of ITA No.249/VNS/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Manorma Jha Legal Heir of Mr. Neelambar Jha, Gorakhpur, U.P. v. ITO, Ward 1(1), Gorakhpur, U.P. 13 commercial complex, but however these facts require proper verification by authorities below to unravel truth, and the matter is required to be restored to AO for denovo assessment , after making proper verification . Thus, the matter is required to be set aside and restored to the file of the AO for denovo assessment by the AO, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. We order accordingly. 7. Thus, in the result , the appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 249/Vns./2019 for ay: 2009-10 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 09.11.2022 at Allahabad, U.P , in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 Sd/- Sd/- [VIJAY PAL RAO] [RAMIT KOCHAR] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 09/11/2022 KD Azmi Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant – Smt. Manorma Jha, Legal Heir of Late Shri Nilambar Jha, Asuran Chauraha, Piparaich Road, Near Gita Garden, Gorakhpur-273001, U.P. 2. Respondent – The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Aayakar Bhawan , Civil Lines, Gorakhpur-273001, U.P. 3. The ld. Sr.-DR, ITAT, Varanasi, U.P. 4. CIT, Varanasi, U.P. 5. The CIT(A), Varanasi, U.P. ITA No.249/VNS/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Manorma Jha Legal Heir of Mr. Neelambar Jha, Gorakhpur, U.P. v. ITO, Ward 1(1), Gorakhpur, U.P. 14 Sr. P.S.