Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya, Kolkata V. DCIT, Circle - 55, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 332/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8084 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SAHA
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TIBREWAL
• Section: 143(3); 147; 131; 246

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA ( ) BEFORE , /AND , ) [BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, AM & SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] ! / I.T.A NOS. 332 & 333/KOL/2011 '# $%/ ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 & 2005-06 SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX, (PAN: AEDPB2611R) CIRCLE-55, KOLKATA. ( '( /APPELLANT ) ( )'( / RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 16.10.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19.10.2012 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI A. K. TIBREWAL FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI R. K. SAHA * /ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM ( , ) THESE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF SEPARA TE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-XXXVI, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NOS. 1017 & 1016/CIT(A)-XXXVI/KOL/CIR-55/ 09-10 BOTH DATED 22.12.2010 RESPECTIVELY. ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED BY ACIT, CIRC LE-55, KOLKATA U/S. 147/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 VIDE HIS SEPARATE ORDERS BOTH DATED 18.12.2 009. 2. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UN EXPLAINED ADVANCES RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) HAS WRON GLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S. 41(1) OF THE ACT. FO R THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUND IN BOTH THE YEARS AND THE GROUNDS RAISED IN AY 2004-05 READS AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION OF RS.18,69,00/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE WHICH SUM HAD BEEN OFFERED BY TH E ASSESSEE AS HIS INCOME IN THE AY 2008-09 WHEN THE SAID ADVANCES WERE ADJUSTED AGAINS T SALE OF PAINTINGS. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF RS.18,69,000/- RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS ON THE ALLE GED GROUND THAT THE SAME CEASED TO EXIST IN THE RELEVANT YEAR AND THEREFORE CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER SEC. 41(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2 ITA 332 & 333/K/2011 SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA A.Y.04-05 & 05-06 3. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN BOTH THE YEARS A RE EXACTLY IDENTICAL AND THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE ABOVE ISSUE IS ALSO THE SAME EXCEPT THE AMOU NTS. HENCE, WE WILL DEAL WITH THE FACTS AS RAISED IN AY 2004-05 AND DECIDE THE ISSUE. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT AY 2004-05 ON 19.10.2004. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BANK ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DETAILS O F PROFESSION AND AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S RECEIVED ADVANCES WORTH RS.18.69 LACS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED T O GIVE THE DETAILS INCLUDING THE NAMES OF PERSONS ADVANCING THE MONEY AND ALSO MODE OF RECEIP T. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY INFORMATION AND CLAIMED THAT HE IS MAINTAINING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND EVERY RECEIPT WILL BE ACCOUNTED AS INCOME OF THAT YEAR. AS THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT THESE RECEIPTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME AND HE ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE WHILE EXPLAINING HIS SUBSTANTIVE PART OF INVESTMENT IN VA RIOUS MUTUAL FUNDS HE OFFERED NET INCOME FROM PAINTINGS AT RS.30,83,014/- TO COVER THE INVES TMENTS AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO. BUT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DECLARED ADVANCES FROM PAINTING IN HIS BOOKS OF ACC OUNT AT RS.18.69 LACS BUT HE FAILED TO FILE ANY OF THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. BEFORE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WHICH IS EVIDENT FR OM THE AUDIT REPORTS FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURNS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ADV ANCES OF RS.18.69 LACS PERTAINED TO EARLIER FINANCIAL YEARS AND NOT TO THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YE AR 2003-04 RELEVANT TO AY 2004-05. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, THESE ADVANCES WERE CARRIED FORWARD IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS LIABILITY AND SALE OF PAINTINGS AGAINST THESE ADVANCES HAD TA KEN PLACE DURING FY 2007-08 RELEVANT TO AY 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS FILED NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF SUCH PARTIES FROM WHOM SUCH ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED AND THE MONTH AND DATE OF DELIVERY OF THE PAINTINGS. THESE DETAILS WERE REMANDED TO THE AO B Y CIT(A) AND FOR SUBMISSION OF REMAND REPORT. THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO WAS RECEIVED B Y CIT(A) ON 22.11.2010 AND HE REPRODUCED THE DETAILS OF REMAND REPORT IN HIS ORDE R, WHICH IS AS UNDER: ... IT MAYBE STATED THAT THE UNDERSIGNED HAS SENT SUMMONS TO ALL NINE (9) PARTIES OF KOLKATA, TOTALING OF PURCHASE OF RS.1,81,980/- FOR VERIFICATION FIXING THE HEARING DATE UPTO 19 NOVEMBER. IN VIEW OF THOSE SUMMONS VERIFICA TION REPORT IS GIVEN AS UNDER: 3 ITA 332 & 333/K/2011 SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA A.Y.04-05 & 05-06 NAME & ADDRESS OF THE PERSON TO WHOM SALES WAS REPORTED TO BE MADE NARRATION 1. SMT SAMPA DAS, 42, CIRCUS AVENUE KOL-17 SHE HAS STATED I HAVE NOT PURCHASED ANY PAINTINGS FROM YOUR ASSESSEE ABOVE NAMED AND NEITHER I HAVE MADE ANY ADVANCE TO THE TUNE OF RS.28,000/-. 2. MR. JHALA 18/2, BALLYGUANGE CIRCULAR ROAD, KOL-19 MRS. JHALA W/O LATE MR. JHALA HAS STATED MR. JHALA (MY HUSBAND) PASSED AWAY ON 5 MAY 09. I HEREBY CONFIRM THAT MY HUSBAND HAD NEVER ANY INTEREST IN ART COLLECTION NOR HE HAD ANY CONTACT WITH ANY ARTIST AS SUCH. 3. SAHITYA SAMSAD 122/1, M MANOHARPUKUR ROAD, KOL- 26 THEY HAVE STATED WE PAID RS.16,000/- TO HIM ON 27-03-2001 BY CH. NO. 802982 ON UBI, COLLEGE ST., BR. KOL, AGAINST HIS BILL DATE 23-03-01 FOR DESIGNING OF BOOKS ANANDAMANE HATI AND TUMPAR RAMDHANU. THEY HAVE NO TRANSACTION WITH MR. SUVAPRASANNA IN F.Y. 2003-04 OR IN F.Y. 2007- 08. AT THE TIME OF TRANSACTION, ADDRESS OF MR. SUVAPRASANNA WAS 37 D, COLLEGE ST. ROAD AND NOT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN SUMMON. AND THE CORRECT NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE CONCERN WAS M/S SHISHU SAHITYA SAMSAD PVT. LTD. 32A, A.P.C. ROAD, KOL-9 AND NOT THE GIVEN ADDRESS AS STATED IN SUMMON. 4. PURNIMA SOI 6/1A, PALM AVENUE, KOL-19. SHE HAS STATED I CONFIRM THAT I HAVE NEITHER ADVANCED ANY SUM OF RS.17,380/- FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05 NOR RECEIVED ANY PAINTING FROM MR.SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA RESIDING AT 167, SALT LAKE, SECTOR -II, KOLKATA- 700091. 5. ANINDYA KR. MITRA MR. 7B, MANDEVILLE GARDEN KOL-19 ACCORDINGLY ADJOURNED TO 6/12 MR. MITRA HAS STATED YOUR NOTICE RELATE TO A.Y. 2004-05 PLEASE ALLOW TWO WEEKS TIME TO LOOK IN OLD RECORDS. ACCORDINGLY ADJOURNED TO 6/12. 6. SMT CHANDA DEVI GOENKA A.Y 2004-05 AND NOT CLAIMED 7. DO- A.Y. 2005-06 FLAT NO.B4, CLUSTER 11, PURBACHAL, SALTLAKE, KOL-97. SUMMON IS RETURNED UNSERVED WITH POSTAL REMARK INTIMATED AND NOT CLAIMED. 8. AMBICA BERI 17/D, ALIPORE ROAD, KOL-19 SUMMON IS RETURNED UNSERVED WITH POSTAL REMARK NO SUCH PERSON IN THIS ADDRESS 9. MALIKA VERMA 10,68, BLOCK D, NEW ALIPORE NO COMPLIANCE RECEIVED TILL DATE AGAINST SUMMONS. 4 ITA 332 & 333/K/2011 SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA A.Y.04-05 & 05-06 5. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HIS COMMENTS ON THE REMAN D REPORT OF THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 21.12.2010 AND HE CLARIFIED THAT THE SUM OF RS.18.6 9 LACS ADDED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE FOR PAINTINGS WAS RECEIVED FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AS DETAILED HEREUNDER: FINANCIAL YEAR 1998-1999 RS. 15,000/- FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000 RS.3,15,000/- FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-01 RS.6,66,000/- FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 RS.9,02,000/- RS.18,98,000/- 6. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN REASONING FOR TREATING THE ADVANCE FOR PAINTING AS BOGUS VIDE PARA 3.4.1 AS UNDER: 3.4.1. DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE AO EXAMIN ED EIGHT KOLKATA BASED PARTIES, OUT OF WHICH FOUR PARTIES HAVE CATEGORICALLY DENIED TO HAD ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE APPELLANT, ONE PERSON HAS TAKEN TIME FOR VERIFICATION OF OLD R ECORDS, ONE PERSON DID NOT TURN UP, ONE PERSON DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUMMON AND ONE PERSON WAS NOT FOUND IN THE GIVEN ADDRESS. SINCE THE RESULT OF THESE RANDOM VERIFICATIONS HAS ENTIRELY GONE AGAINST THE APPELLANT, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON HIM TO AT LEAST CROSS EXAMINE TH OSE FOUR PARTIES TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM TO SOME EXTENT. HOWEVER, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT, VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DATED 21.12.2010, HAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT DOES NOT WANT TO CROSS EXAMINE ANY OF THE FOUR PERSONS. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO MISERABLY FAILED T O FILE EVEN THE PRIMARY DOCUMENT I.E. CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ALLEGED A DVANCES WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT HAS BEEN EST ABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE ALLEGED ADVANCE FOR PAINING OF RS.18,69,000/- WERE BOGUS. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE US AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 7. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY S TATED THAT THE ADVANCE FOR PAINTING WAS RECEIVED IN FINANCIAL YEARS 1998-99, 1999-2000, 200 0-01 AND 2001-02 AND NOT IN FY 2003-04 RELEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. ACCORDIN G TO LD. COUNSEL, THE ADVANCE CANNOT BE ADDED IN THIS YEAR RATHER THIS CAN BE ADDED ONLY IN THE RELEVANT FY WHEN THESE ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED, IN CASE REVENUE IS ABLE TO PROVE THIS AS BOGUS. LD. COUNSEL ALSO ARGUED THAT THESE ADVANCES CANNOT BE SUBJECT MATTER OF ADDITION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ADVANCES FOR PAINTINGS DURING FY 1998-99 RELEVANT TO AY 1999-2000, FY 1999-2000 RELEVANT TO AY 2000-01, FY 2000-01 RELEVANT TO AY 2001-02 AND FY 2001-02 RELEVANT TO AY2002-03 AND NO T FOR THE FY 2003-04 RELEVANT TO AY 2004-05, THE YEAR UNDER DISPUTE. WE ARE IN AGREEME NT WITH THE ARGUMENT OF LD. COUNSEL THAT THESE ADVANCES IF NOT WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE A ND ARE DECLARED AS OUTSTANDING IN THE BALANCE 5 ITA 332 & 333/K/2011 SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA A.Y.04-05 & 05-06 SHEET OF AY 2004-05 THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS C ESSATION OF LIABILITY U/S. 41(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IT IS A FACT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CLEARLY R ECORDED HIS FINDING OF FACT THAT THESE ADVANCES FOR PAINING AMOUNTING TO RS.18.69 LACS ARE BOGUS FO R THE REASON THAT WHEN THESE 8 KOLKATA BASED PARTIES WERE PUT TO TEST CHECK 4 PARTIES HAV E CATEGORICALLY DENIED HAVING ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE, ONE PARTY HAS TAKEN TIME FOR VER IFICATION OF RECORDS, 1 PERSON DID NOT TURN UP, 1 PERSON DID NOT ACCEPT SUMMON ISSUED U/S. 131 AND 1 PERSON WAS NOT FOUND IN THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THIS RANDOM VERIFICATION BY THE AO DURING REMAND PROCEEDING, REFERENCE MADE BY CIT(A), IT IS PROVED THAT THESE ALLEGED ADVANCES FO R PAINTING WERE BOGUS AND DO NOT EXIST. WHEN A QUERY WAS PUT TO LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, WHAT BENEFIT HE WILL DERIVE IF HE INSISTS ON THE ARGUMENT OF NON APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 41( 1) OF THE ACT TO THE PRESENT TRANSACTIONS? LD. COUNSEL FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT HE IS READY TO PROVE T HE GENUINENESS OF ADVANCES FOR PAINTING IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. BUT HOWEVER, THE SA ME CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. IN VIEW OF THE ENTIRETY O F THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY AO AND SUSTAINED BY CIT(A) FOR ADVANCE FOR PAINTING HOLDING THE SAME AS BOGUS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED UNDER THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. BUT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW, THAT THE AO CAN MAKE THIS ADDIT ION IN THE FINANCIAL YEARS RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS IN WHICH THE ADVANCES FOR PAINTING S WERE RECEIVED. THE ADVANCE FOR PAINTINGS WERE RECEIVED DURING FY 1998-99 RELEVANT TO AY 1999 -2000 AT RS.15,000/-, FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000 RELEVANT TO AY 2000-01 AT RS.3,15,000/-, FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-01 RELEVANT TO AY 2001-02 AT RS.6,66,000/- AND FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 RELEVANT TO AY 2002-03 AT RS.9,02,000/-. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ASSESSEE THESE ADVANCES ONLY THESE YEARS IN WHICH IT WERE RECEIVED. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL WAS TAKEN TO EXPLANATI ON (2) OF SECTION 153 OF THE ACT, WHICH READS AS UNDER: WHERE AN ASSESSMENT IS REOPENED (UNDER SECTION 147 ), THE ASSESSEE MAY, IF HE HAS NOT IMPUGNED ANY PART OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THAT YEAR EITHER UNDER SECTIONS 246 TO 248 OR UNDER SECTION 264, CLAIM THAT THE PRO CEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 SHALL BE DROPPED ON HIS SHOWING THAT HE HAD BEEN ASSESSED ON AN AMOUNT OR TO A SUM NOT LOWER THAN WHAT HE WOULD BE RIGHTLY LIABLE FOR EVEN IF TH E INCOME ALLEGED TO HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, OR THE ASSE SSMENT OR COMPUTATION HAD BEEN PROPERLY MADE; IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR FINDING BY AO AND CIT(A) REGAR DING THE FACT THAT THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FOR PAINTINGS ARE BOGUS, NO DOUBT THESE ARE BEING DELET ED FROM PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE AO HAS TO ASSESS THESE ADVANCES IN THE RELEVANT ASSESS MENT YEARS IN WHICH THESE WERE RECEIVED. BECAUSE THE CASE FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 150 AS WELL AS SECTION 153(3)(II) 6 ITA 332 & 333/K/2011 SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA A.Y.04-05 & 05-06 READ WITH EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 153 OF THE ACT A ND AS SUCH THESE WILL BE ASSESSED BY THE AO WHICH WILL BE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPO RTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THESE ADVANCES. THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEES APPEA LS IS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS. 9. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE IN THESE APPEALS OF ASSESS EE IS AS REGARDS TO DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF FOREIGN TRAVELLIN G EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.33000/- IN AY 2004-05 AND RS.65,000/- IN AY 2005-06. FOR THIS, A SSESSEE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUND IN BOTH THE YEARS AND THE GROUND AS RAISED IN AY 2004-05 RE ADS AS UNDER: 3) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION OF RS.33,000/- REPRESENTING EXPENSES BORNE BY THE HOSTS ON FOREIGN TRAVELLING W ERE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE BY WRONGLY ALLEGING THAT THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE HIM SELF OFFERED THIS AMOUNT IN HIS TOTAL. 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUG H FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. AT THE OUTSET, WHEN THE FACT REGARDING AGREED ADDIT ION WAS POINTED OUT TO THE LD. COUNSEL, HE FAIRLY CONCEDED THE ISSUE. AS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF CONCEDED THE ISSUE, WE DISMISS THIS COMMON ISSUE RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE PART LY ALLOWED. 12. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19 TH OCT., 2012. SD/- SD/- , , (PRAMOD KUMAR) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( + + + +) )) ) DATED : 19TH OCTOBER, 2012 -. '/0 1 JD. (SR.P.S.) 7 ITA 332 & 333/K/2011 SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA A.Y.04-05 & 05-06 * 2 3 43$5- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. '( / APPELLANT SHRI SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA, BH-167, SALT LAKE, KOLKATA-91 2 )'( / RESPONDENT DCIT, CIRCLE-55, KOLKATA. 3. *' ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. *' / CIT, KOLKATA 5. 7 8 ' / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA ) 3 / TRUE COPY, * ' / BY ORDER, 0 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .