Beni Madhab Paul, Guwahati V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guwahati

ITA 97/GTY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0756 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: A B DAS
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Question of law
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274; 69; 27

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 97/GAU/2019 BENI MADHAB PAUL, AY- 2014-15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAH ATI BENCH, E COURT AT KOLKATA ( ) . . , . , ) [BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, A M] I.T.A. NO. 97/GAU/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 BENI MADHAB PAUL, GUWAHATI (PAN: ADGPP0047H) VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUWAHATI APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 08.06.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.06.2020 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI A. B. DAS, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI M. K. DAS, ADDL. CIT, SR. D R ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), GUWAHATI-1, GUWAHATI DATED 20.12.2018 FOR AY 2014-1 5 AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY IMPOSED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE INVALID NOTICE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE U/S. 274 READ WITH SEC. 27 1 OF THE ACT DATED 14.12.2016 AND CONTENDED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO PROPOSI NG PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS DEFECTIVE IN NATURE, SINCE IT HAD NOT SPELT OUT THE SPECIFIC FAULT/CHARGE AS TO WHETHER ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOM E OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME AND DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE NOTICE DATED 14.12. 2016 ISSUED BY THE AO U/S. 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE ACT. WE NOTE THAT THE AO HAS NOT STRICKEN OUT THE IRRELEVANT PORTION OF THE FAULT/CHARGE WHICH WOULD HAVE SPELT OUT THE SPECIFIC FAULT/CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL , SINCE THE PROPOSED NOTICE ITSELF IS A DEFECTIVE, ALL SUBSEQUENT ACTION ARE BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE CANCELLED. THE LD. 2 ITA NO. 97/GAU/2019 BENI MADHAB PAUL, AY- 2014-15 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEA DOWS IN ITA NO.380 OF 2015 DATED 23.11.2015 WHEREIN THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT FOLLOWING ITS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTOR Y (2013) 359 ITR 565 TOOK A VIEW THAT IMPOSING OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND INVALID FOR THE REASON THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECI FY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INC OME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER BROUGHT TO OUR N OTICE THAT AS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL IN SLP IN CC NO.11485 OF 2016 AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT BY ITS ORDER DAT ED 05.08.2016 DISMISSED THE SLP PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO B ROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHR I SAMSON PERINCHERY IN ITA NO.1154 OF 2014 DATED 05.01.2017 WHEREIN THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IMPOSIT ION OF PENALTY ON DEFECTIVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE CHARGE AGAINST THE AS SESSEE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA VS ACIT IN ITA NO.1303/KOL/2010 DATED 06.11.2015 WHEREIN ID ENTICAL PROPOSITION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 3. LD. DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR AND HAS CITED VARIOUS CASE LAWS TO OPPOSE THE CASE LAWS SUGGESTED BY THE LD. AR. WE NOTE THAT ALL THE CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE US BY THE LD. DR HAS BEEN DEALT WITH E LABORATELY BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JEETMAL CHORARIA VS. A CIT, ITA NO. 956/KOL/2016 FOR AY 2010-11 DATED 01.12.2017, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOTED AS UNDER: 7. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE CA LCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. SYAMAL BARAN MONDAL VS. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (CAL) HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT SEC.271 DOES NOT MANDATE THAT THE RECORDING OF SATI SFACTION ABOUT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME MUST BE IN SPECIFIC TERMS AND WORDS AND THAT SATISFACTION OF AO MUST REFLECT FROM THE ORDER EITHER WITH EXPRESSED WORDS RECORDED BY THE AO OR BY HIS OVERT ACT AND ACTION. IN OUR VIEW THIS DECISION IS ON THE QUESTI ON OF RECORDING SATISFACTION AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF SPECIFIC CHARGE IN THE MANDATORY SHO W CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE REFERENCE TO THIS DECISION, IN OUR VIEW I S NOT OF ANY HELP TO THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. 3 ITA NO. 97/GAU/2019 BENI MADHAB PAUL, AY- 2014-15 8. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THREE DECISIONS OF MU MBAI ITAT VIZ., (I) DHANRAJ MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ITA NO.3830 & 3833/MUM/2009 DATE D 21.3.2017; (II) EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATION VS. DCIT 22(2), MUMBA I, (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 51 (III) MAHESH M.GANDHI VS. ACIT VS. ACIT ITA NO.2976 /MUM/2016 DATED 27.2.2017. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON TWO DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT VIZ., (I) CIT VS. KAUSHALYA 216 ITR 660(BOM) AND (II) M/S.MAHARAJ GARAGE & CO. VS. CIT DATED 22.8.2017. THIS DECISION WAS REFERRED TO IN THE WR ITTEN NOTE GIVEN BY THE LEARNED DR. THIS IS AN UNREPORTED DECISION AND A COPY OF THE SA ME WAS NOT FURNISHED. HOWEVER A GIST OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE DECISION HAS BEE N GIVEN IN THE WRITTEN NOTE FILED BEFORE US. 9. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAUSHALYA (SUPRA), THE H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT SECTION 274 OR ANY OTHER PROVISION IN THE ACT OR THE RULES, DO ES NOT EITHER MANDATE THE GIVING OF NOTICE OR ITS ISSUANCE IN A P ARTICULAR FORM. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE QUASI-CRIMINAL IN NATURE. SECTION 274 CONTAINS THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE OF THE ASSESSEE BEING HEARD BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY. RU LES OF NATURAL JUSTICE CANNOT BE IMPRISONED IN ANY STRAIGHT-JACKET FORMULA. FOR SUST AINING A COMPLAINT OF FAILURE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ON THE GROUND OF ABSE NCE OF OPPORTUNITY, IT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED THAT PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE CONCERN ED PERSON BY THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED. THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATI VE DEVICE FOR INFORMING THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO LEVY PENALTY IN ORDER TO ENAB LE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. MERE MISTAKE IN THE LANGUAGE USED OR M ERE NON-STRIKING OF THE INACCURATE PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF DHANRAJ MILLS PVT.LTD. (SUPRA) FOLLOWED THE DECISIO N RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAUSHALYA (SUPRA) AND CHOSE NOT TO FOLLOW DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA). RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED BY THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THIS DECISION ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PATNA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MITHILA MOTOR 'S (P.) LTD. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (PATNA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE. NO STATUTORY NO TICE HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED IN THIS BEHALF. HENCE, IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE CHARGES HE HAD TO MEET AND WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. A MIST AKE IN THE NOTICE WOULD NOT INVALIDATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 10. IN THE CASE OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CO RPORATION (SUPRA), THE ITAT MUMBAI DID NOT FOLLOW THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) FOR THE REASON THAT PENALTY IN THAT CASE WAS DELETED FOR SO MANY REASONS AND NOT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF DEFECT IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THIS IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. ONE OF THE PAR TIES BEFORE THE GROUP OF ASSESSEES BEFORE THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJ UNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) WAS AN ASSESSEE BY NAME M/S.VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & CO., IN ITA NO.5020 OF 2009 WHICH WAS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. THE TRIBU NAL HELD THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, I T IS CLEAR THAT IT IS A STANDARD PROFORMA USED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. BEFORE IS SUING THE NOTICE THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS AND PARAGRAPHS WERE NEITHER STRUCK OFF NOR DE LETED. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS NOT SURE AS TO WHETHER SHE HAD PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EITHER 4 ITA NO. 97/GAU/2019 BENI MADHAB PAUL, AY- 2014-15 CONCEALED ITS INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE DE TAILS. THE NOTICE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PARTICULAR S ECTION AND THEREFORE IT IS A VAGUE NOTICE, WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PATENT NON APPLI CATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. FURTHER, IT HELD THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT BEING UNDISCLOSED INVES TMENT. IN THE APPEAL, THE SAID FINDING WAS SET-ASIDE. BUT ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED O N A NEW GROUND, THAT IS UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. SINCE THE ASSESSING AUT HORITY HAD INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BASED ON THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTI ON 69 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS STRUCK DOWN BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE INITIAT ED PENAL PROCEEDINGS, NO LONGER EXISTS. IF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD INITIATED PE NAL PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITION SUSTAINED UNDER A NEW GROUND IT HAS A LEGA L SANCTUM. THIS WAS NOT SO IN THIS CASE AND THEREFORE, ON BOTH THE GROUNDS THE IMPUGNE D ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS SE T-ASIDE BY ITS ORDER DATED 9TH APRIL, 2009. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE REVENUE FILE D APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FRAMED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW IN THE SAID APPEAL VIZ., 1. WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) I N THE PRINTED FORM WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON THE GROUND OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING O F INACCURATE PARTICULARS IS VALID AND LEGAL? 2. WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS LEGAL AND VALID? THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD I N THE NEGATIVE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE ON BOTH THE QUESTIONS. THEREFORE THE DECIS ION RENDERED BY THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPOR ATION (SUPRA) IS OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. 11. IN THE CASE OF M/S. MAHARAJ GARAGE & CO. VS. C IT DATED 22.8.2017 REFERRED TO IN THE WRITTEN NOTE GIVEN BY THE LEARNED DR, WHICH I S AN UNREPORTED DECISION AND A COPY OF THE SAME WAS NOT FURNISHED, THE SAME PROPOS ITION AS WAS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. KAUSH ALYA (SUPRA) APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN REITERATED, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE EXTRACTS FU RNISHED IN THE WRITTEN NOTE FURNISHED BY THE LEARNED DR BEFORE US. 12. IN THE CASE OF TRISHUL ENTERPRISES ITA NO.384 & 385/MUM/2014, THE MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. KAUSHALYA (SUPRA). 13. IN THE CASE OF MAHESH M. GANDHI (SUPRA) THE MU MBAI ITAT THE ITAT HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THAT CASE BECAUSE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND MERELY BECAUSE IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO MENTION WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS ARE FOR FURNISHING INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THAT WILL NOT VITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO WHISPER IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ON THIS ASPECT. WE HAVE PO INTED OUT THIS ASPECT IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER. HENCE, THIS DECISION WILL NOT BE OF AN Y ASSISTANCE TO THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. EVEN OTHERWISE THIS DECISION DOES NOT FOLLOW TH E RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNI NG (SUPRA) IN AS MUCH AS THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE SAID CASE WAS ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO SH OW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE COURT DID NOT LAY DOWN A PROPOSITION THAT T HE DEFECT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WILL STAND CURED IF THE INTENTION OF THE CHARGE U/S.271( 1) (C ) IS DISCERNIBLE FROM A READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH THE PENALTY WAS INITIATED . 5 ITA NO. 97/GAU/2019 BENI MADHAB PAUL, AY- 2014-15 14. FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION IT CAN BE SEEN T HAT THE LINE OF REASONING OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE PATNA HIG H COURT IS THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICE FOR INFORMING TH E ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO LEVY PENALTY IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS T O WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. MERE MISTAKE IN THE LANGUAGE USED OR MERE NON-STRIKING O F THE INACCURATE PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHES AT MUMBAI AND PATNA BEING SUBORDINATE TO THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND PA TNA HIGH COURT ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE AFORESAID VIEW. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHES AT BANGALORE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. AS FAR AS BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE CONCERNED, THERE ARE TWO VI EWS ON THE ISSUE, ONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE RENDERED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) AND OTHER OF TH E HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.KAUSHALYA. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE AVAILABLE ON AN ISSUE, THE VIEW FAVOURABLE TO THE A SSESSEE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. WE THEREFORE PREFER TO FOLLOW THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY TH E HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA). 15. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE N OTICE ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT S TRIKE OUT THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IMP OSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE WHICH IS BASED ON THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER HAS T O BE ACCEPTED. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF TH E COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AND SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH JUNE, 2020. SD/- SD/- (DR. A. L. SAINI) (ABY. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :12TH JUNE, 2020 JD.(SR.P.S.) 6 ITA NO. 97/GAU/2019 BENI MADHAB PAUL, AY- 2014-15 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT SHRI BENI MADHAB PAUL, FLAT NO. 1F, PRAKASH ENCLAVE, HARBALA ROAD, GUWAHATI-781007. 2 RESPONDENT ITO, WARD-1(1), GUWAHATI 3. 4. CIT(A), GUWAHATI-1, GUWAHATI CIT-, GUWAHATI 5. DR, ITAT, GUWAHATI. / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR PVT. SECY.