ITO, Ward-1(1), Siliguri V. Alit Kumar Sarkar, Siliguri

ITA 388/KOL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2361 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 271(1)(c); 250; 274; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI ABY T. VARKEY, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER) [VIRTUAL COURT HEARING] ITA NO. 387/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 ITA NO. 388/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 ITA NO. 389/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), SILIGURI..........................................APPELLANT VS. SRI ALIT KUMAR SARKAR...............................................................................................RESPONDENT C/O J.N. SARKAR AND CO. T/14, BIDHAN MARKET SILIGURI 734 001 [PAN : AIWPS 9731 Q] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SMT. RANU BIWAS, ADDL.CIT D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : SEPTEMBER 25 TH , 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 25 TH , 2020 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- ALL THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE BUT IDENTICAL ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SILIGURI, (HEREINAFTER THE LD.CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 13/02/2020, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, WHEREIN, HE CANCELLED THE PENALTY LEVIED, U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 67 (SIXTY SEVEN) DAYS IN FILING OF THESE REVENUE APPEALS. AFTER PERUSING THE PETITIONS FOR CONDONATION FOR DELAY, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE REVENUE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN FILING THE APPEALS IN TIME. HENCE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THESE APPEALS. 3. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A), IN THIS CASE HAS CANCELLED THE PENALTY OF RS.1,31,286/-, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, RS.32,421/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND RS.63,753/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE SEPARATE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, U/S 274/271 OF THE ACT, DT. 26/02/2015, FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS WERE DEFECTIVE, AS THE CHARGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT SPECIFIED. ON PERUSAL OF THESE NOTICE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CANCELLED OR STRUCK OFF NOTICE . HENCE, THE REASON FOR WHICH THE NOTICE IS GIVEN IS VAGUE D/R THAT THE CHARGE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, COULD NOT ACCEPTED. THE CHARGE HAS TO BE SPECIFIC IN THE NOTICE. T LEVY OF PENALTY BAD IN LAW. 3.1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CANCELLED THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE G DEFECTIVE NOTICE. TH E PENALTY IMPOSED IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH DEFECTIVE NOTICE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KOLEY IN ITAT NO. 306 OF 2017, G.A. NO. 2968 OF 2017 FOLLOWS:- 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DATED 23.11.2015 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT FOLLOWING ITS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJUNATHA THAT IMPOSING OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND INVALID FOR THE REASON THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHET HER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT AS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL IN SLP IN C C NO.11485 OF 2016 AND THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT BY ITS ORDER DATED 05.08.2016 DISMISSED THE SLP PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHRI SAMSON PERINCH IN ITA NO.1154 OF 2014 DATED 05.01.2017 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OF COTTON AND GINNING FACT ORY (SUPRA) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON DEFECTIVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHAR YA VS ACIT IN ITA NO 1303/KOL/2010 DATED 06.11.2015 WHEREIN IDENTICAL PROPOSITION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S 2 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT STRIKE OUT THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS. I N THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS BASED ON THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO IN THE 2 OF PENALTY IS NOT SPECIFIED. ON PERUSAL OF THESE NOTICE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CANCELLED OR STRUCK OFF ANY CLAUSE OR PARAGRAPH IN THAT . HENCE, THE REASON FOR WHICH THE NOTICE IS GIVEN IS VAGUE . THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. THE CHARGE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, COULD NOT ACCEPTED. THE CHARGE HAS TO BE SPECIFIC IN THE NOTICE. T HE DEFECT IN THE NOTICE MAKES THE HAS CANCELLED THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE G ROUND THAT THE NOTICE IS A E PENALTY IMPOSED IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH DEFECTIVE NOTICE IS NOT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. DR. MURARI MOHAN IN ITAT NO. 306 OF 2017, G.A. NO. 2968 OF 2017 , JUDGMENT DT. 18 TH JULY, 2018, HELD AS 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSA 'S EMERALD MEADOWS IN ITA NO.380 OF 2015 DATED 23.11.2015 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT FOLLOWING ITS OWN DECISION IN CIT VS MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565 TOOK A VIEW THAT IMPOSING OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND INVALID FOR THE REASON THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE HER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT AS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL C NO.11485 OF 2016 AND THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT BY ITS ORDER DATED 05.08.2016 DISMISSED THE SLP PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHRI SAMSON PERINCH IN ITA NO.1154 OF 2014 DATED 05.01.2017 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OF CIT VS MANJUNATHA ORY (SUPRA) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON DEFECTIVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUVAPRASANNA YA VS ACIT IN ITA NO 1303/KOL/2010 DATED 06.11.2015 WHEREIN IDENTICAL PROPOSITION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE 11. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S 2 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT STRIKE OUT THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS. N THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS BASED ON THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO IN THE ITA NO. 387/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 ITA NO. 388/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 ITA NO. 389/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 SRI ALIT KUMAR SARKAR OF PENALTY IS NOT SPECIFIED. ON PERUSAL OF THESE NOTICE, WE FIND THAT ANY CLAUSE OR PARAGRAPH IN THAT . THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. THE CHARGE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, COULD NOT CANNOT BE HE DEFECT IN THE NOTICE MAKES THE THAT THE NOTICE IS A E PENALTY IMPOSED IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH DEFECTIVE NOTICE IS NOT PR. CIT VS. DR. MURARI MOHAN JULY, 2018, HELD AS 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE 'S EMERALD MEADOWS IN ITA NO.380 OF 2015 DATED 23.11.2015 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT FOLLOWING ITS OWN DECISION IN FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565 TOOK A VIEW THAT IMPOSING OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND INVALID FOR THE REASON THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE HER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT AS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL C NO.11485 OF 2016 AND THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT BY ITS ORDER DATED 05.08.2016 DISMISSED THE SLP PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHRI SAMSON PERINCH ERY IN ITA NO.1154 OF 2014 DATED 05.01.2017 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOLLOWING CIT VS MANJUNATHA ORY (SUPRA) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON DEFECTIVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUVAPRASANNA YA VS ACIT IN ITA NO 1303/KOL/2010 DATED 06.11.2015 WHEREIN IDENTICAL PROPOSITION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE 11. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S 2 74 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE N THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS BASED ON THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED. ' MR. CHOWDHURY IN COURSE OF ARGUMENT HAS URGED US TO REMAND THE MATTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO HIM, THIS WAS A TECHNICAL FLAW, WHICH THE REVENUE MUST BE GIVEN A CHANCE TO CURE. THE REASON WHY THE PENALTY ORDER WAS NOT SUSTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL APPEARS FROM THE PASSAGES OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL QUOTED EARLIER IN THIS JUDGEMENT. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE NOTICE. REVENUE HAS MISSED OUT THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO SUBJECT THE ASSESSEE TO THE PENALTY PROCEEDING B A PROPER NOTICE. NO SPECIFIC CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT BY THE REVENUE AS TO WHY THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED EXCEPT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PARTICIPATED PROPERLY IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT FOR THAT REASON BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT HAS B THE INCOME, WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE REVENUE TO MAKE OUT A SPECIFIC CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, ON WHICH COUNT THE REVENUE HAS FAILED. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, W THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY ERROR OF LAW. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. HENCE, STAY PETITION IS ALSO DISMISSED. T HERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 4. THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASE IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, AND 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED KOLKATA, THE SD/- [ ABY T. VARKEY] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 25.11.2020 {SC SPS} 3 EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED. ' IN COURSE OF ARGUMENT HAS URGED US TO REMAND THE MATTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO HIM, THIS WAS A TECHNICAL FLAW, WHICH THE REVENUE MUST BE GIVEN A CHANCE TO CURE. THE REASON WHY THE PENALTY ORDER WAS NOT SUSTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL FROM THE PASSAGES OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL QUOTED EARLIER IN THIS JUDGEMENT. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE NOTICE. REVENUE HAS MISSED OUT THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO SUBJECT THE ASSESSEE TO THE PENALTY PROCEEDING B A PROPER NOTICE. NO SPECIFIC CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT BY THE REVENUE AS TO WHY THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED EXCEPT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PARTICIPATED PROPERLY IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT FOR THAT REASON BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT HAS B THE INCOME, WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE REVENUE TO MAKE OUT A SPECIFIC CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, ON WHICH COUNT THE REVENUE HAS FAILED. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, W E DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY ERROR OF LAW. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. HENCE, STAY PETITION IS ALSO DISMISSED. HERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASE -LAW ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW ING THE SAID DECISION OF THE AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED . KOLKATA, THE 25 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020. [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 387/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 ITA NO. 388/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 ITA NO. 389/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 SRI ALIT KUMAR SARKAR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED. ' IN COURSE OF ARGUMENT HAS URGED US TO REMAND THE MATTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO HIM, THIS WAS A TECHNICAL FLAW, WHICH THE REVENUE MUST BE GIVEN A CHANCE TO CURE. THE REASON WHY THE PENALTY ORDER WAS NOT SUSTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL FROM THE PASSAGES OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL QUOTED EARLIER IN THIS JUDGEMENT. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE NOTICE. REVENUE HAS MISSED OUT THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO SUBJECT THE ASSESSEE TO THE PENALTY PROCEEDING B Y NOT ISSUING A PROPER NOTICE. NO SPECIFIC CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT BY THE REVENUE AS TO WHY THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED EXCEPT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PARTICIPATED PROPERLY IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT FOR THAT REASON BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT HAS B EEN MADE AND THE INCOME, WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE REVENUE TO MAKE OUT A SPECIFIC CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, ON E DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY ERROR OF LAW. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. HENCE, STAY PETITION IS ALSO DISMISSED. SQUARELY APPLICABLE THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SRI ALIT KUMAR SARKAR C/O J.N. SARKAR AND CO. T/14, BIDHAN MARKET SILIGURI 734 001 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1), SILIGURI 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 4 1(1), SILIGURI BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 387/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 ITA NO. 388/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 ITA NO. 389/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 SRI ALIT KUMAR SARKAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES