Debottor Trust Estate of Rammohan Mullick, Kolkata V. ITO, WD-43(4), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 578/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1665 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURAV KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: B CHAKRABORTY
• Keywords: Period of limitation
• Section: 143(3); 263; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH (SMC), KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY] I.T.A. NO. 578/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. DEBOTTOR TRUST ESTATE OF RAMMOHAN MULLICK.............................APPELLANT 39, JATINDRA MOHAN AVENUE, KOLKATA - 700005 [PAN : AAATD5679A] I.T.O. WARD 43(4), KOLKATA...................RESPONDENT 3, GOVT. PLACE GROUND FLOOR KOLKATA - 700001 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI B. CHAKRABORTY, CA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI SAURAV KUMAR, ADDL CIT APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JULY 28, 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : AUGUST 25, 2017 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) 13, KOLKATA DATED 30.12.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED WHILE REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHRI HEMENDRA MUYLLICK, A TRUSTEE OF DEBOTTOR TRUST ESTATE OF RAMMOHAN MULLICK AT THE MATERIAL TIME IN THE INSTANT CASE, WAS A REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 160(1)(IV) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 161(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN THE INSTANT CASE AND FOR THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS WHOLLY ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND BAD IN LAW IN THE INSTANT CASE. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT IN THE STATUS OF AOP IN THE INSTANT CASE AND FOR THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS WHOLLY ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND BAD IN LAW IN THE INSTANT CASE. 2 I.T.A. NO. 578/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2006-07 M/S DEBOTTOR TRUST ESTATE OF RAMMOHAN MULLICK 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED IN DRAW HIS CONCLUSION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS A PRIVATE DISCRETIONARY TRUST AND THT THE INCOME OF THE TRUST I.E. DEBOTTOR TRUST ESTATE OF RAMMOHAN MULLICK WAS LIABLE TO ASSESSMENT AS PER SECTION 164OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN THE INSTANT CASE AND HENCE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS WHOLLY ARBITRARY, TOTALLY MISCONCEIVED AND THOROUGHLY ILLEGAL IN THE INSTANT CASE. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER SUFFERS FROM SEVERAL MISTAKES WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND FOR THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY AND WHOLLY WITHOUT ANY JURISDICTION AND THOROUGHLY ILLEGAL IN THE INSTANT CASE. 5. THAT THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A)-13, KOLKATA CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE, IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, TOTALLY MISCONCEIVED AND WHOLLY BAD IN LAW IN THE INSTANT CASE. 6. THAT FOR ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH THE APPELLANT MAY RAISE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL IN THE INSTANT CASE. 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL ON THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION. AS THIS IS A LEGAL GROUND, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INVESTIGATION INTO FRESH FACTS AND AS IT IS A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, WE ADMIT THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND. THIS GROUND READS AS FOLLOWS: THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 01.03.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 253(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS TIME BARRED AND FULLY BAD IN LAW. 3. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. ITAT, KOLKATA AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), KOLKATA. THE LD. ITAT SMC C BENCH, KOLKATA, 3 I.T.A. NO. 578/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2006-07 M/S DEBOTTOR TRUST ESTATE OF RAMMOHAN MULLICK VIDE ORDER DATED 16.03.2011 IN ITA NO. 178/KOL/2011 SET ASIDE THE CASE TO THE FILE OF A.O. FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT. 2. THE SAID ORDER DATED 16/03/2011 PASSED BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL WAS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSIONER ON 13/04/2011 I.E. WITHIN FINANCIAL YEAR ENDED ON 31/03/2012 IN THE INSTANT CASE. 3. THE TIME LIMIT FOR MAKING THE FRESH ASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED TRIBUNAL ORDER WAS GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 153(2A) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, READ WITH THE SECOND PROVISO THERETO WHICH WAS IN FORCE AT THE MATERIAL TIME IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS AS UNDER: (2A) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTIONS (1), (1A), (1B) AND (2) IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1971 AND ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, ON ORDER OF FRESH ASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OR SECTION 254 OR SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 SETTING ASIDE OR CANCELLING AN ASSESSMENTS MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OR SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BUY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER. SECOND PROVISO TO THIS SUB-SECTION AS INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2006, WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2006 WAS AS UNDER: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2005, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL HAVE EFFECT AS IF FOR THE WORDS ONE YEAR, THE WORDS NINE MONTHS HAD BEEN SUBSTITUTED. 4. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF LAW WHICH WERE APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE FRESH ASSESSMENT WAS ESSENTIALLY REQUIRED TO BE MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF NINE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING ON 31.03.2012 I.E. WITHIN 31.12.2012 IN THE INSTANT CASE. 5 IT IS APPARENT FROM THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SAID ORDER WAS MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON 1-1-2013 I.E. AFTER EXPIRY 4 I.T.A. NO. 578/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2006-07 M/S DEBOTTOR TRUST ESTATE OF RAMMOHAN MULLICK OF THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD AND HENCE THE SAID ORDER IS TIME BARRED AND WHOLLY BAD IN LAW IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE LEARNED SENIOR DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT NO SUCH GROUND HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE AVERAGE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HE ARGUED THAT THIS GROUND SHOULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED. ALTERNATIVELY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN TIME AND IS NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION. 5. HEARD BOTH SIDES. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS ON RECORDS WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: 6. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH IN ITA NO. 178/KOL/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, ORDER DATED 16.03.2011, WAS ADMITTEDLY RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, W.B XIV, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ROOM NO. 39, 2 ND FLOOR, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA 700069 ON 13.04.2011 . THIS FACT IS CONFIRMED IN THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT KOLKATA, ON AN APPLICATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF THE SAME IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS FACT. THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 WAS PASSED ON 01.01.2013. ON THESE FACTS IT HAS TO BE EXAMINED AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION OR NOT. 7. SECTION 153 LAYS DOWN TIME LIMITS OF COMPLETION OF THE AND ASSESSMENTS. SECTION 153 (2A) WHICH GOVERNED THIS ISSUE READS AS FOLLOWS: 5 I.T.A. NO. 578/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2006-07 M/S DEBOTTOR TRUST ESTATE OF RAMMOHAN MULLICK [(2A) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTIONS (1) 36[, (1A), (1B)] AND (2), IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1971, AND ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, AN ORDER OF FRESH ASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OR SECTION 254 OR SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264, SETTING ASIDE OR CANCELLING AN ASSESSMENT, MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OR SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE 37[PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR 37[PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED BY THE 37[PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR 37[PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER: PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OR SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE 37[PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR 37[PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED BY THE 38[PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR 38[PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER, ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1999 BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2000, SUCH AN ORDER OF FRESH ASSESSMENT MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME UP TO THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2002 :] 39 [ PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE 40[PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR 40[PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE , THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED BY THE 40[PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2005 41[BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2011], THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL HAVE EFFECT AS IF FOR THE WORDS 'ONE YEAR', THE WORDS 'NINE MONTHS' HAD BEEN SUBSTITUTED:] 42 [ PROVIDED ALSO THAT WHERE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE 43[PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR 43[PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED BY THE 43[PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2006 41[BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2010], AND DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE FRESH ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME, A REFERENCE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 92CA (I) WAS MADE BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007 BUT AN ORDER UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 92CA HAS NOT BEEN MADE BEFORE SUCH DATE; OR (II) IS MADE ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE SECOND PROVISO, HAVE EFFECT AS IF FOR THE WORDS 'ONE YEAR', THE WORDS 'TWENTY-ONE MONTHS' HAD BEEN SUBSTITUTED:] 44 [ PROVIDED ALSO THAT WHERE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE 45[PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR 45[PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED BY THE 45[PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2010, AND DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDING FOR THE FRESH ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME, A REFERENCE UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 92CA IS MADE, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE SECOND PROVISO, HAVE EFFECT AS IF FOR THE WORDS 'ONE YEAR', THE WORDS 'TWO YEARS' HAD BEEN SUBSTITUTED.] 6 I.T.A. NO. 578/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2006-07 M/S DEBOTTOR TRUST ESTATE OF RAMMOHAN MULLICK 8 IN THIS CASE THE 2 ND PROVISO TO SECTION 153(2A) APPLIES. IN THIS PROVISO, THE WORDING BUT BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2011 WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 01.07.2012. AS THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY THE CIT ON 13.04.2011, THIS AMENDMENT WILL NOT APPLY TO THE CASE ON HAND. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAD VESTED RIGHT AND THE AO WAS BOUND TO COMPLETE THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 WITHIN NINE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE F.Y. IN WHICH THE ORDER IS RECEIVED. 8.1 THE NINE MONTH PERIOD PROVIDED FOR IN THE SECOND PROVISO ENDS ON 31.12.2012. THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 14 OF 2006 DATED 28.12.2006 IN ITS EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE PROVISIONS RELATING AMENDMENTS TO DIRECT TAXES BY FINANCE ACT, 2006, AT PARA 37 EXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS: 37. REDUCTION OF THE TIME LIMITS PROVIDED FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT AND REASSESSMENT 37.1 THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153 PROVIDE THE TIME-LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS. SECTION 153B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT PROVIDES THE TIME-LIMIT OR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT IN CASES WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS HAVE BEEN REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A. THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17A OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT PROVIDE THE TIME-LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS OF THE NET WEALTH. 37.2. THE TIME-LIMITS SPECIFIED FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS IN SECTIONS 153 AND 153B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, AND IN SECTION 17A OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT HAVE BEEN REVISED SO THAT THE DEMAND RAISED DURING A FINANCIAL YEAR CAN BE COLLECTED IN THE SAME YEAR. THE REVISED TIME-LIMITS SHALL BE THE TIME-LIMITS SPECIFIED UNDER THE AFORESAID SECTIONS, AS REDUCED BY THREE MONTHS. 37.3. THESE AMENDMENTS HAVE TAKEN EFFECT FROM 1 ST JUNE, 2006. 7 I.T.A. NO. 578/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2006-07 M/S DEBOTTOR TRUST ESTATE OF RAMMOHAN MULLICK 9. ON THE ISSUE OF THE RETROSPECTIVITY OF THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN BY FINANCE ACT 2012 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS RIGHT IN RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL DRILL DOCTYPES VS CIT (2005) 279 ITR 310 (SC) WHEREIN IT HELD AS FOLLOWS: AS WAS AFFIRMED BY THIS COURT IN GOSLINO MARIO [2000] 241 ITR 314, A CARDINAL PRINCIPLE OF THE TAX LAW IS THAT THE LAW TO BE APPLIED IS THAT WHICH IS IN FORCE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED EXPRESSLY OR BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION (SEE ALSO : RELIANCE JUTE AND INDUSTRIES LTD. VS CIT [1979] 120 ITR 921 (SC), [1980] 1 SCC 139]. AN EXPLANATION TO A STATUTORY PROVISION MAY FULFIL THE PURPOSE OF CLEARING UP AN AMBIGUITY IN THE MAIN PROVISION OR AN EXPLANATION CAN ADD TO AND WIDEN THE SCOPE OF THE MAIN SECTION. IF IT IS IN ITS NATURE CLARIFICATORY THEN THE EXPLANATION MUST BE READ INTO THE MAIN PROVISION WITH EFFECT FROM THE TIME THAT THE MAIN PROVISION CAME INTO FORCE. BUT IF IT CHANGES THE LAW IT IS NOT PRESUMED TO BE RETROSPECTIVE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE PHRASES USED ARE IT IS DECLARED OR FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD 01.01.2013 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. HENCE I CANCEL THIS ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH AUGUST, 2017. SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 25/08/2017 BISWAJIT, SR. PS 8 I.T.A. NO. 578/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2006-07 M/S DEBOTTOR TRUST ESTATE OF RAMMOHAN MULLICK COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. DEBOTTOR TRUST ESTATE OF RAMMOHAN MULLICK, KOLKATA 2. ITO, WARD 43(4), KOLKATA 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. DR TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SR. P.S. / H.O.O. ITAT, KOLKATA