Rajesh Kumar Jain, Kolkata V. ACIT,Circle- 48, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 795/KOL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48243 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2009
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M BHATTACHARYA
• Assessee Lawyers: O P BAID
• Keywords: Agreed addition
• Section: 45(2); 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , /AND , . !' . #$ ) [BEFORE HONBLE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HONBLE SHR I C. D. RAO, AM] % % % % / I.T.A NOS. 795 & 796/KOL/2009 &' () &' () &' () &' ()/ // / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 & 2005-06 RAJESH KUMAR JAIN VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (PAN-ACUPJ 9526 E) CIRCLE-48, KOLKATA. ( +, /APPELLANT ) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT ) & % % % % / I.T.A NO. 1034/KOL/2009 &' () &' () &' () &' ()/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VS RAJESH KU MAR JAIN CIRCLE-48, KOLKATA. ( +, /APPELLANT ) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT ) FOR THE ASSESSEE: SHRI O. P. BAID FOR THE DEPARTMENT: SHRI M. BHATTACHARYA #/ / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM ( , , , , ) THESE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE AND THE CROSS APPEAL BY R EVENUE ARE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.159/CIT(A )-XXX/CIRCLE-48/2007-08 VIDE DATED 16.03.2009 (ASSESSEES APPEAL AND REVENUES A PPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05) AND IN APPEAL NO.285/CIT(A)-XXX/RANGE-48/2007-0 8 VIDE DATED 16.03.2009 (FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEES AP PEAL). THE ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED BY ACIT, CIRCLE-48 FOR A.Y. 2004-05, KOLKATA AND BY ADDL. CIT, RANGE-48, KOLKATA FOR A.Y 2005-06, U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDERS DATED 28.12.2006 A ND 13.12.2007. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEALS. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONF IRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN ESTIMATING THE DISALLOWANCE ON EXPENSES. FOR TH IS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING 2 ITA 795&796/K/2009 & 1034/K/2009 RAJESH KUMAR JAIN, A.Y.04-05 & 05-06 GROUND NO. 1 OF ITA NO. 795/K/2009 AND GROUND NO. 1 AND (1)(3) OF ITA NO.796/K/2009: ITA NO. 795/K/2009 1) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA, ERRED IN LAW BY DI SALLOWING AND/OR ADDING BACK ON ESTIMATE THE FOLLOWING EXPENSE WHICH WAS ESSENTIALL Y REQUIRED FOR BUSINESS EXIGENCIES WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY COGENT AND VALID REASON: 1) PACKING MATERIAL RS. 63,230/- 2) PACKING EXPENSES RS.1,13,670/- 3) SAMPLE SOLD RS. 93,000/- 4) POLISHING CHARGES RS. 75,000/- 5) ENTERTAINMENT & BUSINESS PROMOTION RS. 25,00 0/- 6) SCOOTER & CAR EXPENSES RS. 51,500/- 7) TELEPHONE EXPENSES RS. 38,650/- RS.4,60,650/- ITA NO.796/K/2009 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA, ERRED IN LAW AS WE LL AS ON FACTS BY DISALLOWING AND/OR ADDING BACK ON ESTIMATE THE FOLLOWING EXPENSE WHICH WAS ESSENTIALLY REQUIRED FOR BUSINESS EXIGENCIES WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY COGENT AN D VALID REASON: 3) DIFFERENCES OF OTHER EXPENSES RS.1,18,000/- 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES ON FOLLOWING PERC ENTAGE: 1. PACKING MATERIAL 2% DISALLOWED RS. 63,23 0/- 2. PACKING EXPENSES 5% DISALLOWED RS.1,13,67 0/- 3. SAMPLE SOLD 3% DISALLOWED RS. 93,000/- 4. POLISHING CHARGES RS. 75,000/- 5. ENTERTAINMENT AND BUSINESS PROMOTION 10% DISA LLOWED RS. 25,600/- 6. SCOOTER & CAR EXPENSES 10% DISALLOWED RS. 51,500/- 7. TELEPHONE EXPENSES 20% DISALLOWED RS. 38 ,659/- HE STATED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(A) HAS MADE AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE AND NO SUCH AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE. ON THE OT HER HAND, LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT ASSE SSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(A) HAS GIVEN CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT ASSESSEE IS UNABLE T O PRODUCE VOUCHERS FULLY AND EVEN IN SOME OF THE VOUCHERS PROPER ADDRESS IS NOT RECORDED AND ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE DISALLOWANCE ON AD-HOC BASIS AND CIT(A) CONFIRMED T HE SAME. WE FIND THAT THE AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF FULLY VO UCHED EXPENSES BUT IT SHOULD BE REASONABLE AND ACCORDINGLY, WE RESTRICT THE DISALLO WANCE AS UNDER: 1. PACKING MATERIAL 1% DISALLOWED 2. PACKING EXPENSES 2% DISALLOWED 3 ITA 795&796/K/2009 & 1034/K/2009 RAJESH KUMAR JAIN, A.Y.04-05 & 05-06 3. SAMPLE SOLD 2% DISALLOWED 4. POLISHING CHARGES 5% SISALLOWED 5. ENTERTAINMENT AND BUSINESS PROMOTION 2% DISALL OWED 6. SCOOTER & CAR EXPENSES 2% DISALLOWED 7. TELEPHONE EXPENSES 5% DISALLOWED SIMILARLY, IN ITA NO.796/K/2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-06, A SSESSING OFFICER WILL MAKE ESTIMATE. ACCORDINGLY, WE PARTLY ALLOW THIS COMMON ISSUE OF BOTH THE APPEALS. 4. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE IN ITA NOS. 795 & 796/K/20 09 IS AS REGARDS TO ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRAVE L EXPENSES INCURRED BY ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF HIS FATHER. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS R AISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO. 2 OF ITA NO. 795/K/2009 AND GROUND NO. 1 AND (1)(2) OF ITA NO.79 6/K/2009: ITA NO.795/K/2009 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. A.O. AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWIN G THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR RS.45,680/- WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY COGENT AND/OR VAL ID REASON THOUGH THE SAID EXPENSES WAS INCURRED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS O F YOUR APPELLANT OF EXPORT OF HANDICRAFT ITEMS. ITA NO.796/K/2009 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA, ERRED IN LAW AS WE LL AS ON FACTS BY DISALLOWING AND/OR ADDING BACK ON ESTIMATE THE FOLLOWING EXPENSE WHICH WAS ESSENTIALLY REQUIRED FOR BUSINESS EXIGENCIES WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY COGENT AN D VALID REASON: 2) FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES RS.97,524/- 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED FOREI GN TRAVEL EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF HIS FATHER SRI M. C. JAIN BUT COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE TH AT HOW IT IS RELATED TO ASSESSEES BUSINESS. HE ALSO COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HOW ASSES SEES FATHER IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE IS NEITHER AN EMPLOYE E NOR IN ANY WAY RELATED WITH THE BUSINESS. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LOWER AUTHOR ITIES HAVE RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE SAME AND WE ALSO CONFIRM THE SAME. THIS ISSUE OF T HE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE OF ITA NO.795/K/2009 IS SUPPORTIV E OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) VIDE GROUND NOS. 3, 4 AND 5, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 3. THAT THE LD.AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING AN D/OR DISALLOWING THE SET OFF OF EARLIER SHARE DEALING BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 46,45,488.62 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND THE 4 ITA 795&796/K/2009 & 1034/K/2009 RAJESH KUMAR JAIN, A.Y.04-05 & 05-06 LD. CIT(A),XXX, KOLKATA HAS ALSO ERRED IN SUSTAININ G AND/OR UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD AO IN NOT PROPERLY DISPOSING OF THE MATTER OF SETTING OFF OF EARLIER BROUGHT FORWARD OF SHARE DEALING BUSINESS LOSS FOR RS. 46,45,488.62 EVEN THOUGH AN APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001- 02 IS STILL LY ING PENDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA HIMSELF... 4. THAT ALL THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO ILLEGALLY AND/OR ERRONEOUSLY IGNORING THE CLAIM OF YOUR APPELLANT AND WHICH HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-XXX, KOLKATA ARE OTHERWISE ILLEGAL, UN JUSTIFIED, IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF LAW AND VOID AB-INITIO AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO B E SET ASIDE, DELETED, DISMISSED, RESCINDED DECLARED TO BE NULL AND VOID AND/OR OTHER WISE ANNULLED. 5. THAT YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, ALTER , VARY, ADD TO, DELETE, WITHDRAW, RECTIFY OR OTHERWISE MODIFY ALL OR ANY OF THE AFORE SAID GROUNDS INCLUDING RELIEF CLAIMED AND/OR ADDUCE EVIDENCE AT OR BEFORE THE FINAL HEARI NG OF THE INSTANT CASE. 7. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THESE GROUNDS, HENCE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE IN ITA NO. 796/K/2009 RAISED BY W AY OF GROUND NO. 1(1) IN REGARD TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON OF DIFFERENCE IN PARTIES ACCOUNT AT RS.1,00,313/-. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED T HE FOLLOWING GROUND NO. 1(1): 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA, ERRED IN LAW AS WE LL AS ON FACTS BY DISALLOWING AND/OR ADDING BACK ON ESTIMATE THE FOLLOWING EXPENSE WHICH WAS ESSENTIALLY REQUIRED FOR BUSINESS EXIGENCIES WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY COGENT AN D VALID REASON: 1) DIFFERENCE IN PARTIES ACCOUNTS RS.1,00,313/- 9. THE NEXT ISSUE OF ITA NO.796/K/2009 IS SUPPORTIV E OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) VIDE GROUND NOS. 2, 3 AND 4, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 2. THAT THE LD.AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING AN D/OR DISALLOWING THE SET OFF OF EARLIER SHARE DEALING BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 46,45,488.62 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND RS.28,306/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND THE LD. CIT(A) XXX, KOLKATA HAS ALSO ERRED IN SUSTAINING AND/OR UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER P ASSED BY LD AO IN NOT PROPERLY DISPOSING OF THE MATTER OF SETTING OFF OF EARLIER B ROUGHT FORWARD OF SHARE DEALING BUSINESS LOSS FOR RS.3,46,760/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 -02 AND RS.28,306/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 EVEN THOUGH AN APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2001- 02 IS STILL LYING PENDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA HIMSELF. .. 3. THAT ALL THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO ILLEGALLY AND/OR ERRONEOUSLY IGNORING THE CLAIM OF YOUR APPELLANT AND WHICH HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) XXX, KOLKATA ARE OTHERWISE ILLEGAL, U NJUSTIFIED, IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF LAW AND VOID AB-INITIO AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO B E SET ASIDE, DELETED, DISMISSED, RESCINDED DECLARED TO BE NULL AND VOID AND/OR OTHER WISE ANNULLED. 4.THAT YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND , ALTER , VARY, ADD TO, DELETE, WITHDRAW, RECTIFY OR OTHERWISE MODIFY ALL OR ANY OF THE AFORE SAID GROUNDS INCLUDING RELIEF CLAIMED AND/OR ADDUCE EVIDENCE AT OR BEFORE THE FINAL HEARI NG OF THE INSTANT CASE. 5 ITA 795&796/K/2009 & 1034/K/2009 RAJESH KUMAR JAIN, A.Y.04-05 & 05-06 10. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THESE GROUNDS, HENCE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 11. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS AGREED FOR AD DITION AFTER ACCEPTING THE DIFFERENCE. ONCE THIS IS AN AGREED ADDITION AND EV EN NOW BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTESTED THIS ISSUE, WE CONFIRM T HE SAME. THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 12. NOW, WE ARE COMING TO ITA NO. 1034/K/2009 - REV ENUES APPEAL. THE ONLY ISSUE IN REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF C IT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND: FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,78,530/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 13. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUG H FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED PURCHA SE OF 17000 SHARES OF AMLUCKI INVESTMENT CO. LTD. @ 118.52 AND OUT OF THIS 7000 S HARES PURCHASED @ 119.12. THE SAME WAS SOLD @ 20.03 ON 25.3.2004. IT IS ALSO SEE N FROM THE CONTRACT NOTE THAT PRAKASH NAHATA & CO. HAS ISSUED A CONTRACT NOTE IN THE NAM E OF RAJESH KR. JAIN D-228 & 229 LAJPAT NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110024. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(A) FILED SHARE TRANSACTION STATEMENT OF REGISTE RED STOCK BROKER MENTIONING REGISTRATION NO., CONTRACT NOTES, SETTLEMENT NO. IN REGARD TO TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAS PURCHASED 17000 SHARES OF AMLUCKI INVESTMENT CO. LT D. FROM A REGISTERED SHARE BROKER NAMELY, M/S. PRAKASH NAHATA & CO. AND THESE SHARES WERE RECEIVED IN DEMAT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, ALSO THESE SHARES WERE SOLD THROUGH M/S. PRAKASH NAHATA & CO. AND TRANSFERRED OUT FROM DEMAT ACCOUNT OF ASSES SEE. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COPY OF TRANSACTION STATEMENT IN THE DEMA T ACCOUNT HELD WITH STOCK HOLDING CORPORATION OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED COPY OF DEMAT ACCOUNT EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF SHARES IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT AND SAL E OF SHARES. WE FIND THAT THERE IS A 6 ITA 795&796/K/2009 & 1034/K/2009 RAJESH KUMAR JAIN, A.Y.04-05 & 05-06 CONCURRENT FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT PA YMENT IS MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE TO THE BROKER FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARE S. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED COPY OF ICICI BANK ACCOUNT EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT M ADE. FROM THE ABOVE EVIDENCE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO TRANSACTION OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES OF AMLUCKI INVESTMENT CO. LTD. THROUGH A RECOGNISED ST OCK BROKER M/S. PRAKASH NAHATA & CO. WE FIND FROM RECORDS THAT CIT(A) HAS DELETED T HE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDING: A.O. RELIED UPON INFORMATION GATHERED FROM KOLKATA STOCK EXCHANGE THAT SALE TRANSACTION IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE ON LINE TRANSAC TION RECORDED BY THE EXCHANGE. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE SHARE TRANSACT ION STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE REGISTERED BROKER WHICH MENTIONS THE REGISTRATION NUMBER, CONTRACT NOTES NUMBER AND SETTLEMENT NUMBER IN THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DISPROVE THE OFF MARKET TRANSACTION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THA T THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE SHARE BROKER IS FABRICATED OR FALSE. THE A.O. HAS NOT CROSS VERIFIED THE TRANSACTION WITH THE BROKER. THE A.O. HAS ONLY ACT ED ON THE INFORMATION GATHERED FROM KOLKATA STOCK EXCHANGE. IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THE TRANSACTION OR EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF T HE TRANSACTION, THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT IN REJECTING THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF AMLUKI INVESTMENT CO. LTD. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE ITAT E BENCH, KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF ITO WD 45(2) VS. RAJ KUMAR A GARWAL, THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT IN REJECTING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS INCURRED BY T HE APPELLANT. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS CLAIMED BY THE AP PELLANT OF RS.16,78,530/-. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND ACC ORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THAT OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 15. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- . !' !'!' !' . #$ , (C. D. RAO) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( '$ '$ '$ '$) )) ) DATED 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2011 01 &23 4 JD.(SR.P.S.) 7 ITA 795&796/K/2009 & 1034/K/2009 RAJESH KUMAR JAIN, A.Y.04-05 & 05-06 #/ 5 - 6#(7- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . +, / APPELLANT SRI RAJESH KUMAR JAIN, C/O, BAID & COMPANY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, MANGALAM APARTMENT, GROUND FLOOR, 2, ROWLAND ROAD, KOLKATA-700 020 2 -.+, / RESPONDENT, ACIT, CIRCLE-48, KOLKATA. 3 . /& ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 4. /& / CIT, KOLKATA 5 . >? -& / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA . -/ TRUE COPY, #/&@/ BY ORDER, 3 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .