DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar V. M/s. Jagannath Chaudhury, Bhubaneswar

ITA 476/CTK/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1940 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B K MOHAPATRA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Depreciation; Set aside
• Section: 44AD; 201

Judgement Text

P A G E 1 | 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 476 TO 478 /CTK/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), BHUBANESWAR. VS. M/S. JAGANNATH CHAUDHURY, 98, KHARVEL NAGAR, KESHARI TALKIES COMPLEX, BHUBANESWAR. PAN/GIR NO. AADFJ 8103 A (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.K.MOHAPATRA , AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SUBHENDU DUTTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 07 / 0 8 / 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 / 0 9 / 201 9 O R D E R PER C.M.GARG,JM THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD CIT(A) - 2, BHUBANESWAR ALL DATED 28.8.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012 - 13, 2013 - 14 & 2014 - 15, RESPECTIVELY. 2. GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS GENERAL IN NATURE. 3. GROUND NOA.3,4 & 4.1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, GROUND NOS.2, 3 & 3.1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 AND GROUND NOS.3 & 3.1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE COMMON EXCEPT VARIANCE IN ADDITION, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION, WE TAKE UP THE ISSUES TOGETHER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE REPRODUCE THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 AS UNDER: ITA NOS.476 TO 478/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 P A G E 2 | 9 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW FURTHER DEDUCTION TOWARDS DEPRECIATION, WHEN THE AO HAS ESTIMATED INCOME FROM CONTRACT RECEIPTS APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 18% OF GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS U/S.44AD OF THE I.T. ACT AND WHEN THE PROVISION OF SUB - SECTION(2) OF SEC TION 44AD CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 30 TO 38 SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ALREADY GIVEN FULL EFFECT TO AND NO FURTHER DEDUCTION UNDER THOSE SECTIONS SHALL BE ALLOWED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TREAT 10% OF TOTAL INTEREST RECEIPTS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBSTANTIATING ITS NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS. 4.1 THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE INTEREST RECEIPTS OF RS.37,83,707/ - SHOWN SEPARATELY IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISTINCT AND ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND THUS THE SAID ENTIRE AMOUNT IS ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAVING REGARD TO THE DECISI ON OF THE HON'BLE LTAT, SPECIAL BENCH, DELHI IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. ALLIED CONSTRUCTION 105 ITD - 1(DELHI)(SB). 3. THE FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXECUTION OF CONTRACT WORKS FROM GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RS.37,83,707.13 AS INTERE ST RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED CASH BOOK, BANK BOOK, OTHER RELATED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, LEDGER COPIES ALONGWITH SUPPORTING BILLS/VOUCHERS RELATING, HOWEVER CONTENDED THAT THE NET PROFIT @ 10 % BE ESTIMATED ON GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS AS PER THE LA ST YEAR BUT THE BASIS WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE TOTAL RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVED IS NOT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD AND, THEREFORE, HE ESTIMATED THE INCOME @ 8% AND TREATED THE TOTAL RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIPT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.476 TO 478/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 P A G E 3 | 9 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COV ERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 BY THE ITAT, CUTTACK ORDER DATED 27.6.2017 IN ITA NO.66/CTK/.2015, WHEREIN, IT WAS DIRECTED TO THE AO TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME @ 10% OF INTEREST INCOME . 5. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA), THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO TREAT 10% OF INTEREST RECEIPTS OF RS.37,87,707/ - AMOUNTING TO RS.3,78,771/ - AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM OTHER SOURCES AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.3,78,771/ - AND DELETED T HE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.34,08,929/ - . 6. NOT SATISFIED WITH THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT B EFORE US, L D D.R. COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURES IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL QUOTED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER. HE ALSO COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON BY THE CIT(A) WHILE ESTIMATING THE INTEREST INCOME @ 10% WAS VARIED IN APPEAL BY ANY HIGHER FORUM. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND GROUND S OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. CONSEQUENTLY, SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013 - 14 AND 2015 ARE ALSO DISMISSED. ITA NOS.476 TO 478/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 P A G E 4 | 9 8. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,70,45,708/ - MADE BY THE AO U/S.69C OF THE ACT. 9. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RS.3,60,63,731/ - UNDER THE SUB - HEAD UNSECURED LOAN. IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSING OFFICERS REQUISITION, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31 ST MARCH, 2012 VIS - - VIS AT 31 ST MARCH, 2011. ON VERIFICATION OF THE SAME, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.1,69,16,768/ - AS AT 31.3.2011, WHICH IS INCREASED TO RS.3,60,63,731/ - AS AT 31.3.2012 THEREBY AN ADDITION OF RS.1,91,46,96 3/ - OVER A PERIOD OF TIME FROM 01.04.2011 TO 31.03.2012. ON FURTHER ASKED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED DETAILS OF UNSECURED LOAN AS ON 31.03.2012 THE VERIFICATION OF WHICH REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN OPENING BALANCE OF UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.3,39,62,476/ - AS AT 01.04.2012 AND SHOWN A SUM OF RS.20,21,255/ - AS ADDITION FROM THREE PERSONS/CONCERNS NAMELY SRI ASIT KUMAR CHAUDHURY OF RS.10,65,142/ - , RS.9,90,473/ - FROM SRI JAGANNATH NIRMAN UDYOG(P) LTD. AND SHOWN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.45,640/ - FR OM ONE SHRI PRAFULLA KUMAR CHAUDHURY, IND. FROM THE ABOVE ANALYSIS, IT IS SEEN THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RS. 1,69,16,768/ - AS UNSECURED LOAN AS AT 31.03.2011 YET HE HAS SHOWN RS.3,39,62,476/ - AS OPENING BALANCE AS AT 01.04.2011 WHILE FURNISHING DE TAILS OF UNSECURED LOANS THEREBY ENHANCING RS.1,70,45,708/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE NAME, ADDRESS, PAN AND CONFIRMATION FROM THE UNSECURED LOAN CREDITORS. HOWEVER, INSPITE OF OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS INCLUDING CONFIRMATIONS FROM UNSECURED LOAN CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED THE REASONS FOR DIFFERENCE IN THE CLOSING AND ITA NOS.476 TO 478/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 P A G E 5 | 9 OPENING BALANCE OF UNSECURED LOAN CREDITORS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE , DIFFERENCE IN UNSECURED LOAN INTRODUCED DURING THE YEAR AMOU N TING TO RS.1,70,45,708/ - , THE AO ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.69C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 . 10. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR 2011 - 12, THE TRANSFER FROM CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE DECREASED PARTNER (RAMA DEVI) OF RS.1,70,41,808/ - HAS BEEN SHOWN UNDER UNSECURED LOAN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31.3.2012 AND DETAILS OF WHICH WAS FURNISHED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT WAS STATED AS TRANSFER FROM CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND THERE IS NO INTRODUCTION OF ANY UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.1,70,41,808/ - . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.3900/ - FROM JAGA NNATH MULTIPLEX LTD, THE CONFIRMATION WAS SUBMITTED. 11. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE DECEASED PARTNER (RAMA DEVI) OF RS.1,70,41,808/ - HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO UNSECURED LOAN, WHICH IS PART OF BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. REGARDING SMALL AMOUNT OF RS.3900/ - , THE TRANSACTION IS WITH SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY JAGANATH MULTIPLEX LTD. AND THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED INCREASE IN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.1,70,45,708/ - AND, ACCORDING LY, HE DELETED THE ADDITION. 12. HENCE, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 13. SUPPORTING THE ASSESSMENT PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, SR. D.R. DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PARA 5 AT PAGE 5 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE CLOSING AND OPENING BALANCE OF UNSECURED LOAN CREDITORS AND THE DIF FERENCE IN UNSECURED LOAN INTRODUCED DURING THE YEAR, THEREFORE, SAME WAS RIGHTLY ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.69C OF ITA NOS.476 TO 478/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 P A G E 6 | 9 THE ACT TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. LD D.R. FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFIED REASON AND BASIS, THEREFORE, IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE BY RESTORING THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LD D.R. ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOTED IRRELEVANT FACTS I.E. THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF DECEASED PARTNER HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO UNSECURED LOAN ACCOUNT WITHOUT ANY BASIS, THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) HAS NO LEGS TO STAND. THUS, SAME MAY KINDLY BE DISMISSED BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. REP LYING TO ABOVE, LD A.R. STRENUOUSLY CONTENDED THAT UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, WHO DERIVES ITS INCOME FROM EXECUTION OF CONTRACT WORK. LD A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT SMT. RAMA DEVI WAS PARTNER IN THE AS SESSEES FIRM, WHO DIED DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL PERIOD AND CREDIT BALANCE OF HER CAPITAL ACCOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED AS UNSECURED LOAN AND THE SAME WAS ADDED IN THE UNSECURED LOAN OF CREDITOR, WHICH WAS ALSO SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS UNSECURED LOAN, WHICH RESULTED INTO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CLOSING AND OPENING BALANCE OF UNSECURED LOAN CREDITORS. LD A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THESE FACTS WERE NOTICED AND APPRECIATED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE IN THE LIGHT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND BALANCE SHEE T OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE CONFIRMED ON THIS COUNT. LD A.R. DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE 15 OF ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN, DETAILS OF UNSECURED LOAN HAS BEEN SHOWN AND AT SL. NO.12 THE NAME OF LATE (SMT. RA MA DEVI, DECEASED PARTNER LOAN) TRANSFERRED AFTER DEATH AMOUNTING TO RS.1,70,41,808/ - HAS BEEN SHOWN AS AN AMOUNT TRANSFERRED FROM CAPITAL ACCOUNT AFTER DEATH ON 14.5.2011. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ITA NOS.476 TO 478/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 P A G E 7 | 9 CONTROVERT THESE DETAILED UNSECURED LOAN AND FACTUM OF DEATH OF PARTNER OF ASSESSEES FIRM SMT. RAMA DEVI AND THE CREDIT BALANCE OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT, WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE UNSECURED LOAN ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS APPRECIATED THE EXPLANATION AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN A RIGHT PERSPECTIVE TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT, WHICH WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69C BY THE AO IS NOTHING BUT THE AMOUNT PERTAINING TO CREDIT BALANCE OF DECEASED PARTNER SMT. RAMA DEVI, WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED TO UNSECURED LOAN AFTER HER DEATH, RESULTING INTO DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING AND OPENING BALANCE OF UNSECURED LOAN AMOUNT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY AMBIGUITY, PERVERSITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TO INTERFERE. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 1 5 . GROUND NO.2 OF APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15 READS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAVING RE GARDS TO THE REASONS STATED BY THE AO IN PARA 3.0 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.74,94,928/ - MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT FROM DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD OTHER EXPENSES AND DIREC TING THE AO TO COMPUTE BUSINESS INCOME FROM CONTRACT RECEIPTS IN THE MANNER STIPULATED IN PARA 4.2 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER. 1 6 . FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ON PERUSAL OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OF FICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.4,99,66,188/ - UNDER THE HEAD OTHER EXPENSES DURING THE YEAR. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE BY PRODUCING RELEVANT BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND LEDGER ACCOUNT, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ITA NOS.476 TO 478/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 P A G E 8 | 9 DISALLOWED 15% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,99,66,188/ - WHICH COMES TO RS.74,94,928/ - AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 1 7 . ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I FIND THAT AS PER THE ORDER OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL DATED 4.6.2013, IN ITA NO.511/CTK/2012 IN APPELLANTS CONTRACTUAL INCOME IS TO BE DETERMINED @ 10% AND DEPRECIATION IS TO BE ALLOWED. S IMILARLY AS PER ANOTHER ORDER OF JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL DATED 27.6.2017 IN ITA NO.66/CTK./2015, THE APPELLANTS INCOME OUT OF INTEREST RECEIPTS IS TO BE DETERMINED @ 10%. CONSIDERING THIS THE APPELLANTS BUSINESS INCOME WILL BE RS.63,42,707/ - ( B EING 10% OF CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS OF RS.5,98,19,082/ - + 10% OF INTEREST RECEIPTS OF RS.36,07,992/ - ). FROM THIS INCOME DEPRECIATION OF RS.32,12,426/ - IS TO BE ALLOWED. INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IS TO BE TAKEN AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.64,049/ - .. ACCORDIN GLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 1 8 . BEFORE US, LD D.R. COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA AND WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY VALID REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW ON THIS ISSUE FROM THE VIEW ALREA DY TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. HENCE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 1 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. OR DER PRONOUNCED ON 4 / 0 9 /201 9 . S D/ - SD/ - (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) ( CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 4 / 0 9 /20 9 B.K.PARIDA, SPS ITA NOS.476 TO 478/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 P A G E 9 | 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER SR . PVT. S ECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), BHUBANESWAR 2. THE RESPONDENT. M/S. JAGANNATH CHAUDHURY, 98, KHARVEL NAGAR, KESHARI TALKIES COMPLEX, BHUBANESWAR 3. THE CIT(A) - 2 , BHUBANESWAR 4. PR.CIT - 2, BHUBANESWAR 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//