Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Ito, Wd-49(4), Kolkata, Kolkata vs Shri Anil Kumar Loharuka, Kolkata on 28 August, 2019
ITA No. 1315/KOL/2016
Assessment Year: 2007-2008
Shri Anil Kumar Loharuka
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
KOLKATA 'A' BENCH, KOLKATA
Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ)
and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member
I.T .A. No. 1315/KOL/2016
Assessment Year: 2007-2008
Income Tax Officer,....................................... ................................Appellant
Ward-49(4 ), Kolkata,
Uttarapan Shopping Complex,
Manicktola Civic Centre, Ultadanga,
Kolkata-700 054
-Vs.-
Shri Ani l Kumar Lo haruka,...............................................................Respondent
DC-9/28, Shas tri Bagan,
Deshbandbhu Nagar, Baguiati,
Kolkata-700 059
[PAN:AAWPL5808R]
Appearances by:
Shri Nicholas Murmu, Addl.CIT, D.R , for the Appellant
Shri Sanjoy Modi, C .A., fo r the Responden t
Date of concluding th e hearing : Ju ly 17, 2019
Date of pronouncing the order : Au gust 28, 2019
O R D E R
Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ):-
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata dated 31.03.2016, whereby he cancelled the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) by holding the same as bad-in-law.
2. The relevant facts of this case giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 23.11.2007 declaring total income of Rs.2,19,191/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 29.12.2009, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.7,67,970/-. During the year under 1 ITA No. 1315/KOL/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Shri Anil Kumar Loharuka consideration, the assessee along with other family members had purchased a seven-storied building at Loharuka Point for total consideration of Rs.2,29,60,000/- with assessee's 1/4 t h share being Rs.57,40,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, a reference was made by the Assessing Officer to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) under section 131(1)(d) of the Act in order to determine the fair market value of the building purchased by the assessee. The valuation report of the DVO, however, was received by the Assessing Officer only after the completion of assessment under section 143(3) valuing the said building at Rs.10,85,59,651/- with assessee's 1/4 t h share being Rs.2,71,39,913/-. According to the Assessing Officer, there was thus under-valuation of his share of property by the assessee to the extent of Rs.2,13,99,913/-. He, therefore, reopened the assessment after recording the reasons and after obtaining the approval of the concerned CIT, he issued a notice under section 148 of the Act to the assessee. In response to the said notice, a petition was filed by the assessee requesting that the return originally filed by him on 23.11.2007 may be treated as the return filed in response to notice under section 148. During the course of assessment proceedings, various objections were raised by the assessee in respect of valuation of his property as made by the DVO in his valuation report. The Assessing Officer, however, did not find the said objections to be sustainable and overruling the same, he made an addition of Rs.2,13,99,913/- under section 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment made by the assessee in the purchase of building in the assessment completed under section 147/143(3) of the Act vide an order dated 24.03.2014.
3. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the validity of the said assessment as well as disputing the addition made therein under section 69. During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the following 2 ITA No. 1315/KOL/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Shri Anil Kumar Loharuka submissions were made on behalf of the assessee while challenging the validity of the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) of the Act:-
"(1) As regards the second gro und of appeal claiming that the notice issued by the learned assessing officer u/s 148 of the Income T ax Act , 1961 being bad in l aw, all subseque nt proceedings conducted pursuant to the said notice are ab-initio void, we would like to point out the following:
a) A perusal of the facts of the case vis-a-vis the reasons fo r reo pening recorded u/s 148(2 ) by the AO will mak e it amply clear that the issue forming th e basis for reopening, has al ready been the subject matter of examinatio n during the co urse of assessme nt proceedings u/s 143(3). Moreover, the said issue was also the subject matter of examination and consideration in th e appellate proceedings befo re the Learned Commissio ner of Income T ax (Appeals) XXXII, Kolkata who aft er examining the purchase and sale price of the appellant's propert y in question grant ed full relief in respect o f the addition made by the AO.
b) In this regard, your ho nours attention is invit ed to the provisions of section 147 which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
147. If the [Assessing] Officer [h as reason to believe] that any income chargeable to t ax h as escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any ot her inco me chargeable to t ax wh ich h as escaped assessment and which comes to h is notice subsequently In the course of the proceedings under th is sectio n, or re-compute the loss or the depreciation allowance o r any other allowance, as th e case may be, fo r the assessment year concerned (h ereinaft er in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year):
Provided that where an assessment under subsection (3) of sectio n 143 or this section has been made fo r the relevant assessment year, no action sh all be taken under this sectio n aft er the expiry of four years fro m the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income ch argeable to tax h as escaped assessment fo r such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of th e assessee to make a ret urn under sectio n 139 or in respo nse to a notice issued under sub-
section (1) of section 142 or sect ion 148 o r to disclose 3 ITA No. 1315/KOL/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Shri Anil Kumar Loharuka fully and t ruly all material fact s necessary fo r his assessment , for that assessment year:
Provided further th at nothing cont ained in the first pro viso shall apply in a case wh ere any income in relatio n to any asset (including financial int erest in any entit y) locat ed o utside India, ch argeable to tax, has escaped assessment fo r any assessment year:
Provided also th at th e Assessing Officer may assess o r reassess such income, other than th e income involvi ng matters which are th e subject matters of any appeal , reference o r revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment.
Without prejudice to our above cont entions, we wo uld also like to st ate that as per th e second proviso to section 147 it is clear that income/ matters which have been decided in appeal / are subject matter of any appeal, reference o r revisio n, shall not be re assessed under the pro visions of this sect ion.
c) Your ho nours attention is al so drawn t o the deci sion of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs.P.G . Fo ils Ltd. 356 ITR 594 (Guj) wherein it was held that th e assessing officer had recorded th ree reasons which pert ained to th e extent of earnings exempt from income tax, which the Revenue cont ended should have been disallowed under section 14A of the Act and th e addition of un utilized Cenvat in valuatio n o f the Closing Stock . Both these issues h ad been examined by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment . There were fact ual findings co ncurrently arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. The notice pertaining to t hese two issues was not valid.
Your honour, the reassessment notice in this also case also relates to the issue which had been examined at the t ime of original assessment and there is factual findings arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals). Th us, in view of the provision of law and the above judgment the notice issued in this case is not valid.
d) A perusal of the facts of th e case also makes it abundantly clear th at there was no failure on the part of the appellant to furnish any information or explanation at the time of regular assessment proceedings. A plain reading of the first proviso to section 147 makes it clear that in cases where an assessment has been made u/s 14 3(3) and there is no failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for the year, proceedings u/s 148 shall not be initiated after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Moreover, t he reasons recorded by the assessing officer nowhere suggest t hat th ere has been a 4 ITA No. 1315/KOL/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Shri Anil Kumar Loharuka failure on th e part of the appellant to disclose fully and t ruly material facts necessary fo r th e purpo se of assessment.
In this regard, your honours attentio n is drawn to the observatio ns of the Hon'ble Court in th e case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004J 268 ITR 332 1 (Bom .), a Division Bench has o pined thus: -
The reaso ns reco rded by the assessing officer should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness. The reasons reco rded must disclose his mind. Reasons are the manifestation of mind of the Assessing Officer. The reaso ns reco rded should be self-expl anatory and should not keep th e assessee guessing fo r th e reasons. Reasons pro vide the link between conclusion and evidence. Th e reasons recorded must be based o n evidence. Th e Assessing Officer, in th e event of challenge to the reasons, must be able to justify the same based on material available on record. He must disclose in t he reasons as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the assessee fully and t ruly necessary fo r assessment of that assessment year so as to establish the vit al link between the reasons and evidence. That vital link i s the safeguard against arbit rary reo pening of the concluded assessment . The reasons reco rded by the Assessing Officer cannot be supplement ed by filing an affidavit o r making an o ral submission, otherwise, the reasons which were l acking in the material particul ars wo uld get supplemented, by th e time th e matter reaches to t he court, on th e st rength of affidavit o r oral submissions advanced." [Emph asis supplied].
Your honour, it is an est ablished procedure that while re- opening an assessment completed u/s 143(3 ) after the expiry of four years from th e end of the relevant assessment year, the reasons to be reco rded u/s 148(2) fo r issuing a notice u/s 148(1) must disclose which mat erial fact s were not fully and truly disclosed by the assessee. And if there was no such failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material fact s, re- opening was not justified at all.
The AR of th e assessee further relied on the following judgments:
Orient Beverages Ltd. vs. Income T ax Officer & Ors. 208 ITR 509 (Cal);
G. N . Sh aw (Wine) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. 260 ITR 513 (Cal);5 ITA No. 1315/KOL/2016
Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Shri Anil Kumar Loharuka Cliantha Research Lt d. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-T ax, Ahmedabad Circle-I [2 013] 35 taxmann.com 61 (Gujarat);
CIT v. Ush a International Ltd. {2012j 348 ITR 485/210 Taxman 188/25 taxmann.com 200;
Kamal a Properties vs. IAC {1994j Tax LR 468 (Cal.);
CIT vs. Smt . Meena Devi Mansinghka (2008) 303 ITR 351 (Raj.);
Britania Indust ries Limited V. Dy. CIT {1999j238 IT R 57 (Cal);
Kajaria Investment & Pro perties (P) Ltd. v. ITO {2001j250 ITR 619 (C al);
CIT V. Shirinibai Abdullabhai {1998] 23 2 IT R 895 (Cal);
Smt . Uma Devi Jhawar v. ITO {1996j 218 IT R 573 (Cal);
ITO Vs. Santo sh Kumar Dal mia 208 IT R 337 (Cal);
Smt . T arawati Devi Agarwal V. ITO {1986j162 IT R 606 (Cal);
Rasiklal Jivanl al Sh ah V. IT O {1982] 133 IT R 476 (C al);
Bhola Nath Majumdar v ITO {1996j 221 ITR 608 (Gau);
Jawaharlal Daryavbuxmal V. C IT {1982j137 ITR 54 (MP);
Tolaram G angaram v. ITO {1 985j 155 ITR 55 (Guj);
Smt . Amala Das V. CIT (1984)146 ITR 216 (P&H); Abdul Majid v. ITO [1 989] 178 ITR 616 (MP);
Gulabari H anumanbuxv. WT O/IT O [1989]178 ITR 519 (GAU).
Thus, it was co ntended th at the reopening of the abo ve completed assessment on the basis of the val uation repo rt is not proper as val uation report is o nly an o pinio n regarding the cost of purchase/construct ion o r the fair market val ue of the pro perty. A mere change in o pinio n canno t be the gro und to reopen a completed assessment. The same does not amount to informatio n, no r can it form a ground fo r reasons to believe that the assessee fail ed to disclose his income fully and truly within the meaning of sec. 147.
6 ITA No. 1315/KOL/2016Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Shri Anil Kumar Loharuka In this regard, your h onour att ention is invited to the decision in the case of Tarawati Debi Agarwal vs. IT O 162 IT R 606 (C al) wherein the assessee had const ruct ed a house pro perty. Necessary facts required fo r assessment were disclosed to ITO and all the det ails required by him were furnished. A.O. referred the matter to depart mental valuer and meanwhile completed the assessment o n the basis o f val uatio n by the assessee. It was h eld that a valuation repo rt of th e Go vernment valuer estimating th e cost of const ructio n of, o r of repair to , a pro perty at a h igher figure th an that shown by the assessee does not, without other evidence, ent itle th e A.O. to take actio n ix]» 147. Court observed, "in any event, valuation is a question of opinion and unless there is a clear finding on the basis of the materials that the assessee invested in the purchase/ construction of th e H ouse Pro perty mo re t han what had been shown by her in the course of the assessment proceedings, the ITO cannot proceed merely on the basis of t he val uation repo rt of the Departmental Valuer. Before t aking act ion u/s 147 the A.O. h as to reject t he assessee's valuation assigning reason therefo r. On the basis of the difference in estimate, it cannot be said th at the assessee actually invested more th an what h as been shown by her.
Your ho nour' s attention IS also drawn to the decision of honourable Andh ra Pradesh High Court in the case of S. Sreeramachandra Murthy v. Dy. CIT [2000 ] 243 IT R 427 (AP). In the instant case t he assessee co nst ruct ed shopping co mplex which was disclosed in return of income and th e assessment was co mpleted on 10.3.1993. Cost of const ruction and sources of investment were specifically gone into by the AO at the time of original assessment. In co urse of subsequent search proceedings no adverse or incriminating mat erial h aving a bearing on th e co st of const ruct ion h ad come to light . Reassessment proceedings were, however, initiat ed solely on the basis of estimate of co nst ructional cost made by the Department's Valuer long aft er search o peration. Reopening solely on the basis o f higher est imate of cost of const ructio n made by the Depart ment al Valuer long after search w as not valid. In our case al so your honour we had shown the said pro perty in our balance-sheet and the assessment was co mplet e on 31.03.2007. In co urse of search proceedings, no adverse or incriminating material having a bearing on the cost of construction had come to light . So , the reassessment should not initiat e, in o ur opinio n, on the basis of higher estimate of cost of const ruction made by the Depart mental Valuer.
In Prakash Chand vs. Dy. C IT & ors. (2004) 269 ITR 260 (MP)(Asst yr 1997-2001) it was held that A.O. h ad no jurisdiction to reo pen the concluded assessments on the strength of valuatio n report of valuation officer obt ained subsequently and that too not in exercise of powers u/s 55A and quashed the impugned notices under S. 148.
7 ITA No. 1315/KOL/2016Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Shri Anil Kumar Loharuka In Girdh ar Go pal Gul ati vs. UOI (2004) 26 9 IT R 45 (All)(Asst yr 1996-1998 to 1999-2000) it was h eld t hat the Assessing Authorit y h aving made a detailed enquiry before making the assessment of the pet itioner u/s. 143(3) the impugned notice u/s. 148 was issued only on the basis of change of o pinion and was therefore, invalid, notice was al so illegal on th e ground that it was based on the valuatio n report of co st of construction.
In CIT vs. Smt. Meena Devi Mansighka (2008) 303 ITR 351 (Asst yr 1995-1997 to 1998-1999) it was held th at mere DVO's repo rt cannot constit ute reaso n to believe th at income has escaped assessment fo r th e purpose of initiating reassessment and t herefo re tribunal was justified on holding th at the reassessment proceedings initiated on th e basis of DVO's repo rt were invalid-ab-init io, mo re so when it has found that the DVO' s repo rt suffers from various defects and mistakes.
In ITO V. Santosh Kumar Dalmia (199 4) 208 IT R 337 (Cal.)(Asst yr 1973-1 974) as also in ITO v Shiv Sh akti Build Home ( P) Ltd (2011) 141 TTJ 123 (Jodhpur) ( T rib.) it was held that where apart fro m the valuation report which was relied upon by the IT O there was no material before him to come to the prima facie concl usion th at the assessee h ad received the higher considerat ion than what h ad bee n stated in the sale deed, reassessment woul d not be justified.
In Assist ant Co mmissioner of Income-t ax vs. Dh ariya Construct ion Co. (2010) 328 ITR 0515it has been h eld that in case of reopening o f the assessment based on the opinion given by the Dist rict Valuatio n Officer, o pinion of the DVO per se is not information for the purposes of reope ning assessment under section 147 of the Inco me-t ax Act, 1961. It was held that the Assessing Officer has t o apply his mind to the info rmation, if any, collected and must fo rm a belief thereon- Department was not entitled to reo pen the assessment .
In Mahash ay Ch unnil alv Deputy Commissioner of Inco me Tax 44 Taxmann.co m 321 (Delhi) it was h eld by the honourable court th at opinion of DVO is per se not an informatio n fo r the purpose of reopening o f an assessment .
Thus in our o pinio n the reo pening of the above completed assessment on the basis of the valuation report is not pro per as valuation report is only an o pinion regarding the cost of construction or the fair market value of the propert y.
Your Honour based on above facts, legal pro visions and judicial prono uncements we are of the opinion that the 8 ITA No. 1315/KOL/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Shri Anil Kumar Loharuka initiat ion of proceeding u/s. 148 in this case is not valid and as such all other proceedings in relatio n th ereto are also ab initio void" .
4. In addition to the above submissions, the validity of reopening of assessment was also challenged by the assessee on the basis of lack of satisfaction recorded by the concerned ld. CIT while according his sanction by making the following submissions:-
"This is in cont inuation of our earlier submission filed on 20th November 2015 and we would furth er like to submit as follows:
Your honour in continuation to our submission regarding our object ion to assumption of jurisdictio n u/ s. 148, we had applied on 23/2/2016 under the Right to Info rmation, Act , 2005" for the "copy of order of satisfaction acco rded by Ld CIT along with necessary enclosures" and the same was provided to us vide letter dated 26 .02.2016. A copy of the same is attach ed herewith for yo ur perusal .
A perusal of the same reveals that the Learned Commissioner of Inco me Tax h as accorded his sanctio n by onl y putting his signat ure on the writ ten pro pos al forwarded by the Assessing Officer witho ut recording his satisfaction o n th e said pro posal. Thus, the learned Commissioner did not appl y h is mind at all while granting sanct ion. Yo ur honour, the satisfaction of the sanctio ning autho rit y has to show objectivit y with regards to the fact s of the case and the material on record.
In th is regard we would like to invite your hono ur's attention to the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Inco me T ax, -Jabalpur V. S. Goyank a Lime & C hemicals Ltd. 56 taxmann.com 390 (Madhya Pradesh) wherein it was held t hat "wheth er where Joint Commissioner reco rded sat isfactio n in mechanical manner and without applicatio n of mind, in order to accord sanction fo r issuing notice under section 148, assumption of jurisdictio n to reopen block assessment was invalid.
The special leave petition filed against this decision h as been reject ed by the h onourable Apex Court .
Your honour, we wo uld also like to draw yo ur att ention to the decision of Ho nourable High Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. Asstt Dit: [2000] 246 ITR 363 (MP). Yo ur 9 ITA No. 1315/KOL/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Shri Anil Kumar Loharuka honour in this "The commissioner act ed, of course, mechanicall y in order to discharge his st atuto ry obligation pro perl y in the matt er of recording sanct ion as he merel y wrote o n the fo rmat "yes I am satisfied"
which indicates as if he was to sign only on the dotted line. Even otherwise also, the exercise is shown to have been performed in less than 24 hours of time which also goes to indicat e that the Commissioner did not apply his mind at all while granting sanct ion. The sat isfaction has to be with objectivity on objective material ."
We wo uld also like t o draw your honours attention to the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. (Delhi 'B' ) 175 TTJ 663 wherein it was held t hat "Addl. C IT and th e CIT h aving simply written " Yes, I am sat isfied" on t he same day while according sanction under sec 151, it does not in any manner shed any light as to whether th ere was any applicat ion of mind at all by the two senior officers. Therefo re, sanction granted by the C IT is invalid and consequently, the notice under s. 148 issued by th e AO is bad in law" .
This goes to prove beyond doubt that sanction u/s. 151 was accorded in this case in a mech anical manner without applicat ion of mind and therefore, th e proceedings u/s 14 7 initiat ed in this case by issuing notice u/ s 148 is void ab initio .
