Rajesh Mundhra, Kolkata V. D.C.I.T CC - III,kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 2526/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4536 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT KR KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: V N PUROHIT FCA LD
• Keywords: Gift; Question of law; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 68; 27

Judgement Text

ITA NO.2526/KOL/13 RAJESH MUNDHRA 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,A BENCH , KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2526/KOL/2013 A.Y: 1997-98 RAJESH MUNDHRA VS. D.C.I.T-CC-III. KOLKATA PAN: AFLPMO377E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPEARANCES BY: SHRI V.N PUROHIT, FCA, LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAJAT KR. KUREEL, JCIT, SR. D.R FOR THE REVENUE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 12-07- 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 16-09-2016 O R D E R SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21 ST AUGUST, 2013 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS),CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA, WHEREIN HE CONFIR MED THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/SEC 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE A O FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE ARBITRARY WITHOUT PROPER REASONS, INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. ITA NO.2526/KOL/13 RAJESH MUNDHRA 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING PENALTY ORDER ON BASIS OF ESTIMATED ADDITIONS OF MARRIAGE GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLA NT FROM DIFFERENT RELATIONS AND GUESTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 131663.00 AND ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS. 150000.00 AS MARRIAGE EXPENSES. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE IN THE ULTIMATE A NALYSIS NOTHING BUT ESTIMATED ADDITIONS AND NOT BASED ON AN Y DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. 4. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX(APPEALS) FAI LED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. WARSAT HUSSAIN (ITR 171 405) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE IN STANT CASE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH LEARNED A/A HAS IMPOSED PENAL TY AND AS SUCH THE PENALTY SHOULD BE DELETED. 5. WITHOUT ANY PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS, EVEN THE COMPUTATION OF THE PENALTY AMOUNT LEVIED BY THE A.O . AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONAB LE. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, ALTER MODIF Y, ABRIDGE, ADD TO AND FOR RESCIND ANY OR ALL OF THE A BOVE GROUNDS. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HIS RETU RN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,42,280/- THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.8,18,940/- TO THAT EFFECT AN ASS ESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 28-03-2000 U/S 143(3) OF THE AC T AT AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS. 1. ESTIMATED ADDITION FOR MARRIAGE GIFTS RS. 2,81,6 63 2. ESTIMATED MARRIAGE EXPENSES RS. 1,95,0 00/ 4. IN FIRST APPEAL, C.I.T(A) GAVE RELIEF OF RS. 45, 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED MARRIAGE EXPENSES VIDE HIS ORD ER DT: 20-07-2010. THE C BENCH OF ITAT, KOLKATA GAVE FUR THER RELIEF OF RS. 1,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED MA RRIAGE ITA NO.2526/KOL/13 RAJESH MUNDHRA 3 GIFTS VIDE ITS ORDER DT:31.03.2011 IN ITA 1672/KOL/ 20L0 AND IN PURSUANCE OF WHICH THE ADDITIONS STANDS AS UNDER :- 1. ESTIMATED MARRIAGE GIFTS RS. 131663.00 2. ESTIMATED MARRIAGE EXPENSES RS. 150000.00 281663.00 5. THEREAFTER, THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDING U/SEC 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE CONTENDE D THAT NO PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE WHERE ADDITIONS WERE MADE O N ESTIMATED BASIS AND FURTHER CONTENDED THAT FICTION CREATED UNDER SECTIONS 68 & 69C OF THE ACT CANNOT BE EXTEND ED TO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THROUGH HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS . CONSIDERING THE SAME THE AO OBSERVED AS UNDER: 5. THE CONTENTION OF THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THERE IS NO DENIAL THAT A SUM OF RS.4,8 1,663/ WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE I N CASH. THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION OF THE DEPOSIT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BUT FOUND NOT SUBSTANTIAL AND THEREFORE HE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT HIS EXPLANATION IS BONA FIDE. AGAIN THERE IS NO DENIAL THAT THERE WAS A GRAND PARTY ON OACCAS ION OF HIS MARRIAGE, WHERE AS PER HIS OWN SUBMISSION MORE THAN 800 PERSONS HAD COME AS GUESTS. HIS EXPLANATION THAT TH E ENTIRE EXPENDITURE WAS BORNE BY HIS FATHER AND OTHER RELAT IVES WERE ALSO NOT FULLY SUBSTANTIATED. AS A RESULT, THE DEPA RTMENT HAD ESTIMATED CERTAIN AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME, WH ICH HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT, K OLKATA. 6. IN A REPORTED DECISION, THE PATNA HIGH COURT (1 71 ITR 405, CIT VS. WARASAT HUSSAIN HELD THAT WHERE THE AS SESSEE FAILS TO EXPLAIN CERTAIN INCOME/EXPENDITURE HAVING RELEVANCE TO COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE REVENUE HAS NO OPTION BUT TO MAKE AS ASSESSMENT BY ESTIMATE. IN TH IS CASE, AN HONEST AND FAIR ESTIMATE WAS MADE WHICH HAS A REASONABLE NEXUS WITH THE MATERIALS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE EXPLANATION OFFERE D BY THE ASSSSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM ON BOTH TH E ISSUES. THEREFORE, AS PER EXPLANATION 1(B) BELOW SECTION 27 1(1)( C), IT IS DEEMED THAT, THE CONFIRMED AMOUNT OF ADDITION OF RS.2,81,663/ (RS.1,50,000/ AS ESTIMATED EXPENSES AND RS.1,31,663/ AS RECEIPT WHICH WAS NOT MARRIAGE GIF T), ITA NO.2526/KOL/13 RAJESH MUNDHRA 4 REPRESENT INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HA VE BEEN CONCEALED. 6. THE FINDING OF THE AO WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FURNISHED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS TOTAL INCOME FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS. 1,15,000/- U/S. 271(1) ( C) OF THE ACT. 7. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE ARG UMENTS AS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO MATERIA L BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO SUPPORT THE ADDITIONS. CONSIDERING THE SA ME, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY AS IMPOSED BY THE AO AND HAS HELD AS UNDER:- ..... .... ... I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMIS SIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. I DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE ADDIT IONS AS MADE BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FINALLY CONFIRMED BY THE H ONBLE ITAT. FOR, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THAT CASH OF RS.4,81,663/ WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASH DEPOSITS SO MA DE REMAINED UNEXPLAINED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,31,663/. SECOND LY, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT A GRAND PARTY ATTENDED BY MORE THAN 800 PERSON S WAS ORGANISED AND NO EXPENDITURE WAS BOOKED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE AS SESSEE. THE AO MADE A REASONABLE AND FAIR ESTIMATE WHICH WAS FINALLY CONF IRMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,50,000/ BY THE HONBLE ITAT. IN THIS FACTUAL BACKGROUND, I AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE AO THAT EXPLANATION 1(B) WAS AP PLICABLE IN THIS CASE. THE PENALTY ORDER OF THE AO IS UPHELD. THE GROUNDS RAIS ED IN THIS APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AR SUBMI TS THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS NOR WAS THERE ANY WHISPER ABOUT THE SAM E IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITS THAT ALL THE ADDITI ONS WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION TO WHICH PENALTY CA NNOT BE IMPOSED AND RELIED ON THE CASE LAWS. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA NO.2526/KOL/13 RAJESH MUNDHRA 5 9. HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE ARE NOT IN AGREEME NT WITH THE LEARNED AR THAT IN THE RESPECT OF ARGUMENT THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION OR WHISPER ABOUT THE INITIATION OF T HE PROCEEDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BUT, WE FIND S UCH FINDING BY THE AO AT PAGES 4 AND 5 OF ASSESSMENT OR DER. AS RIGHTLY POINTED BY THE LEARNED AR REGARDING ADDITIO NS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION, WE FIND THE SAME AT PAG E NOS- 2 & 4, THAT THE AO MADE ADDITION KEEPING IN MIND TH E STATUS OF THE FAMILY ON POSSIBLE ESTIMATION IN THE RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND MARRIAGE GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE OCCASION OF MARRIAGE. BEFORE US THE LEARNED AR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE PENALTY CANNO T BE IMPOSED ON THE ADDITIONS WHICH WERE MADE ON THE BAS IS OF ESTIMATION TO THAT EFFECT THE LEARNED AR RELIED ON THE CASE LAWS. THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY REP ORTED IN (2013) 35 TAXMANN.COM250(KARNATAKA) HELD THAT TH E PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT FROM THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS AND THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS INSOFAR AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS WOULD NOT OPER ATE AS RES JUDICATA IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 10. NOW, WE MAY REFER TO THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED AR. LET US EXAMINE THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT V S AERO TRADERS(P) LTD REPORTED IN 322 ITR 316, WHEREIN THE ITA NO.2526/KOL/13 RAJESH MUNDHRA 6 HONOURABLE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE FINDING ARRIVED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATED PROFIT, THE RELEVANT F INDING OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELO W: 6. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, THE REVENUE FILED AN APPE AL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIO NS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CIT(A) HAD TAKEN THE CORRECT DECISION IN DELETING THE PENALTY. THE OPERA TIVE PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT. 4TH DEC., 2008 IS AS FOLLOWS : 'AS THE FACTS EMERGE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUANTUM RELIEF WAS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL, TH E BALANCE PERTAINS TO ESTIMATED RATE OF PROFIT APPLIED ON THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN OUR VIEW DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHI NG INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT(A) HAS TAKEN RIGH T DECISION IN DELETING THE PENALTY WHICH IS UPHELD.' 7. THE APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE ABOVEMENTIONED OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL DT. 4TH DEC., 2008. THE FINDING ARRIVED AT BY THE T RIBUNAL DOES NOT WARRANT INTERFERENCE FROM THIS COURT AS IT IS PURELY A FIND ING OF FACT. NO PERVERSITY HAS BEEN POINTED IN SUCH A FINDING. CONSEQUENTLY, N O SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION. AS A RESULT, THE A PPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VIJAY KUMAR JAIN OF HONOU RABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH REPORTED IN THE 325 ITR 378 (CHATTISGARH) WHEREIN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT DID NOT FIND FAULT WITH THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CANC ELLING THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT THE NET PROFIT WAS ESTIM ATED AT 10%. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF FINDING IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: 13. IF WE EXAMINE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN THE LIG HT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE AFORESAID JUDGMENTS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ENTIRE RECEIPT OF RS. 21,76,274. AFTER DEDUCTION TOWARDS EXPENDITURE AND ADDITION OF NET PROFIT THROUGH OTHER SOURCES, TAXABLE NET INCOME WAS SHOWN AT RS. 70,818. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVI DENCE AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT INCLUDING THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR, NET PROFIT WAS ESTIMATED @ 10 PER CENT OF THE RECEIPT FROM ALL SOURCES AND ON DIFFERENCE OF PROFIT SO ESTIMATED, ADDITIONAL TAX W AS IMPOSED AND IT WAS FURTHER DIRECTED THAT PROCEEDING UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR ITA NO.2526/KOL/13 RAJESH MUNDHRA 7 IMPOSITION OF PENALTY BE SEPARATELY DRAWN AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY NOT PRODUCING PROPER EVIDE NCE OF EXPENDITURE. TO IMPOSE PENALTY UNDER S. 271(1)(C), CONDITIONS ST ATED THEREIN MUST EXIST MEANING THEREBY THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE CONCEALED PA RTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 14. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REV ENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR ANY PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME FURNISHED BY HIM WERE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE BY THE AO. THE A SSESSEE DECLARED NET PROFIT BY ESTIMATING IT @ 6.36 PER CENT OF HIS GROS S RECEIPT AS THE AO IN SIMILARLY SITUATED CASES HAD ACCEPTED LOWER NET PRO FIT THAN 6.36 PER CENT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CANCELLING PENALTY CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH AND ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE ORDER. 15. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN VIEW OF THE UNDISPUT ED FACTS THAT PARTICULARS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING REC EIPT IN THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND INACCURATE; IT I S ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED ANY INCOME IN HIS RETURN, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) CANCELLING PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CAN NOT BE FAULTED WITH. 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE AO MADE TWO IMPUGNED ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION. WE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF HAS BEEN GRANTE D BY THE CIT-A AND THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ADDITIONS MADE BY TH E AO. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFER ED NAMES OF THE DONORS FROM WHOM THE CASH GIFTS WERE RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE DURING MARRIAGE, THE AO WHILE ACCEPTIN G AT PAGE NO-2 THAT THERE IS A CUSTOM TO RECEIVE THE CAS H GIFTS DURING THE MARRIAGE AND ESTIMATED RS.2 LAKS AS GENU INE CASH GIFT OUT OF RS.4,81,683/-AND ADDED REMAINING A MOUNT OF RS.2,81,663/-UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. REGAR DING THE ADDITION ON MARRIAGE EXPENSES THE AO CATEGORICA LLY OBSERVED THAT HE PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE THE POSSIBLE EXPENDITURE TO AN EXTENT OF RS.1,95,000/- THAT WOUL D HAVE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MARRIAGE AND MADE ADDI TION THEREON. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT BOTH THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF ITA NO.2526/KOL/13 RAJESH MUNDHRA 8 ESTIMATION. THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURTS IN THE DECIS IONS SUPRA UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CANCELLING THE PENALTIES IMPOSED ON THE GROUND OF ADDITIONS MADE O N THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE DECISIONS SUPRA ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND AND THEREFORE, THE PRINCI PLE LAID DOWN BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURTS SUPRA ARE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE ON HAND. RESPECTABLY FOLLOWING THE LAW LAID DOWN ABOVE, WE CANCEL THE PENALTY OF RS.1,50,000/- IMPOSED BY THE AO AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT-A. TH US, THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS 2 TO 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 SD/- SD/- P.M. JAGTAP S.S.VIS WANETHRA RAVI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:16/09 /2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- ITA NO.2526/KOL/13 RAJESH MUNDHRA 9 1. THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: SHRI RAJESH M UNDHRA 5C, ALIPORE PARK PLACE, KOLKATA27. 2 . THE RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT: MR. S.MUKHERJEE, DCIT, CC III, KOLKATA 110, SHANTI PALLY, KOL107. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGIS TRAR ** PRADIP SPS INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENC HES, KOLKATA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: -