Asha Soni, Jharsuguda V. ITO, Jharsuguda

ITA 273/CTK/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4367 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G D MODI; S N PADHEE ARS
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Fair market value; Valuation report

Judgement Text

IN THE INCME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, C UTTACK BEFORE : HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND HONBLE SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER. SL. NO. ITA NO. APPELLANT RESPONDENT A.Y. 1 ) 273/CTK/2011 SMT. ASHA SONI, JHARSUGUDA PA N : 967 - A ITO, JHARSUGUDA 1998 - 99 2 ) 274/CTK/2011 SMT.RITA DEV I LOCKCHANDANI PAN:AAOPL 7733P ITO, JHARSUGUDA 1998 - 99 3 ) 275/CTK/2011 SHRI PRATAP KISHORE ROUTRAY PAN: ABMPR 7178 R ITO, JHARSUGUDA 1999 - 00 4 ) 276/CTK/2011 SRI PRADEEPTA KISHORE ROUTRAY, JHARSUGUD A POAN: ABMPR 7181 E ITO, JHARSUGUDA 1999 - 00 5 ) 277/CTK/2011 SMT. RAM PYARI SONI, JHARSUGUDA. PAN: 16 - 009 - PT - 4988 ITO, JHARSUGUDA 1998 - 99 6 ) 278/CTK/2011 SMT.SHARABANI DAS, BRAJARAJNAGAR, JHARSUGUDA PAN: ABPPD 6381 A ITO, JHARSUGUDA 1998 - 99 7 ) 279/CTK/2011 S RI RAMESH KUMAR SONI, JHARSUGUDA. PAN: 250 - R ITO, JHARSUGUDA 1998 - 99 8 ) 280/CTK/2011 SRI HIRA LAL LOCKCHANDANI PAN: AAAHL 3591 F ITO, JHARSUGUDA 1999 - 00 9 ) 281/CTK/2011 SRI PIJUS KANTI DAS, BRARAJNAGAR, JHARSUGUDA PAN: ABPPD 6380 C ITO, JHARSUGUDA 1999 - 00 10 ) 282/CTK/2011 SMT. SANTOSH MODI, JHARSUGUDA PAN: ACHP 9133 F ITO, JHARSUGUDA 1999 - 00 11 ) 283/CTK/2011 SMT.NEELAM SONI, JHARSUGUDA PAN: AGNPS 3754 I ITO, JHARSUGUDA 1998 - 99 12 ) 284/CTK/2011 SRI ASHOK KUMAR SONI JHARSUGUDA PAN: 810 A ITO, JHARSUGUDA 1998 - 99 13 ) 28 5/CTK/2011 SMT.APARNA DEVI, BELPAHAR PAN: AAYPB 0229 N ITO, JHARSUGUDA 1998 - 99 ITA NOS.273 TO 288/CTK/2011 SMT. ASHA SONI & OTHERS V. ITO (GROUP APPEALS) 2 14 ) 286/CTK/2011 SMT.ARCHANA DAS, BRAJRAJNAGAR, JHARSUGUDA PAN: ABPPD 6204 R ITO, JHARSUGUDA 1999 - 00 15 ) 287/CTK/2011 SRI TUSHAR KANTI DAS , BRAJRAJNAGAR JHARSUGUDA ITO, JHARSUGU DA 1999 - 00 16 ) 288/CTK/2011 SRI BISWAJIT ROUTRAY JHARSUGUDA ITO, JHARSUGUDA 1999 - 00 FOR THE ASSESSEES : SHRI G.D.MODI AND SHRI S.N.PADHEE, ARS FOR THE RESPONDENTS: NONE ORDER PER BENCH : ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY 16 DIFFERENT ASSESSEES , BUT THE F ACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED THEREIN ARE COMMON AND AS SUCH, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. THE ISSUE S, WHICH ARE COMMON IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE AGAINST CAPITAL GAIN CO MPUTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON SALES OF CUT AND POLISHED DIAMONDS BY TAKING THE INITIAL COST OF RAW & UNCUT DIAMONDS AS DECLARED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR VDIS PURPOSE BY MISINTERPRETING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH, CUTTACK AT KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF SHRI HIRALAL LOKCHANDANI V. ITO IN I.T.A.NO.555/CTK/2002 DT.17.11.2006, WHEREIN, THE ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RE - COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN AFTER CONSIDERING THE VALUATION REPO RT OF ROUGH DIAMONDS AS BASIS FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RAW AND UNCUT DIAMOND AS ON 1.4.1981, WHICH ORDER REQUIRED TO HAVE BEEN ITA NOS.273 TO 288/CTK/2011 SMT. ASHA SONI & OTHERS V. ITO (GROUP APPEALS) 3 FOLLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEES, AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEALS. 3. BOTH PARTIES WERE HEARD REGARDING THE ISSUE S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES IN ALL THESE APPEALS . 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE S HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED CONTENDING INTERALIA THAT SINCE THIS TRIBUNAL HAS ALREA DY PASSED AN ORDER IN THE CONNECTING CASES IN ITA NOS.203 TO 223/CTK/2011 DT.27.5.2011 IN THE CASES OF PUTTA SURYA RAO & OTHERS V. ITO, WHEREIN SIMILAR SUCH ISSUES WERE PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEES AND ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL DEALING ELABORATELY AND ULTIMA TELY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE FOUND NOT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION OF THE ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH, KOLKATA RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI HIRALAL LOKCHANDANI V. ITO IN I.T .A.NO.555/CTK/2002 DT.17.11.2006. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES WERE FOUND NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR LEGAL SCRUTINY AND THEY ARE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES. THIS TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO DIRECTED THE L EARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE VALUE AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT DISCLOSING THE VALUE OF RAW AND UNCUT DIAMONDS AS ON 1.4.81 FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEES PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND RECOMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS TO BE TAXED IN THE HAND S OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, OF COURSE EXTENDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ITA NOS.273 TO 288/CTK/2011 SMT. ASHA SONI & OTHERS V. ITO (GROUP APPEALS) 4 ASSESSEES. THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH - 11 OF THE SAID ORDER DT.27.5.2011 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 11. ON CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE ORDERS OF TH E LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED AFTER THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DT.10.12.2007 STATED SUPRA, IT IS FOUND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED BACK THE CASES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO PASS FRESH ORDERS IN THE LIGHT OF THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE ITAT, CUTTACK SITTING AT KOLKATA IN THE CASE HIRALAL LOKCHANDANI V. ITO IN ITA NO.555/CTK/2002 DT.17.11.2006. ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH HAS HELD IN PARA 21 OF THEIR ORDER THAT THE MAT TER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE VALUATION REPORT OF RAW AND UNCUT DIAMOND BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL RECOMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN AFTER CONSIDERING THE VA LUATION REPORT OF ROUGH DIAMONDS AS ON 1.4.1981 AS BASIS FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RAW AND UNCUT DIAMOND AS ON 1.4.1981. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL HAVE TO AFFORD ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ABOVE DI RECTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STARTED RECONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER HAVING BEEN RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S.142(1) AND 143(2) TO THE ASSESSEES. THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED THROUGH THEIR ADVO CATE A PETITION ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT OF RAW AND UNCUT DIAMONDS AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH. THEREAFTER HE PROCEEDED TO ANALYZE THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT AND THEN HE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE PRESENT CASES ON HAND. HE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSES HAVE AGREED TO THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF DIAMOND WITH SPOTS AND CRACKS AS ON 1.4.81 IS TO BE ADOPTED FOR INDEXATION AND COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND THEY HAVE FILED VALUATION REPORT DT.10.1.1998 OF M/S.SHAH BHAGWANDAS KASHIDAS CHOKSI, SURAT., WHEREIN FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 WAS MENTIONED. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE NOT FILED SUCH VALUATION REPORTS EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CIT(A) OR ITAT EARLIER SHOWING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE THEREOF. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH DT.10.12.2007 IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT AT THE TIME OF HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THA T THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH, CUTTACK SITTING AT KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL LOKCHANDANI V. ITO IN ITA NO.555/CTK/2002 DT.17.11.2006. ITA NOS.273 TO 288/CTK/2011 SMT. ASHA SONI & OTHERS V. ITO (GROUP APPEALS) 5 THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THAT THE ASSESS EES HAVE NOT FILED THE VALUATION REPORT EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CIT(A) OR TRIBUNAL, BEFORE IT IS REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE TRIBUNAL WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDE R IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF ITAT,SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL LOKCHANDANI V. ITO IN ITA NO.555/CTK/2002 DT.17.11.2006. THE SPECIAL BENCH HAS CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED IN PARAGRAPH 21 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE TO RECOMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN AFTER CONSIDERING THE VALUATION REPORT AS BASIS FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RAW AND UNCUT DIAMOND AS ON 1.4.1981. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 2 OF HIS ORDER (IN CASE OF ASSESSEE PUTTA SURYA RAO) THAT THE FAIR MARKET V ALUE OF CUT AND POLISHED DIAMONDS AT RS.1,30,950 SHOWN IN THE RETURN WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASON OR BASIS THEREOF, AS FABRICATED, IMPROBABLE ABSURD AND NON - ACCEPTABLE. FOR THIS OBSERVATION HE HAS MENTIONED THAT IN VIEW OF CONTINUED NON - COOPERATION OF TH E ASSESSEE IN FURNISHING THE DETAILS REQUIRED VIDE SEVERAL NOTICES SERVED UPON HIM, HE HAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE THAN TO FOLLOW THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT MADE AS ABOVE AND DETERMINE THE TOTAL INCOME. THIS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT F OLLOWED THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHEREBY HE WAS ONLY TO TAKE THE VALUATION REPORT FROM THE ASSESSEE AND DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE RAW AND UNCUT DIAMONDS AFTER CONSIDERING SUCH VALUATION REPORT AS BASIS FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE O F RAW AND UNCUT DIAMOND AS ON 1.4.1981 AND COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS THAT IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES. SO, THERE IS CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW COMING TO THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) , IT I S FOUND THAT HE HAS WRITTEN AN ELABORATE ORDER BUT WITHOUT CONSIDERING AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOLLOWED OR NOT THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL GIVEN IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL LOKCHANDANI V. ITO IN ITA NO.555/CTK/2002 DT.17.11.2006. ON THE OTHER HAND, HE HAS STARTED HIS OWN REASONING FOR INTERPRETING THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL LOKCHANDANI V. ITO (SUPRA). SO THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IS NOTHING BUT APPRECIATION OF THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS NO T THE DUTY OF THE CIT(A). IF HE REQUIRES ANY CLARIFICATION REGARDING ANY FINDING IN THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL OR THE MEANING OF THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE ONLY COURSE LEFT TO HIM IS TO SEEK CLARIFICATION NECESSARY IN THAT REGARD FROM TH E SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ITSELF BUT HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE HIS OWN INTERPRETATION OF THE DIRECTION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITA NOS.273 TO 288/CTK/2011 SMT. ASHA SONI & OTHERS V. ITO (GROUP APPEALS) 6 TRIBUNAL, BECAUSE HE IS NOT A SUPERIOR AUTHORITY TO THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN HIERARCHY. ON THE OTHER HAND, HE HAS TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL WITHOUT SITTING ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH PASSED THAT ORDER. HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD V. CIT (237 ITR 1) HAS HELD TO THE EFFECT THAT NEITHER T HE INCOME TAX OFFICER NOR, INDEED, THE HIGH COURT WERE ENTITLED TO MAKE STATEMENTS ON TECHNICAL MATTERS FOR WHICH NO BASIS HAD BEEN LAID ON THE RECORD BY EITHER THE REVENUE OR THE ASSESSEE. FROM THIS IT IS CLEAR THAT RELIANCE ON A REPORT OF THE TECHNICA L PERSON, SUCH AS, VALUER OF DIAMOND IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE ON SPECIOUS PLEA THAT HE WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR CROSS EXAMINATION, SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE SUBSTANTIATING THE CONTENTS OF THE REPORT, SU CH AS EXAMINATION OF THE VALUER, SINCE EITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE CIT(A) ARE NOT HAVING ANY REQUIRED TECHNICAL QUALIFICATION TO CONTROVERT THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER. IF AT ALL THEY WANT TO CONTROVERT THE VALUATION GIVEN BY THE VALUER, IT IS OPEN FOR THEM TO CALL FOR A REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION CELL. EVEN THAT WAS ALSO NOT DONE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THIS IS WHAT HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD IN SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD V. CIT (237 ITR 1) THAT THE AUTHORI TIES CANNOT REFUSE TO RELY ON THE EXPERTS OPINION BECAUSE THE SAID EXPERT WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR CROSS EXAMINATION. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THE DIRECT ION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT, CUTTACK AT KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL LOKCHANDANI V. ITO (SUPRA) IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR L EGAL SCRUTINY AND HENCE, THEY ARE HEREBY SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE VALUE AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT STATING THEREIN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RAW AND UNCUT DIAMOND AS O N 1.4.1981 FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND RECOMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL EXTEND REASONABLE OP PORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEES. 5. ON GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS, IT IS FOUND THAT THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASES ARE VERY MUCH SIMILAR IN THOSE CASES IN ITA NO.203 TO 223/CTK/2011 DISPOSED OF VIDE ORDER DT.27.5.2011 IN THE CASE OF ITA NOS.273 TO 288/CTK/2011 SMT. ASHA SONI & OTHERS V. ITO (GROUP APPEALS) 7 PUTTA SURYA RAO & OTHERS V. ITO. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RULE OF PRECEDENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE VALUE AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT STATING THEREIN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RAW AND UNC UT DIAMOND AS ON 1.4.1981 FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEES PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND RECOMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL EXTE ND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEES. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON DT. 30 TH JUNE, 2011 S D/ - S D/ - (K.K.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 30 TH JUNE, 2011 H.K.PADHEE, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANTS : 1 ) SMT. ASHA SONI, JHARSUGUDA PAN : 967 - A 2 ) SMT.RITA DEVI LOCKCHANDANI PAN:AAOPL 7733P 3 ) SHRI PRATAP KISHORE R OUTRAY PAN: ABMPR 7178 R 4 ) SRI PRADEEPTA KISHORE ROUTRAY, JHARSUGUDA P AN: ABMPR 7181 E 5 ) SMT. RAM PYARI SONI, JHARSUGUDA. PAN: 16 - 009 - PT - 4988 6 ) SMT.SHARABANI DAS, BRAJARAJNAGAR, JHARSUGUDA PAN: ABPPD 6381 A 7 ) SRI RAMESH KUMAR SONI, JHARSUGUDA. PAN: 250 - R ITA NOS.273 TO 288/CTK/2011 SMT. ASHA SONI & OTHERS V. ITO (GROUP APPEALS) 8 8 ) SRI HIRA LAL LOCKCHANDANI PAN: AAAHL 3591 F 9 ) SRI PIJUS KANTI DAS, BRARAJNAGAR, JHARSUGUDA PAN: ABPPD 6380 C 10 ) SMT. SANTOSH MODI, JHARSUGUDA PAN: ACHP 9133 F 11 ) SMT.NEELAM SONI, JHARSUGUDA PAN: AGNPS 3754 I 12 ) SRI ASHOK KUMAR SONI JHAR SUGUDA PAN: 810 A 13 ) SMT.APARNA DEVI, BELPAHAR PAN: AAYPB 0229 N 14 ) SMT.ARCHANA DAS, BRAJRAJNAGAR, JHARSUGUDA PAN: ABPPD 6204 R 15 ) SRI TUSHAR KANTI DAS , BRAJRAJNAGAR JHARSUGUDA 16 ) SRI BISWAJIT ROUTRAY JHA RSUGUDA 2. THE RESPONDENT: 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE DR, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY.