Income Tax Officer-Ward-23(3), Kolkata, Kolkata V. Sudip Roy, Kolkata

ITA 2864/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4360 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD GHAYAS UDDIN JCITSRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: I BNERJEE
• Keywords: Value adopted by valuation officer; Capital asset; Gift; Salary income; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2864/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2007-08 ITO WARD-23(3), 169, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, BAMBOO VILLA, 9 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-70 014 / V/S . SUDIP ROY 47/1G, BADRIDAS TEMPLE STREET, KOLKATA-700 004 [ PAN NO.ACWPR 9464 E ] /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT MD. GHAYAS UDDIN, JCIT-SR-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI I. BNERJEE, FCA /DATE OF HEARING 26-09-2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19-10-2016 /O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, KOLKATA DATED 10.09.2013. ASSESS MENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO WARD-23(3), KOLKATA U/S 143(3)/263 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 14.12.2012 FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE PER ITS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS I N FACTS BY GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF COS INFLATION INDEX F ACTOR, THAT IN THE EVENT OF ADOPTION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF 1981, THE COST INF LATION INDEX FACTOR OF 1981 (I.E. 100) COULD ONLY BE TAKEN, IGNORING THE COST I NFLATION INDEX FACTOR OF FYR. 2002-03 (447) PREVAILING ON THE SUBSEQUENT INHERITA NCE OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY. ITA NO.2864/KOL/2013 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WARD-23(3), KOL. VS. SUDIP ROY PAGE 2 FURTHERMORE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD ALSO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS BY GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT TH E REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENT VALUATION OFFICER U/S. 55A HAD BEEN CONTRARY TO LAW AND AS SUCH THE SAID VALUATION DOES NOT WARRANT ACCEPTANCE AND EFFECT IN THE ASSESSMENT, SOLELY RELYING ON THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WITHOUT CONSID ERING THE FACTS OBSERVATION IN TOTALITY. MD. GHAYAS UDDIN, LD. SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE AND SHRI I BANERJEE, LD. ADVOCATE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. 2. THE ONLY INTER-CONNECTED ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN BY TAKING THE COST INFLATION INDEX FAC TOR OF 1981 I.E. 100 AND FURTHER ERRED BY DISREGARDING THE VALUATION REPORT MADE BY DVO U/ S 55A OF THE ACT. 3. THE FACT IN BRIEF ARE THAT ASSESSEE IN THE PRESE NT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM SALARY, CAPITAL GAINS AND OTHER S OURCES. ASSESSEE INHERITED THE PROPERTY FROM HIS FATHER LOCATED AT 57, JYOTINDRA M OHAN AVENUE, PS. SHYAMPUKUR, KOLKATA-05 IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03. THE ASSES SEE WAS HAVING 1/8 TH SHARE IN THAT PROPERTY. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSES SEE HAS SOLD HIS SHARE OF PROPERTY AND DISCLOSED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG FOR SHO RT) OF 24,91,950/-. THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT FOR 25 LAKH IN THE BONDS TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT FROM THE INCOME OF LTCG. HOWEVER, AO DISAGR EED WITH THE WORKING OF LTCG OF THE ASSESSEE AS DETAILED BELOW:- PARTICULARS AO OBSERVATION APPELLANTS 1/8 TH UNDIVIDED SHARE (RS) SALE PRICE (GROSS CONSIDERATION) 8137500.00 8137500.00 BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION 182,671.00 182,671.00 NET SALE PRICE (NET CONSIDERATION) 7,954,829.00 7,954,829.00 FMV AS ON 01/04/1981 486,500.00 (VIDE DVOS REPORT) 1083375.00 (VIDE VALUATION REPORT) FMV AS ON 01/04/1981 INDEXED BY THE FOLLOWING INDEXED FACTOR: * 564,862.42 *486500 X 519 447 (FY 2002-03) 5622710.000* * 1083375 X 519 100 (FY 1981) RESULTANT LT CAPITAL GAIN 7146655.00 2491952/- ITA NO.2864/KOL/2013 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WARD-23(3), KOL. VS. SUDIP ROY PAGE 3 SECTION 54EC DEDUCTION AVAILED OF BY THE APPELLANT-INVESTMENT IN . .. BOND FOR RS.2500000/- 2491952/- 2491952/- TAXABLE L.T CAPITAL GAIN 4,646,655.21 NIL FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT AO HAS DISREGARDED THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR VALUING THE PROPERTY AS STOOD ON 01.04.1981 AND ALSO DISREGARDED THE COST INFLATION INDEX FACTOR TAKEN BY ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR 1981. T HE AO HAS TAKEN THE DVOS VALUATION REPORT AS ON 1.4.1981 AND COST INFLATION INDEX OF THE YEAR WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS FIRST HELD BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. 447 FOR THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR 2002-03. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, AO WORKED OUT THE LTCG TAXABLE IN THE H ANDS OF ASSESSEE FOR 46,46,655/-. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT REFERENCE MADE BY AO TO THE DVO U/S 55A OF THE ACT FOR THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1.4.198 1 IS AGAINST THE PROVISION OF LAW AND HIS ACTION IS ULTRA VARIES AS PER SEC. 55A OF THE A CT. THE AO CAN MAKE THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO IF HE IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE VALUE SO C LAIMED IS LESS THAN ITS MARKET VALUE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1 981 HAS BEEN SHOWN BY ASSESSEE GREATER THAN THE VALUE SHOWN BY DVO. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT IN THE FINANCE BILL, 2012 WHICH CAME INTO FORCE WITH W.E.F. 01.07.2012. AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A OF THE ACT, THE AO IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO IF HE IS OF THE OPINI ON THAT THE VALUE SO CLAIMED IS AT VARIANCE WITH ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE. HOWEVER, AO WA S AUTHORIZED TO MAKE THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST JULY 2012 AND INSTANT CASE PERTAINS TO THE AY 2007-08. THEREFORE, THE AO CANNOT MAKE THE REFER ENCE TO THE DVO AS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN MORE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1.4.1981 THAN THE VALUE OF THE DVO. WITH REGARD TO ACTION OF THE AO FOR ADOPTING THE IN DEX FACTOR FOR THE FY 2002-03, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPER TY WAS INHERITED IN THE YEAR 2002- 03 BUT AS PER LAW THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE TAKEN AS ON 01.04.1981 AND ACCORDINGLY COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THAT YEAR I.E. 100 SHOULD BE ADOPTED. ACCORDINGLY, ITA NO.2864/KOL/2013 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WARD-23(3), KOL. VS. SUDIP ROY PAGE 4 LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY AO AFTER HA VING RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF UMEDBHAI INTERNATIONAL LTD 330 ITR 506 AND 134 TTJ 23 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 3.1.1 IN THE ABOVE JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE KOLKATA TR IBUNAL, HAS POINTED OUT THE UNINTENDED ABSURDITY AND INCONSISTENCY IN SITUATION OF ADOPTION OF SOME REMOTE INDEX FACTOR TO SOME DISTANT AND DISCRETE FMV, PREV AILING IN TWO DIFFERENT YEARS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE CLARIFICATORY CBDT CIRCU LARS AND CONCLUDED THAT IN THE EVENT OF ADOPTION OF FMV OF 1981, THE INDEXED F ACTOR OF 1981 ONLY COULD BE TAKEN, IGNORING THE INDEXED FACTOR PREVAILING AROUN D OR ON THE SUBSEQUENT INHERITANCE OF ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP VIDE SECTIO N 49. THIS JUDGMENT FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL BEING APPLICABLE TO THE FAC TS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. I FEEL IT INCUMBENT TO FOLLOW THE ABOVE VERDICT AND PRINCI PLE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE INDEX FACTOR OF 519 /100 IN PLACE OF 519/447 AND APPLY THE FORMER TO THE FMV OF RS.1083375/- (SUBMIT TED BY THE APPELLANT BY MEANS OF VALUATION REPORT AND RECOMPUTED THE CAPITA L GAIN ACCORDINGLY. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT PROPERTY IN QUES TION WAS INHERITED IN THE FY 2002-03 AND THEREFORE THE COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THAT YEAR SHOULD BE ADOPTED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IS VERY MUCH AUTHORIZ ED TO REFER THE MATTER TO DVO IN TERMS OF PROVISION OF SEC. 55A OF THE ACT. LD. DR F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE INTENTIONALLY HAS SHOWN VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY A S ON 01.04.1981 AT A HIGHER VALUE WITH THE MOTIVE OF AVOIDING CAPITAL GAINS. THEREFOR E, THE ACTION OF AO FOR MAKING THE REFERENCE TO DVO IS WITHIN THE PROVISION OF LAW. IN THIS CONNECTION, LD. DR RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF NIRMAL KUMAR RAVINDRA KUMAR-HUF V. CIT (2016) 70 TAXMANN.COM 339 (CAL), WHERE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD:- SECTION 55A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 CAPITAL GAINS REFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER (GENERAL) ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996- 97 WHETHER CLAUSE (B)(II) TO SECTION 55A EMPOWERS ASSESSING OFFICER T O MAKE REFERENCE TO DVO WHERE IN HIS OPINION FAIR MARKET VALUE ESTIMATED BY ASSESSEE IS NOT PROPER HELD, YES ASSESSEE HAD SOLD IT PROPERTY FOR RS.97 ,50000 WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE ON 31-7-1979 AT A PURCHASE PRICE OF RS. 2,80,882 HOWEVER, WHILE CALCULATING LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN, ASSESSEE ADOPTE D MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AT RS.34,55,000 AS ON 1-4-1981 ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED SUCH ESTIMATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AT A HIGHER SIDE AND REFERRED MATTER TO DVO WHO COMPUTED FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AT RS.3,77,250 AND CO MPLETED ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGLY WHETHER SINCE ASSESSEE INFLATED MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON 1- 4-1981 WITH MOTIVE OF AVOIDING CAPITAL GAIN, ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITA NO.2864/KOL/2013 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WARD-23(3), KOL. VS. SUDIP ROY PAGE 5 MAKING REFERENCE TO DVO WHILE NOT ACCEPTING VALUATI ON SHOWN BY ASSESSEE ON BASIS OF REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT WAS WELL PERMIS SIBLE UNDER LAW HELD, YES [IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE] FINALLY, LD. DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A O. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVIS ION OF SEC.55A OF THE ACT WAS AMENDED WITH EFFECT FROM 01.07.2012 AND THEREFORE, THE AMENDED PROVISION CANNOT BE APPLIED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE LAW CIT ED BY LD.DR IS DIFFERENT FROM THE INSTANT CASE, IN THAT CASE THE QUESTION BEFORE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHETHER THERE WAS A MOTIVE TO AVOID TAX OR NOT BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS NO SUCH ILL-MOTIVE TO AVOID HIS TAX LIABILITY. HE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA HAS DECIDED THE ISSU E IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. MINA DEOGUN IN 375 ITR 0586. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW: MR. AGARWAL, LEARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE RE VENUE/APPELLANT HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 55A AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE MADE A RE FERENCE PROVIDED HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE VALUATION MADE BY THE REGISTERED V ALUER WAS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. WHEN THE VALUATION MADE BY T HE REGISTERED VALUER WAS ON THE HIGHER SIDE, THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER UNDER SECTION 55A. THEREFORE, THE VALUATION AT A SUM OF RS.18,40,244/- AS AT 1ST APRIL, 1981 WAS CORRECTLY ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL. THE FIRST QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN THE POSITIVE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. MR. AGARWAL, LEARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE REV ENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS HAS TO BE MADE IN ACCO RDANCE WITH SECTION 48 AND IN PARTICULAR EXPLANATION (III), WHICH PROVIDES AS FOL LOWS:- (III) INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION MEANS AN AMOUN T WHICH BEARS TO THE COST OF ACQUISITION THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE COST INFLATI ON INDEX FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSET IS TRANSFERRED BEARS TO THE COST INFLATIO N INDEX FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE OR FOR THE YEAR BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1981, WHICHEVER IS LATER MR. AGARWAL IS CORRECT WHEN HE SUBMITTED THAT THE B ENEFIT OF COST INFLATION INDEX GOING BY CLAUSE (III) OF THE EXPLANATION QUOTED ABO VE SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE YEAR 1999 WHEN SHE INHERITED THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS IN FACT THE FIRST YEAR OF HER INHERITANCE. THAT CAN CERTAIN LY BE ONE WAY OF LOOKING AT IT. BUT IF A HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE GIVEN THE N REFERENCE HAS TO BE MADE TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACT. SECTION 2(42A) DEFINES SHORT TERM CAPITAL ASSET. CLAUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION (1) TO SEC TION 2(42A) PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:- ITA NO.2864/KOL/2013 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WARD-23(3), KOL. VS. SUDIP ROY PAGE 6 (B) IN THE CASE OF A CAPITAL ASSET WHICH BECOMES T HE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN [SUB- SECTION (1)] O F SECTION 49, THERE SHALL BE INCLUDED THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER REFERRED TO IN THE SAID SECTION. SECTION 49 REFERRED TO IN THE AFORESAID CLAUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION (1) PROVIDES FOR VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDING ACQUISITION BY SUCC ESSION, INHERITANCE OR DEVOLUTION. THEREFORE, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASS ET WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER, NAMELY, THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE CAN ALSO BE INCLUDED TO THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF THE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE. THE MOTHER HELD THE PROPERTY SINCE 1968 AS INDICATED ABOVE. HERE IS, AS SUCH, THE REASON WH Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE BEFORE US CAN BE SAID TO HAVE HELD THE PROPERTY SIN CE 1968. IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE COST OF ACQUISITION TO THE ASSESSEE REFERENCE C AN ALSO BE MADE TO SECTION 55(2)(B)(II) WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:- (II) WHERE THE CAPITAL ASSET BECAME THE PROPERTY O F THE ASSESSEE BY ANY OF THE MODES SPECIFIED IN [SUB-SECTION(1) OF SECTION 49], AND THE CAPITAL ASSET BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER BEFORE THE [1ST DAY OF APRIL, [1981]], MEANS THE COST OF THE CAPITAL ASSET TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER OR THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET ON THE [1ST DAY OF APRIL, [1981] ], AT THE OPTION OF THE ASSESSE. BASED ON THE AFORESAID PROVISION THE COST OF ACQUIS ITION OF CAPITAL ASSET AT THE OPTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASS ET ON 1ST APRIL, 1981. WHEN THAT IS PERMISSIBLE IN LAW, INDEXATION ON THE FAIR MARKET V ALUE AS ON 1ST APRIL, 1981 UNTIL THE DATE OF TRANSFER HAS TO BE ALLOWED. ANY OTHER INTER PRETATION WILL NOT ONLY LEAD TO ABSURD RESULT BUT SHALL ALSO CAUSE IMMENSE PREJUDIC E TO THE ASSESSEE. IF THE PREVIOUS OWNER THAT IS TO SAY THE MOTHER HAD NOT DIED AND IF SHE HERSELF HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 2003, SHE WOULD HAVE GOT THE BENEFIT OF IN DEXATION ON THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS AT 1ST APRIL, 1981. WE ARE SUPPORTED IN OUR VIEW BY A JUDGMENT OF THE G UJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T- I VS. RAJESH VITTHALBHAI PATEL REPORTED IN ( 2013) 37 TAXMANN. COM 439 WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING VIEWS WERE EXPRESSED:- 7. UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE ACT, THUS CAPITAL GAIN IS COMPUTED BY DEDUCTING FROM THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACC RUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER, THE AMOUNTS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCL USIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER, THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET AND THE COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT THERETO. TERM COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET IS EXPLAINED IN EXPLANATION (III) TO SECTION 48. IN TERMS OF SUCH EXPLANATION, INDEXE D COST OF ACQUISITION WOULD BE AN AMOUNT WHICH BEARS TO THE COST OF ACQUISITION TH E SAME PROPORTION AS THE COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSET IS TRANSFERRED BEARS TO THE COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASS ET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE OR FOR THE YEAR BEGINNING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1981, W HICHEVER IS LATER. IN SIMPLE WORDS THEREFORE FOR AN ASSET ACQUIRED PRIOR TO 1.4. 1981 THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WOULD BE THE COST OF ACQUISITION MULTIP LIED BY THE RATIO OF THE COST INFLATION INDEX IN THE YEAR IN WHICH ASSESSEES ASS ET IS TRANSFERRED TO THE COST OF INFLATION INDEX FOR THE YEAR BEGINNING ON 1.4.1981. IT WAS THEREFORE, THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN OUR OPINION CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE IND EXED COST OF ACQUISITION SHALL HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT WITH REFERENCE TO 1.4.1981, S INCE IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ITA NO.2864/KOL/2013 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WARD-23(3), KOL. VS. SUDIP ROY PAGE 7 ASSET WAS ACQUIRED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PRO PERTY. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT SUCH INTERPRETA TION WOULD FAIL TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE EXPRESSION COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH TH E ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. IN HIS OPINION THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO UNDER SUCH EXPRESSION WOULD BE THE PRESENT ASSESSEE AND N OT THE PREVIOUS OWNER. IN OUR OPINION, SUCH INTERPRETATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. WE SAY SO FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. FIRSTLY, BY VIRTUE OF A DEEMING FICTION PR OVIDED IN SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 49, COST OF ACQUISITION IN HANDS OF THE ASS ESSEE WOULD BE THE COST FOR WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED I T. IT IS FOR THIS PURPOSE THAT WE NEED TO FALL BACK ON COMPUTATION PROVISION OF SECTI ON 48. WHEN WE DO SO, WE WORK OUT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET IN TH E HANDS OF PREVIOUS OWNER. WHILE DOING SO, WE CANNOT TRANSPOSE THE ASSESSEE IN EXPLA NATION (III) OF SECTION 48. DOING SO, WOULD AMOUNT TO FALLING SHORT OF GIVING F ULL EFFECT TO THE DEEMING FICTION CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 49. TO OUR OPINION SUCH DEEMING FICTION MUST BE ALLOWED TO HAVE ITS FULL PLAY. AS IS OFTEN STATED, A DEEMING FICTION MUST BE ALLOWED ITS FULL APPLICATION AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLO WED TO BOGGLE. 8. ADDITIONALLY WE NOTICE THAT IN SUB-SECTION (1) O F SECTION 49, THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED THAT COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET SHAL L BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST FOR WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED I T, AS INCREASED BY ANY COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE ASSETS INCURRED OR BORNE BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER OR THE ASSESSEE AS THE CASE MAY BE. IF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE WAS CORRECT, THIS LATER REFERENCE TO THE COST OF IM PROVEMENT BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY SINCE SECTION 48 ITSE LF WOULD TAKE CARE OF ANY IMPROVEMENT ON THE CAPITAL ASSET TO BE INCLUDED FOR THE COST OF ACQUISITION. IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE SUCH IMPROVEMENT REFERRED TO IN S ECTION 48 WOULD HAVE REFERENCE ONLY TO THAT MADE BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER T HAT THE ADDITIONAL PROVISION HAD TO BE MADE IN THE DEEMING FICTION PROVIDED IN S UB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 49. FURTHER THE INTERPRETATION SOUGHT TO BE GIVEN BY TH E REVENUE WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER WH ICH THE COST OF ACQUISITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN CASES SUCH AS GIFT ON THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY CAN BE MADE AND FOUND IN THE ACT. A SERIOU S ROAD-BLOCK WOULD BE CREATED IF SUCH PROPERTY IS ACQUIRED THROUGH WILL A ND WOULD, THEREFORE, HAVE NO REFERENCE TO ITS ACTUAL COST ON THE DATE OF OPERATI ON OF THE WILL. MR. MURARKA HAS ALSO RELIED UPON A JUDGMENT OF C.I. T VS. MANJULA J. SHAH REPORTED IN (2013) 355 ITR 474 (BOM) AND REFERRED T O PARAGRAPHS 21 TO 24 OF THE JUDGEMENT WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 21) TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT T HE WORDS USED IN CLAUSE (III) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 48 OF THE ACT H AS TO BE READ BY IGNORING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 2 OF THE ACT RUNS C OUNTER TO THE ENTIRE SCHEME OF THE ACT. SECTION 2 OF THE ACT EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES, THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE ACT. IN SECTION 48 OF THE AC T, THE EXPRESSION ASSET HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DEFINED AND, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INTENTION TO THE CONTRARY THE EXPRESSION ASSET HELD BY THE A SSESSEE IN CLAUSE (III) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 48 OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSTRUED IN CONSONANCE WITH THE MEANING GIVEN IN SECTION 2(42A) OF THE ACT . IF THE MEANING GIVEN IN SECTION 2(42A) IS NOT ADOPTED IN CONSTRUING THE WOR DS USED IN SECTION 48 OF THE ACT, THEN THE GAINS ARISING ON TRANSFER OF A CAPITA L ASSET ACQUIRED UNDER A GIFT ITA NO.2864/KOL/2013 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WARD-23(3), KOL. VS. SUDIP ROY PAGE 8 OR WILL BE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX WHICH IS NOT INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT OF THE REV ENUE WHICH RUNS COUNTER TO THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE LAW CITE D BY LD DR HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE EARLIER DECISION OF THIS JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT. IN THIS REGARD, LD. AR CITED THE CASE LAW OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. MINA DEOGUN 375 ITR (2015)586 (CAL). IN REJOINDER, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON 09.06.2016 WHICH IS THE LATEST DECISION. THEREFO RE THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEARING ON THE ISSUE OF THE INSTANT CASE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT AO HAS DISREGARDED THE VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE AS ON 01.04.1981 BY HO LDING THAT ASSESSEE INTENTIONALLY HAS DECLARED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT A HIGHER AMOUNT WHICH IS AGAINST THE PROVISION OF LAW. SIMILARLY, ASSESSEE BECAME THE OW NER OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IN FY 2002-03. THEREFORE THE COST INFLATION INDEX OF T HAT YEAR SHOULD BE ADOPTED. HOWEVER WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AO HAS APPLIED COST INFLATION INDEX APPLICABLE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-2003 BEING THE Y EAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE INHERITED THE PROPERTY. THE WORDS ' THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE FIRST HELD THE CAPIT AL ASSETS ' IS INTERPRETED BY HIM TO BE THE YEAR IN WHICH THE A SSESSEE SUCCEEDED TO THE ASSETS. WE FIND THAT S. 2(42A) ALSO USES A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR EX PRESSION. EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 2(42A) PROVIDES THAT IN DETERMINING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH ANY CAPITAL ASSET IS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE, IN THE CASE OF A CAPITAL ASSET WHICH BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE, IN ANY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN S. 49(1), THERE SHALL BE INCLUDED THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSET IS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. IF FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF THE CAPITAL ASSET BY AN ASSESS EE, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAS HELD THE CAPITAL ASSET IS TO BE INCLUDED, THEN DIFFERENT CONSIDERATION CANNOT BE APPLIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF S. 48. IF SECTIONS 2( 42A), 47(III), 49(1)(II)(III) AND S. 55(2)(B)(II) ARE READ CO-JOINTLY THEN IT APPEARS TH AT IN LAW NO ' TRANSFER ' OF A ' CAPITAL ITA NO.2864/KOL/2013 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WARD-23(3), KOL. VS. SUDIP ROY PAGE 9 ASSET ' IS CONSIDERED TO TAKE PLACE ON INHERITANCE AND SU CCESSION. THE LIABILITY FOR CAPITAL GAIN ARISES ONLY WHEN THE CAPITAL ASSET IS ACTUALLY TRANSFERRED BY THE SUCCESSOR. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TRANSFERS TH E CAPITAL ASSET FOR A CONSIDERATION THE CAPITAL GAINS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX. IN ASSESSING CAP ITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF SUCCESSOR, DATE OF ACQUISITION AND PERIOD OF HOLDING, IS DETER MINED TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DATE ON WHICH AND THE COST OF WHICH THE FIRST OWNER ACQUIRES THE CAPITAL ASSET. IT IS FOR THIS REASON SECTION 2(42A) USES THE EXPRESSION ' IN DETERMINING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH CAPITAL ASSET IS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE '. SEC. 48 OF THE IT ACT INCORPORATES COMPUTATION MECHANISM FOR QUALIFYING THE CAPITAL GAIN AND THEREFORE THE EXPRESSIONS USED IN THE COMPUTATION FORMULA SHOULD BE GIVEN SCHEMATIC INTER PRETATION. THE SCHEME OF TAXATION OF ' CAPITAL GAIN ' CAN HOWEVER, BE UNDERSTOOD BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SS. 2(42A), 2(47), 47(II), 48, 49(I)(II) AND 55(2)(B)(I I) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THESE SECTIONS, WHERE AN ASSESSEE SELLS AN INHERITE D CAPITAL ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN IS COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE PERIOD OF HOLDING AN D COST OF ACQUISITION INCURRED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. IT IS, SO BECAUSE IN FACT THE S UCCESSOR ASSESSEE DOES NOT ACTUALLY INCUR ANY COST. IF FOR APPLYING OTHER PROVISIONS RE LATING TO COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, PERIOD OF HOLDING AND COST INCURRED BY THE P REVIOUS OWNER IS CONSIDERED, THEN IT WILL BE IMPROPER TO APPLY ONLY THE COST INFLATION I NDEX, APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR OF INHERITANCE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 48 PRESCRIBI NG INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WERE ENACTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1992. MEMORANDUM EXPLAI NING THE PROVISIONS OF FINANCE BILL, 1992 EXPLAINED THAT OLD PROVISIONS RELATING T O TAXATION OF CAPITAL GAIN WERE UNFAIR BECAUSE THE DEDUCTION U/S 48 WAS BEING ALLOWED IN R ESPECT OF COST OF ACQUISITION WHICH DID NOT RELATE TO THE PERIOD OF TIME FOR WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD. THE OLD SYSTEM OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOU NT THE INFLATION WHICH OCCURRED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. THE NEW SYSTEM WAS THEREFORE, ENA CTED FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN WHICH ALLOWED THE COST OF ASSET TO BE ADJUSTED FOR GENERAL INFLATION BEFORE DEDUCTING IT FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS. THE STATUTORY OBJECTIVE OF THE NEW SYSTEM WAS TO FAVOUR THOSE ASSESSEES WHERE CAPITAL GAINS ACCRUED OVER A LONG PERIOD. THE CBDT, IN CIRCULAR NO. 636, DT. 31ST AUG., 1992, EXPLAINED PROVISIONS OF FINAN CE ACT, 1992 RELATING TO AMENDED SCHEME OF CAPITAL GAINS. IN THIS CIRCULAR T HE BOARD EXPLAINED THAT IN THE SCHEME PRIOR TO 1992 A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE WAS ALL OWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER S. 48(2) ITA NO.2864/KOL/2013 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WARD-23(3), KOL. VS. SUDIP ROY PAGE 10 WHICH WAS UNRELATED TO THE LENGTH OF THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. UNDER THE NEW SYSTEM A FAIR METHOD OF ALLOWING RELIEF WAS ENACTED TO LINK THE COST OF ACQUISITION TO THE PERIOD OF HOLDING. FOR THIS PURP OSE, THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE ASSET WERE TO BE INFLATE D TO ARRIVE AT INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. THE CIRCULAR FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT IF AN ASSET WAS ACQUIRED BEFORE 1ST APRIL, 1981, THE MARKET VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 1981 WOULD BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDEXATION. A CO-JOINT READING OF THE ME MORANDUM EXPLAINING THE FINANCE BILL, 1992 AND CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 636 SHOWS THAT THE INDEXATION IS TO BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF PERIOD OF HOLDING OF THE ASSET AND NOT I N RELATION TO THE INDIVIDUALITY OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE PERIOD OF HOLDING INTERMEDIATE TRANSFERS ON ACCOUNT OF SUCCESSION ARE TO BE IGNORED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HIMSELF ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF ' FMV ' OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1ST APRIL, 1981 TO BE COST UNDER S. 55(2)(B)(II) OF THE ACT. UNDER S. 2(42A) THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THE PERIOD COMMENCING FRO M 1 ST APRIL, 1981 TILL THE DATE OF TRANSFER. IT IS, THEREFORE, QUITE CLEAR THAT AS ON 1ST APRIL, 1981 THE ASSET WAS STATUTORILY CONSIDERED TO BE HELD, BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER S. 55( 2)(B)(II) R/W S. 2(42A) OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THEREFORE, THE COST INFLATIO N INDEX APPLICABLE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1981-82 AND NOT TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 SHOULD HA VE BEEN APPLIED BY THE AO. A SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. PUSHPA SOFAT VS. ITO (2004) 89 TTJ (CHD) 499. IN THAT CASE HOUSE PROPER TY WAS INHERITED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER FATHER WAS SOLD IN ASST. YR. 1993-94. THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN 1972 AND THER EFORE, THE ASSESSEE OPTED FOR FMV OF 1ST APRIL, 1981 TO BE THE COST OF ACQUISITION. T HE ASSESSEE COMPUTED THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WITH REFERENCE TO THE COST OF I NFLATION INDEX OF 1ST APRIL, 1981 BEING 100 PER CENT. ASSESSEES FATHER EXPIRED ON 17TH FEB ., 1991 AND THE AO ALLOWED THE INDEXATION OF COST WITH REFERENCE TO THE COST INFLA TION INDEX OF FY 1990-91 AS AGAINST INFLATION INDEX OF 100 PER CENT. THE HONBLE TRIBUN AL HOWEVER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO COMPUTE CAPITAL GAIN BY APPLYING CO ST INFLATION INDEX OF 1ST APRIL, 1981. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND THE SCHEME OF THE ACT RELATING TO TAXATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT AS PER THE SCHEMATIC INTERPRETATION THE COST OF INFLATION INDEX SHOULD B E MADE APPLIED WITH REFERENCE TO THE ITA NO.2864/KOL/2013 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WARD-23(3), KOL. VS. SUDIP ROY PAGE 11 YEAR IN WHICH THE CAPITAL ASSET WAS FIRST ACQUIRED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. IF ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION, T HE DATE OF ACQUISITION BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER IS EXCLUDED THEN IT WILL LEAD TO ABS URD RESULT. SUCH INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 48 WILL BE AGAINST THE INTENT AND OBJECT OF THE ENACTMENT AND WILL BE AGAINST THE OVERALL SCHEME OF TAXATION OF CAPITAL GAINS IN CASE OF INHERITED ASSETS. THE CARDINAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES IS THAT IF LITERAL MEANING OF THE STATUTE LEADS TO AN ABSURDITY THEN THE STATUTE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER WHICH WILL RESULT IN HARMONIOUS INTERPRETATION WHICH AVOIDS ABSURDITY AN D PROMOTE THE OBJECTIVE OF AN ENACTMENT. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO TO RE-COMPU TE THE CAPITAL GAINS BY APPLYING COST INFLATION INDEX OF 100 PER CENT APPLICABLE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1981-82. HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS POINT AND TH IS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6.1 FOR THE OTHER ISSUE OF REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1.4.1981, WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE IN THE CASE OF NIRMAL KUMAR RAVINDER KUMAR- HUF VS. CIT IN IT APPEAL NO. 293 OF 2008 VIDE ORDER DATED JUNE 9, 2016. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- SECTION 55A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 CAPITAL G AINS REFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER (GENERAL) ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 WHETH ER CLAUSE (B)(II) TO SECTION 55A EMPOWERS ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE REFERENCE TO DVO WHERE IN HIS OPINION FAIR MARKET VALUE ESTIMATED BY ASSESSEE IS NOT PROPER HELD, YES ASSESSEE HAD SOLD IT PROPERTY FOR RS.97,50000 WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY ASS ESSEE ON 31-7-1979 AT A PURCHASE PRICE OF RS.2,80,882 HOWEVER, WHILE CALC ULATING LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN, ASSESSEE ADOPTED MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AT RS.34, 55,000 AS ON 1-4-1981 ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED SUCH ESTIMATION OF FAI R MARKET VALUE AT A HIGHER SIDE AND REFERRED MATTER TO DVO WHO COMPUTED FAIR MARKET VAL UE OF PROPERTY AT RS.3,77,250 AND COMPLETED ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGLY WHETHER SINCE ASSESSEE INFLATED MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON 1-4-1981 WITH MOTIVE OF AVOIDING CAPITAL GAIN, ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING REFERENCE TO DVO WHILE NOT ACCEPT ING VALUATION SHOWN BY ASSESSEE ON BASIS OF REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT WAS WELL PER MISSIBLE UNDER LAW HELD, YES [IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE] WE FIND THAT THE ABOVE SAID JUDGMENT HAS BEEN PASSE D BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT VERY RECENTLY I.E. 9 TH JUNE 2016. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THIS WILL PREVAIL OVER THE OTHER DECISIONS OF THIS JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THIS DECISION IS BINDING ON THE HONBLE TRIBUNALS. THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ITA NO.2864/KOL/2013 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WARD-23(3), KOL. VS. SUDIP ROY PAGE 12 FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH WAS BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THIS P OINT OF REVENUES GROUND IS ALLOWED. AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED PARTLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19/10/2016 SD/- SD/- (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *DKP SR.P.S ! - 19 /10/2016 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-ITO WARD-23(3), 169, AJC BOSE ROAD, BAMB OO VILLA 9 TH FLOOR, KOLAKTA-14 2. /RESPONDENT-SUDIP ROY, 47/1G, BADRIDAS TEMPLE STREE T, KOLKATA-04 3. '# % / CONCERNED CIT 4. % - / CIT (A) 5. &'( ))'# , '# / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. (*+ / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ / '#,