I.T.O Wd - 1(2),Hooghly, Hooghly V. Sri Biswajit Chatterjee, Hooghly

ITA 565/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1007 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARINDAM BHATTACHERJEE CITSRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ KATARUKA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record
• Section: 147; 131

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 565 / KOL / 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 ITO WARD-1(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KHIDINAMAORE, G.T. ROAD, HOOGHLY- 712101 V/S . SRI BISWAJIT CHATTERJEE, PROP: BELL GRAPHIC, 54, RAJA PEARY MOHAN ROAD, P.O. UTTARPARA, HOOGHLY, PIN-712258 [ PAN NO.ACUPC 2312 H ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI ARINDAM BHATTACHERJEE, ADDL. CIT-SR-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI MANOJ KATARUKA, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING 04-09-2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10-11-2017 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXVI, KOLKATA DATED 27.11.2012. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO WARD-1(2).HOOGHLY U/S 147/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 31.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. SHRI ARINDAM BHATTACHARJEE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE AND SHRI MANOJ KATAARUKA, LD. ADV OCATE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. ITA NO.565/KOL/2013 A.Y 2007-08 ITO WD-1(2) HGL. VS. SH. BISW AJIT CHATTERJEE P AGE 2 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THIS APPEAL B Y REVENUE IS DELAYED BY 45 DAYS AND REVENUE HAS FILED CONDONATION PETITION SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT STATING THE REASONS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE REASONS GIVEN IN CONDONATION PETITION D ELAY CAN BE CONDONED. IN VIEW OF CONCESSION GIVE BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.55,32,393/- TO T HE ASSESSEE. 2. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN OVER LOOKING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE RECEIPTS ROUTED THROUGH BANK A/C IN THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. 3. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT ISSUING DIRECTION U/S 150(1) TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR THOSE YEARS WHE N THE SAID INVESTMENT (UNACCOUNTED) SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, DELETE OR REV ISE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN GROUND 1 AND 2 ARE THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR 55,32,393/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. 5. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN IND IVIDUAL AND DERIVING HIS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF GRAPHIC DESIGNING. THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT BEEN FILING HIS INCOME TAX RETURN AND HE DECLARED SEVERAL BANK ACCOUNTS, POSTAL SAVINGS, MIS, FIXED DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE MUTU AL FUND IN HIS DEPOSITION U/S. 131 OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSE SSEE ALSO HAD BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE NAME OF HIS TWO MINOR DAUGHTERS. TH US, THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED HIS GROSS CONTRACTUAL RECEIPT S FOR 12,00,436/- IN HIS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. BUT ON PERUSAL OF BANK STA TEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS FOUND THAT GROSS RECEIPTS IN THE BANKS ARE AT 79,82,418/- ONLY BESIDES THE INTEREST INCOME. THUS, AO OBSERVED THAT DIFFERE NCE OF 58,81,982/- (7082418 1200436) BETWEEN GROSS RECEIPT DECLARED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN ITA NO.565/KOL/2013 A.Y 2007-08 ITO WD-1(2) HGL. VS. SH. BISW AJIT CHATTERJEE P AGE 3 VIS-A-VIS GROSS RECEIPT APPEARING IN THE BANK STATE MENT. ACCORDINGLY, AN EXPLANATION WAS SOUGHT BY THE AO FROM ASSESSEE ON A CCOUNT OF MISMATCH IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. HOWEVER, ASS ESSEE FAILED TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. THEREFORE, AO TR EATED THE DIFFERENCE OF 58,81,982/- AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 7. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HA S PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT THE APPLICATION OF HIS MIN D. IN FACT, THE BANK STATEMENTS CONTAIN CERTAIN RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF R EALISATION OF MUTUAL FUND WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS (STCG FOR SHORT) ON REALISATION OF MUTUAL FUND WAS DULY OFFERED TO TAX AS EVIDENT FROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THUS, THE E NTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON THE REALISATION OF MUTUAL FUND CANNOT BE MADE SUBJE CT TO TAX. THUS THE PROFIT EARNED ON REALISATION OF MUTUAL FUND WAS OFFERED TO TAX. BESIDES THERE WERE CERTAIN FIXED DEPOSIT WHICH MATURED IN THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION AND ACCORDINGLY, THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON SUCH FIX ED DEPOSITS WERE DULY OFFERED TO TAX. THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON THE M ATURITY OF FIXED DEPOSIT CANNOT BE MADE SUBJECT TO TAX. HOWEVER THE AO ERRED IN TREATING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF MATURITY VALUE RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE AS TA XABLE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT INCOME OF 57,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST OF MIS AND BONUS ON MATURITY WAS NOT REFLECTING IN THE BANK ST ATEMENT. BUT THE AO HAS INCLUDED THE SAME IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. THUS, IT IS A CLEAR-CUT CASE THAT AO HAS PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT THE APPLICATIO N OF HIS MIND. THE DETAILED EXPLANATION WAS FILED BEFORE AO BY ASSESSEE ALONG W ITH ALL BANK STATEMENT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EXPLAINING THE S OURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. BUT AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SAME. THE TOTAL DEPOSITS IN ALL THE SEVEN BANK ACCOUNTS CAME TO 67,98,612/- BUT AO HAS TAKEN TOTAL RECEIPTS OF 70,57,767/- ONLY. THUS, THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF 2,59,155/- WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGLY ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSES SEE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF 3,49,589/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND PLEADED ITA NO.565/KOL/2013 A.Y 2007-08 ITO WD-1(2) HGL. VS. SH. BISW AJIT CHATTERJEE P AGE 4 FOR THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCO UNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION MADE BY ASSESSEE GRANTED RELIEF IN PART BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- SUBMISSION OF THE A/R, ASSESSMENT RECORDS, ASSESSM ENT ORDER AND REMAND REPORT WERE DULY CONSIDERED. THE ASSESSING O FFICER MADE THE TOTAL OF CREDIT SIDE (RECEIPTS) IN THE BANK STATEME NT (I.E RS.70,82,418/-) AND DEDUCTED THE PROFIT SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT (I.E RS.12,00,418/-) AND TREATED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.58,81,982/- AS UND ISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE BUSINESS AND FIN ALLY AS HIS INCOME. IN THE REMAND REPORT AO HAS NOT MENTIONED HOW TOTAL OF RECEIPTS IN BANK STATEMENT OF RS.58,81,982/- IS UNDISCLOSED INCOME/I NVESTMENT. NO NEW FACTS WERE BROUGHT BY ASSESSING OFFICER. ON PERUSAL OF BANK STATEMENT AND DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE A/R IT WAS FOUND THAT INVESTMENT IN FD/NSC IS FROM EARLIER YEARS BUT MATURED DURING THE YEAR, SALE AND PURCHASE OF MFS IS OUT OF AVAILABLE HAS NOT EXAMINE D BOTH DR & CR SIDE OF BANK STATEMENT FOR COMING TO FINAL CONCLUSION OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT. SIMPLY ADDING RECEIPTS SIDE BANK STATEM ENT DOES NOT MAKE THE TRANSACTIONS UNACCOUNTED. NO EFFORT WAS MADE BY AO IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AND EVEN IN REMAND TO FIGURE OUT U NACCOUNTED RECEIPTS. THE A/R WORKED OUT UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS T O THE TUNE OF RS.3,49,589/-. AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,49,589/ - IS CONFIRMED AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.55,32,393/- IS DELETED. APPELL ANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.55,32,393/-. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 8. LD. DR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS NON- SPEAKING ORDER AND THEREFORE SAME MAY BE REMITTED B ACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOS ED INVESTMENT BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE SAME ONLY BY OBSERVING T HAT INVESTMENT ARE COMING FROM EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, SAME CANNOT B E ADDED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, NO BREAKUP OF THE INVESTMEN T COMING FROM THE EARLIER YEAR HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR BEFORE US FILED PAPER BOO K WHICH IS RUNNING FROM PAGES 1 TO 144 AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS W ERE DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE AO FAILED TO BRING ANY DEFECT IN T HE SUBMISSION OF THE ITA NO.565/KOL/2013 A.Y 2007-08 ITO WD-1(2) HGL. VS. SH. BISW AJIT CHATTERJEE P AGE 5 ASSESSEE. LD. AR IN THIS REGARD DREW OUR ATTENTION ON THE REMAND REPORT WHICH IS PLACED ON PAGES 112 TO 114 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION ON PAGES 5 TO 14 WHERE THE BANK STATEMENTS EXPLAINI NG ALL THE RECEIPTS WERE PLACED. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE T HE ADDITION WAS MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF MISMATCH BETWEEN GROSS TURN-OVER DECL ARED BY ASSESSEE VIS-A- VIS GROSS RECEIPT APPEARING IN THE BANK STATEMENT O F THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO RECONCILE THE STATEMENT AS OBSERV ED BY AO EXPLAINING THAT CERTAIN RECEIPTS IN THE BANK STATEMENTS ARE SHOWING THE MONEY RECEIPT ON THE REALIZATION OF MUTUAL FUND AS WELL AS MATURITY VALU E OF FIXED DEPOSIT. AS SUCH, THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE ON ACCOUN T OF REALIZATION OF MUTUAL FUND AS WELL AS ON MATURITY OF FIXED DEPOSIT CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO TAX. ONLY THE PROFIT EARNED BY IT CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) REVERSED THE ORDER OF AO AFTER GIVING PART RELIEF TO ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THE FACT THAT THE I NVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUND / FIXED DEPOSIT ARE COMING FROM THE EARLIER YEAR. HOW EVER, ON PERUSAL OF FIRST APPELLATE ORDER WE FIND THAT IT SUFFERED FROM SEVER AL INFIRMITIES DETAILED AS UNDER:- A) THE INVESTMENT IN FD/NSC IS COMING FROM EARLIER YEAR BUT MATURED DURING THE YEAR (07-08) I) THERE IS NO FINDING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF FD MAINT AINED BY ASSESSEE AS WELL AS HIS DAUGHTERS. II) NO BREAKUP OF FD I.E. I.E. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT VIS --VIS INTEREST AMOUNT; III) NO COMMENT WHETHER THE INTEREST ON FD WERE OFF ERED TO TAX ON THE BASIS OF CASH METHOD OR MERCANTILE METHOD. IV) NO FINDING FOR THE DEDUCTION OF TDS BY THE BANK ON THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON FD/SAVING BANK ACCOUNT; B) SALE AND PURCHASE OF MUTUAL FUND IS OUT OF AVAIL ABLE FUND BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED CAPITAL GAIN ON THE REALIZATI ON OF MUTUAL FUND FOR ITA NO.565/KOL/2013 A.Y 2007-08 ITO WD-1(2) HGL. VS. SH. BISW AJIT CHATTERJEE P AGE 6 1,06,212/- ONLY. THE GROSS SALE PROCEED OF REALIZAT ION OF MUTUAL FUND WAS SHOWN FOR 14,42,721/- WHERE THE COST PRICE OF MUTUAL FUND WAS SHOWN FOR 13,36,500/- ONLY. THUS THE GAIN OF 1,06,212/- WAS OFFERED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. BUT THERE IS NO WHISPER IN T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ABOUT SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED MUTUAL FUND. C) LD. CIT(A) IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER HAS ADMITTED T HE FACT THAT AO HAS NOT EXAMINED BOTH DEBIT AND CREDIT SIDE OF THE BANK ACCOUNT. BUT LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT COMMENTED ON ALL THE DEBIT AND CREDIT SIDE OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. D) IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY LD. CIT(A) IN HIS APPELL ATE ORDER THAT ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO PUT ANY EFFORT IN HIS A SSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AT THE STAGE OF REMAND REPORT. BUT IN THIS CASE, AL SO WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT EXERCISED HIS POWER TO FIGURE O UT THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT. E) WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE REQUISITION MADE BY THE LD . CIT(A) DURING REMAND REPORT HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) F) THE PROVISION OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT REQUI RE THE COMMISSIONER APPEAL TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN WRITING AND WITH REASONING BUT WE FIND FROM THE APPELLATE ORDER THAT WHERE HE HAS GIVEN RE LIEF TO ASSESSEE MERELY RELYING ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE. WE ALSO NOTE THAT LOT OF INFORMATION WERE SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DULY VERIFIED. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AND IN THE INTERES T OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY WE ARE INCLINED TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE AO MUST GI VE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING ORDER ON THIS POINT. ACCORDINGLY, REVENUES ISSUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 10. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN GROUND NO.3 IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ISSUING DIRECTION TO THE AO U/S 150(1) OF THE A CT TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR THOSE YEARS IN WHICH THE INVESTMENT HAD BEEN MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ITA NO.565/KOL/2013 A.Y 2007-08 ITO WD-1(2) HGL. VS. SH. BISW AJIT CHATTERJEE P AGE 7 AO MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVE STMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BUT LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AS MAD E BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THESE INVESTMENTS WERE NOT MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS PER LD. CIT(A) THIS INVESTMENTS WERE MADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE INVESTMENTS HAV E NOT BEEN MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE . 11. NOW THE REVENUE HAS AGITATED BEFORE US THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT GIVING DIRECTION TO REOPEN THE CASE OF EARLIER YEAR S OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH INVESTMENTS WERE MADE. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN GIVEN POWER U/S. 251 OF THE ACT TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF A O REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER THE PROVISION OF ACT THERE I S NO POWER AVAILABLE TO LD. CIT(A) TO GIVE DIRECTION TO AO FOR REOPENING THE CA SE OF OTHER YEARS. THE INCOME TAX ACT PROVIDES DIFFERENT SCHEMES WHEREIN T HE AO IS EMPOWERED TO ASSESS OR RE-ASSESS THE INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED AS SESSMENT. SO AT THE MOST, IF THE REVENUE WISHES TO TAX THE ESCAPEMENT O F INCOME THEN IT HAS FOLLOWED THE SCHEME PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT. THE REL EVANT PROVISIONS FOR TAXING THE ESCAPE INCOME ARE GIVEN U/S 147/263 OF T HE ACT. IN HOLDING SO, WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HON' BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. MURLIDHAR BHAGHUBABU REPORTED IN 52 ITR 335 (SC). THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED BELO W:- SECTION 33(4) OF 1922 ACT ONLY REFERS TO A FINDING OR DIRECTION MADE BY AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DOES NOT ITSELF CONFER ANY POWER ON AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A FINDING OR DIRECTION. INDEED, S ECTION 34 OF 1922 ACT DEALS WITH ENTIRELY A DIFFERENT ASPECT, THAT OF EMPOWERIN G AN ITO TO BRING TO ASSESSMENT ESCAPED INCOME, AND HAS NO CONCERN WITH THE POWERS OF AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE PROVISION WHICH DEALS WITH THE POWERS OF AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS SECTION 31 OF 1922 ACT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF MURLIDHAR BHAGHUBABU (SUPRA) WE CONCLUDE THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NO POWER UNDER THE PROVISION OF LAW FOR GIVING ANY DIRECTION TO AO FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IS CONFINE D TO THE PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH IS BEFORE HIM. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PROPOSITION, ITA NO.565/KOL/2013 A.Y 2007-08 ITO WD-1(2) HGL. VS. SH. BISW AJIT CHATTERJEE P AGE 8 WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL. CONSEQUE NTLY, REVENUES GROUND IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED PART LY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 10 /11/2017 SD/- SD/- ($ &) ( &) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (- 10 / 11 /201 7 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-ITO WARD-1(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KHDINAMOR E, G.T. ROAD HOOGHLY-712101 2. /RESPONDENT-SRI BISWAJAIT CHATTERJEE, PROP: BELL GR APHICS, 54, RAJA PEARY MOHAN ROAD, P.O. UTTARPARA, HOOGHLY, PI-712258 3. 3 4 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 4- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 7 $$3, 3, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO 3,