ITO, Ward-40(1), Kolkata, Kolkata V. Shri Amal Kumar Ghosh, Kolkata

ITA 255/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4947 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHR M BANDHYOPADHYAY
• Assessee Lawyers: DHRUBAJYOTI RAY J
• Keywords: Capital asset; Capital receipt; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 205; 201

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 25 5 / KOL / 201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011-12 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-40(1), 3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-700 001 V/S . SHRI AMAL KUMAR GHOSH, 20, HINDUSTAN PARK, 208, RASH BIHARI AVENUE, KOLKATA-700 009 [ PAN NO.ADYPG 0072 H ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI DHRUBAJYOTI RAY, JCIT-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHR M.BANDHYOPADHYAY, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING 29-01-2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21-02-2020 / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, KOLKATAS ORDER DATE D 09.11.2016 PASSED IN CASE NO.377/CIT(A)-12/KOL/WD-40(1)/2014-15, INVOLVI NG PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 R.W.S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE REVENUES INSTANT APPEAL RAISES THE FOLLOWIN G SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ENTIRE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT OF RS.82,37,470 /- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS, WITHOUT VERIFYING WHETHER THE ALLEGED REC EIPT WAS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.255/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 ITO WD-40(1) KOL. VS. SH. AMAL KR. GHOSH PAGE 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ENTIRE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT OF RS.82,37,470 /- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS, WITHOUT VERIFYING WHETHER THE ALLEGED REC EIPT WAS TAXABLE INCOME OR NOT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ENTIRE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT OF RS.90,00,000 /-, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THAT THE ALLEGED RECEIPT WAS EARNED FROM SURRENDERING ILLEGA L POSSESSION OF PROPERTY. 3. IT TRANSPIRES DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE REVENUE / APPELLANT HAD FILED A SIMILAR APPEAL ITA NO. 254/KOL/2017 RAISING IDENTICAL SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE IN CASE OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE ( SHRI KAMAL KUMAR GHOSH A PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST OF THE OF THE RESPONDENT HE IR ) AGAINST THE CIT(A)S ORDER OF EVEN DATE. THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BE NCHS ORDER DATED 20.06.2018 AFFIRMED THE CIT(A)S ACTION DELETING TH E IMPUGNED IDENTICAL ADDITION(S) VIDE THE FOLLOWING DETAILED DISCUSSION. 4.1. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE SUMMARY OF AFORESAI D DETAILS AS UNDER :- A) ONLY BANK INTEREST AND RENT RECEIVED ARE TAXABLE INCOME. B) RS 1,80,00,000/- RECEIVED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEE F OR SURRENDERING WRONGFUL POSSESSION OF LAND AS MENTIONED ABOVE, BEI NG IN NATURE OF MESNE PROFIT , HENCE NOT TAXABLE . C) PROCEEDS RECEIVED FROM SEVERAL MUTUAL FUNDS EITH ER ON MATURITY OR REDEMPTION, QUESTION OF CAPITAL GAINS DO NOT ARISE BECAUSE ALL ARE IN LONG TERM NATURE. D) INCOME DISTRIBUTION RECEIVED FROM SEVERAL MUTUAL FUNDS ARE IN NATURE OF DIVIDEND HENCE NOT TAXABLE. E) MONEY RECEIVED FROM BIRLA SUNLIFE INSURANCE COMP ANY IS NOT TAXABLE. F) DRAWINGS, CONTRA ENTRIES, MISTAKE BY LD AO, DEPO SIT OF CASH IN HAND, ENCASHMENT OF FIXED DEPOSIT AND CONTRA DOUBLE DEPOS IT ON ACCOUNT OF CAR PURCHASE ETC AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, ARE SELF EXPLANATORY, HENCE NOT TAXABLE. 4.2. THE LD CITA FORWARDED THE SAME TO THE LD AO FO R EXAMINATION AND REMAND REPORT. THE LD AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT STAT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED ANY DETAILS IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND ACCORDINGLY OBSERVED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS 82,64,770/- WAS RI GHTLY MADE IN HIS HANDS. SIMILARLY, HE REITERATED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH REGARD TO TAXABILITY OF SURRENDER OF LEASE HOLD RIG HTS IN THE SUM OF RS 90,00,000/-. ITA NO.255/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 ITO WD-40(1) KOL. VS. SH. AMAL KR. GHOSH PAGE 3 4.3. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO EXTENSION WAS A PPLIED FOR THE LEASE AGREEMENT, NEITHER LANDLORD FILED ANY EVICTION SUIT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LEASE PERIOD NO R POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LEASE PERIOD. THE DEVELOPER WHO NEGOTIATED THE TITLE THROUGH SALE, DI D NOT GET THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND OF SAID TRANSACTION OF SALE, BUT ACTUAL PO SSESSION WAS RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS DELIVERED TO LANDLORD / D EVELOPER BY ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER RECEIVING RS.1,80,00,000/- I.E RS.90,00, 000/- EACH TO AMAL KR GHOSH AND KAMAL KR GHOSH, BY SURRENDERING THE POSSE SSION OF THE LAND WHICH SHOULD BE TREATED AS MESNE PROFIT UNDER SECTION 2(12) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THE ASSESSEE PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SMT LILA GHOSH REPORTED IN 205 ITR 9 (CAL). IT WAS PLEADED THAT IN THAT CASE, FOLL OWING THE COURT ORDER, SMT GHOSH SURRENDERED THE RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTY TO ST ATE OF WEST BENGAL UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 AND THE ASSESSEE SMT GHOSH RECEIVED THE SAID RS.2,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF MESNE PROFIT FOR THE USE AND OCCUPATION OF THE SAID LAND BY THE ERSTWHILE TENANTS WHO WERE IN ILLE GAL POSSESSION OF THE LAND. IN ADDITION TO IT, SMT GHOSH RECEIVED RS.11,00,000/ - AS COMPENSATION FOR SURRENDERING THE RIGHT OVER PROPERTY. THE LD AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT STATED THAT THIS CASE IS NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE TO THE FACT S OF THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). 4.4. THE LD CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE DEFINITION OF MESNE PROFITS UNDER SECTION 2(12) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 CLEAR LY TAKES WITHIN IT SCOPE ANY RECEIPT AGAINST WRONGFUL POSSESSION OF PROPERTY. T HE NATURE OF DEPRIVATION SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CRUCIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF NATURE OF RECEIPT OF MESNE PROFITS . WHERE THE COMPENSATION IS PAID FOR DEPRIVATION OF CAPITAL ASSET, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, IT WOULD BE A CAPITAL RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF RECIPIENT OF THE COMPENSATION. ON THE OTHER HAN D, WHERE THE SUMS ARE AWARDED BY THE COURT IN THE NATURE OF RESTITUTION O F INTEREST, DIVIDEND OR ANY OTHER YIELD, OUT OF THE PROPERTY IS CONTRAST TO AWA RDING COMPENSATION, THE SUM AWARDED IS ON THE NATURE OF INCOME. THE LD CIT(A) D ISCUSSED THE FACTS AND PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HIGH C OURTS AND HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.90,00,000/- RECEIVED IN LIEU OF TOTAL AND FINAL SURRENDER OF LEASEHOLD RIGHTS CAN ONLY BE TREATED AS MESNE PROFI T WHICH WAS RECEIVED FOR DEPRIVATION OF USE AND OCCUPATION OF PROPERTY AND W OULD THUS BE CAPITAL RECEIPT AND NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. 4.5. WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE IN THE SUM OF RS 82,34,770/- TOWARDS REMAINING CREDITS IN THE VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS, THE LD CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL DETAILS OF THE CREDIT EN TRIES IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS. HE STATED THAT THESE DETAILS WERE SOUGHT TO BE EXAMINED BY THE LD AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. BUT THE LD AO INSTEAD OF GIVING A SPECIFIC FINDING ABOUT THE NATURE OF EACH CREDIT AND ITS TAX ABILITY, SIMPLY SENT A VAGUE REPORT BY STATING THAT NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS SCENARIO, THE LD CIT(A) WENT INTO THE DETAILS SUBMI TTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCEPTED THE SAME AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDIT ION IN THE SUM OF RS 82,34,770/-. ITA NO.255/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 ITO WD-40(1) KOL. VS. SH. AMAL KR. GHOSH PAGE 4 5. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE DELETION OF TWO ADDITIONS BY THE LD CIT(A). 6. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD DR. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN THE SUM OF RS 90,00,000/- ( ASSESSEES SHARE OF 50% ) WAS ONLY FOR SURRENDERING HIS LEASEHOLD RIGHTS. THE ASSESSEE TREATED THE SAME AS MESNE PROFITS AND HENCE CAPITAL RECEIPT WHEREAS THE LD AO TREATED THE SAME AS REVENUE RECEI PT. NOW THE SHORT QUESTION IS WHETHER THE SAID MESNE PROFITS WOULD BE LIABLE FOR TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE DEFINITION OF ME SNE PROFITS IS PROVIDED IN SECTION 2(12) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 AS UN DER :- MESNE PROFITS OF PROPERTY MEANS THOSE PROFITS WHICH THE PERSON IN WRONGFUL POSSESSION OF SUCH PROPERTY ACTUALLY RECEI VED OR MIGHT WITH ORDINARY DILIGENCE HAVE RECEIVED THEREFROM, TOGETHE R WITH INTEREST ON SUCH PROFITS, BUT SHALL NOT INCLUDE PROFITS DUE TO IMPROVEMENTS MADE BY THE PERSON IN WRONGFUL POSSESSION. WE FIND THAT THE SPECIAL BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF NARANG OVERSEAS PVT LTD VS ACIT REPORTED IN 111 ITD 1 (MUM ITAT ) (SB) HAD HELD THAT MESNE PROFITS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FOR WRONGFU L DEPRIVATION OF USE AND OCCUPATION OF PROPERTY CONSTITUTES CAPITAL RECEIPT AND HENCE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE RECEIPT OF RS 90 LACS BY THE ASSESSEE IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX . ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS REGARD BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6.1. WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER ADDITION OF RS.82,34, 770/-, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE EACH AND EVERY CREDIT OF VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE NATURE OF RECEIPTS ARE VERY MUCH VISIBLE FR OM THE BANK STATEMENTS ITSELF FOR MOST OF THE TRANSACTIONS. WHEN THE REMAN D REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE LD AO IN THIS REGARD, THE LD AO, INSTEAD OF VER IFYING THE NATURE OF CREDITS AND GIVE A FINDING WITH REGARD TO TAXABILITY THEREO N, IGNORED TO DO THE SAME AND CHOSE TO JUST SEND A VAGUE REPORT BY STATING T HAT NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD CIT(A) CHOSE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND TH AT THE ENTIRE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.82,34,770/-. WE FIND NO INFIRMIT Y IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS REGARD BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED . 4. THE REVENUE THEREAFTER FILED ITS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.225/KOL/2018 SEEKING TO RE-CALL THE TRIBUNALS ABOVE EXTRACTED ORDER. THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BENCHS ORDER ACCEPTED ITS M ISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON 04.10.2019 AS UNDER:- ITA NO.255/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 ITO WD-40(1) KOL. VS. SH. AMAL KR. GHOSH PAGE 5 2. WE NOW ADVERT TO THE REVENUES SOLE GRIEVANCE R AISED IN THE INSTANT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. IT TRANSPIRES DURING THE CURSE OF HEARING THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,80,00000/- TO THE EXTENT HALF SHARE EACH COMING TO RS.90,000/-. HE CL AIMED THE SAME AS MESNE PROFIT IN THE NATURE OF A CAPITAL RECEIPT NOT LIABL E TO BE TAXED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED ITS EXPLANATION TO ADD THE SAID SU M OF RS.90,00,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS. THE CIT(A) REVERSED THE ASSES SING OFFICERS ACTION AND TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT AS MESNE PROFITS NOT ASSESS ABLE TO TAX. IN THIS BACKDROP THE REVENUE FILED ITS INSTANT MISCELLANEOU S APPLICATION. 3. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RI VAL CONTENTIONS. CASE FILE SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER HAD ENJOY ED LEASE RIGHTS ON THE TWO PROPERTIES I.E. 36B GARCHA 1 ST LANE AND 44/11, GARCHA ROAD, KOLKATA AND 36B,GARCHA 1 ST LANE, GARCHA ROAD, KOLKATA. THE LEASE PERIOD HAD A DMITTEDLY EXPIRED ON 24.08.1986 AND 25.08.2006; RESPECTIVELY. THESE TWO BROTHERS CONTINUED IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY UPTO THE YE AR 2010. THE PAYER CONCERNED SHRI ANUP JASH MADE THE IMPUGNED TOTAL PA YMENT OF RS.1,80,00,000/- TO BOTH OF THEM IN EQUAL SHARES IN FY 2010-11. WE FIND IN THIS BACKDROP OF FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT E NJOYED ANY RIGHT OR TITLE ON EITHER OF THE TWO PROPERTIES UPTO THE RELEVANT PREV IOUS YEAR SINCE THE LEASE PERIOD HAD EXPIRED WAY BACK IN THE YEAR 1986 AND 20 06; RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEES CASE IS THAT THE IMPUGNED SUM IS LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS MESNE PROFIT GOES CONTRARY TO THE RELEVANT DEFINITION CLA USE TO THIS EFFECT U/S 2(12) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE THAT MENSE PROFITS OF PROPERTY DEFINES THOSE PROFITS WHICH THE PERSON IN WRONGFUL POSSESSION OF SUCH PROPERTY ACTUALLY RECEIVED OR MIGHT WITH ORDINARY DILIGENCE HAVE RECEIVED . THE SAME SUFFICIENTLY INDICATES THAT THE PERSON IS WRON GFUL PERSON HAS TO PAY AND NOT TO RECEIVE THE MESNE PROFIT. OUR ORDER IN QUEST ION APPEARS TO HAVE FOLLOWED THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN NARANG OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 111 ITD 1 (MUM ITAT) SB) THAT MESNE P ROFITS CONSTITUTE A CAPITAL RECEIPT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX AND ALSO HON' BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION IN CIT VS. SMT. LILA GHOSH 205 ITR 9 (CAL) AS RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(A). LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO DISP UTE THAT NONE OF THE SAID TWO ASSESSEES HAD CONTINUED IN POSSESSION OF THE RE SPECTIVE PROPERTIES BEYOND THE SPECIFIED TENURE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE RIG HTS OR POSSESSION OR TENANCY; AS THE CASE MAY BE. CONTRARY TO THIS, WE R EITERATE THAT THE INSTANT ASSESSEES STATUS ON THE TWO PROPERTIES IS THAT OF AN ILLEGAL OCCUPANT ONLY AFTER EXPIRY OF THE LEASE PERIOD (SUPRA). WE OBSERVE IN T HIS BACKDROP OF FACT THAT OUR FINDINGS AFFIRMING THE CIT(A);S ACTION DELETING TH E IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.90,00,000/- TO THIS EFFECT IS INSTANCE OF APPARE NT ERROR ON THE FACE OF RECORD SINCE A PERSON HAVING CONTINUED IN WRONGFUL POSSESS ION OF A PROPERTY IS SUPPOSED TO PAY MESNE PROFITS THAN TO RECEIVE THE S AME FROM THE TITLE HOLDER OF THE PROPERTY(IES). WE ACCORDINGLY RECALL OUR ORD ER TO THIS LIMITED EXTENT AND ACCEPT THE REVENUES GRIEVANCE RAISED IN THE INSTAN T MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION M.A. NO.225/KOL/2018 AS WELL AS IN THE FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND PLEADED IN THE MAIN CASE. WE THEREFORE ORDER THAT T HE REVENUES FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE IN THE MAIN APPEAL SEEKING TO REVIVED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.90,00,000/- WOULD STAND ACCEPTED HEN CEFORTH AS AN NECESSARY COROLLARY. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY . ITA NO.255/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 ITO WD-40(1) KOL. VS. SH. AMAL KR. GHOSH PAGE 6 5. WHEN WE CONFRONTED LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE ABOUT ALL THESE CONNECTED DEVELOPMENTS ON THE VERY ISSUE, HE SUBMIT TED THAT THE TRIBUNALS FOREGOING LATTER ORDER IN REVENUES MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION IS A PATENTLY ILLEGAL ONE SINCE NOT BASED ON CORRECT ASSUMPTION O F LAW AND ON FACTS. WE FIND NO MERIT IN ASSESSEES PLEA SINCE TRIBUNALS CO-ORD INATE BENCHS ORDER HAS ALREADY HELD THAT HIS PREDECESSOR-IN- INTERESTS ID ENTICAL RECEIPT HAS BEEN HELD AS TAXABLE. WE THEREFORE ADOPT THE VERY REASONING M UTATIS MUTANDIS HEREIN AS WELL AND ACCEPT THE REVENUES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIE VANCE. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL FINALIZE C ONSEQUENTIAL COMPUTATION AS PER LAW. 6. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 21/ 02/2020 SD/- SD/- ( &) (( &) ( A.L.SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP SR.P.S )- 21 / 02 /20 20 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-ITO WD-40(1), 3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST), KOL KATA-700 001 2. /RESPONDENT-SHRI AMAL KR. GHOSH, 20,HINDUSTAN PARK, 208, RASH BEHARI AVENUE KOLKATA-700 00 9 3. 4 5 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 5- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 8 ((4, 4, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. = / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ 4,