Narayan Market Complex, Bhubaneswar V. ITO, Bhubaneswar

ITA 490/CTK/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 49022114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: S D NAYAKK K BAL ARS
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INC O ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE : SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 490/CTK/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06) NARAYAN MARKET COMPLEX, 48, ASHOK NAGAR,BHUBANESWAR PAN: AADFN 7720 M VERSUS INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BHUBANESWAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S.D.NAYAK/K.K.BAL, ARS FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI S.C.MOHANTY, DR DATE OF HEARING : 12.04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.04.2012 ORDER SHRI K.K.GUPTA, AM : THIS AP PEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON THE SOLITARY ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO GENERATION OF INCOME FROM A MARKET COMPLEX CONSTRUCTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLOITING IT COMMERCIALLY AND RETURNED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS HAS BEEN HELD TO BE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY FOR COMPU TATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 2. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DECLARING LOSS OF 13,243 BEING THE RESIDUAL AMOUNT OF LEASE RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM VARIOUS COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS AFTER INCURRING EXPENDITURE FOR THE COMMON AREA AND OTHER SECURITY AND SERVICES EXTENDED BEING INCURRED FOR RUNNING THE MARKET COMPLEX. THE CLA IM OF INTEREST PAID TO THE BANK ON THE TERM LOAN UTILISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING WAS ON OTHE PARTNERS WHICH WAS NEGATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL STOR AGE PVT. LTD. V. CIT (66ITR 596) AND SAMBHU INVESTMENT PVT. V. CIT (263 ITR 143). THE RECEIPTS BY WAY OF LEASE RENT WERE BROUGHT TO TAX BY GIVING STATUTORY DEDUCTION U/S.24 OF THE ACT . ITA NO.490/CTK/2011 2 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INITIATING HIS ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIANCE IN CITING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL STO RAGE PVT. LTD. VRS. CIT BOMBAY ( 66 ITR 596 ) , WAS MISPLACED W HEREIN HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAD DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND CONFIRMED THE JUD GMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY. EARLIER THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES INCOME FROM LETTING OUT OF PROPERTY AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. HENCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED CITING A WRONG JUDGMENT IS CLEAR CASE OF NON APPLICATION OF MIND AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE FORUM S BELOW SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, CONSTITUTED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1994 WITH A SOLE OBJECT TO CARRY ON MARKET COMPLEX BUSINESS BY UTILIZING THE SM ALL SHARE OF THE PARTNERS. THE ASSESS EE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE INCOME EARNED FROM THE PROPERTY IS NOT BY UTILIZING ITS PROPERTY RIGHT BUT BY COMMERCIALLY EXPLOITING THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT TREATING THE ENTIRE INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS IS TOTALLY WRONG. O RIGINALLY THE LAND WAS ALLOTTED IN THE NAME OF LATE LOKANATH MISHRA WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO USE THE LAND FOR COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS. AFTER THE SAD DEMISE OF LAT E LOAKANATH MISHRA THE LAND WAS DIVIDED AMONG THE COPARCENERS. SHARE OF EACH COPARCENER WAS SO SMALL THAT THE COMMERCIAL UTILIZATION OF INDIVIDUAL SHARE WAS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE. SO THEY DECIDED TO FORM A PARTNERSHIP, OFFERED THEIR INDIVIDUAL SHARE, CONSTRUCT ED MARKET COMPLEX AND EARNED INCOME. SO THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS BY CARRYING ON ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. T HE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX IS EXCLUSIVELY PART OF ITS COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY THEREFORE THE INCOME EARNED SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. T HE ASSESSEE RECEIVED INCOME ITA NO.490/CTK/2011 3 WAS NOT A BAE LETTING OF THE TENEMENT AS IT IS ALSO PROVIDING OTHER INCIDENTAL SERVICES LIKE ELECTRICIAN, PLUMBER, SWEEPER, WATCH AND WARD, AND A C LERK FOR COLLECTION AND DEPOSIT OF ELECTRICITY BILLS WATER BILLS ETC. AND RECEIVED REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUCH EXPENSES SEPARATELY. THEREFORE INCOME RECEIVED IS BY EXPLOITING THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF THE PARTNERS BY WAY OF COMPLEX COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES IS COMP LEX ONE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME SINCE 1994 OFFER ING THE ENTIRE INCOME FROM THE MARKET COMPLEX AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN ACCEPTING THE SAME WITHOUT ANY O BJECTION. UNFORTUNATELY DURING THIS YEAR THE DEPARTMENT CHANGED ITS VIEW AND ASSESSED THE ENTIRE INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFIABLE GROUND. HERE THE AO HAS ACTED MECHANICALLY WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE EARLIER FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES. SINCE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY ARE RULE IN GENERAL THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT DEPART FROM THE EARLIER PRACTICE WITHOUT ANY COGENT REASON OR JUSTIFIABLE GROUND. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE STUCK TO THEI R STAND INSPITE OF THE FACT S BROUGHT O N RECORD BY THEMSELVES REGARDING THE COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OF THE PROPERTY SPECIALLY WHEN THE BANK WAS PREPARED TO GRANT TERM LOAN ON THE BASIS OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN BY THE PARTNERS WAS ON THE BASIS OF THE AMOUNT OF B USINESS RECEIPTS BEING THE LEASE RENT OBTAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. AT NO POINT OF TIME, THE LEASE RENT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY INSOFAR AS COMMERCIAL VENTURES OF THE BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS LESSEES DO NOT INDICATE RENT TO BE PAID FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD ONLY . THE BANKS AND THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES WERE THEREFORE CLEAR IN GRANTING SANCTION TO THE FIRM FOR EXPLOITING THE MARKET COMPLEX AS A BUSINESS ACTIVIT Y INSOFAR AS THE LESSEES HAD NO HOLD OF THE COMMON AREA OR THE SECURITY AND SANITATION SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEY ENJOYED ITA NO.490/CTK/2011 4 THE PREMISES OCCUPATION ON THE ASSESSEES CONTROL OF THE COMPLEX. THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM TO GET THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE SAME FROM THESE LESSEES IN ORDER TO ESTABL ISH THAT THE INCOME THERE FROM HAS TO BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF SAMBHU INVESTMENT PVT. V. CIT (263 ITR 143) RATHER LEAN IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE WHEN IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE MAIN INTENTION WAS TO EXPLOIT THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY COMMERCIALLY AND IN THAT EVENT IT IS TO BE HELD AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE LEARNED CIT(A) MISDIRECTED HIMSELF TO CONSTRUE THAT THIS DECISION FAVOURS THE DEPARTMEN T INSOFAR AS THE COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS UTILISING THE PROPERTY FOR THEIR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE SAID TO BE HOLDING THEM TO BE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES WHEN THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN A RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY INSOFAR AS DETERMIN ATION OF ANNUAL LETTING OUT VALUE HAS BEEN ON THE BASIS OF STANDARD RENT OBTAINED FROM THAT PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) MISDIRECTED HIMSELF TO HOLD THAT THE PROPERTY WAS NOT WOROTHY OF COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION. HE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT ON THE F ACTS RELATING TO THE PROPERTY HAVING BEEN COMMERCIALLY EXPLOITED IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT NO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED O N EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE LESSEES. THE INTEREST WAS CLAIMED O N THE BASIS OF THE BANK LOANS TO THE PARTNERS WHICH WERE SPECI FICALLY GRANTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX WHEN THE GROUND AND FIRST FLOOR WERE ALREADY GIVEN SANCTION FOR CARRYING OUT COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. THE REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN WAS FROM THE PARTNERS WHEN THEY INTRODUCED THE COST OF B UILDING AS THEIR SHARE OF THE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION WAS ON THE BASIS OF LOAN OBTAINED FROM THE BANK WHO WERE ASSURED OF REPAYMENT BY CARRYING ON THE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. HE POINTED TO THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS NOTED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE ITA NO.490/CTK/2011 5 CONSTRUCTION WAS ON THE BASIS OF A BANK LOAN WH ICH THE PARTNERS THEMSELVES HAD OBTAINED OR REPAID WAS NOT THE ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION EITHER BEFORE THE AO LEADING TO A FINDING THAT A SUPER STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED WAS FOR T HE PURPOSE OF LETTING OUT TO BE RENDERED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL STORAGE P. LTD (SUPRA) WHEN THE AO MISDIRECTED HIMSELF TO HOLD THAT THE SAID DECISION STOOD COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY HIM IN HIS ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF THE SANCTIONS OBTAINED FROM THE BANK, MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES AND ALSO THE VARIOUS REC EIPTS FOR CHARGING THE TENANTS FOR COMMON AREA IS MORE THAN THE REIMBURSEMENT ALLOWED THE LESSEE S FROM CARRYING OUT COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES WHICH UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN BE A NEGATIVE FIGURE AS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THE RECEIPTS AS INC OME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CONSIDERED THE ALLOWABILITY OF INTEREST PAID TO THE BANK IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM INSOFAR AS THE LOAN HAD BEEN OBTAINED IN THE NAME OF THE PARTNERS COLLECTIVELY WHEN THE REPAYMEN T TO THE BANK WAS FROM THE FIRM. THE DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T.ACT AND THEREFORE, AS THE MUNICIPALITY GAVE PERMISSION IN ACCORDANCE FOR THE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES TO BE CARRIED OUT, WAS BUSINESS ASSET FOR CLA IMING DEPRECIATION. THE PARTNERSHIP WAS ESTABLISHED TO EXPLOIT THE PROPERTY COMMERCIALLY WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE BANK THEREFORE CLINCHES THE INTENTION AND THE ACTUAL CONDUCT OF BUSINESS OF EXPLOITING THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY .THIS THEREFORE BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN BE RENDERED TO TAX AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BY GIVING STATUTORY DEDUCTIONS FOR REPAIRS ETC., U/S.24.HE PRAYED THAT THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS BE DIRECTED TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. HE SUPPORTED THE ITA NO.490/CTK/2011 6 EAR LIER ASSESSMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN SUC H RETURNS FROM BUSINESS ACTIVITY HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. 4. THE LEARNED DR OPPOSED THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE MOOT QUESTION WAS TO BE FIND OU T FROM THE LESSEES WHETHER WERE PAYING RENT FOR ENJOYMENT OF A HOUSE PROPERTY AND NOT FOR CARRYING ON BUSINESS ACTIVITIES INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED IN THE PARTNERS HIP DEED INDICATING AS TO WHY THE CAPITAL WAS P OOLED AS THEIR RESOURCES FOR CONSTRUCTING A COMMERCIAL COMPLEX TO BE EXPLOITED NOT BY CARRYING ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES BUT BY LETTING OUT TO DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS. THE VARIOUS EXPENDITURES INCURRE D BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SECURITY, SANITATION AND OTHER SERVICES ARE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ESTIMATE FOR WHICH NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED. THE SANCTION FROM THE BANK OR MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES DOES NOT INDICATE ANY INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO CA RRY ON EXPLOITATION OF A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY FOR ITS BUSINESS. HE FULLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT THE CASE LAWS CITED AT THE BAR AND CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) RATHER LEANS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. IT A PPEARS THE ENDEAVOR OF THE TAXINGAUTHORITIES TO REFUSE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF RENDERING INCOME FROM BUSINESS ACTIVITIES BY HOLDING THE ANNUAL LETTING OUT VALUE SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24(B). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RATHER MI SDIRECTED HIMSELF TO HOLD THE CASE LAWS CITED BY HIM LEANING IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT WHEN ACTUAL LY THE DEPARTMENT S APPEAL HAD BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT ON ITA NO.490/CTK/2011 7 THE FINDING AS WAS THAT THE PARTNERS POOLED THEIR RESOURCES FOR CARRYING ON AN A D VENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AND SUBJECTED TO HIR ING OUT THE COMPLEX. THIS PARTICULAR VENTURE OR CONCERN WAS CONSIDERED TAXABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SAMBHU INVESTMENT PVT. V. CIT (SUPRA). HERE AGAIN THE HO NBLE APEX COURT DISTINGUISHED THE METHOD OF FINDING OUT THE INTENTION OF THE INCOME WHETHER BEING TAXED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES WAS MISCONSTRUED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON EXTRANEOUS CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF COUL D NOT HAVE UTILISED THE PROPERTY FOR ITS OWN COMMERCIAL VENTURE WHEN THE MANUFACTURING UNIT HAD BEEN SHIFTED TO MANCHESWAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE AREA. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS OBSERVATION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) RATHER LEANS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE ES CLAIM THAT THE BANK TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY OF THIS PROJECT TO GRANT LOAN WHICH PARTNERS POOLED THEIR RESOURCES TO REPAY THE LOAN AND LET OUT THE PROPERTY TO THE COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS FOR EARNING INCOME AGAINST WHICH INCIDENTAL E XPENSES INCURRED FOR CARRYING OUT SUCH ACTIVITIES WERE DENIED . THE DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST THEREFORE BECOMES AN INTEGRAL PART FOR EARNING THE INCOME CANNOT BE LOST SIGHT OFF WHEN THERE IS SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR CLAIMING THE SAME FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM HIGHER DEPRECIATION THAT WHAT IS ALLOWABLE BY LAW. IT IS ALSO NOT THECLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE PROFIT IN THE FORM OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS BY EARNING MORE INTEREST THAN WHAT HAS BEEN PAID TO THE BANK. THE ASSE SSEES CONTENTION THEREFORE BECOMES CLEAR INSOFAR AS IT RENDERED ITS INCOME , RESIDUAL TO RECEIPTS FROM THE LESSEES ON ACCOUNT OF ELECTRICITY, WATER CHARGES ETC., WHICH ARE THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES FROM THE ASSESSEE TO CHARGE FOR THEIR PORTION AND INCUR THE REMAINING FOR ITSELF ALONG WITH THE MAINTENANCE AND PROVIDING SECURITY WAS IN THE NATURE OF CARRYING OUT COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES AND NOT FOR ITA NO.490/CTK/2011 8 THE PURPOSE OF LETTING IT OUT AS HOUSE PROPERTY. ON PERUSAL OF ST HE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE APPELLATE ORDER, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ONCE THE ADOPTION FOR TAXING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS MADE THE VARIOUS FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES LEAD ING TO THE INTENTION OF EXPLOITING THE PROPER TY AS COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES HAS BEEN GIVEN A GO BY BY BOTH THE AUTHO RITIES. THE LEARNED DR S EMPHASIS ON OBTAINING THE LEASE AGREEMENT WOULD BE OF NO AVAIL TO ESTABLISH THE INTENTION OF EARNING OF INCOME AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF PAYMENT OF LEASE RENT AS THEY THEMSELVES ARE BUSINESS ENTITIES . IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER T HAT THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE WILL DIFFER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS PROVIDED UNDER LAW. FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND NOT INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SD/ - (K.K.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATE: 13.04.2012 H.K.PADHEE, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT: NARAYAN MARKET COMPLEX, 48, ASHOK NAGAR,BHUBANESWAR 2. THE RESPONDENT: INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BHUBANESWAR. 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE DR, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY.