ACIT, Circle - 42, Kolkata v. Sri Amal Kr. Ghosh, Kolkata

ITA 1149/KOL/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2010

Appeal Details

RSA Number 114923514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN ADNPG3821F
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 1149/KOL/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Circle - 42, Kolkata
Respondent Sri Amal Kr. Ghosh, Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-07-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 03-06-2010
Next Hearing Date 03-06-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 02-07-2009
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : A BENCH: K OLKATA (BEFORE HON. SHRI B.R.MITTAL JM & HON. SHRI B.K.HA LDAR AM) ITA NO.1149/KOL/09 A.Y 2004-05 ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME VS. SHRI AMAL KUMAR GH OSH TAX CIRCLE-42 KOLKATA PAN:ADNPG 3821F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O NO. 53/KOL/09 [ITA NO.1149/KOL/09 A.Y 2004-05] SHRI AMAL KUMAR GHOSH VS. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX CIRCLE-42 KOLKATA (CROSS OBJECTOR) (DEPARTMENT) DEPARTMENT BY: S/SHRI K.HARIPRASA D O.P AGARWAL CROSS OBJECTOR BY: S/SHRI T.K CHAKRABORTY R.K.GOEL ORDER PER B.K.HALDAR A.M :- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) XII KOLKATA D ATED 23.03.2009 FOR THE A.Y 2004-05 AND THE CORRESPONDING CROSS OBJECTION T AKEN BY THE ASSESSEE.. 2. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEA L :- 1. THAT THE LD.CIT(A)-XII KOLKATA WAS NOT CORRECT IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE O F THE INITIATION OF THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS AND IN HOLDI NG THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE AB INITIO NULL AND VOID ON THE GR OUND THAT CBDT HAD INSTRUCTION NO.10 IN PARA 4 OF WHICH IT W AS MENTIONED THAT THE PROCESS OF SELECTION OF CASES F OR SCRUTINY FOR THE RETURNS FILED UPTO 31.03.2004 MUST BE COMPLETED BY 15 TH OCTOBER 2004. FOR RETURNS FILED DURING THE CURRENT F.YR 04-05 THE SELECTION OF THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY WILL HAVE TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF THE DAT E OF FILING OF THE RETURN. 2. THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY TH E CBDT WHICH WAS NOT STATUTORY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS N OT CORRECT IN CONCLUDING THAT AO HAS WRONGLY INITIA TED THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 143(2) BEYOND THE 2 TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED VIOLATING CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.10/2004 DATED 20.09.2004. 3. THAT THE INSTRUCTION OF CBDT WAS A MERE PROCEDUR AL GUIDELINE TO BE FOLLOWED AND WAS NEVER MEANT TO OV ERRIDE THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE I.T.ACT 1961. 4. THAT THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTION MENTIONS OF ONLY THE PROCESS OF SELECTION OF CASES FOR SCRUTINY AND DOES SPEAK OF THE TIME LIMIT WITHIN WHICH THE NOTICE U/S.143(2) A RE TO BE ISSUED IN SUPER CESSION OF THE STATUTORY TIME LIMI T. 5. THAT THE PROCESS OF SELECTION OF CASES FOR SCRUT INY AND ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) ARE TWO COMPLETELY DI FFERENT ISSUES EVEN THOUGH INTERLINKED. THE PROCESS OF SE LECTION PRECEDES THE ACTUALLY PROCESS OF SCRUTINIZING THE CASE WHEREAS ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) IS THE STEP FROM WHERE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) BEGINS OR COMMENCE S. 6. THAT EVEN IF A CASE IS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WI THIN THREE MONTHS OF ITS DATE OF FILING NOTICE U/S. 143 (2) COULD STILL BE ISSUED WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT OF TWELV E MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE RETURN WAS F ILED. 7. THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER SEEMS TO BE PERVERSE. C IT(A) IS SUPPOSED TO ADJUDICATE ON MERITS ONLY AND NOT ON ADMINISTRATIVE IRREGULARITIES. 8. THAT THE DEPARTMENT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ADD A ND ALTER ANY GROUND OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF HEA RING OF THE CASE. 3. IN THE C.O THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GRO UNDS:- 1. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAVING CANCELLED TH E ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF BINDING CIRCULAR OF C.B. D.T SHOULD NOT HAVE PASSED ANY ORDER IN RESPECT OF OTHE R GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN SAYING THAT ORDER U/S.144 WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. 3. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLD ING THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4 99 852/- AS UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASES WAS PROPER. 4. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN HOLD ING THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5 348 FROM ELECTRIC CHARGES WAS PROPER. 5. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN HOLD ING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8 660 FOR PRINTING AND STATIONER Y WAS 3 PROPER. 6. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN HOLD ING THAT DISALLOWANCES OF RS.59 740 FROM FOOD AND LODGI NG AND RS.12 085 FOR STAFF WELFARE WERE PROPER. 7. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN HOLD ING THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.16 445 FOR POWER AND FUEL WAS PROPER. 8. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN HOLD ING THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.23 352 FOR REPAIR AND MAINT ENANCE WAS PROPER. 9. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN HOL DING THAT LAUNDRY EXPENSES OF RS.39 610/- WAS PROPER. 10. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN HOL DING THAT DISALLOWANCE FOR SUBSCRIPTION AND DONATION OF RS.5 824/- WAS PROPER. 11. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN HOL DING THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 20 000/- FROM COMMISSION WAS PROPER. 12. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN HOL DING THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.38 256 FROM ADVERTISEMENT W AS PROPER. 13. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN HOL DING THAT ADDITION OF RS.4 27 975/- OF LOAN AND ADVANCES AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 14. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN CON FIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. 15. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN HOL DING THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5 03 442 IN RESPECT OF REPA IRING JOB WAS UNJUSTIFIED. 16. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.24 857/- OF PURCHASE. 17. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN CON FIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.34 922 FROM WAGES. 18. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4 27 549/- FROM COMMISSION. 19. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN CON FIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.33 638 OF BAD DEBT. 20. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN UPH OLDING THE DEPRECIATION OF NET ASSETS. 21. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DELETE TH E ADDITION OF NEW LOANS AND ADVANCES OF RS.2 98 984 I N VIEW OF THE FACT WHEN HE HAS ALREADY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED ALL EVIDENCES. 4 22. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN UPH OLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.30 000 DECLARED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 23. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN UPH OLDING THE ADDITIONS AND UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCES IN VI EW OF HIS OWN OBSERVATIONS THAT AT PARA 9 PAGE 18 THE ADDITI ONS MADE BY THE AO WAS NOT PROPER. 24. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) FAIL TO CONSIDER OBJECTI ON OF THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.5 28 731 AS HOTEL HINDUSTHAN WRONGLY INCLUDED AS INCOME OF THE APPELL ANT. 25. FOR THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ANY GROUND OR FILE ANY NEW GROUND. 4. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSMENT U/S.144 OF THE I.T.A CT61 WAS COMPLETED FOR THE A.Y 2004-05 ON 12-12-06 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOM E AT RS.40 74 730/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29-10 -04 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.7 99 883/-. AFTER PROCESSING THE SAME U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) W ITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT. AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CO-OPERATE WITH T HE ASSESSING OFFICER BY NOT FURNISHING THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY HIM AND AS THE CASE WAS GETTING TIME BARRED ON 31-12-06 THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED T HE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.144 OF THE ACT BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS/DISA LLOWANCES AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.40 74 730/-. 5. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE L EARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). 6. BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A PPEALS) IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AS THE SELECTION OF THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS IN VIOLATION OF CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.9/2004 DATE D 20-9-04 THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE QUASHED. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE RE TURN FILED SHOULD HAVE BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITHIN 3 MONTHS OF THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN I.E. ON OR BEFORE 28.01.05. HOWEVER AS THE NOTICE U/S.143(2) WAS ISSUED ONLY ON 14-7-05 THE ASSESSMENT WAS VOID ABINITIO. FOR THIS PROPOSI TION RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE TRIBUNALS DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUNITA FINLEASE LTD. VS. DCIT [118 TTJ 263] (BILASPUR). IT WAS OPINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) 5 THAT BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO.9/2004 DT. 20.9.04 WAS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF CORPORATE ASSESSEE. RELEVANT INSTRUCTION FOR NON C ORPORATE ASSESSEES WAS THE BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO.10 DT 20.9.04 WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 4. THE PROCESS OF SELECTION OF CASES FOR SCRUTINY FOR THE RETURNS FILED UPTO 31.03.2004 MUST BE COMPLETED BY 15 TH OCTOBER 2004. FOR RETURNS FILED DURING THE CURRENT F.YR 04-05 THE SELECTION OF THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY WILL HAVE TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. 6.1 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) THEREFORE HELD THAT AS THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 3 MONT HS FROM THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE RETURN THE PROCEEDINGS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINIZ ING THE CASE WAS ABINITIO NULL AND VOID. HE THEREFORE QUASHED THE SAID ASSESSMENT. EVEN THOUGH THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) QUASHED THE S AID ASSESSMENT HE PROCEEDED TO EXAMINE THE OTHER GROUNDS TAKEN ON VA RIOUS ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON MERIT. 7. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APP EAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. BEFORE US THE LD. CIT(DR) SUBMITTED THAT AS PER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD ISSUE A NOTICE U/S.143 (2) OF THE ACT WITHIN 12 MONTHS FROM THE ENDS OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE RETURN WAS FURNISHED I.E. ON OR BEFORE 31- 10-05. IN THE PRESENT CASE SUCH NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 14-07-05. THUS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOR SCRUTINIZING THE CASE WAS VALID. 8.1 AS REGARDS INSTRUCTION NO.10/04 OF THE CBDT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.CIT(DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE) THAT THIS WAS A MERE GUIDELINE/INTRA DEPARTMENTAL INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY THE CBDT WHICH WAS TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS FOR EXPEDITING THE SELECTION O F CASE FOR SCRUTINY AND IN COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIB ED BY THE ACT. IT WAS CONTENDED BY HIM THAT INSTRUCTION/CIRCULAR OF THE C BDT CANNOT OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE J UDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION V S. CIT REPORTED IN 210 ITR 6 129(SC). 8.2 IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTI FIED IN ANNULLING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHIN 3 MONTHS OF THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE LD.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED BY HIM THAT THE PROCESS OF SELE CTING THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY WAS NOT COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHIN 3 MO NTHS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN. AS THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP UNDER SCRUTINY IN VIOLATION OF BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO.10 IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY ANNULLED THE IMPUGNED ASSESS MENT IN THE PRESENT CASE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE INSTRUCTION N O.10 OF THE CBDT WAS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT AND HENCE T HE RATIO OF THE HONBLE APEX COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF KERALA FINANCIAL CO RPORATION (SUPRA) WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE BE CONFIRMED. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECOR D. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS CITED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. WE DO ACCEPT THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE THAT CIRCULARS/INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD U/S .119 OF THE ACT ARE BINDING ON THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER THE WORDINGS OF THE IMPUGNED BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO.10 REQUIRE SCRUTINY. WE HAVE ALREAD Y REPRODUCED PARA 4 OF THE SAID INSTRUCTION EARLIER IN THIS ORDER. THE EXPRESS ION USED IS THE SELECTION OF CASES FOR SCRUTINY WILL HAVE TO BE COMPLETED WITHI N THREE MONTHS OF THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. IT MEANS THAT THE FIELD FORMATION OF THE INCOME- TAX DEPARTMENT MUST DECIDE AS TO WHICH CASES ARE REQUIR ED TO BE TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. IT DOES NOT LAY DOWN THE LIMITATION P ERIOD FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE 7 U/S.143(2). THUS IT DOES NOT TAKE AWAY THE JURISDI CTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE A NOTICE U/S.143(2) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 10.1 THE IMPUGNED INSTRUCTION IS AN INTRA-DEPARTMEN TAL INSTRUCTION. IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO US THAT THE SAME WAS GIVEN VIDE PUBLI CITY BY THE CBDT AS PER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE RULE. THE IN STRUCTION ALSO DOES NOT CLARIFY OR EXPLAIN ANY LEGAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. AS SUC H IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT THE INSTRUCTION WAS ISSUED U/S.119 OF THE ACT. IN OUR C ONSIDERED OPINION THE INTENTION OF PARA-4 OF THE INSTRUCTION NO.10 IS TO ENSURE THA T THE CASES REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN UNDER SCRUTINY ARE SEGREGATED IN TIME SO THAT THE STATUTORY NOTICE COULD BE ISSUED WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD AND THERE IS SUFFICIE NT TIME AVAILABLE WITH THE A.O TO SCRUTINIZE THE CASE. IT DOES NOT AND CANNOT CURTAI L THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION LAID DOWN IN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2). THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUNITA FINLEASE(SUPRA) HAS EQUATED THE EXPRESSION SELECTI ON OF THE CASES FOR SCRUTINY WITH ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2).WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS VIEW FOR THE REASONS ELABORATED HEREINABOVE. THUS WE HOLD THAT THE IMPU GNED INSTRUCTION DID NOT TAKE AWAY THE JURISDICTION OF THE A.O TO ISSUE NOTICE U /S.143(2) OF THE ACT AS PER THE PROVISO OF THE SAID SECTION. JURISDICTION TO SCRUTI NIZE THE CASE WAS RIGHTLY INVOKED BY THE A.O. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF T HE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND HOLD THAT ASSESSMENT WAS A VALID ONE. 11. AS A RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOW ED. 12. AS REGARDS THE C.O TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IT AP PEARS THAT AS THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS ABINITIO VOID THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT SERIOUSLY CONTESTED THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES ON MERIT BEFO RE HIM. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE THE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE ON ME RIT BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE L D.CIT(A) ON THE ISSUES RELATING TO ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE A.O WHICH WERE CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HI S FILE WITH THE DIRECTION THAT A FRESH ORDER BE PASSED AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEARING HEARD. THUS THE C.O TAKEN BY THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL 8 PURPOSE. 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AL LOWED AND THE C.O OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30-.7-10 SD/- SD/- ( B.R.MITTAL) (B.K.HALDAR) (JUDICIALMEMBER) DT. 30.-7-10 ACC OUNTANT MEMBER COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-42 18 RAB INDRA SARANI PODDAR COURT 4 TH FL. KOL-1 2. SHRI AMAL KUMAR GHOSH 10/3/2 B.T RD. BONHOOGHLY K OL-35 3. CIT(A) KOLKATA 4.CIT KOLKATA. 5. D.R. ITAT KOLKATA. *PP TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT KOLKATA