ACIT, CIRCLE-32, Kol, Kolkata v. Jyotsna Desai, Kolkata

ITA 1043/KOL/2009 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 104323514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAAFL9906C
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 1043/KOL/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, CIRCLE-32, Kol, Kolkata
Respondent Jyotsna Desai, Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 25-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 21-06-2011
Next Hearing Date 21-06-2011
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 16-06-2009
Judgment Text
1 B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH- B KOL KATA [ . .. . . .. . !' ] BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI C.D. RAO ACCO UNTANT MEMBER # # # # / ITA NO. 1043 (KOL) OF 2009 $% &' / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-32 KOLKATA. JYOTSNA DESAI KOLKATA. (PAN-AAAFL9906C) (*+ / APPELLANT ) - $ - - VERSUS - (./*+/ RESPONDENT ) *+ 0 1 !/ FOR THE APPELLANT: / SRI NIRAJ KUMAR ./*+ 0 1 ! / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SRI D.S. DAMLE 2$3 0 ' / DATE OF HEARING : 30/09/2011 4& 0 ' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/11/2011 !5 / ORDER ( . .. . . .. . ) !' (C.D. RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T.(A)-XIX KOLKATA DATED 30/03/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7 (WRONGLY WRITTEN IN FORM NO.36 AS 2003-04). THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE DE PARTMENT READS AS UNDER :- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN TREATING THE INCOME OF RS. 3 81 14 632/- DERIVED FROM TRADE IN SHARES AS CAPIT AL GAINS EVEN THOUGH THE MATERIAL FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD THROUGH SURVEY PRO CEEDINGS AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ESTABLISHED THAT SAID INCOMES WERE OF T HE NATURE OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS IN TERMS OF THE GUIDELINES LAID DOWN IN CB DT CIRCULAR NO. 4 OF 2007 DATED 15.07.2007. 2. BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISSUE ARE THAT WHILE DOING S CRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE LD. A.O. HAS TREA TED THE SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS WELL AS LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS OFFERED BY THE ASSE SSEE AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS BY MAINLY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 2 (I) NATURE OF BUSINESS AND INCOMES: THE ASSESSEE HAD EARLIER REGISTERED AS A BROKER WITH THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE BUT IS PRE SENTLY ONLY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADE IN SHARES AND SECURITIES AND HAS ALSO SOME INCOMES FROM INVESTMENTS. INCOMES FROM TRADE IN SHARES ARE CHAR GED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS & PROFESSION AND INCOM ES FROM THE TRANSFER OF INVESTMENTS ARE CHARGED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD CAPI TAL GAINS. DIVIDENDS EARNED BOTH ON INVESTMENT SHARES AS WELL AS TRADING STOCK SHARES ARE CHARGED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. (II) INCOMES FOR THE YEAR : DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED A GROSS PROFIT OF RS.1 12 00 617/- FROM ITS TRADE IN SHARES . IT HAS EARNED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 40 28 666/- AND LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAINS OF RS.3 11 11 818/-. IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAINS INCOMES THE ASSESSEE D OES NOT CREDIT GROSS SALES INVESTMENTS BUT DIRECTLY CREDITS CERTAIN AMOUNTS U NDER THE HEADS LONG TERM AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS TO HER PROFIT & LOSS A CCOUNT. THAT IS THE ACCOUNTS STATEMENTS OR THE RETURN OF INCOME DOES NO T DISCLOSE EITHER GROSS RECEIPTS CARRYING COSTS OR DISPOSAL PROCEEDS OF TH E INVESTMENTS. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THIS IS IN CIRCUMVENTION OF THE NORMS OF DISCLOSURE SET DOWN IN ACCOUNTING STANDARD (AS) 13 ACCOUNTING FOR INVESTM ENTS ISSUED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS O F INDIA PARTICULARLY THE CONTENTS OF CLAUSES (A) (B) AND (C)(I) OF PARAGRAP GH 35 THEREIN. IT MAY BE ADDED THAT THE SPECIFIC COMPUTATIO N OF SUCH CAPITAL GAINS CREDITED IN ACCOUNTS WERE NOT ENCLOSED WITH RETURN BUT PREPARED AND SUBMITTED ONLY WHEN SPECIFICALLY REQUISITIONED U/S 142(1). FURTHER AFTER ANALYZING (I) INVESTMENTS VIS--VIS TRADE (II) NATURE OF INVESTMENT (III) SUB-CATEGORIES OF TRANSACTIONS IN INVESTMENT (IV) DIVIDEND AS A MOTIVE FOR INVESTMENTS AND (V) LOAN FUNDS INVESTED IN ACQUIRING INVESTMENT S AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS THE LD. A.O. FINALLY CONCLUDED AS UNDER :- 7. CONCLUSIONS : IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND WIT H REFERENCE TO THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE I ARRIVE AT THE FOLLOWIN G CONCLUSIONS: I. THAT DESPITE HAVING A SEPARATE DP ACCOUNT FOR INVESTMENTS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UTILIZED THE SAID ACCOUNT FOR THAT DECLARED PURPOSE DURING THE YEAR IN QUESTION BUT HAS ACTUALLY CONDUCTED TRADE THROUGH BOTH HER DP ACCOUNTS. II. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EFFECTIVELY TRANSF ORMED HER ACTIVITIES IN ITS INVESTMENT ACCOUNT WITHOUT A FORMAL CONVERSION OF S HARES FROM INVESTMENT TO STOCK AND WITHOUT THE NECESSARY CHANGE IN THE TAX TREATMENT OF THE PROFITS ARISING FROM THE SAME. AND THAT THE SAME WAS DONE WITH HER FULL KNOWLEDGE OF 3 THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW AND WITH A MOTIVE OF REDUCI NG THE INCIDENCE OF TAX ON HER INCOME. III. PROFITS FROM HER TRADE IN QUOTED SHARES HELD IN THE NOMINAL INVESTMENT ACCOUNT NEED TO BE RECOMPUTED AND ADDED TO BUSINESS INCOME. TRADING ACCOUNT OF QUOTED SHARES THROUGH INVEST MENT ACCOUNT OPENING STOCK 2 30 26 904 SALES 9 54 0 8 867 PURCHASES 7 73 07 307 CLOSING STOCK 4 30 39 976 NET PROFIT (ADDITIONAL) 3 81 14 632 _________ 13 84 48 843 13 84 48 843 IV. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS HAD NO GAINS FROM TRANSFER OF HER HOLDINGS IN MUTUAL FUNDS OR UNQUOTED SHARES NO INCOME IS BEING CHARGE D UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AND TOTAL INCOME IS RECOMPUTED IN THE FOLLOW ING SECTION. 3. ON APPEAL THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS ALLOWED THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY MAINLY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 6.6. I FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A/R T HAT AGGREGATE CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.3 51 40 484/- INTER-ALIA INCLUDED RS.3 11 11 818 /- BEING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IN PERCENTAGE TERM 88.54% OF THE TOTAL CAPITAL GAIN DERIVED DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 WAS FROM THE SHARES HELD FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE APPELLANT EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.91 91 915/- AND RS.2 19 19 903/- ON TRANSFER OF SHARES OF GLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICAL LTD. AND L.I.C. HOUSING FINANCE LTD. RESPECTIVELY. ON PERUSAL OF BALANCE SHEET AS ON .1.03.2005 IT IS NOTICED THAT THE SHARES OF GLAX O WERE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IN LIEU OF 11 770 SHARES OF BURROUGHS WEL LCOME LTD. WHICH WERE PURCHASED ON 07.05.2003 AND 26.03.2004. THESE SHARE S WERE SOLD IN ONE LOT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 00607 AFTER HOLDING IT FOR A PERIOD MORE THAN TWO YEARS. IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2004 AND 31.032005 TH ESE SHARES APPEARED AS INVESTMENTS AND IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT FRAME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THE A.O. HAD ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THESE SHARES WE RE HELD FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES. THE SHARES OF L.J.C. HOUSING FINANCE LTD. WERE PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE PERIOD 13.03.2001 TO 24.05.200 2. IN THE BALANCE SHEETS OF THE ASSESSEE AS AT 31.03.2001 TO 31.03.2005 THESE SHARES ALWAYS APPEARED AS INVESTMENT AND NOT AS STOCK IN TRADE. THUS .AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF THESE SHARES THE ASSESSEE HAD EVERY INTENTION TO HOLD THE SHARES FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES. 6.8. I ALSO FIND THAT THE A.OS ACTION IN ASSESSI NG CAPITAL GAIN PROFIT AS BUSINESS INCOME BUT NOT CONSISTENT IN ALL RESPECTS BECAUSE H E ASSESSED THE PROFIT REALIZED ON TRANSFER OF INVESTMENT UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. HOWEVER THE A0 DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION FOR VALUATION TOSS IN COMPU TING SUCH BUSINESS INCOME EVEN 4 THOUGH THE ASSESSEE REGULARLY FOLLOWED THE PRINCIPL ES OF LOWER OF THE COST OR MARKET VALUE FOR VALUING INVENTORY. SIMILARLY THE A.O. ALSO DID NOT ALLOW TAX REBATE U/S. 88E OF THE ACT PERTAINING TO S.T.T. PA Y ON SALE OF SHARES THESE ACTIONS OF HE A.O. INDICATE THAT ONLY SO FAR AS ASS ESSMENT OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS THE A.O. DISPUTED THE APPELLAN TS CLAIM. HOWEVER IF THE A.O WAS TO DISPUTE ASSESSEES CLASSIFICATION THEN IT WA S INCUMBENT ON A.0. TO ASSESS INCOME AS PER THE ACCOUNTING METHOD AND ALL LEGAL P ROVISIONS AS APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT OF BUSINESS INCOME. THIS ASPECT WAS HOWE VER NOT TAKEN CARE BY THE A.O. WHICH INDICATES THAT TO THE EXTENT THE A.O. FO UND THE ASSESSEES ACTION BENEFICIAL TO THE REVENUE THE A.O. ACCEPTED THE SA ME. IN MY OPINION THIS WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE. 6.9 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE A.O. HAS MENTION ED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD TAKEN LOAN FOR ACQUIRING INVESTMENT SHARES. HOWEVER AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2006 IT IS SEEN THE APPELLANT HERSELF HAD GIVEN LOANS AND ADVANCES OF RS.78 56 757/-. THE AMOUNT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES GI VEN BY THE APPELLANT AS ON 01.04.2005 WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS.1 01 40 961/-. DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DEBITED ANY AM OUNT OF INTEREST ON ACCOUNT OF LOANS .ON PERUSAL OF LEDGER EXTRACTS OF THE PART IES REFERRED BY THE A.O. IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN ALL THE CASES THERE WAS OPENING DE BIT BALANCE IN THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SHE HAD WITHDRAWN HER OWN MONEY FROM THESE ACCOUNTS. THUS IN MY OPINION THE INFERE NCE DRAWN BY THE A.O. IS MISPLACED. .. .. 6.13 I ALSO FIND THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY ME IN TH E PRESENT CASE IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T. KOLKATA IN THE CASE O F DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-27 KOLKATA VS. RELIANCE TRADING ENTERPRISES LTD. IN I. T.A. NO.944 (KOL) OF 2008 DATED 03.10.2008. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS A TRADER AS WELL AS AN INVESTOR IN SHARES. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AGGREGATING T O RS.74 89 622/- BEING THE PROFIT ON SALE OF INVESTMENT SHARES. HOWEVER THE A .O. HAD CONVERTED THE INCOME SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN TO BUSINESS IN COME. IN THE FIRST APPEAL THE CLAIM OF .THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BY THE C.I.T.(A) . ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IN THE ITAT KOLKATA THE ORDER OF THE C.I. T.(A) WAS UPHELD BY THE ITAT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE REC ORDS AS WELL THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US THERE IS NO DENYING THE FACT THAT AS PER THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED THE AS SESSEE HAD ACTED BOTH AS A TRADER AS WELL AS INVESTOR IN SHARES AS PER TH E MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION. ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED F OR TRADING/BUSINESS SHARES WHICH ARE HELD AS STOCK-IN- TRADE AND SEPARA TELY FOR INVESTMENT SHARES WHICH ARE HELD AND SHOWN IN BALANCE SHEET UN DER THE HEAD INVESTMENT REPRESENTING CAPITAL ASSETS. THE DECIS ION USED TO BE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE ITSELF BASED O N DIFFERENT FACTORS 5 WHETHER ANY SHARE & SECURITY WAS TO BE HELD AS INV ESTMENT OR TRADING. WHEN THE SHARES ARE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS AS I NVESTMENT SHARES THE VOLUME OF TRANSACTION OF SUCH SHARES CANNOT ALTER ITS STATUS FROM INVESTMENT TO TRADING. PROFIT ON SALE OF SUCH INVES TMENT SHARES HELD AS CAPITAL ASSETS ARE ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITA L GAIN. THE PERIOD OF HOLDING SUCH ASSETS CANNOT DETERMINE ITS STATUS OR CHANGE IT FROM INVESTMENT (CAPITAL) TO TRADING (STOCK-IN-TRADE). T HE AUDITED A/CS. FOR THE AY. 2004-05 AND THE EARLIER YEARS PLACED IN THE PAP ER BOOK MADE IT CLEAR THAT EVERY YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED SHARES FO R TRADING PURPOSE AND SEPARATELY ALSO FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSE WITH AN INTE NTION TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME IN ADDITION TO THE PROSPECT OF MAKING PROFIT ON SALE OF SUCH INVESTMENT SHARES AT AN APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNE MOMEN T WITHOUT MAKING ANY HURRY FOR SALE IGNORING DIVIDEND. THE INVESTMENT SH ARES AND SECURITIES PURCHASED AND HELD TILL THEIR SALE HAD DUAL PURPOSE I.E. FOR EARNING DIVIDEND AS AN INCIDENTAL INCOME AS WELL AS TO MAKE PROFIT O N SALE AT APPROPRIATE TIME. THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE A.O. BY TREATING THE INVESTMENT SHARES AS TRADING SHARES WAS BASED PURELY ON ASSUMPTIONS A ND PRESUMPTIONS WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL OR. EVIDENC E IN SUPPORT THEREOF. THE A.O. DID NOT REJECT THE BOOKS OF A/C. VIS--VIS THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS U/S 145 OF THE I. T. ACT BEFORE ARRIVING AT SUCH A CONCLUSION. THE A.OS FINDING CANNOT THEREFORE BE ACCEPTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE PROFIT ON SALE OF INVESTMENT SHARES SECURITIES AND MUTUAL FUND IS ASSESSABLE UN DER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. THE VIEW IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIONS OF I.T. A.T. MUMBAI & DELHI BENCHES AS WELL AS DECISION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF C.I.T. VS. RAMAAMIRTHAM (2008) 217 CTR 206. IN THE SAID DECISIONS ON WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED RELIANCE THE ASSESSEES WERE ALL REPUTED STOCK BROK ERS WHO REGULARLY CARRIED ON BROKING AND SHARE DEALING BUSINESS BUT SIMULTANEOUS LY HELD SHARES BY WAY OF INVESTMENTS. ON TRANSFER OF INVESTMENTS THE ASSESSE E EARNED CAPITAL GAINS WHICH WERE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. CONSIDERING DIFFE RENTIATION MAINTAINED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BETWEEN THE TRADING STOCK AND INV ESTMENT THE HIGH COURT AND TRIBUNAL BENCHES HELD THAT PROFIT DERIVED ON TRANSF ER OF INVESTMENT WAS ASSESSABLE AS CAPITAL GAIN. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) THE R EVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE POINTED OUT VARI OUS ANALYSIS MADE BY THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND CONTENDED THAT THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. IS JUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HE THEREFORE REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE LD. A. O. 6 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARIN G ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FACTS MENTIONED BY THE LD. A.O. IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CREDIT GROSS SALES OF INVESTMENTS BUT DIRECTLY CREDITS CERTAIN AMOUNTS UNDER THE HEADS LONG TERM AND SHORT TERM C APITAL GAINS TO HER P/L ACCOUNT THAT IS THE ACCOUNT STATEMENTS OR THE RETURN OF IN COME DOES NOT DISCLOSE EITHER GROSS RECEIPTS CARRYING COSTS OR DISPOSAL PROCEEDS OF TH E INVESTMENTS ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THEREFORE HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF TH E LD. C.I.T.(A) AND REQUESTED THE BENCH TO UPHOLD THE SAME. 6. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT SINCE THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED THE CONFLICT OF FACTS IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER BENCH DIRECTED THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TO GET THE STATUS REPOR T FROM THE LD. A.O. THE LD. A.O. ON THIS ISSUE COMMENTED AS UNDER :- KINDLY REFER TO THE INSTRUCTIONS IN YOUR LETTER UNDER REFERENCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPEAL IN HONBLE ITAT WHEREIN YOU HAD KI NDLY DIRECTED ME TO OFFER MY COMMENTS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN SPECIFIC ISSUE. MY FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS IN RESPECT OF THAT ISSUE ARE NOTED BELOW FOR YOUR KIND CONSIDERATION. IT IS FOUND THAT SMT. JYOTSNA DESAI HAS MAINTAINE D TWO DP ACCOUNTS BEARING NO. 1202770000000229 AND 1202770000000214 FOR INVESTMEN T AND TRADING RESPECTIVELY. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS IT IS APPARENT THAT THERE WERE NO INTER DEPOSITARY TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO DPS. 7. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. A.O. ADDRESSED TO THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE SMT. JYOTSNA DESAI HAS MAINTAINED TWO ACCOUNTS ONE FOR TRADING AND THE OT HER FOR TRADING PURPOSES AND THERE WERE NO INTER-DEPOSITARY TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THESE TWO ACCOUNTS WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) TO INTERFERE WITH . WE THEREFORE CONFIRM HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( . .. . . .. . ) !' (MAHAVIR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER (C.D. RA O) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( (( ( ' ' ' ') )) ) DATE: 25-11-2011 7 # # # # / ITA NO. 1043 (KOL) OF 2009 !5 0 .6 7!6&8- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. *+ / THE APPELLANT : A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-32 KOLKATA. 2 ./*+ / THE RESPONDENT : JYOTSNA DESAI 37 SHAKESPEARE SARANI KOL-700017 3. 5$ () : THE CIT(A)-XIX KOLKATA. 4. 5$/ THE C.I.T. KOL - 5 <= .$ / DR ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA 6 GUARD FILE . /6 ./ TRUE COPY !5$2/ BY ORDER (DKP) > ? / DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR .