DCIT, CC - I, Kolkata, Kolkata V. Sunita Khemka, Kolkata

ITA 714/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 71423514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJIT KR DAS JCITLD
• Assessee Lawyers: MA NISH TIWARI FCA LD A
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Additional evidence
• Section: 132; 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 714 TO 718/KOL/2011-C-AM SMT. SUNITA KHEMKA 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, K OLKATA BEFORE : SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NOS. 714 TO 718/KOL/2011 A.YS 2 001-02 TO 2005-06 D.C.I.T, C.C-I, KOLKATA VS. SUNITA KHEMKA PAN: AFMPK27 02G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT/DEPAR TMENT: SHRI SANJIT KR. DAS, JCIT,LD.DR FOR THE RESPONDENT/ ASSESSEE: SHRI MA NISH TIWARI, FCA, LD.AR DATE OF HEARING: 14-10-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28-10-201 5 ORDER SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARISE OUT OF THE ORDE R OF THE LEARNED CITA IN APPEAL NO. 530/CC-I/CIT(A)/C-III/06-07 DATED 21.2.2011,APPEAL NO. 526/CC-I/CIT(A)/C-III/06-07 DATED 21.2.2011,APPEAL NO. 527/CC-I/CIT(A)/C-III/06 -07 DATED 21.2.2011,APPEAL NO. 531/CC-I/CIT(A)/C-III/06-07 DATED 21.2.2011 AND APP EAL NO. 532/CC-I/CIT(A)/C-III/06-07 DATED 21.2.2011 FOR THE ASST YEARS 2001-02 TO 2005 -06 RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THESE APPEALS ARE THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF SHARES DUR ING ASST YEARS 2001-02 TO 2004-05 AT A CONCESSIONAL RATE OF 10% AND EXEMPTION U/S 10(38) F OR ASST YEAR 2005-06 IN RESPECT OF SALE TRANSACTIONS ROUTED THROUGH RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHAN GE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSE SSEE SOLD THE SHARES OF M/S EMKAY CONSULTANT LTD (LISTED IN KOLKATA STOCK EXCHANGE) A ND DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. ITA NOS. 714 TO 718/KOL/2011-C-AM SMT. SUNITA KHEMKA 2 18,37,287/- FOR ASST YEAR 2001-02 ; SOLD SHARES OF M/S COMMITMENT FINANCE LTD (LISTED IN KOLKATA STOCK EXCHANGE) AND DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 19,24,910/- FOR ASST YEAR 2002-03 ; SOLD SHARES OF M/S EMKAY CONSULTANT LTD (LISTED IN KOLKATA STOCK EXCHANGE) AND DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 15,67,901/- FOR ASST YEAR 2003 -04 ; SOLD SHARES OF M/S COMMITMENT FINANCE LTD (LISTED IN KOLKATA STOCK EXCHANGE) AND DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 16,58,020/- FOR ASST YEAR 2004-05 AND SOLD SHARES OF M/S LIMTEX INVESTMENT LTD (LISTED IN KOLKATA STOCK EXCHANGE) AND DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 13,16,4 20/- FOR ASST YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF T HE SHARES IN AFORESAID COMPANIES BEFORE THE LEARNED AO AND STATED THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MAD E TO THE STOCK BROKERS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE FROM THE DISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS. A DMITTEDLY, THESE SHARES WERE HELD AS AN INVESTMENT INCLUDING THE OTHER SHARES BY THE ASSESS EE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE DETAILS OF CONTRACT NOTES FOR PURC HASE AND SALE OF SHARES WERE DULY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR SALE O F THESE SHARES WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE STOCK BROKERS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE S. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DULY PAID THE SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX (STT) DURING ASST YEAR 2 005-06 AT THE TIME OF SALE OF SHARES. THE LEARNED AO DOUBTED THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF THE AFORESAID SHARES BY STATING THAT THE SHARES OF SAID COMPANIES COULD NOT HAVE BE EN SOLD AT THE PREVAILING MARKET RATES AS PER THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE AND TREATED THE LON G TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS BOGUS AND HELD THAT IT IS ONLY ASSESSEES OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY THAT HA D SURFACED IN THE FORM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WITH THE CONNIVANCE OF THE BROKERS AND ACCORD INGLY BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT INSTEAD OF CONCESSIONAL RATE OF TAX APPLICABLE TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. ON FIRST APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THERE WA S A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION CONDUCTED U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON APARNA GROUP OF CASES WHICH I NCLUDES ASSESSEE HEREIN, WHEREIN, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WITH REGARD TO THE SUBJECT MENTIONED ISSUE BEFORE US WAS FOUND BY THE SEARCH PARTY. THE LEARNED CITA DULY APPRECIATED TH E CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED AO IN THIS REGARD BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHEREIN ADDITION MADE TOWARDS SIMILAR GROU NDS OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND SHRI.ANIL KHEMKA WERE DELETE D IN ITA NOS. 901 TO 905 / KOL / 2009 DATED 28.1.2010 FOR THE ASST YEARS 2001-02 TO 2005- 06. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ITA NOS. 714 TO 718/KOL/2011-C-AM SMT. SUNITA KHEMKA 3 GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2001-02 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TREAT THE LONG TERM CA PITAL GAIN OF RS.18,37,287/- EARNED OUT OF SELLING THE SHARES OF M/S. EMKAY CONSULTANTS LTD AS SUCH AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND TAX IT AS PER APPLICABLE CONCESSIONAL RATE WITHOUT PROPER CONSIDERATION OF T HE ENTIRE FACTS AND WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCES AND AR GUMENTS PUT FORTH IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS NOTHING BUT ASSESSEES OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY INTRODUCED IN THE FORM OF LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAIN WITH CONNIVANCE OF THE BROKERS. 2. THE DEPARTMENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AND/OR ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT THE TIM E OF HEARING OF THE CASE. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2002-03 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TREAT THE LONG TERM CA PITAL GAIN OF RS.19,24,910/- EARNED OUT OF SELLING THE SHARES OF M/S. COMMITMENT FINANCE LTD AS SUCH AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND TAX IT AS PER APPLICABLE CONCESSIONAL RATE WITHOUT PROPER CONSIDERATION OF T HE ENTIRE FACTS AND WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCES AND AR GUMENTS PUT FORTH IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS NOTHING BUT ASSESSEES OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY INTRODUCED IN THE FORM OF LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAIN WITH CONNIVANCE OF THE BROKERS. 2. THE DEPARTMENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AND/OR ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT THE TIM E OF HEARING OF THE CASE. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2003-04 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TREAT THE LONG TERM CA PITAL GAIN OF RS.15,67,901/- EARNED OUT OF SELLING THE SHARES OF M/S. EMKAY CONSULTANTS LTD AS SUCH AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND TAX IT AS PER APPLICABLE CONCESSIONAL RATE WITHOUT PROPER CONSIDERATION OF T HE ENTIRE FACTS AND WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCES AND AR GUMENTS PUT FORTH IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS NOTHING BUT ASSESSEES OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY INTRODUCED IN THE FORM OF LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAIN WITH CONNIVANCE OF THE BROKERS. 2. THE DEPARTMENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AND/OR ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT THE TIM E OF HEARING OF THE CASE. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2004-05 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TREAT THE LONG TERM CA PITAL GAIN OF RS.16,58,020/- EARNED OUT OF SELLING THE SHARES OF M/S. COMMITMENT FINANCE ITA NOS. 714 TO 718/KOL/2011-C-AM SMT. SUNITA KHEMKA 4 LTD AS SUCH AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND TAX IN AS PER APPLICABLE CONCESSIONAL RATE WITHOUT PROPER CONSIDERATION OF T HE ENTIRE FACTS AND WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCES AND AR GUMENTS PUT FORTH IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS NOTHING BUT ASSESSEES OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY INTRODUCED IN THE FORM OF LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAIN WITH CONNIVANCE OF THE BROKERS. 2. THE DEPARTMENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AND/OR ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT THE TIM E OF HEARING OF THE CASE. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2005-06 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TREAT THE LONG TERM CA PITAL GAIN OF RS.13,46,420/- EARNED OUT OF SELLING THE SHARES OF M/S.LIMTEX INVESTMENT LTD AS SUCH AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW EXEMPTIO N U/S.10(38) OF THE I.T ACT WITHOUT PROPER CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE FAC TS AND WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCES AND ARGUMENTS PUT FOR TH IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS NOTHING BUT ASSESSE ES OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY INTRODUCED IN THE FORM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WITH CONNIVANCE OF THE BROKERS. 2. THE DEPARTMENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AND/OR ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT THE TIM E OF HEARING OF THE CASE. 4. SHRI SANJIT KR.DAS, JCIT, SR. DR ARGUED ON BE HALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI.MANISH TIWARI, FCA, THE LEARNED AR ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AS THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THESE YEARS ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE, THEY ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED AR AND FIND THAT THE LEARNED CITA HAD RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF H USBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE LEARNED CITA ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELO W:- PARA 6 TO 6.4 OF THE LD.CIT(A)S ORDER 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. I HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED TH E ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN RESPECT OF SRI ANIL KR. KHEMKA AND THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SRI ANIL KR. KHEMKA. I FIND THAT THERE IS AN UNCANNY RESEMBL ANCE BETWEEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLA NT AND IN THE CASE OF SRI ANIL KR. KHEMKA- ITA NOS. 714 TO 718/KOL/2011-C-AM SMT. SUNITA KHEMKA 5 (1) ALL THOSE ORDERS ARE PASSED BY THE SAME AO ON THE S AME DATE; (2) THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE IDENTICALLY DRAFTED. IDEN TICAL REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO AND EVEN THE WORDINGS ARE IDENTICAL; (3) THE NAME OF THE SHARES ON WHICH LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN HAS BEEN CLAIMED ARE IDENTICAL IN EACH OF THE AS SESSMENT YEARS; (4) THE NAMES OF THE BROKERS THROUGH WHICH THE TRANSACT IONS HAVE BEEN MADE ARE ALSO IDENTICAL. 6.1 HONBLE ITAT, KOLKATA IN ITS ORDER DATED 21.01. 2010 (SUPRA) IN THE CASE OF SHRI ANIL KHEMKA HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVAT ION: N ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAS V ALUED ALL THE SHARES AT COST AND OFFERING THE INCOME OF TRADE OF THESE SHAR ES EITHER AS SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS OR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS THE CAS E MAY BE. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SHARES AT WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED/SOLD ARE AUTHENTICATED BY THE QUOTATIONS OF THE STOCK EXCHAN GE AND THE TRANSACTIONS ARE ROUTED THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND PROPERLY RECOR DED IN THE RESPECTIVE COMPANIES. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN TREATING THE SAID TRANSACTIONS AS BOGUS BY THE AO NOR TREATING THE SAME AS BUSINESS IN THE NATURE OF ADVE NTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO TREAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, TH E GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6.2 THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE ORIGINAL CO NTRACT NOTES OF SALE AND PURCHASE, COPIES OF THE BILLS, BANK STATEMENTS IN R ESPECT OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. ALL PAYMENTS WERE MADE AND RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES DRAWN BY THE CONCERNED STOCK BROKERS OF CAL CUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE AND DULY RECORDED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND REGULAR BOOKS-OF-A/CS. ALL THE SHARES SOLD WERE TRANSFERRED THROUGH DEMAT ACCOUNT OR HANDED OVER PHYSICALLY TO CONCERNED BROKERS. THE PRICE AT WHICH THE SHARES HAVE BEEN SOLD IS ALSO PUBLISHED IN THE DAILY QUOTATION ISSUED BY THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE. THE SHARES SOLD AFTER 1 ST OCTOBER04 PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS. 6.3 THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT-VS- CARBO INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS LTD (244 ITR 422) AND CIT VS- EMERALD COMMERCIAL LTD (250 ITR 549) ARE ALSO RELEVANT TO T HE ISSUE WHERE THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THE EXISTENCE OF THE BROKERS IS NOT DIS PUTED THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PUNISHED FOR THE DEFAULT OF THE BROKERS AND SHAR E TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE BOGUS. THE HONBLE ITAT, KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF RAJKUMAR AGARWAL (ITA 1330/KOL/2007 DATED 10/08/07) HAS HELD THAT WH EN PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WERE SUPPORTED BY PROPER CONTRACT NOTES, DEL IVERIES OF SHARES WERE RECEIVED THROUGH DEMAT ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED WITH VAR IOUS AGENCIES, THE SHARES ITA NOS. 714 TO 718/KOL/2011-C-AM SMT. SUNITA KHEMKA 6 WERE PURCHASED AND SOLD THROUGH RECOGNISED BROKER A ND THE SALE CONSIDERATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQU ES, THE TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS AND THE INCOME SO DISCLO SED WAS ASSESSABLE AS LTCG. 6.4 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS UNDER CONSIDERATION TH E AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED ANY OF THESE FACTS. HE HAS TREATED THE TRANSACTIONS AS BOGUS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE SUSPICION THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASE AND S ALE PRICE OF THESE SHARES ARE UNUSUALLY HIGH. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT ASSESSMEN T CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION OR SURMISE. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPORT HIS FINDING THAT THERE HAS BEEN COLLUSION/ CONNIVANCE BETWEEN THE BROKER AND THE APPELLANT FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF IT S UNACCOUNTED MONEY. IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT AND HONBLE ITAT, KOLKATA DISCUSSED SUPRA, AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, KOLKATA DATED 28.01.2010 IN ITA NO.901-905, KOL 200 9 IN THE CASE OF SRI ANIL KR. KHEMKA (HUSBAND OF THE APPELLANT) I HOLD THAT T HE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS BOGUS. I DIR ECT THE AO TO TREAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AND T AX THEM AT THE RATES APPLICABLE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2003-04 AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 EXEMPTION U/S. 10(38) SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 6.1 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID CLEAR FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CITA AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND ON THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO IN TERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CITA AND ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DI SMISSED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28 / 10/2015 SD/- ( S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ) SD/- (M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATE 28 /10/2015 ITA NOS. 714 TO 718/KOL/2011-C-AM SMT. SUNITA KHEMKA 7 1.. THE APPELLANT/DEPARTMENT: DCIT CC-I, 18 RABIN DRA SARANI, KOLKATA-1. 2 THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE-SMT. SUNITA KHEMKA 15/1/ A LOUDON ST, KOL-17. 3 4.. /THE CIT, / THE CIT(A) 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT REGISTRAR ** PRADIP SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: