ITO, WD-47(3), KOLKATA, Kolkata V. Sri Ramanand Kedia, Howrah

ITA 594/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9546 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 31-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: M D SHAH
• Keywords: Non compliance
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 68; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM ./ ITA NO.594/KOL/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08) ITO WARD-47(3), 3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST). KOLKATA-700001 VS. SRI RAMANAND KEDIA, 108/4/1, ADINATH APARTMENT, G.T.ROAD, HOWRAH-711 106 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AKCPK 4042 N ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL, JCIT SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.D.SHAH, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 21/12/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13/01/2017 / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTAIN ING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-14, KOLKATA, I N APPEAL NO.79/CIT(A)-14/WD-46(3)/12-13, DATED 13.03.2015, W HICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO ) UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (IN SHORT THE A CT), DATED 31.12.2009. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE QUA THE ASSESSEE ARE THA T THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING O F CLOTHS. ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,06,368/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTE D FOR SCRUTINY AND STATUTORY NOTICE U/S.143(2) WAS ISSUED. THEREAFTER THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. ITA NO.594/15 SRI RAMANAND KEDIA 2 3. AGGRIEVED FROM THE ORDER OF LD. AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE A DDITIONS MADE BY THE AO, BY OBSERVING THE FOLLOWINGS :- 5.1.3 AS REGARDS THE LEGALITY OF THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THE A/R RELIED ON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, WHEREAS THE NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO BE SERVED IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN UNDER RULE 12-15 OF ORDER V OF CIVIL PROC EDURE CODE, 1908. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF CIT V. RAJESH KUMA R SHARMA [2009] 311 ITR 235 (DEHI), THE A/R CONTENDED THAT W HERE THE ASSESSEE DENIES RECEIPT OF SUCH NOTICE AND THE ASSE SSING OFFICER CLAIMS THAT IT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY SOME ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS FOR THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PERSON TO WHOM NOTICE WAS SERVED WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE ASSESSEE TO RECEIVE TH E SAME. IN THIS AFFIDAVIT, THE APPELLANT FURTHER STATED THAT :- '4. THAT THE ALLEGATION THAT NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED UPON MY MINOR DAUGHTER IS ALSO DENIED AS MY DAUGHTE R DID NOT HANDOVER ANY NOTICE OF HEARING TO ME FOR THE A. Y. 2007- 2008 AND IT MAY SO HAPPEN THAT SHE UNKNOWINGLY SIGN ED THE TEAR-OFF SLIP WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE IMPLICATION THEREOF. 5. THAT IN ANY EVENT, SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON MINOR DAUGHTER IS NOT A VALID SERVICE.' IT IS THUS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A RE INVALID. 5.1.4 DECISION: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT DENIES TO HAVE RECEIVE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2) OF THE ACT, IN HIS SWORN AFFIDAVIT, HE ADMITTED THAT IT MAY HAPPEN THA T HIS MINOR DAUGHTER UNKNOWINGLY SIGNED THE TEAR OFF SLIP WITHO UT UNDERSTANDING THE IMPLICATION THEREOF. HIS CONTENTI ON IS THAT IN ANY EVENT, THE SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON MINOR DAUGHTER IS NOT A VALID SERVICE. THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT T HE APPELLANT RESPONDED TO NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2) SEEKING FOR A DJOURNMENT, HE HAS NOT MENTIONED THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE SAID N OTICE. IN CIT V. AVI-OIL INDIA (P.) LTD. [2010]323 ITR 242 (PUNJ.&HA R.), IT HAD BEEN HELD THAT RESORT CANNOT BE HAD TO SECTION 292B TO V ALIDATE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF SERVICE AS POSTULATED IN S ECTION 143(2). AS REGARDS THE LAST NOTICE ISSUED ON 24-11-2009 FIX ING THE HEARING ON 01-12-2009, THE EMOTIONAL FINDING OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AS EARLIER REPRODUCED, HAS BEEN THAT 'BEING ENCUMBERED BY THE LUGGAGE OF NON COMPLIANCE SETTING ASIDE VOLLEY OF R EQUESTS THE ASSESSEE AGAIN LETTERED ON 24-11-2009 TO APPEAR ON 01-12-2009 TO APPEAR THE DATE FIXED FOR FINAL OPPORTUNITY BUT THE LETTER WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS IGN ORED TO ITA NO.594/15 SRI RAMANAND KEDIA 3 RECEIVE THE SAME. THE DEPARTMENTAL NOTICE SERVER AL SO MENTIONED THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE SCENARIO IT IS CLEARLY REF LECTED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE CAST AN IMPACT ON THE ASSESSEE FOR WHOM IT LOST ITS IMPORTANCE AND SIGNIF ICANCE WITHIN THE FRAME WORK OF THE ACT'. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADMIT TED THAT THE SAID NOTICE UNDER SEC. 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS NOT SERVED. BUT, HERE AGAIN, HE HAS NOT RECORDED ANY CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT TH E ASSESSEE REFUSED TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE TO ENTITLE HIM TO COM PLETE THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT PROVIDING ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS NOT FOLLOWED OTHER MODES OF SERVICE OF NOTIC E UNDER SEC. 142(1) EVEN IF THE EARLIER NOTICES WERE DELIBERATEL Y IGNORED. IN ANY CASE, THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OU GHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 144, WHERE IT IS LAID DOWN THAT 'SUCH OPPORTUNITY SHALL BE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER BY SERVING A NOTICE CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE, O N A DATE AND TIME TO BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE, WHY THE ASSESSM ENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT'. THUS, FR OM THE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED FOR FURTHER O PPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE. LACK OF OPPORTUNITY RENDERS THE A SSESSMENT AB INITIO INVALID. HOWEVER, THE SECOND GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION IS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OR MER IT AND THE SAME IS REJECTED. 5.1.5 NOW, COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS TO THE INCOME RETU RNED: 1. UNSECURED LOAN GIVEN TO SMT. MINA DEVI KEDIA RS. 1,22,500/- 2. SUNDRY CREDITORS AS APPEARING IN BALANCE-SHEET RS.1 ,26,36,671/- 3. DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES RS. 9,671/- FOR PERSONAL USE. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.1,22,500/ - ON ACCOUN T OF UNSECURED LOAN GIVEN TO SMT. MINA DEVI KEDIA, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT SECTION 68 COMES INTO PLAY ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT ENTRIES A ND NOT IN RESPECT OF AN ASSET SHOWN IN THE BALANCE- SHEET. THIS ADDIT ION BEING FRIVOLOUS IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. REGARDING THE AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITORS TO THE EXTENT OF RS .1,26,36,671/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THIS WAS THE CLOSI NG BALANCE AGAINST PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,58,07,063/-. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE UNDER SEC. 68 OF THE ACT TREATING THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AS BOGUS AND SPURIOUS BECAUSE OF NON-COMP LIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES AND FAILURE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM IN THE RETURN. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS NOT AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES. SECONDLY, THERE IS NO EVIDEN CE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO REMOTELY SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS MADE ANY EFFORT TO ASCERTAIN THE REAL STATE OF AFFAIRS OF TH E APPELLANT'S BUSINESS ACTIVITIES BY CONDUCTING LOCAL ENQUIRIES OR OTHER E NQUIRIES AS HE DEEMED FIT. THIRDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISBELIEVED THE ITA NO.594/15 SRI RAMANAND KEDIA 4 TRADING ACCOUNT, ESPECIALLY THE PURCHASES, AND THER EFORE, WITHOUT BRINGING EVEN AN EVIDENCE ON RECORD, HE COULD NOT HAVE TREATED THE ENTIRE BALANCE ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AS BO GUS OR SPURIOUS. IN MARGHABHAI KISHABHAI PATEL & CO. V. CLT [1977] 1 08 LTR 54(GUJ), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT UNLESS THE TRANSACTION IS PRO VED AS SHAM OR NOT BONA FIDE, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE TAX AUTHORITIE S TO DISREGARD THE FIGURES OF TRANSACTIONS SHOWN IN THE ASSESSEE'S BOO KS OF ACCOUNT. THIS ADDITION OF RS.1,26,36,671/- IS ALSO WITHOUT P ROPER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THEREFO RE, THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. COMING TO THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE AT RS.9671/-, IN MY VIEW, LOOKING TO THE EXTENT OF THE BUSINESS, THE EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD TO UNJUSTIFIED OR UNWARRANTED. IN ANY CASE, THE ADDITIONS MADE WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND WITH OUT BRINING ANY COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD OR COMPARATIVE STUDY OF P AST RECORDS, EVEN IF IT IS A BEST JUDGMENT, DO NOT STAND TO THE TEST OF LAW. 5.1.6 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT IS ANNULLED. THE TWO GROUNDS OF APPE AL ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 4. NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) , THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ANNULLING THE ASSE SSMENT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MADE AS PER LAW. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RENDERING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER VOID AB INITIO ALTHOUGH SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE A DDITION OF ALLEGED UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.1,22,500/- WAS FRIVOLOUS IN NA TURE. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE A DDITION OF RS.1,26,36,671/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WAS MADE WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.9,671/- ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER A ND / OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF HEARI NG. 5.LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVE NUE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT WI THOUT APPRECIATING THE ITA NO.594/15 SRI RAMANAND KEDIA 5 FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MADE AS PER LAW. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN RENDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER VOID AB INITIO AL THOUGH SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 15.09.2008 WAS SERVED ON THE DAUGH TER OF THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH IT IS A FACT THAT THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESS EE WAS MINOR, TILL SHE IS ONE OF THE CLOSEST FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS V ERY HARD TO BELIEVE THAT SHE WOULD NOT HANDOVER THE NOTICE TO HER FATHER OR ANY SENIOR MEMBER OF THE FAMILY. THE ASSESSEE IS WILLFULLY TAKING THE PLACE OF MINOR ITY OF HIS DAUGHTER TO AVOID HIS TAX LIABILITY. 5.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT SERVICE OF NOTICE ON MINOR CHILD IS NOT CONSIDERE D A VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE. THAT IS, SERVICE OF NOTICE ON MINOR CHILD IS CONSIDERED, AS IF NO NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON SECTION 15 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ,1908, WHICH READS AS UNDER: WHERE SERVICE MAY BE ON AN ADULT MEMBER OF DEFENDA NT`S FAMILY. 15.WHERE IN ANY SUIT THE DEFENDANT IS ABSENT FROM H IS RESIDENCE AT THE TIME WHEN THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS IS SOUGHT TO BE EF FECTED ON HIM AT HIS RESIDENCE AND THERE IS NO LIKELIHOOD OF HIS BEING F OUND AT THE RESIDENCE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AND HE HAS NO AGENT EMPOWE RED TO ACCEPT SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS ON HIS BEHALF, SERVICE MAY B E MADE ON ANY ADULT MEMBER OF THE FAMILY, WHETHER MALE OR FEMALE, WHO I S RESIDING WITH HIM. EXPLANATION- A SERVANT IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE FAMIL Y WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS RULE THEREFORE, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED TH AT THERE IS NO VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT. IF THE STA TUTORY NOTICE U/S.143(2) HAS NOT BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE THEN THE AO DOE S NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO MAKE ASSESSMENT. LD. AR FOR THE ASS ESSEE HAS ALSO ITA NO.594/15 SRI RAMANAND KEDIA 6 SUBMITTED BEFORE US THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) :- A F F I D A V I T I, RAMANAND KEDIA, SON OF SRI BAJRANGLAL KEDIA, AGE D ABOUT 57 YEARS, AT PRESENT RESIDENT AT 108/1/1/1, ADINATH APARTMENT, G.T.ROAD (NORTH), SALKIA, HOWRAH-711106, DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY DECLARE AND AFFIRM AS UNDER :- 1. THAT, IN THE PAGE 1 OF TRUE COPY OF PURPORTED AS SESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y.2007-08 HANDED OVER TO ME ON 21.09.20 12, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED AS UNDER :- IN COMPLIANCE TO THE SAID NOTICE A LETTER WAS REC EIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE REASONING FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON THE SAID F IXED FOR HEARING 2. THAT, THE CONTENTS OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT INASMUCH AS I DID NOT SIGN A NY LETTER ADDRESSING THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF ADJO URNMENT OF HEARING AND I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NOTICE OF HEARING AT ALL. 3. THAT, FURTHER THE QUESTION OF ENGAGING ANY AUTHO RIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON MY BEHALF FOR REPRESENTATION OF M Y CASE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE A.Y.2007-08 DI D NOT ARISE AT ALL AS NO NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED UPON ME. 4. THAT, THE ALLEGATION THAT NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED UPON MY MINOR DAUGHTER IS ALSO DENIED AS MY DAUGHTER DID NO T HANDOVER ANY NOTICE OF HEARING TO ME FOR THE A.Y.2007-08 AND IT MAY SO HAPPEN THAT SHE UNKNOWINGLY SIGNED THE TEAR-OFF SLI P WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE IMPLICATION THEREOF. 5. THAT, IN ANY EVENT, SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON MINOR DAUGHTER IS NOT A VALID SERVICE. THAT, THE CONTENTS OF THE ABOVE PARAS ARE TRUE TO M Y PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DEPONENT LD. AR PRODUCED BEFORE US RELEVANT PARA OF FACTORIE S ACT, 1948, WHEREIN THE DEFINITION OF ADULT AND CHILD HAS BEEN GIVEN, W HICH IS AS UNDER :- 1. THE FACTORIES ACT, 1948 2. INTERPRETATION. IN THIS ACT, UNLESS THERE IS ANYTHING REPUGNANT IN THE SUBJECT OR CONTEXT, (A) ADULT MEANS A PERSON WHO HAS COMPLETED HIS EI GHTEENTH YEAR OF AGE; (B) ADOLESCENT MEANS A PERSON WHO HAS COMPLETED H IS FIFTEENTH YEAR OF AGE BUT HAS NOT COMPLETED HIS EIGHTEENTH YE AR; [(BB) CALENDAR YEAR MEANS THE PERIOD OF TWELVE MO NTHS BEGINNING WITH THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY IN ANY YEAR;] (C) CHILD MEANS A PERSON WHO HAS NOT COMPLETED HI S FIFTEENTH YEAR OF AGE; ITA NO.594/15 SRI RAMANAND KEDIA 7 6. HAVING HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS MERIT I N THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, AS THE PROPOSITION CANVASSE D BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE SUPPORTED BY FACTS NARRATED BY HIM. AS PER SECTION 15 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE NOTICE SHOULD BE S ERVED AT LEAST ON ANY ADULT MEMBER OF THE FAMILY AND IF THE NOTICE IS SER VED UPON A MINOR CHILD IT WOULD BE PRESUMED THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN SERVED ON TH E ASSESSEE AT ALL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED BEFORE US THE DEFIN ITION OF THE CHILD AND ADULT AND THE SAME WE HAVE NOTED IN THE ABO VE PARA. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE CIT(A) STATING THAT HE WAS NEITHER AWARE ABOUT THE NOTICE U/S.143(2) NOR ANY S TATUTORY NOTICE U/S.143(2) HAS BEEN SERVED ON HIM. THEREFORE, CONSI DERING THE FACTUAL POSITION WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED B Y LD. CIT(A) IS A REASONED ORDER AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENC E. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON AL L THE GROUNDS IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13/0 1/2017. S D/ - (A.T.VARKEY) S D/ - (DR. A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA ; ! DATED 13/01/2017 ' $%& /PRAKASH MISHRA , 0 . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT-ITO WARD-47(3) KOLKATA. 2. / THE RESPONDENT.-SRI RAMANAND KEDIA 3. 1 ( ) / THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. ITA NO.594/15 SRI RAMANAND KEDIA 8 / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) % & , / ITAT, 4. 1 / CIT 5. 23 4 0056 , 56 , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 4 78 / GUARD FILE. 2 0 //TRUE COPY//