Your honour is requested to consider these addit ional fact s and judicial decisions besides the one submitted by us on 20 t h November 2015, and would request yo ur h onour to k indl y grant necessary relief in the case".
5. The ld. CIT(Appeals) found merit in the last point raised by the assessee while challenging the validity of reopening of assessment and accordingly quashed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) of the Act for the following reasons given in his impugned order:-
"I have go ne th rough the above submission of the AR of th e assessee. I h ad also called for the case records of th e assessee. It is seen from th e file that when the pro posal for reo pening t he assessment was submitted to the CIT -17, Ko lkata by the ITO War d 49(4), Kolkata thro ugh the JC IT, Range-4 9 Kolkata, the C IT h as only signed over th e pro posal without recording her satisfactio n as to how and why th is is a fit case fo r reopening the assessment after a lapse of 4 years specially when the earlier assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. This has been brought on reco rd by the AR of the assessee by obtaining those documents under th e 10 ITA No. 1315/KOL/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Shri Anil Kumar Loharuka RTI Act fro m the office of C IT -17, Kolkat a. In view of th e case- laws relied upon by the AR of the assessee, it is held th at th e assessment proceedings were not validl y initiated. In view o f above, the re-assessment o rder passed is quashed" .
Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
6. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In support of the revenue's case on the issue under consideration, the ld. D.R. has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal)
-vs.- ACIT [383 ITR 597]. He has contended that the said decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is squarely applicable in the present case as it was held by Their Lordships that the mere fact that the Additional Commissioner did not record his satisfaction in so many words should not render invalid the satisfaction granted under section 151(2) of the Act. However, as rightly contended by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the said case cited by the ld. D.R. is distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as, the assessee in the said case had restricted his challenge to the validity of notice under section 148 only on the ground that sanction under section 151 was not valid and the basis for reasons furnished by the Assessing Officer in the notice under section 148 was never in dispute. Keeping in view this factual position prevalent in the said case, it was held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court that the mere fact that the Additional Commissioner did not record his satisfaction in so many words should not render invalid the satisfaction granted under section 151(2) of the Act when the reason on the basis of which sanction was sought for could not be assailed. In the present case, the facts involved, however, are materially different, inasmuch as, the validity of reopening of assessment was challenged by the assessee on various grounds by making a detailed submission and the relevant judicial pronouncements in support of the said submission were also cited before the ld. CIT(Appeals). As rightly contended by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the decision of the Hon'ble 11 ITA No. 1315/KOL/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Shri Anil Kumar Loharuka Calcutta High Court in the case of the Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) (supra) thus is not applicable in the present case being distinguishable on facts. On the other hand, the ratio of the judicial pronouncements cited on behalf of the assessee in the submission made before the ld. CIT(Appeals) in support of his case on this issue is squarely applicable and keeping in view the same, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) cancelling the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) by holding the same to be invalid on the ground that the required approval under section 151(2) was granted by the concerned ld. CIT without recording her satisfaction. We accordingly uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue.
7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on August 28, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (P.M. Jagtap)
Judicial Member Vice-President (KZ)
Kolkata, the 28 t h day of August, 2019
Copies to : (1) Income Tax Officer,
Ward-49(4 ), Kolkata,
Uttarapan Shopping Complex,
Manicktola Civic Centre, Ultadanga, Ko lkata-700 054 (2 ) Shri Ani l Kumar Lo haruka, DC-9/28, Shas tri Bagan, Deshbandbhu Nagar, Bagui ati, Kolkata-700 059 (3) Commissioner of Inco me T ax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata, (4) Commissio ner of Income Tax, Kolkat a- , Kolkata;
(5) The Depart ment al Represent ative
(6) Guard File
By order
Assistant Registrar,
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Kolkata Benches, Kolkata
Laha/Sr. P.S.
12