Sri Sanjay Kumar Saha, Kolkata V. I.T.O Wd - 55(1),kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 720/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83073 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MADHU MALATI GHOSH JCITSR
• Assessee Lawyers: K M ROY
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 147; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH B , KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & HONBLE SR I GEORGE MATHAN, JM] ITA NO.720/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SAHA `.-VS- I.T.O., WARD-55(1) , KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN:ALSPS 6822 M) FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI K.M.ROY, FCA FOR THE RESPONDENT SMT.MADHU MALATI GHOSH, JCIT,SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 12.08.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29. 08.2014. ORDER PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST OR DER OF LD. C.I.T.(A)- XXXVI, KOLKATA DT. 28.01.2013 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE READ AS UND ER :- 1. FOR THAT, IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS.15,46,7 00/- ALLEGEDLY ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT ON PURCHASE OF FLATS, BY SOL ELY RELYING ON THE REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER. THE SAID AMOUNT INVESTED BY TH E APPELLANT WAS DULY INCORPORATED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLAN T AND NO MATERIAL DISCREPANCY IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE ITO WHI LE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT. 2. FOR THAT HAVING REGARDS TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS THERE WAS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT ANY PART OF THE INCO ME OF THE APPELLANT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.1,46,700/- MADE BY THE I.T.O. WAS MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SURMISE AND CONJECTURE. 3. FOR THAT, ON THE FACTS, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW ERRED BOTH IN POINTS OF LAW AND ON FACTS. 4. FOR THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO TAKE FURT HER AND/OR ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AT THE TIME OR BEFORE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL PETITION IF N ECESSARY. ITA.NO.720/KOL/2013 SRI SANJAY KUMAR SAHA A.YR.2005-06 2 3. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS WE NOTE THAT THE ISSUES R AISED ARE TWO FOLD. FIRSTLY THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT RE-ASSESSMENT WAS BAD; SE CONDLY IT HAS BEEN URGED THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AMOUN TING TO RS.15,46,700/- IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 4. WE SHALL DEAL WITH THE FIRST ISSUE. THE BRIEF FA CTS ON THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FATHER PURCHASED TWO FLATS FROM TH E PROMOTER M/S.G.G.DEVELOPERS ONE EACH ON 3 RD FLOOR COVERING BUILT UP AREA 2595 SQ.FT. IN THE NA ME OF THE ASSESSEE AND 4 TH FLOOR HAVING BUILT UP AREA OF 1127 SQ.FT IN THE NA ME OF ASSESSEES FATHER. THE BOOKING MONEY OF RS.2 LAKHS AND RS.2.50 LAKHS FOR T HE AFORESAID TWO FLATS WERE PAID BY THE RESPECTIVE PURCHASERS IN THE EARLIER ASSESSM ENT YEAR, WHICH WERE NOT DISPUTED. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, HE HAD INVESTED RS.23,20 ,000/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE FOR PURCHASING 3 RD FLOOR AND ALSO PAID THE SUM OF RS.8,30,000/- BEING THE BALANCE PRICE OF HIS FATHERS FLAT ON 4 TH FLOOR. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL INVESTMENT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR UNDER DISPUTE FOR THE AFORESAID TWO FLATS INCLUDING CAR PARKING SPACE AND COST OF LAND WAS RS.31.50,000/-. THE AO DETERMINED THE TOTAL COST OF ACQUISITION OF THESE TWO FLATS ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION CELL AT RS.38, 20,700/- (ASSESSEES FLAT ON 3 RD FLOOR) AND RS.11,26,800/- (FATHERS FLAT ON 4 TH FLOOR), TOTALING TO RS.49,47,500/-. AFTER DEDUCTING INITIAL INVESTMENTS IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR BY THE RESPECTIVE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, THE AO FOUND THE DIFFERENCE IN ASSESS EES INVESTMENT OF RS.15,46,700/- WHICH IS GIVEN IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE :- PROPERTY INVESTMENT AS PER ASSESSEES CLAIM INVESTMENT TAKEN BY AO AS PER VALUATION CELL DIFFERENCE 7A, DESHAPRIYA PARK WEST 3 RD FLOOR RS.23,20,000 (DEDUCTION B/F RS.2,00,000) RS.38,20,700 RS.15,00,700 7A, DESHAPRIYA PARK WEST 4 TH FLOOR RS.10,80,000 A)RS.8,30,000 BY ASSESSEE AND B)RS.2,50,000 BY HIS FATHER RS.11,26,800 RS.8,76,800 AS ASSESSEES INVESTMENT AND BALANCE RS.2,50,000 BY HIS FATHER) RS.46,000 TOTAL RS.15,46,700 ITA.NO.720/KOL/2013 SRI SANJAY KUMAR SAHA A.YR.2005-06 3 5. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AS UNDER :- 5.1. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELL ANT FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY VALUATION REPORT FORM A REGISTERED VALUER. HOWEVER, AT THE AP PELLATE STAGE, HE FILED SUCH REPORT FOR HIS 3 RD FLOOR FLAT FROM ONE REGISTERED VALUER SRI PRABIR K R.CHAUDHURU, ACCORDING TO WHOM THE TOTAL VALUE OF LAND AND FLAT AT 3 RD FLOOR WAS RS.24,505,724/-. THE SAID REPORT WAS SEN T TO THE AO, WHO IN TURN FORWARDED THE SAME TO THE DE PARTMENTAL VALUATION CELL FOR CONSIDERATION. THE ASSISTANT VALUATION OFFICER-IV ( AVO-IV) IN THEIR REPORT DATED 20.12.2012 INTIMATED THAT THE VALUATION REPORT FILE D BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE, BECAUSE NEITHER THE VALUATION HAD BEEN DONE BY ANY DEPARTMENT APPROVED VALUER NOR IT HAD BEEN DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARDS INSTRU CTION NO.1671 DATED 06-12-1985. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID REPORT OF AVO-IV I S REPRODUCED BELOW :- 1. THE VALUATION REPORT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THIS OF FICE VIDE LETTER OF EVEN NO.561 DATED 27.12.2011, AND BEEN PREPARED AS PER CBDT GUIDELINE S (COPY ENCLOSED0 2. STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS, EXTRACTS OF QUANTITY OF BUI LDING MATERIALS, BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF MATERIALS AND REGISTERED DEED OF ASSETS HAS NOT BEE N SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREPARATION OF THE REPORT. 3. THE VALUER WHO PREPARED THE REPORT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A PANELED VALUER OF CBDT. 4. THE VALUER HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE GUIDELINES OF CB DT DURING THE PREPARATION OF THE VALUATION. HENCE THE RECOMMENDATION IN THE REPORT C ANNOT BE ACCEPTED BY THIS OFFICE. 5.2. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION CELL IS MORE AUTHENTIC AND A CCEPTABLE. THE AO ON THE BASIS OF SUCH REPORT HAS DETERMINED THE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNE D PROPERTIES. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, I FIND NO PLAUSIBLE REASON TO DIFFER FROM THE AOS DETERMINATION OF VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTIES AND RESULTANT UNDISCLOSED INVES TMENT IN SUCH PROPERTIES. THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT IN THE SUM OF RS.15,46,700 /- IS, THEREFORE, UPHELD. GROUND NO.5 IS DISMISSED. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE RECORDS. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER IN THIS CASE WE GAINFULLY REFER TO THE REASONS FOR REOPENING RECORDED IN THIS CASE WHICH IS AS UNDER :- DATE : 18.11.2010 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HIS RETURN F OR A.Y.2005-06 ON 20/12/2005 DISCLOSING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,16,659/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCE SSED U/S 143(1). FROM THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2 005, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE A HAD SHOWN ADVANCE AGAINST FLAT OF RS.33,50,000/-. FOR THE P URPOSE THE A AVAILED A H.B.LOAN FROM BANK OF BARODA, LAKE MARKET BRANCH. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE, HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.1,39,038/- AS PER SEC 24(B) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. AS PER SEC 24(B) OF THE I.T.ACT1961 DEDUCTION FROM INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPE RTY IS ALLOWED. WHERE THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACQUIRED, CONSTRUCTED, REPAIRED, RENEWED OR RECONSTRUCTED. SINCE THE A HAD ONLY SHOWN ADVANCE AGAINST FLAT, DEDUCTIO N U/S 24(B) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 IS NOT ALLOWABLE. ITA.NO.720/KOL/2013 SRI SANJAY KUMAR SAHA A.YR.2005-06 4 DURING THE YEAR, THE A HAD RECEIVED GI FT OF RS.2,00,000/- FROM HIS MOTHER. FROM RECORDS IT WAS FOUND THE A IS RECEIVING GIFT FROM HIS MOTHER ALMOST EVERY YEAR. GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT AND NEEDS VERIFICATION. MOREOVER, FROM DISCRETE ENQUIRY, IT WAS FOU ND THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS A FLAT OF AREA 3000SQ.FLAT ON THE 3 RD FLOOR AND A FLAT OF AREA 1500 SQ.FT ON THE 4 TH FLOOR. THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING INVESTMENT OF RS.33,50,000/- ON TOTAL AREA OF 4500 SQ.FT. WHICH SEEMS TO BE UNREASONABLE AND FAR BELOW THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEV E THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HENCE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF TH E I.T.ACT, 1961 MAY BE INITIATED. 6.1. WE CAN ALSO GAINFULLY REFER TO PROVISION OF SE CTION 142A OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. WHICH IS AS UNDER :- 142A (1) FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AN ASSESSMENT O R REASSESSMENT UNDER THIS ACT, WHERE AN ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF ANY INVESTMENT RE FERRED TO IN SECTION 69 OR SECTION 69B OR THE VALUE OF ANY BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VAL UABLE ARTICLE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 69A OR SECTION 69B IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MAY REQUIRE THE VALUATION OFFICER TO MAKE AN ESTIMATE OF SUCH VALUE AND REPOR T THE SAME TO HIM. 2) THE VALUATION OFFICER TO WHOM A REFERENCE IS MAD E UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEALING WITH SUCH REFERENCE, HAVE AL L THE POWERS THAT HE HAS UNDER SECTION 38A OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957 ). (3) ON RECEIPT OF THE REPORT FROM THE VALUATION OFF ICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SUCH REPORT IN MAKING SUCH ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT : PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSMENT MADE ON OR BEFORE THE 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2004, AND WHERE SUCH ASSESSMENT HAS BECOME FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE ON OR BEFORE THAT DATE, EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE A REASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A. 6.2. FURTHER WE MAY ALSO REFER TO THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOODLUCK AUTOMOBILES PVT.LTD. VS ACIT 3 59 ITR 306 WHERE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ABOVE SAID SECTION THE HONBLE COURT HAS EXPOUNDED AS UNDER :- ON A CONJOINT READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 AND SECTION 142A OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, IT APPEARS THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF R ESORTING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD FIRST BE REQUIRED TO RECORD A SATISFACTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE NO T RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AS A NECESSARY COROLLARY, HE WOULD THEN REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS NOT REFLECTING THE CORRECT POSITION AND THEN PROCEED TO MAKE THE ASSES SMENT ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION, FOR WHICH PURPOSE HE CAN RESORT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 142A OF THE ACT AND MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR ESTIMATING T HE VALUE OF SUCH INVESTMENT. THUS, ON A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 142A OF THE ACT, IT IS A PPARENT THAT THE QUESTION OF ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF ANY INVESTMENT WOULD ARISE ONLY WHEN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT RELIABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD FIRST BE R EQUIRED TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHOULD PRECEDE THE REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFIC ER. THE REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER CANNOT FORM THE FOUNDATION FOR REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ITA.NO.720/KOL/2013 SRI SANJAY KUMAR SAHA A.YR.2005-06 5 6.3. FURTHER THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SAGAM CINEMA VS CIT 328 ITR 513 HAS HELD AS UNDER :- IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL DEC IDED THE MATTER RIGHTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN AS MUCH AS THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CON CLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY COULD NOT HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DEPARTMEN TAL VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) WITHOUT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEING REJECTED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, A CATEGORICAL FINDING IS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE BOOKS WERE NEVER REJECTED. THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HIGH COURT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, RELIANCE PLACED ON THE REPORT OF THE DVO WAS MISCONCEIVED. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT IS SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL STANDS RESTORED TO THE FILE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS. 6.4. FROM THE ABOVE WE NOTE THAT AS MENTIONED IN T HE REASON FOR REOPENING THERE WAS NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER IN THE POSSESSION OF THE AO WHICH SUGGESTS THAT ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN THE PURCHASE OF F LATS. THE REASON MENTIONS THAT IT WAS FROM DISCREET ENQUIRY . AO HAS FOUND THAT ASS ESSEE HAS OWNED THE FLATS BUT THE COST THEREOF SEEMS TO THE AO AS UNREASONABLE. THUS THERE IS NO REASON WHATSOEVER IN COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION. NOW IT IS MANDATED THROU GH SECTION 142A OF THE ACT THAT AO CAN REFER TO THE VALUATION CELL FOR AN ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT IN CONNECTION WITH SECTION 69,69A AND 69B OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THIS POWER OF THE AO CANNOT BE APPLIED INDISCRIMINATELY WITHOUT ANY REAS ON. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOODLUCK AUTOMOBI LES PVT.LTD VS ACIT (SUPRA) FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESORTING TO THE PROVISION OF SECTIO N 142A OF THE ACT THE AO WOULD FIRST BE REQUIRED TO RECORD A SATISFACTION THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS ONLY WH EN THE AO IS SATISFIED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE UNRECORDED INVESTMENT AND AO HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS THAT THE AO CAN INVOKE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142A OF THE ACT AND MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF SUCH INVESTMENT. SIMILAR VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CAS E OF SANGAM CINEMA (SUPRA) 6.5. IN THE PRESENT CASE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TH ERE IS NO MENTION WHATSOEVER AS TO HOW THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE INVESTMENT B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE FLATS NEEDS A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION CELL FOR VALUATION. THE AO HAS FOUND THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE INTO THE FLAT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEES FATHER. AO HAS ALSO ITA.NO.720/KOL/2013 SRI SANJAY KUMAR SAHA A.YR.2005-06 6 GIVEN A FINDING THAT EXCEPT FOR A SMALL AMOUNT OF BOOKING FATHER HAS NOT MADE FURTHER INVESTMENT AND THE BULK OF THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE SON. AO HAS DRAWN ADVERSE INFERENCE ON THE BASIS THAT FATHER WAS NOT AWARE OF THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT. WHEN THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE A ND THE SAME IS REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO HOW THE FATHER HAS TO GIVE A CATEGORICAL STATEMENT REGARDING THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT IN THE PR OPERTY. IN THIS SITUATION AO HAS REFERRED THE MATTER FOR VALUATION VIDE LETTERS DATE D 13.12.2010 AND 16.12.2010. THE VALUATION CELLS REPORT WAS RECEIVED ON 21.12.2011 AND 27.12.2011 RESPECTIVELY. THUS THERE IS NO SATISFACTION OF THE AO NOR THERE IS ANY BASIS TO MAKE REFERENCE TO VALUATION CELL. THUS WE HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO REASON OR BASI S FOR THE AO TO HOLD THAT HE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN FLATS REFLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS WAS UNREASONABLE AS COMPARED TO FAIR MARKET VALUE AND T HE AO HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN SUCH SITUATION THE MANDATE EMANATING FROM THE CASE LAWS REFERRED ABOVE CLEARLY PROVIDE THAT THE AO CANNOT MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER U/S 142A OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD THAT REFERENCE TO T HE VALUATION CELL WAS BAD AND AO CANNOT MAKE ADDITION IN THIS CASE ON THE BASIS OF T HE VALUATION REPORT OBTAINED UNDER SUCH REFERENCE . HENCE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.6. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE ON JUR ISDICTION AGAINST THE REVENUE WE HAVE NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO THE ME RITS OF THE ADDITION. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29.08.2014. SD/- SD/- [ GEORGE MATHAN ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 29.08.2014. R.G.(.P.S.) ITA.NO.720/KOL/2013 SRI SANJAY KUMAR SAHA A.YR.2005-06 7 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SAHA, 7A, DESHAPRIYA PARK (WEST) , 3 RD FLOOR, KOLKATA- 700026. 2 I.T.O., WARD-55(1), KOLKATA. 3 . CIT(A)-XXXVI, KOLKATA 4. CI T KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES