Baishnab Charan Senapati, Khurda V. ITO, Bhubaneswar

ITA 63/CTK/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4436 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J KHANRA
• Assessee Lawyers: J M PATTNAIK
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 142(1); 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK ( ) BEFORE . . , , HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. /AND . . . , S HRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER / I.T.A.NO. 063 AND 064/CTK/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2000 - 01 AND 2001 - 02 SRI BAISHNAB CHARAN SENAPATI, PLOT NO.64,SAHID NAGAR,BHUBANESAR, DIST.KHURDA, ORISSA PAN : AKZP 6648 D - - - VER SUS - INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), BHUBANESWAR. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT : / SHRI J.M.PATTNAIK, AR / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SHRI J.KHANRA, DR / ORDER . . , , SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AGITATE THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED U/S.143(3/147 COMPUTING INCOME UNDER THE HEADS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND DENYING THE ASSESSEE THE CLAIM OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF GOLD AS CAPITAL GAINS. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS AS BROUGHT OUT ON RECORD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A STATE GOVERNMENT PENS IONER AND WAS FILING RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING PENSION INCOME AND OTHER INCOME. A SEARCH W AS CARRIED OUT BY THE CBI ON 2.2 .2005 WHEN THE CBI LISTED ITEMS OF ASSETS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS NOTED IN AFFIDAVIT IN 2001. THE ASSESSEE HAD INDICATED THE HOLDING OF 5.4 KGS. OF GOLD AS PART OF HIS INHERITED PROPERTY ALONG WITH AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING BY THE ASSESSEES FOREFATHERS AGAINST WHICH AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS DISCLOSED TO I.T.A.NO. 063 AND 064/CTK/2011 2 THE DEPARTMENT FOR RATE PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE HAD INDICATED THE AMOUNT OF AGRICULTU RAL INCOME HITHERTO EARNED BEFORE INSCRIBING THE SAME IN HIS AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH THE YEARLY SALE OF THE INHERITED GOLD ORNAMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EITHER USE IN RECONSTRUCTED GOLD JEWELLERY AND FOR HAVING UTILISED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS PERSONAL USE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN INSCRIBED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER HAVING DETERMINED THE AMOUNT FOR TAXATION. IN ABSENCE OF NOTICE U/S.147/148, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AFFIDAVIT ALONE COULD NOT BE THE REASON TO BELIEF THAT INCOME HAD E SCAPED ASSESSMENT INSOFAR AS THE SEARCH CARRIED OUT BY THE CBI DID NOT INDICATE ANY HOLDING OF ASSETS DISPROPORTIONATE TO HIS KNOWN SOURCE OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION WHO PROCEEDED TO CONSIDER THE TAXATION OF THE YEAR WISE SALE OF GOLD VALUE, YEAR WISE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ASSETS IN THE FORM OF KVPS AND NSC S WHETHER WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF ITS TENURE OR REINVESTED FOR EARNING INTEREST WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED HAD BEEN DECLARED IN INCOME AS EXEMPT PROVIDED IN THE INCOME - TAX ACT. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE INCOME FROM SALARY BEING PENSION AS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPER TY AS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SOUGHT TO ADD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WH ICH INTERALIA INCLUDES AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 85,000 AND SALE OF GOLD JEWELLERY AT 1,34,500. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTERALIA SOUGHT TO TAX INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BEING INVESTMENT IN THE KVPS AND NSCS AMOUNTING TO 1,11 ,000 AS DECLARED AND ALSO FURTHER ADDED 2,20,000 WHICH HE BELIEVED WAS NOT DECLARED AS INCOME IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. HE ALSO ADDED 1,36,000 AS SALE PROCEEDS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AS IN THE EARLIER YEAR WAS HE COMPUTED THE TAXABLE INCOME BY INCORPORATING THE THREE RECEIPTS TOTALLING 3,56,000 WHICH TOGETHER WAS APPEALED AGAINST I.T.A.NO. 063 AND 064/CTK/2011 3 BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY WAY OF SEPARATE APPEALS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE - APPELLANT BEFORE HIM BY HOLDING PROCEEDINGS U/S.147/148 AS VALID. HE HELD THAT THE AFFIDAVIT WAS THE DOCUMENT WHICH RIGHTLY PROMPTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HOLD IT AS VALID REASON FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS WAS THEREFORE TAKEN UP FOR A SSESSMENT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS AS ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW APPEALED BEFORE US BY INDIVIDUALLY AGITATING THE SAME IN THE GROUNDS. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED TH AT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NON - ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER ISSUING NOTICE U/S.148 FOLLOWED BY 142(1) ON ACCOUNT OF NON - FILING OF FRESH RETURNS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.148 IGNORING THE REPLIES OF T HE APPELLANTS LETTER DT.15.6.2007 AND 23.11.2007 TO TREAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED EARLIER AS RETURN FILED U/S.148 WAS NOT ONLY VALID WHEN IN VIEW OF THE SETTLED LAW BUT ALSO RESULTING TO ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS INVALID. TH E LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE COULD NOT ESTABLISH BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE AFFIDAVIT ALONE WAS THE REASON TO BELIEF THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WHICH AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN PARTLY UTILISED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ONLY TO BE TAXED FOR INCOMES WHICH INCOMES ARE BA SICALLY ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS LIQUIDATED ASSETS CHANGING THEIR NATURE DURING THE PASSAGE OF TIME. HE POINTED OUT THAT NOWHERE HAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONTROVERTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HOLDING OR INHERITED GOLD AND AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS A GROUSE FOR HOLDING THE REASON TO BELIEF THAT INCOME PERTAINING TO THE AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS PRODUCED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I.T.A.NO. 063 AND 064/CTK/2011 4 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS OWN WAY HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING THE ASSETS FOR ENJOYING THE INCOME THERE FROM TO BE UTILISED IN THE MANNER AS WAS SUITABLE TO IT. THEREFORE , THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PARTLY THE REASON TO BELIEF EMERGED FROM THE AFFIDAVIT WAS TO BE TAXED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 BUT IN THE SAME MANNER HE HELD THAT THE HOLDING OF THE GOLD AND THE HOLDING OF THE LAND WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO IT. THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT HELD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE BUT WAS PURELY ON THE BASIS OF A FAMILY SETTLEMENT AND CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS A SELF - SERVING DOCUMENT OR AFTER - THOUGHT . THE RECEIPTS THEREFORE WOULD BE TAXED AS INCOME OR TO BE IDENTIFIED AS INCOME OF HUF WAS NEVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE REASON TO BELIEF VIS - - VIS BRINGING TO TAX AS INCOME WHICH ONLY THE NATURE HAS CHANGED TO BE IDENTIFIED FOR RENDERING INCOME THERE FROM UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 4. HE PROCEEDED TO AGITATE THAT THE AO ACCEPTS THE FA CTS THAT THE GOLD WAS AVAILABLE WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT ENHANCED BY NOTING THAT THE AFFIDAVIT INDICATED HOLDING OF GOLD WHICH HAS BEEN SPREAD OVER TO BE SOLD OVER A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BRINGING TO TAX THE AGRICULT URAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY DENYING THE NATURE OF INCOME AS AGRICULTURE FOR WANT OF VOUCHERS INDICATING CULTIVATION. THIS WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE PREMISES THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS, IF ANY, TO BE INCLUDED IN THE IN COME FOR RATE PURPOSES ONLY WAS THEREFORE NOT FORMING PART OF THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RIGHTLY BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES FOR WANT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 TH E INVESTMENT IN THE KVPS AND NSCS ARE CONCERNED, THE LEARNED COUNSEL I.T.A.NO. 063 AND 064/CTK/2011 5 FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS APPRISED OF THE FACT THAT THE FA C E VALUE DOES NOT INDICATE THE GENERATION OF INCOME WHICH BECOMES REINVESTED AUTOMATICALLY WITHOU T ANY INTERVENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS THE CHOI CE TO DECLARE THE INCOME EITHER AS ACCRUED NOT DUE OR ON RECEIPT BASIS. HAVING AGREED TO THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING KVPS AND NSCS WORTH 4,10,000 AND THE ASSESSEE HAVING RETURNED HOLDING OF NSCS AND KVPS 3,15,000 WAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE RE - INVESTMENT OF 95,000 WHETHER INTEREST ACCRUED NOT DUE TO THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER TAXED ON RECEIPT BASIS. IN ANY CASE, THE AMOUNT CANNOT BE TAXED BEING THE RESIDUAL AMOUNT OF 2,2 0 ,000 IN THE IMPUG NED ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OWN FINDING WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS FAR BACK AS FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96. HE PRAYED THAT THE RETURNED INCOME IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE U/S.148 MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO BE ACCEPTED AS SUCH IN VI EW OF THE CLEAR FINDING OF FACT THAT THE PURPORTED INCOME HAVING ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WAS NOT PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS AND WAS BASICALLY INTERPOLATING THE NATURE OF ASSETS WHICH HAS BEEN LIQUIDATED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR RESPECTIV ELY. THE ASSETS CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS INCOME WHEN THE AUTHORITIES BELOW CHOSE TO ACCEPT THE FACT FINDING ON THE BASIS OF AN AFFIDAVIT FOR DETERMINING THE INCOME IN THE RESPECTIVE AYS HAS NO BASIS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. 5. THE LE ARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE SEARCH CARRIED OUT BY THE CBI IN THE ASSESSEES PREMISES HAS BEARING TO THE SEARCH CARRIED OUT BY THE CBI ON THE ASSESSEES SON WHO WORKS FOR THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. THE FATE OF SEARCH CARRIED OUT IN THE PREMISES ARE NOT AVAILAB LE BUT BASICALLY THE SEARCH ON THE ASSESSEES PREMISES COULD ONLY LEAD TO A FINDING OF A DOCUMENT BEING AN AFFIDAVIT WHICH WAS CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING REASON TO BELIEF I.T.A.NO. 063 AND 064/CTK/2011 6 THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEING HIS FA THER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) , THEREFORE, RIGHTLY NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF INCOMES WHICH WERE SAID TO HAVE BEEN UTILISED IN THE ASSETS WHICH HE CLAIMS WERE AVAILABLE TO IT AND BUT WERE INTERPOLATED CHANGING THEIR NATURE. TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PIN POINT AS TO HOW THE INCOME EARNED FROM A PARTICULAR ASSET OWNED BY IT CANNOT BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HE FULLY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR HIS PART SUBMISSIONS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON OUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE REASON TO BELIEF FOR COMPUTING THE INCOME HAVING ESCAPED ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE BASED ON MATERIAL WHICH MATERIAL ALONE WAS SEARCHED BY THE CBI WHICH PROMPTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO OBTAIN THE SEARCH DOCUMENT BEING A AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT INDICATING WHETHER THE ASSETS WHICH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE TRYING TO FIND THE HOLDING OF H AS NOT BEEN ELABORATED EITHER BY THE AO OR BY THE LEARNED CIT(A).HAVING ACCEPTED THE DOCUMENT, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ALSO ACCEPTED THE ACTION OF NATURE THE ASSETS CHANGED WHEN IT WAS INSCRIBED IN THE MANNER GIVEN IN THE DOCUMENT. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT A DOCUMENT WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON HAS BEEN PARTLY TAKEN UP AS TRUSTWORTHY BUT DENYING THE NATURE EMBODIED THEREIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING THE SAME TO BE TAXED U/S.147/148. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE MERE CHANGE IN THE NATURE OF ASSETS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SEARCH BY THE CBI COULD NOT BE PITTED AGAINST IT AS INCOME WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD THE CORRESPONDING UTILISATION THEREOF WHETHER FOR PERSONAL CONSUMPTION OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING I.T.A.NO. 063 AND 064/CTK/2011 7 MORE INCOME FOR GENERATING ASSETS . THEREFORE, THE INCOMES WHICH HAVE BEEN RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AS LIQUIDATION OF THE ASSETS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SUCH. IN FACT THE CONSIDERATION RE CEIVED ON SALE OF GOLD CAN ONLY BE SUBJECTED TO COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS WHEN THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THAT THE GOLD WAS HIS FAMILY PROPERTY INHERITED AND HELD THE SAME BY WAY OF AN AFFIDAVIT AS NOTED AS FAR BACK AS 2001. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ACC EPTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN RETURNING INCOMES FROM THESE ASSETS EARLIER IN HIS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 WHEN HE NOTED THAT THE ASSETS WERE HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERPOLATING DURING THE PERIOD 2002 - 03. THIS CLINCHES THE ISSUE I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE TO INDICATE THAT AN INVESTMENT IN KVPS AND NSCS HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS OF EITHER ITS FACE VALUE OR ON THE BASIS OF ITS HOLDING FOR THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED THEREIN TO DETERMINE THE INTEREST ACCRUED AND NOT DUE WHICH THE ASS ESSEE HIMSELF RIGHTLY INDICATED THAT THE INVESTMENT THEREIN TILL MATUR ITY COULD ONLY BE TAXED AS THE INTEREST HAD NOT ACCRUED TO IT AT 95,000 IN THE AY 2001 - 02. SIMILARLY, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS DENIED TO BE EARNED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DECLARING HOLDING OF LAND PROPERTY ON WHICH CULTIVATION HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BUT WITHOUT SUBMITTING ANY DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCE THERE TO. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AGREED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS TO BE INCLUDED FOR THE RATE PURPOSE THEREFORE WAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 AS INCOME HAVING ESCAPED ASSESSMENT DID NOT LOSE ITS NATURE AND CHARACTER WHEN TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING LANDED PROPERTY AND WAS ABLE TO PROCURE INCOME THERE FROM IN PE TTY AMOUNTS SOLD IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. NO AGRICULTURAL LAND WOULD YIELD MORE THAN WHAT ITS WORTH. THERE IS INDICATION OF HOLDING THE GOLD JEWELLERY AND AGRICULTURAL LAND WHEN THE I.T.A.NO. 063 AND 064/CTK/2011 8 ASSESSEE HIMSELF RETIRED FOR EARNING PENSION WAS HAVING TAXABLE INCOME FILING RETURNS INCLUDING INCOME THERE FROM . THE NATURE OF INCOME SO SOUGHT TO BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES THEREFORE HAS NO BEARING TO THE FACT THAT THE PENSIONER HAVING ASSETS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM HIS FOREFATHER WHETHER WAS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED TO INDICATE THE SAME IN THE STATUS OF HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OR OTHERWISE. THE PENSION EARNED DURING THE COURSE OF THE IMPUGNED AYS CLEARLY REFLECTS THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING CAPACITY TO HOLD SUCH ASSETS FROM SALARIES EARNED TILL THE DATE OF HIS RETIREMENT. INCIDENTALLY THE CBI HAS NOT INDICATED ASSETS DISPROPORTIONATE TO HIS KNOWN SOURCE OF INCOME TILL SUC H TIME WHICH WAS TO BE ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT BY SOME CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN PARTICULARLY IT WAS THE ASSESSEES SON, WHO WAS SEARCHED TO BE BLAMED FOR THE ASSESSEES HOLDING THESE ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE COULD NOT PUT HIMSELF IN TROUBLE HAVE TO BE TAXED ON HIS LIFE SAVING S BELONGING TO HIS FOREFATHERS AS WELL. FINDING NO MERIT IN THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE AB OVE CIRCUMSTANCES , WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO DELETE THE PURPORTED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS DEVOID OF ANY BASIS. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON DT. 2 8 TH APRIL, 2011 S D/ - S D/ - ( . . . ) , ( K.S.S.PRASAD RAO), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . ) , , (K.K.GUPTA), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( ) DAT E : 28 TH APRIL, 2011 ( ), ( H.K.PADHEE ), SENIOR.PRIVATE SECRETARY. I.T.A.NO. 063 AND 064/CTK/2011 9 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . / THE APPELLANT : SRI BAISHNAB CHARAN SENAPATI, PLOT NO.64,SAHID N AGAR,BHUBANESAR, DIST.KHURDA, 2 / THE RESPONDENT: INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), BHUBANESWAR. 3 . / THE CIT, 4 . ( )/ THE CIT(A), 5 . / DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, [ ] SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY