Vineet Mohan Gupta, Bhubaneswar V. DCIT, CC-XIX, KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 374/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9440 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD GHYAS UDDIN JCIT LD
• Assessee Lawyers: AKKAL DUDHUEWALA LD
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,C BENCH,KOLK ATA BEFORE : SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL ME MBER AND SHRI DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 374/KOL/2014 A.Y 2011-12 VINEET MOHAN GUPTA VS. DY. CIT, CC-XIX, KOLKATA PAN: ADRPG 8166F [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] APPELLANT BY : SHRI AKKAL DUDHUEWALA, LD. AR RESPONDENT BY : MD. GHYAS UDDIN, JCIT , LD.DR DATE OF HEARING : 06-02-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-02-2017 ORDER PER SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) IN SHORT [ LD. CIT(A), CENTRAL-II, KOLKATA DATED 17-12-2013 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.29,39,127/ -. 2. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF COMMERCIAL & BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY TO COMPANIES/CONCERNS AND THEREFORE THE INTEREST OF RS.29,39,127/- WAS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING HIS INCOME. 3. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A PROMOTER HAVI NG SUBSTANTIAL STAKE/INTEREST IN THE COMPANIES/CONCERN S TO WHICH ADVANCES WERE GIVEN AND THEREFORE THE ADVANCE S WERE MADE OUT OF PURE BUSINESS INTERESTS AND ACCORD INGLY THE INTEREST OF RS.29,39,127/- PAID ON LOANS FOR MA KING SUCH ADVANCES WAS DEDUCTIBLE WHILE COMPUTING THE TA XABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 374/KOL/2014 VI NEET MOHAN GUPTA 2 4. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO D ELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.29,39,127/- IN FULL . 5. FOR THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD TO, ALTER OR AMPLIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED MULTIPLE GROUN DS OF APPEAL, THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.29,39,127/-. HENCE, ALL THE GROUNDS NOS. 1 TO 4 SHALL BE ADJUDICATED COLLECTIVELY HEREIN. GROUND NO.5 IS GEN ERAL IN NATURE. HENCE, NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS APPEARING IN THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E 2011-12 MANUALLY ON 23-07-2011 DE CLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.14,92,301/-. THE CASE WAS SELEC TED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. THEREAFTER, NOTICES U/S. 143(2 ) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH T HE QUESTIONNAIRE. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, THE LD.AR OF T HE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED DETAILS A ND EXPLANATION. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE A O OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SALAR Y AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AS PER BALANCE SHEET, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UNSECURED LOAN ON WHICH INTEREST OF RS.29 ,39,127/- WAS PAID. THIS INTEREST AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION FROM THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ON EXAMINATION OF ACCO UNTS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN AN D INTEREST PAID ON THE SAME AND THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASS ESSEE HAS NO CORRELATION WITH EACH OTHER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE UNSECURED LOAN WAS NOT UTILIZED BY TH E ASSESSEE TO EARN INTEREST INCOME. THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT OF IN TEREST AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OR SALARY HAS NO NEXUS W HATSOEVER WITH EACH OTHER. THE AO QUESTIONED THE ASSESSEE THA T SINCE THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST HAS NO RELATION WITH THE EARNI NG OF INCOME, ITA NO. 374/KOL/2014 VI NEET MOHAN GUPTA 3 THEN AS TO HOW THE INTEREST PAYMENT SHALL BE DEDUCT IBLE FROM THE INCOME OF OTHER SOURCES. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE T HE AO THAT THE LOAN TAKEN WAS UTILIZED IN NEW BUSINESS AND REFLECT ED THE SAME IN THE NEW BUSINESS HAVING A BIG POTENTIAL TO GENERATE PROFITS IN FUTURE. HOWEVER, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT AS PER BA LANCE SHEET THE ASSESSEE HAS REFLECTED THE AMOUNT TOWARDS LOAN & ADVANCES OF RS.75,90,000/- TO M/S. JRG CENTRE OF LEARNING, R S.19,42,103/- TO M/S. JRG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD, RS.68,64,762/- TO M/S. JAGDISHRAIJI GITA DEVI FOUNDATION AND RS.16,164/- T O M/S. JAIN & COMPANY. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ALL THE ABO VE PARTIES ARE SEPARATE ENTITIES HAVING SEPARATE BUSINESS OPER ATION OR ACTIVITIES. THESE ENTITIES MAY HAVE A BIG POTENTIAL TO GENERATE PROFITS IN FUTURE BUT HOW CAN THE ASSESSEES INCOM E BE IMPACTED IN THEIR PROFITS? THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE REPLY TO THESE QUERIES AND IT WAS HELD BY THE AO THAT THE INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS. 29,39,127/- HAS NO RELATION WITH THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ADVANCED TO OTHER ENTITIES WITHOUT INTEREST AND HIMSELF PAID TH E INTEREST ON LOAN. THUS, THE AO DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT OF INTERE ST OF RS.29,39,127/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCO ME OF ASSESSEE. 4. AT THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT-A, I T WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO PASSED THE OR DER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WHEREIN HE MADE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.29,39,127/-. THIS ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS IN CONTRAVENTION AND VIOLATION OF THE DIRECTION OF TH E CBDT VIDE INSTRUCTION NO. 225/26/206-ITA-II (PT) DATED 18.09. 2010. BEFORE HIM THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF CRYSTAL PHOSPHATES LTD VS. ACIT, ITA N O. 3630/DEL/2009 PASSED IN NOVEMBER, 2012, CIT VS. SMT . NAYANA ITA NO. 374/KOL/2014 VI NEET MOHAN GUPTA 4 P. DEDHIA, 270 ITR (AP) AND AJANTA FINANCIAL SERVIC ES PVT. LTD VS. ITO WARD 4(3), KOLKATA B BENCH DATED 21.05.2012. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT WAS PLEADED BEFORE HIM THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WAS BEYOND JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE, DISALLOWA NCE OF INTEREST MADE BY THE AO SHOULD BE DELETED. 5. THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER WHILE CONSIDERING THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OBSE RVED THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.29,39,127/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOAN. IT WAS OBSERVED IN T HE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SU BMIT ANY EXPLANATION WITH REFERENCE TO MERITS OF DISALLOWANC E MADE BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE ONLY CONCENTRATED ON THE TECHNICA L ISSUE. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY THE CBDT FOR SELECTION OF CASES FOR SCRUTINY IS AN INTERNAL MATT ER AND AN ASSESSEE CANNOT LOOK INTO THE SAME. FURTHER, ON PE RUSAL OF INSTRUCTION OF THE CBDT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE , IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IT HAS NO APPLICATION FOR THE CASES W HICH WERE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. THE SAID INSTRUCT ION WAS WITH REFERENCE TO THE CASES SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ON THE BASIS OF AIR RETURNS OR MANUAL SELECTION. THEREFORE, THE RELIANC E OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTION OF BOARD IS MISPLACED AND IS OF NO HELP TO HIM. THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER F URTHER STATED THAT THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CRYSTAL PHOSPHATES LTD., SMT. NAYANA P. DEDHIA AND AJANTA FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLIC ABLE TO THE FACTS OF HIS CASE. BECAUSE THESE CASES RELATE TO TH E INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY THE BOARD FOR MANUAL SELECTION OF CASES U NDER SCRUTINY. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE CASE WAS SETTLED FO R SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE AO HAS TRAVELLED BEYOND HIS JURISDICTION BY MAKING DISAL LOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST IS REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ON MERITS, THE ITA NO. 374/KOL/2014 VI NEET MOHAN GUPTA 5 LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT ON PERUSAL OF BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31-03-2011, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.2,68,29,950/- FROM JAGANNATH R ICE MILLS. THE INTEREST OF RS.29,39,127/- WAS PAID TO THE SAID CONCERN AND DEBITED TO THE P & L A/C. IT IS STATED IN THE ORDER BY THE CIT(A) THAT IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS OBS ERVED THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN LOAN AND ADVANCES OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS TO JRG CENTRE OF LEARNING, JRG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD & J AGDISHRAIJI GITA DEVI FOUNDATION. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHARGE A NY INTEREST FROM THE SAID CONCERNS AND TRUST. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE AO THAT TH E LOAN TAKEN WAS UTILIZED IN NEW BUSINESS, WHICH HAVE A BIG POT ENTIAL TO GENERATE GOOD PROFITS IN FUTURE. HOWEVER, THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THAT AS TO HOW SUCH PROFIT EARNING CAPACITY OF THESE CONCERNS WAS GOING TO HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, ONE OF THE ENTITIES TO WHOM SUBS TANTIAL AMOUNTS ARE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS A TRUST. THAT , AS ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THAT AS TO HOW A NON- PROFITABLE ORGANIZATION CAN GENERATE THE PROFIT AF FECTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER STAT ED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE PAYMENT OF IN TEREST HAS NO NEXUS WITH THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN TH E COMPUTATION OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDU CTION OF RS.29,39,127/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES . HOWEVER, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE DEDU CTION U/S. 57(III) OF THE ACT CAN ONLY BE ALLOWED IF THE EXPEN DITURE IS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY TO EARN SUCH INCOME AND THE EXPENDITURE HAS DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE SAID INCOME. BUT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE HE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM U/S. 57(III) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 374/KOL/2014 VI NEET MOHAN GUPTA 6 6. THE LD.CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS RELIED ON THE CAS ES OF CIT (CENTRAL), KANPUR VS. SMT. SWAPNA ROY REPORTED IN 3 31 ITR 367(ALL) AND CIT VS. PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPO RATION 177 TAXMAN 237(P&H), WHEREIN THE ESSENCE OF PROVISION O F SECTION 57(III) OF THE ACT WAS DISCUSSED AND DEALT WITH AND ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND LEGALITY INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.29,39,127/- MADE B Y THE AO IS CONFIRMED. 7. ON BEING FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRE FERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. AR OF T HE ASSESSEE ARGUED BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE C ALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJEEV LOCHAN KANORIA REPORTED IN 208 ITR 616 (CAL HC), WHEREIN THE RATIO LAID OUT TH AT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED INTEREST FREE LOANS AND/ OR M ADE INVESTMENTS IN CONTROLLED COMPANIES OR CONCERNS WH ICH HE MANAGES, ADMINISTERS & FINANCE FOR BUSINESS/PROFESS IONAL PURPOSES, THEN ANY INTEREST CORRESPONDING TO SUCH LOANS/INVESTMENTS IS ALLOWABLE AS BEING INCURRED FO R BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE PUT FORTH THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF EAST INDIA PHA RMACEUTICAL WORKS REPORTED IN 224 ITR 627 (SC), THE RATIO LAID DOWN THEREIN AND HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT INTERE ST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO MEET THE COST OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCE S AND INVESTMENTS AND AT THE SAME TIME THE ASSESSEE HAD A LSO RAISED INTEREST BEARING LOANS THEN IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESU MED THAT THE ADVANCES WERE FROM THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABL E. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION/SUBMISSION, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS ALSO FILED BEFORE US THE COPY OF BALANCE SHEET OF ASSESS EE AND COPY OF DEED OF TRUST DATED 12 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2007 OF JAGDISH RAI JI GITA DEVI FOUNDATION AND COPY OF ORDER DATED 23 RD SEPT, 2016 OF ITAT, ITA NO. 374/KOL/2014 VI NEET MOHAN GUPTA 7 DELHI BENCH, F , NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF SH. RAJ KUMAR JAIN VS. DCIT, CIR 24(1), NEW DELHI IN ITA NO. 281/DEL/2014 FOR THE AY 2008-09. THE CONTENTION OF THE AR WAS THAT AT THE T IME OF HEARING BEFORE US THAT IN THE CASE OF RAJ KUMAR JAIN, WHICH ALSO REFERRED TO THE CASE OF RAJEEV LOCHAN KANORIA (SUPRA) RELIEF WAS GRANTED TO ASSESSEE. THAT DEED OF TRUST OF THE SAID JAGDISH RAI JI GITA DEVI FOUNDATION IS A PRIVATE TRUST AND NOT A PUBLIC TRUST AS HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES. HE F URTHER CONTENDED THAT THE BALANCE SHEET, P & L A/C AND OTH ER DOCUMENTS AS AND WHEN CALLED FOR BY THE AO WERE FILED EVIDENC ING THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR ARGUED THAT THE CAS E LAWS AS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE THEY ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DI FFERENT IN FACTS FROM THE ASSESSEES CASE. THEREFORE, THEY ARE NOT A PPLICABLE. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROLLING OF SHARES. THERE WA S NO FUND FLOW STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSE SSMENT. THEREFORE, THE LD.DR PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS, FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AN D WE ARRIVE AT OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN A ND INTEREST INCURRED ON THE SAME HAS NO NEXUS WHATSOEVER WITH THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE I.E SALARY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES. THE LOANS AND ADVANCES AS REFLECTED IN THE ASSET SIDE O F THE BALANCE SHEET OF ASSESSEE AS IS REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND ON RECORD SHOWS THAT ALL THE PARTIES ARE SEPARATE ENTI TIES HAVING SEPARATE BUSINESS OPERATION OR ACTIVITIES. THEREFOR E, THE QUESTION REMAINS THAT THESE ENTITIES MAY HAVE A BIG POTENTI AL TO GENERATE PROFITS IN FUTURE BUT HOW CAN THE ASSESSEES INCOM E BE IMPACTED ITA NO. 374/KOL/2014 VI NEET MOHAN GUPTA 8 BY THEIR PROFITS. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID TRUST DEED IT IS CLEARLY WRITTEN THE SETTLER IS CREATING A PUBLIC TRUST THAT THE OBJECT CLAUSE CLEARLY SPELLS OUT THAT THIS TRUST IS CREATED FOR T HE ULTIMATE WELL BEING OF THE SOCIETY AND CONTENTION OF THE LD.AR IS THAT IT IS PRIVATE TRUST DOES NOT HOLD GOOD. THAT EVEN THE CAS E LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.AR ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT ON FA CTS AS COMPARED TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, HAS NO APPLI CATION IN THE GIVEN SCENARIO. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEARLY EVIDENT F ROM THE FACTS ON RECORD THAT THE INTEREST EXPENSE OF RS. 29,39,127/- HAS NO RELATION WHATSOEVER TO THE EARNING OF INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN G IVEN AS ADVANCED TO OTHER ENTITIES HAVING NO BEARING ON THE ASSESSEES INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE BENEF IT OF SECTION 57(III) OF THE ACT CAN BE AVAILED IF THE INVESTMENT IS JUSTIFIED. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABL ISH THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE IS DONE BONAFIDE TO EA RN INCOME. THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTION U/S. 57(III) OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE HE HAS FAILED TO BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST WAS DONE BONAFIDE TO EARN INCOME. HENCE, NO DEDUCTION CAN BE ALLOWED U/S. 57(III) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.29,39,127/- MADE BY THE AO AND C ONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. WE OR DER ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 OF ASSESSEES APPEA L ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06-02-2017 SD/- SD/- DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 06-02-2017 ITA NO. 374/KOL/2014 VI NEET MOHAN GUPTA 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: SHRI VINEET MOHAN GUPTA, GUPTA NIWAS, OLD STATION ROAD, BHUBANESWAR-751006 (ORISSA). 2 RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX, CC-XIX, KOLKATA AAYKAR BHAVAN (POORVA), 5 TH FLOOR, 110 SHANTI PALLY, E.M BYEPASS, KOLKATA-107. 3. CIT, 4. CIT(A), 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA **PP/SPS [ TRUE COPY ] BY ORDER, ASSTT REGISTRAR