M/s. Hotel Centre Point, Shillong V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & TPS, Shillong

ITA 350/GTY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8486 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 144; 195; 13

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 348 TO 350 / GAU / 2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS :2013-14 TO 2015-16 M/S HOTEL CENTRE POINT, SHILLONG,, POLICE BAZAR, SHILLONG,, PIN-793001 [ PAN NO.AAGFH 6360 L ] V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHILLLNG, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, M.G. ROAD, SHILLLNG /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT ITA NO.351/GAU/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 M/S RI-KYNJAI SERENITY BY THE LAKE, POLICE BAZAR, SHILLONG,, PIN-793001 [ PAN NO.ACBFS 8181 P ]] V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 & TPS, SHILLLNG, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, M.G. ROAD, SHILLLNG /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE NONE /BY REVENUE SHRI SANDEEP SENGUPTA, JCIT-DR SHRI M.HAOKIP, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 01-07-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01-07-2019 / O R D E R PER BENCH:- THE INSTANT BATCH OF FOUR CASES PERTAINS TO TWO AS SESSEES M/S HOTEL CENTRE POINT AND M/S RI-KYNJAL SERENITY BY THE LAKE , HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS FIRST AND SECOND ASSESSEE RESPECTIVELY FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR(S) 2013-14 TO 2015-16, ARISE AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS), SHILLONG ITA NO.348-350/GAU/2018 & 351/GAU/019 AYS, 13-1 4 TO 15-16 PAGE 2 SEPARATE ORDERS, ALL DATED 09-10-2018 PASSED IN CAS E NO. CIT(A)/SHG/10047, 10068 & 10070/2017-18 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. CASE(S) CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARS AT THE ASSESSEES BEHEST. THE REGISTRY HAS ALREADY SENT A RPAD NOTICE(S) FOR TODA YS HEARING. WE THEREFORE PROCEED EX PARTE AGAINST THESE ASSESSEES. 2. WE ARE INFORMED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE, SHRI M. HAOKIP THAT ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS RAISE THE FOLLOWING IDE NTICAL SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS:- 1. FOR THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER [AO] IS BAD IN LAW, FACTS AND PROCEDURE. 2. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPH OLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO WHEREIN THE STATUTORILY ALLOWABLE EXEMPT ION VIDE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(26) OF THE ACT WAS ARBITRARILY DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ARB ITRARILY HOLDING THAT INCOME EARNED BY TWO SCHEDULED TRIBE PERSONS JOINTLY FROM A SOURCE SITUATED IN SPECIFIED TRIBAL AREA WHEREIN THEY ALSO RESIDE WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(26) OF THE ACT. 4. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED T HE BINDING DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T V. MAHARI & SONS (1992) 195 ITR 630 (GAU.) 3. WE ARE NEXT TAKEN TO CIT(A)S FINDINGS UNDER CHA LLENGE OF THE IDENTICAL ISSUE OF DENIAL OF ASSESSEES EXPLANATION U/S 10(26 ) AS UNDER:- 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATTER, THE AO HAD NOT DOUBTED THE FACT OF THE PARTNERS BEING TRIBALS AND RESIDENT OF SCHED ULED AREA. THE FACT OF THE SOURCE FROM WHERE ASSESSEE EARNED ITS INCOME BEING FROM SCHEDULED AREA IS ALSO NOT IN DOUBT. THAT THE FACT OF INCOME OF PARTN ERS IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES AND WHICH IS EARNED FROM SCHEDULED AREA IS EXEMPT F ROM TAX IS ALSO NOT IN QUESTION. IN VIEW OF BINDING DECISION OF HONBLE JU RISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF MAHARI & SONS (SUPRA) AND SUBSEQUENT DECISION O F HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, THE INCOME OF FIRM WOULD HAVE BEEN EXEMPT HA D THE SAME BUSINESS BEEN RAN BY PARTNERS AS BOI AND NOT FIRM IS ALSO NO T IN QUESTION. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE CRUX OF MATTER TO BE EXAMINED IS WHETHER EXEMPTION AVAILABLE TO TRIBAL MEMBERS IN SCHEDULED AREA FROM BUSINESS RAN IN CAPACITY AS INDIVIDUAL OR BOI WOULD BE AVAILABLE IF THE SAME IS CONDUCTED THROUGH PARTNERSHIP FIRM FORMED BY TAX-EXEMPT PARTNERS. 4.3.1 ACCORDING TO SECTION 4(1) OF THE ACT, INCOME TAX IS CHARGED ON PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH CENTRAL ACT. PERSON IS DETAINED U/S .2(31). THE SAME IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: (31) PERSONS INCLUDES- (I) AN INDIVIDUAL, (II) A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, ITA NO.348-350/GAU/2018 & 351/GAU/019 AYS, 13-1 4 TO 15-16 PAGE 3 (III) A COMPANY, (IV) A FIRM, (V) AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS OR A BODY OF INDIVIDU ALS, WHETHER INCORPORATED OR NOT, (VI) A LOCAL AUTHORITY, AND (VII) EVERY ARTIFICIAL JURIDICAL PERSON, NOT FALLIN G WITHIN ANY OF THE PRECEDING SUB-CLAUSE. FROM A READING OF THE INCLUSIVE DEFINITION, IT IS C LEAR THAT FIRM HAS DISTINCT IDENTITY AS SEPARATE FROM THAT OF INDIVIDUAL OR BOI THOUGH OUTSIDE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, IT MIGHT NOT HAVE SEPARATE LEGAL EX ISTENCE./ NOT ONLY IS A FIRM RECOGNIZED AS SEPARATE PERSON, THE IT ACT PROVIDES FOR SEPARATE SCHEME OF TAXATION FOR FIRMS AS UNDER: 1. A FIRM IS TAXED AS A SEPARATE ENTITY. IT IS SEPA RATE FROM ITS PARTNERS. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER THE FIRM IS REGISTERED O R NOT. 2. THE DEFINITION OF FIRM INCLUDES A LIMITED LIABIL ITY PARTNERSHIP AND LLP IS TREATED SAME AS FIRM. 3. THE SHARE OF PARTNERS IN THE INCOME OF THE FIRM IS EXEMPTED FROM BEING SEPARATELY TAXED, WHILE COMPUTING HIS/HER IND IVIDUAL INCOME. 4. SALARY, BONUS, COMMISSION OR REMUNERATION (BY WH ATEVER NAME CALLED) PAID/PAYABLE TO PARTNERS IS ALLOWED AS DEDU CTION TO THE FIRM AND SAME WILL BE TAXABLE IN THE HAND OF PARTNERS. T HESE EXPENSES ARE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION SUBJECT TO CERTAIN RESTRIC TION UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THE INTEREST TO PARTNERS PAID BY FIRM IS DEDUCTI BLE SUBJECT TO MAXIMUM RATE OF INTEREST @ 12% PA. THE AMOUNT IS TA XABLE IN THE HAND OF PARTNERS. 6. THE FIRM IS TAXED @30.9% OR 33.99% (SUBJECT TO N ET INCOME OF FIRM IS RS.1 CRORE OR EXCEEDS RDS.1 CRORE). THE INCOME TAX ACT ENDOWED DISTINCT IDENTITY TO PAR TNERSHIP FORMS AND THERE IS SEPARATE SCHEME OF TAXATION AND ASSESSMENT MEANT FOR FIRMS ONLY. IN FACT, A WHOLE CHAPTER I.E. CHAPTER XVI FO THE INCOME TAX AC T IS DEDICATED TO ASSESSMENT OF FIRMS WITH THE HEADING: SPECIAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO FIRMS. . A FIRM CANNOT BE EQUATE D TO INDIVIDUALS AND BO I. BOI CAN BE FORMED BY INDIVIDUALS; WHEREAS FIRMS MAY BE FORMED BY NON- INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE LEGAL ENTITIES. 4.3.2 IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, ASSESSEE REPRODUCE D TEXT OF SECTION 10(26). OPENING LINE OF THE SECTION SAYS: IN THE CASE OF A MEMBER OF A SCHEDULED TRIBE .A READING OF THE SECTION MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THA T AN ASSESSEE HAS TO BE A MEMBER OF A SCHEDULED TRIBE. EVEN BY COMMON UN DERSTANDING, ONE HAS TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE A MEMBERS OF ANY TRIBE OR , SAY ANY COMMUNITY. HENCE, NO ENTITY, OTHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BE A MEMBER OF SCHEDULED TRIBE. CONSEQUENTLY, A FIRM CANNOT BE A MEMBER OF S CHEDULED TRIBE. THEREFORE, SECTION 10(26) BY IMPLICATION, GIVES EXE MPTION TO INDIVIDUALS AND NOT TO FIRM. 4.3.3. ASSESSEE HEAVILY RELIED ON DECISION OF HONB LE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF MAHARI & SONS (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, THE HO NBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HAD EXTENDED THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 10(26) OF THE A CT TO A KHASI FAMILY. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CONSIDERED THE QUESTION AS TO WH ETHER THE EXEMPTION AVAILABLE TO A MEMBER OF KHASI TRIBE WILL BE AVAILA BLE WHEN INCOME WAS ITA NO.348-350/GAU/2018 & 351/GAU/019 AYS, 13-1 4 TO 15-16 PAGE 4 EARNED BY HIM NOT AS AN INDIVIDUAL ABUT AS A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS COMPRISING THE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT A NSWERED THE QUESTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS/RATIONALE . (I) FAMILY IS A GROUP OF BLOOD RELATIVES DESCENDING FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR. (II) THE EXEMPTION WILL BE AVAILED BY FATHER, MOTHE R AND CHILDREN THE IMMEDIATE KINDERED, WHO LIVED IN ONE HOUSE. (III) SECTION 10(26) IS A BENEFICIAL PROVISION AND BENEFIT IS TO BE GIVEN TO TRIBAL PEOPLE AND MEMBERS OF KHASI TRIBE CANNOT BE DISENTITLED. FROM THE ORDER, IT SEEMS THAT THE BENEFIT HAS BEEN EXTENDED FROM AN INDIVIDUAL TO A BODY OF INDIVIDUAL . THE REASONS WHY THIS DECISIONS CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO OTHER PERSONS, I.E. FIRM, COMPANY, HUF, AJP, AOP, TRUST S, JV ETC. ARE AS UNDER: (I) THERE IS VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDIVI DUALS AND BODY OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE SENSE THAT AN ACCUMULATION OF I NDIVIDUALS IS A BOI. THAT IS A BOI COMPRISES ONLY OF INDIVIDUALS. (II) ON THE OTHER HAND, AN AOP, A FIRM, A COMPANY C OULD CONTAIN OTHER ENTITIES. HENCE, WHAT APPLIES TO AN INDIVID UAL MAY WELL APPLY TO ITS COLLECTIVE, I.E. A BOI. BUT IT WOULD M OST CERTAINLY NOT APPLY TO AOP, FIRM OR COMPANIES. (III) COMPANIES, FIRMS AND NON-INDIVIDUAL CANNOT BE MEMBERS OF BOI, WHICH CAN HAVE ONLY HUMAN BEINGS OR A PLURILIT Y OF INDIVIDUALS.. (IV) THUS THE LOGIC CAN BE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL EARNI NG INCOME CAN BE EXEMPT U/S 10(26) OF THE ACT, AND, SO CAN A CONGLOM ERATION OF INDIVIDUALS. (V) THE CASE DEALS WITH KHASI FAMILY. A FAMILY MUST ALWAYS AND NECESSARILY HAVES NATURAL INDIVIDUALS. TD HERE CANN OT BE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM OR AN AOP IN A KHASI FAMILY. HEN CE, TO HIS CASE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER CATEGORIES (PARA-6 OF HONBLE COURTS ORDER) (VI) THE DECISION SPEAKS OF FATHER, MOTHER AND CHI LDREN. THIS CAN NEVER INCLUDE A FIRM OR AN AOP. (VII) AS PER DECISION, IT APPLIES TO PERSONS, WHO LIVE IN ONE HOUSE AND ARE A GROUP OF BOOK RELATIVES. A FIRM/AOP/COM PANY CANNOT LIVE IN A HOUSE AND CAN NEVER BE BLOOD RELATIVES. THEY CAN NEVER BE HUSBAND OR A WIFE OR A CHILD OR KINDERED. A FIRM WILL NOT DESCEND FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR. NEITHER CAN A FIRM OR COMPANY OR AOP BE CHARACTERIZED AS KHASI PEOPLE. HENCE, IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH CURT LACKS ANY APPLICATION WHAT-SO-EVER TO ANY PERSON OT HER THAN A BOI. THUS, THIS CASE IS OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. OTHER CAS E LAWS RELIED UPON VIZ. TAKEIN ROY RYMBAI (SUPRA) AND MARBANING (SURPA) PER TAINED TO EXEMPTION ALLOWABLE IN CASES OF INDIVIDUALS. THEY ARE THEREFO RE, NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. 4.3.4 THE ISSUE UNDER DISCUSSION RELATES TO TAX EXE MPTION. VERY RECENTLY, A CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) VS. M/S DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY & OTHERS (CIVIL APPEAL ITA NO.348-350/GAU/2018 & 351/GAU/019 AYS, 13-1 4 TO 15-16 PAGE 5 3327 OF 2007 DATED JULY 30, 2018) HELD THAT WHERE T HERE IS AN AMBIGUITY IN EXEMPTION, THE SAME IS SUBJECT TO A STRICT INTERPRE TATION AND BENEFIT OF SUCH AMBIGUITY CANNOT BE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT MUST BE INTERPRETED IN THE FAVOUR OF REVENUE. THE HONBLE APEX COURT HELD: 52. TO SUM UP, WE ANSWER THE REFERENCE HOLDING AS UNDER (1) EXEMPTION NOTIFICATION SHOULD BE INTERPRETED ST RICTLY; THE BURDEN OF PROVING APPLICABILITY WOULD BE ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT HIS CASE COMES WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE EXEMPTION CLAUSE OR EXEMPTION NOTIFICATION. (2) WHEN THERE IS AMBIGUITY IN EXEMPTION NOTIFICATI ON WHICH IS SUBJECT TO STRICT INTERPRETATION, THE BENEFIT OF SUCH AMBIGUITY CANNO T BE CLAIMED BY THE SUBJECT/ASSESSEE AND IT MUST BE INTERPRETED IN FAVO UR OF THE REVENUE. (3) THE RATIO IN SUN EXPORT CASE (SUPRA) IS NOT COR RECT AND ALL THE DECISIONS WHICH TOOK SIMILAR VIEW AS IN SUN EXPORT CASE (SUPR A) STANDS OVERRULED. THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF A 5-JUDGE BENCH OF H ONBNLE APEX COURT APPLIES IN FULLEST MEASURE TO THE APPEAL UNDER CONS IDERATION. ON STRICT INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 10(26), THERE IS NO REASO N TO BELIEVE THAT EXEMPTION GIVEN TO MEMBERS OF SCHEDULED TRIBE CAN BE EXTENDED TO PARTNERSHIP FIRM FORMED BY SUCH INDIVIDUAL TRIBALS. 4.3.5 A/R ALSO RELIED ON PROVISION OF CLAUSE 13 OF GENERAL CLAUSES ACT. THE SAID CLAUSE STATES THAT WORD IMPORTING MASCULINE GE NDER SHALL INCLUDE FEMALES ALSO AND THAT SINGULAR SHALL INCLUDE PLURAL AND VIC E VERSA. PLACING RELIANCE ON THIS CLAUSE TO MEAN THAT A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CAN BE TREATED AS BELONGING TO A MEMBER OF SCHEDULED TRIBE IS TOO FAR-FETCHED INTERP RETATION. THE INCOME TAX ACT DISTINGUISHED A FIRM AND INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS. T HEY ARE TO BE ASSESSED SEPARATELY AND AT DIFFERENT RATES OR TAX. HENCE CON TENTION MADE IN THIS REGARD IS NOT LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE. 4.3.6 A/R ALSO REFERRED TO ARTICLE 46 OF THE CONSTI TUTION. THAT ARTICLE IS PART OF DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY. PER THE ARTI CLE, THE STATE IS TO PROMOTE EDUCATIONAL AND ECONOMIC INTEREST OF WEAKER SECTION S OF THE PEOPLE, INCLUDING SCHEDULED TRIBES. IT IS NOT IN DOUBT THAT EXEMPTIO N IS GRANTED EVEN BY THE IT ACT, TO MEMBERS OF SCHEDULED TRIBE IN RESPECT OF CE RTAIN INCOME. BUT IT WILL NOT BE 0ORPPER TO IMPORT TOE PROVISION OF DIRECTOR PRIN CIPLE OF STATE POLICY INTO THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND GIVE EXEMPTION WHICH IS NOT GRAN TED BY THE EXPRESSED PROVISION OF THE ACT. 4.3.7 THE A/R ALSO ARGUED THAT IN PRELUDE TO THE CH APTER ON EXEMPTION, THE ACT STATES: IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF A PRE VIOUS YEAR OF ANY PERSON, ANY INCOME FALLING WITHIN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CLAU SES SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED. ACCORDING TO THE A/R, COROLLARY TO THIS IS THAT INC OME OF ANY PERSON FALLING WITHIN CLAUSE 10(26) SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED TO THE I NCOME. THEREFORE, AS A FIRM COMES WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF PERSON, INCOME OF FI RM WHICH IS FORMED BY TAX- EXEMPT INDIVIDUALS SHOULD ALSO BE EXEMPT FROM TAX. IN MY VIEW, THE ARGUMENT IS FALLACIOUS. IF ONE GOES THROUGH THE CHAPTER ON EXEMPTION, IT IS SEEN THAT SOME FOR THE CLAUSES ARE MEANT FOR INDIVIDUALS, SOME FOR NON-RESIDENTS, SOME FOR COMPANIES, SOME FO R LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND SO FORTH. IF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCE PTED, INCOMES OF EVEN COMPANIES AND TRUSTS FORMED AND OWNED EXCLUSIVELY B Y TRIBALS WHO ARE RESIDING IN SCHEDULED AREAS WILL BE EXEMPT FROM PAY MENT OF TAX. THIS WILL OVER- STRETCH THE EXEMPTION PROVISION OF THE ACT, WHICH I N MY CONSIDERED VIEW, IS NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE RECENT RULING OF HONBLE APE X COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP KUAMR AND CO (SUPRA). ITA NO.348-350/GAU/2018 & 351/GAU/019 AYS, 13-1 4 TO 15-16 PAGE 6 4.3.7. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND ION VIE W OF EXPRESSED PROVISION OF THE ACT AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP KUMAR AND CO (SUPRA), I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW T HAT EXEMPTION PROVISION U/S. 10(26) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO PARTNE RSHIP FIRM CONSTITUTED BY TAX-EXEMPT INDIVIDUAL TRIBALS. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED AGAINST APPELLANT. 4. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RI VAL CONTENTIONS IN VIEW OF ASSESSEES PLEADINGS AND REVENUES CONTENTIONS A GAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(26) O F THE ACT. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE CIT(A) ABOVE EXTRACTED FINDINGS THAT HE HAS CO NSIDERED AT LENGTH ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AS WELL AS SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION AS PER VARIOUS HONBLE JUDICIAL FORUMS AT LENGTH THAT THE IMPUGNED RELIEF CANNOT BE GRANTED IN SUCH A CASE INVOLVING A TRIBE. WE SEE NO REASON TO INTER FERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THEREFORE. 5. THESE FOUR ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOS E OF HEARING ON 1 ST DAY OF MONDAY, JULY, 2019 . SD/- SD/- ( ) (&' ) ( A.L.SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) GUWAHATI, *DKP (- 01/ 07 /201 9 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /ASSESSEE-M/S HOTEL CENTRE POINT, POLICE BAZAR, SH ILONG-793001/M/S RI- KYNJAI SERENIT Y BY THE LAKE, C/O M/S HOTEL CENTRE POINT, POLICE BAZAR, SHILLONG-7 93001 2. / REVENUE-ITO WARD-1/2, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, M.G.ROAD, S HILLONG 3. 3 4 9 / CONCERNED CIT I 4. 4- / CIT (A) I 5. < ''3, 3, 9 / DR, ITAT, GUWAHATI 6. B / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (ON TOUR) 3, !