Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Vivek Kr Kathotia, Kolkata vs Department Of Income Tax on 15 May, 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C " BENCH: KOLKATA
[Before Hon'ble Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Hon'ble Shri B.P.Jain, AM ]
W.T.A Nos.02 to 08/Kol/2013
Assessment Years: 2002-03 to 2008-09
D.C.W.T. Central Circle-VI, Vs. Shri Vivek Kr. Kathotia
Kolkata Kolkata
(Appellant) (Respondent)
(PAN:AFAPK 8653 C)
For the Appellant : Shri Ajoy Kumar Singh, CIT
For the Respondent : Shri Ravi Tulisyan, FCA
Date of hearing :30.04.2015.
Date of pronouncement: 15.05.2015.
ORDER
Per Bench These seven appeals of the Revenue arise from two different orders of ld.CIT(A)-Central-I, Kolkata (CWT(A)-Central-I,Kolkata) for the Assessment Years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and A.Yr.2005-06 by one order and for A.Yrs. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 the second order each dated 06.11.2012.
2. The revenue has raised an identical ground in all the appeals which are reproduced herein below for A.Yr.2002-03 and in all other A.Yrs. the quantum of penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 is different :
"i) That Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee of Rs.52,02,070/- u/s 18(1)(c)of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
(ii) That the appellant craves to add, modify or alter the grounds of appeal during the course of hearing of the case."
3. Now we take the appeal of the revenue for A.yr. 2002-03 in WTA No.2/Kol/2013. Since the issue in all the appeals is identical and our order for A.Yr.2002-03 herein below shall be identically applicable to all the impugned years mentioned herein above.
WTA Nos.2 to 8/Kol/2013 2Shri Vivek Kr.Kathotia A.Yrs.2002-03 to 2008-09
4. The brief facts of the case in WTA No.02/Kol/2013 for A.Yr. 2002-03 are that a search and seizure operation was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on 28.02.2008, where books of account, documents and other valuables were found and seized by the department. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the IT Act it was found that assessee had net wealth which is chargeable to tax for A.yr.2002-03 but no return of wealth was filed u/s 14 of the W.T.Act, 1957. Consequently notice u/s 17 of WT Act was issued on 26.03.2009. The assessment was completed u/s 17/16(3) of the WT Act on 31.12.2009 at net wealth of Rs.16,48,99,500/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 18(1)(c) of WT Act, 1957 was initiated by issuing statutory notices. In the meantime Commissioner of Wealth Tax (A) disposed off the quantum appeal filed by the assessee vide order dated 31 st May, 2011 to allow certain relief and the effect of the order was given on 11th July, 2011 and revised net wealth of Rs.10,55,41,430/-. During the course of the penalty proceedings the assessee filed the submission dated 18.11.2011 which are reproduced at pages 1 to 4 of the penalty order dated 29.12.2011. After considering the submissions of the assesee the D.C.I.T., Central Circle-VI, Kolkata imposed maximum penalty @500% of the tax sought to be evaded. It is pertinent to reproduce the order of DCIT,CC-VI, Kolkata in paras 3.1 to 8 of his order at pages 4 to 7 herein below :-
"A search & seizure operation was conducted in the residential premises of the assessee on 28-02.2008. During the course of search books of accounts, loose documents, electronic devices, cash, silver utensils and jewellery were found and seized by the department. Documents marked as RM/1 & RM/2 were found & seized in course of the search & seizure operation. The seized documents RM/1 contained the details of transaction relating to purchases & sales of painting, gold, diamond etc. The said document contained ledger from 15-4-93 to 23-22008. The document so seized further revealed that gold was purchased on two occasions on 20-9-2000 & 28-12- 2000 weighing 42 kgs. Similarly, diamonds were shown to have been purchased. In course of the search & seizure operation, statement of Sri Vivek Kr.Kathotia was recorded u/s 132(4) of I.T.Act, 1961. The further statement of Sri Kathotia was recorded on 14-3-08. The relevant portion of the statement is reproduced below :-
'Q You sold gold worth Rs.4.73 crore in the period 18-2-08 to 21-2-08 only one month back but you do not remember name & address of person to whom gold was sold. Does not it prove that there was no actual sale of gold on above two dates and the sum of Rs.4.73 cr. Represents unaccounted and undisclosed income of your from any other source ?
Ans. The details as contained in the seized document are correct and were maintained for my own purpose and therefore there was no reason to write anything incorrectly WTA Nos.2 to 8/Kol/2013 3 Shri Vivek Kr.Kathotia A.Yrs.2002-03 to 2008-09 therein. All the transactions were noted as was the true nature of the transaction. Therefore, the notings on account of Gold were also on account of Gold only and not any other source as alleged by you.
Q. Your reply to question number 13 show that alleged sale of 'Diamond' are fictitious. Receipts under the head 'Diamond' are nothing but receipts from sources other than sale of 'Diamond '. Please explain.
Ans. The details as contained in the seized document are correct and were maintained for my own purpose and therefore there was no reason to write anything incorrectly therein. All the transactions were noted as was the true nature of the transaction. Therefore, the notings on account of Diamond were also in account of Diamond only and not any other source as alleged by you.' 3.2. The assessee carried the matter further by filing revised balance sheet showing the diamonds & jewelleries purported to have been acquired in the period 1993-94 upto 99-2000.
3.3 Subsequently, notice u/s 17 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response, the return of wealth disclosing net wealth of Rs.10,38,99,474/- was filed on 27-10-2009. The case was selected for scrutiny. In course of the assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee was in possession of urban land at Pune, gold coins & jewellery valued at Rs.1,58,687/-, silver utensils of Rs.7,020/- and cash in hand exceeding Rs.50,000/- as on the valuation dated i.e. 31-03-2002. As stated elsewhere in this order that no return of wealth u/s 14, though the assessee had taxable wealth.
3.4. The assessee however, did not make compliance with the notice u/s 16(2) & 16(4) of W.T.Act, 1957 and assessment for the A.Y.2002-03 was completed u/s 17/16(5) of the W.T.Act, 1957 on 31.12.2009 on a net wealth of Rs.11,14,55,318/- which included the value of urban land of Rs.15,75,000/-, cash in hand of Rs.2,78,324/- and gold coins valued at Rs.60,120/- & silver utensils of Rs. 7,020/- and cash in hand exceeding Rs.50,000/- as on the valuation dated i.e. 31-03-2002. As stated elsewhere in this order that no return of wealth u/s 14, though the assessee had taxable wealth. 3.4. The assessee however, did not make compliance with the notice u/s 16(2) & 16(4) of W.T.Act, 1957 and assessment for the A.,Y.2002-03 was completed u/s 17/16(5) of the W.T.Act, 1957 on 31-12-2009 on a net wealth of rs.11,14,55,318/-
which included the value of urban land of Rs.15,75,000/-, cash in hand of Rs.2,78,324/- and gold coins valued at Rs.60,120/- & silver utensils of rs.3,17,374/-. As stated earlier, the assessee preferred appeal against the assessment order of the A.O. before the C.W.T.(A), Central-I, Kolkata. Ld. CWT(A) vide his order dt. 31-5- 2011, confirmed the addition of Rs.15,75,000/- on account of value of urban land at Pune. Ld. CWT(A) allowed relief to the assessee regarding the price of gold. The effect of the order was given on 11-7-2011 and net wealth was revised at Rs.10,55,41,430/-.
3.5. Now, coming to the submission of the assessee, it needs to be mentioned that the only dispute relates to the satisfaction of the A.O. regarding initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 18(1)(c). It is evident from the foregoing paras that assessee was firmed in his contention that the assets, in question, in form of gold & diamonds were acquired prior to the valuation date as on 31-3-2002. The assessee did not hesitate to reduce the same in writing. In fact, the assessee narrated the facts as to how he concealed the particulars of wealth vide his letter dt. 18-2-2010 and it will be relevant to reproduce the submissions of the assessee :
WTA Nos.2 to 8/Kol/2013 4Shri Vivek Kr.Kathotia A.Yrs.2002-03 to 2008-09 'In respect of your query as to why no return was filed under section 14 in spite of the fact that I had such a huge wealth, it is submitted that it is apparent from the seized records and the Balance Sheet which had been regularly filed by me with my return of income that most of the wealth belonging to me were undisclosed and had been acquired by me out of my undisclosed income in various period. Since the said assets did not stand disclosed in my Balance Sheet filed with my Income Tax Return, it would be absurd to assume that I would file wealth tax return disclosing the said assets. These assets have only been disclosed by me in my revised Balance Sheet filed after search and thereby in my wealth tax return, since the existence of the said assets was detected in the course of search at my residential premises. All the assets being undisclosed, there was no occasion to file any wealth tax return disclosing the assets in the wealth tax return, more so since the value of the disclosed assts in the original Balance Sheets did not exceed Rs.15 lakhs."
4. Thus, it can be seen that the assessee was firm in his contention that diamond & golds were acquired and the fact of which was not disclosed in either of the return of income tax or in the return of wealth tax.. In fact, the conviction of the assessee that the assets were acquired prior to the F.Y. 2001-02 was affirmed by the Tribunal vide its combined order dt. 29-07-2011 in the case of the assessee in IT(SS) No.4 to 7/Kol/2011 for the A.Ys. 2006-07, 07-08 & 08-09. Thus, going by the admission of the assessee and the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal under reference it can be said that the assessee concealed the particulars of wealth chargeable to tax, it is evident that the assessee concealed the particulars of wealth.
5. Now, it is necessary to deal with the assessee's submission regarding the recording of satisfaction of A.O. for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 18(1)(c) of W.T.Act, 1957. In this context, it is to be mentioned that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. S.B.Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR held that -
"There is a prima facie satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer that penalty proceedings ought to be initiated against the assessee. Whether, in fact, the penalty should or should not be levied has to be decided after the proceedings are initiated.' 5.1. In the instant case, penalty proceedings have been initiated in the assessment proceedings itself, which goes to show the Assessing officer was satisfied about the initiation of the penalty proceedings. In other words, primary facie satisfaction exists in the order. Now, the issue which is to be decided is whether penalty is to be levied or not in the present case.
5.2. In this context, the relevant explanations of Sec.18(1)© are reproduced for the sake of convenience.
"Explanation 2 : Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the net wealth of any person under this Act -
(A) Such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) [or the Commissioner] to be false, or (B) Such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his net wealth have been disclosed by him.
Then the amount added or disallowed in computing the net wealth of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the value of the assets in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Explanation 3 : Where any person fails, without reasonable cause, to furnish within the period specified in sub-section (1) of section 17A, a return of his net wealth which he is required to furnish under section 14 in respect of any assessment year commencing WTA Nos.2 to 8/Kol/2013 5 Shri Vivek Kr.Kathotia A.Yrs.2002-03 to 2008-09 on or after the 1st day of April, 1989, and until the expiry of the period aforesaid, no notice has been issued to him under clause (i) of sub-section (4) of section 16 or sub- section (1) of section 17 and the Assessing Officer or the Dy. Commissioner (A) or the Commissioner (A) is satisfied that in respect of such person has assessable net wealth, then such person shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his assets or furnished inaccurate particulars of any assets or debts in respect of such assessment year, notwithstanding that such person furnishes a return of his net wealth at any time after the expiry of either of the periods aforesaid applicable to him in pursuance of a notice under section 17."
6. In the instant case, the assessee furnished explanation which fails to substantiate that all facts relating to the net wealth for the A.Y 2002-03 was disclosed. On the contrary, the assessee admitted having concealed the particulars of net wealth chargeable to tax. Therefore, the assessee's explanation has no merit and the sum is accordingly rejected. It can be seen that Explanation (3) of Sec. 18 is clearly applicable inasmuch as the assessee did not furnish the return of wealth u]». 14 of W.T. Act, 1957. Even otherwise, the assessee concealed the particulars of wealth as he himself admitted having concealed the particulars of net wealth. The admissions of the assessee has been affirmed by the Tribunal vide its order referred elsewhere in this order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that it is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s. 18(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealing the particulars of net wealth deliberately.
7. Now, it is to be decided that the quantum of penalty to be imposed. The provisions of Sec. 18(1)(iii) lay down the quantum of penalty which is as under:
Minimum Penalty - 100% of the tax sought to be evaded & Maximum Penalty - 500% of the tax sought to be evaded.
From the submissions of the assessee, it is evident that the assessee made a calculated act which is evident from his brazen admissions. In fact he has scant regard for rule of the land inasmuch as he has no regret for his act of concealment as his evident from his shocking admission of his undisclosed wealth.
8. In view of the above, he does not deserve any leniency in so far as the quantum of penalty concerned and this type of blatant defiance of law needs to be dealt with firmly. Consequently, the maximum penalty will be the fitting reply for this brazen disregard of law of land. Therefore, I impose maximum penalty @ 500% of the tax or for that matter 5 times of the tax sought to be evaded which is calculated as under:
Undisclosed net wealth : Rs.10,55,41,430/-
Tax there on : Rs.10,40,414/-
Tax sought to be evaded : Rs.10,40,414/-
5 times of the tax sought to be evaded Rs.10,40,414 x 5
Rs.52,02,070/-
Order u/s 18(1)(c) is passed as above. Issue Demand Notice and copy of the order to the assesee."
WTA Nos.2 to 8/Kol/2013 6Shri Vivek Kr.Kathotia A.Yrs.2002-03 to 2008-09
5. The ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO.
5.1. Before the ld. CIT(A) the ld.counsel for the assessee Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, CA made the submissions mainly on two counts. Instead of explanation 3 to section 18(1)(c) of WT Act, Explanation 5 to section 18(1)(c) of the WT Act shall be applicable. He has submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that AO has to satisfy that assessee has assessable net wealth for relevant assessment year and AO has stated that he does not believe the existence and ownership of diamonds and gold disclosed in the seized documents referred as RM-1/RM-2. But the AO included such assets in the net wealth because the assessee has himself shown the same in the return of wealth. The ld. AR further submitted before the ld. CIT(A) if the value of gold and diamonds are included then the return of wealth will go below the taxable net wealth. Therefore AO was not satisfied that assessee was having any taxable wealth. Accordingly since all the conditions to Explanation 3 are not satisfied therefore Explanation 3 cannot be made applicable. Therefore Explanation 5 has to be made applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
5.2. Secondly the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the ld. CIT that the general provisions cannot over ride the specific provision. He further submitted that the seized documents RM-I/RM-II includes gold and diamonds and also as per his disposition on 28.02.2008. The assessee also disclosed these assets and accordingly the assessee's case is covered under Explanation 5. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Industrial Development Bank of India reported in 297 ITR 267 (AT). The ld. CIT(A) accepted the explanations of the assessee and held that no penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of WT Act is leviable on the assessee and accordingly directed the AO to delete the penalty so levied.
6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. The undisputed facts in the present case are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 was conducted on 28.02.2008 at the residential premises of the assessee. During the course of search books of account, documents and valuables including gold jewellery and diamonds etc. were found. During the course of search operation the statement WTA Nos.2 to 8/Kol/2013 7 Shri Vivek Kr.Kathotia A.Yrs.2002-03 to 2008-09 of the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act was recorded and in his disposition the assessee disclosed the ownership of the diamonds and gold. The assessee in response to notice u/s 17 of the WT Act filed the return of wealth in which the said gold and diamonds were disclosed as stated as per the valuer's report. There is no dispute that the value of gold and diamonds so disclosed in the return of wealth was disbelieved by the AO with regard to the existence and ownership by the assessee. Though the AO included these gold and diamonds in the assessed net wealth and as stated the gold as being 24 carat instead of 22 carat and 18 carat declared by the assessee which resulted in further addition as declared by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) in quantum deleted/partly upheld the additions made by the AO and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal for A.Yr.2008-09 on identical issue and with regard to the A.Yrs. 2006-07 and 2008-09 additions sustained by ld. CWT(A) were deleted by the Tribunal. However after giving the appeal effect the AO found that there was no much difference between the returned wealth and the assessed wealth. But however he initiated penalty proceedings u/s 18(1)(c) of the Act that the assessee has concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars as per the seized documents marked as RM-1/RM-2 i.e. he disbelieved the existence and ownership of gold and diamonds prior to the valuation date as on 31st March, 2002. The AO invoking Explanation 3 to section 18(1)(c) of the Act imposed maximum penalty @500% of tax sought to be evaded as mentioned herein above. The ld. CWT(A) allowed the relief as mentioned herein above.
6.1. Herein above there is no dispute to the fact that the assessee had acquired gold and diamonds during the earlier year than the impugned year and it has been stated in the statement of the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act as per disposition so made u/s 132(4) of the Act. The assessee filed the return declaring the gold and diamond. We are of the view that AO is not justified in invoking Explanation 3 to section 18(1)(c) of the Act which explanation reads that quantum of penalty is leviable in respect of failure to furnish return of wealth in ordinary course as required u/s 14 of the WT Act read with section 17A of the WT Act and the AO is satisfied that the assessee has assessable net wealth for the relevant assessment year. It is also undisputed on WTA Nos.2 to 8/Kol/2013 8 Shri Vivek Kr.Kathotia A.Yrs.2002-03 to 2008-09 one hand that the AO does not believe the existence and ownership of gold and diamonds even the same are disclosed in the seized documents in RM-1 and RM-2 and on the other hand the AO has included such assets in the net wealth showing that assessee has himself declared in the return of wealth. If the value of gold and diamonds is included, the net wealth of the assessee will be below the taxable limit and accordingly AO is not satisfied that the assessee is having taxable wealth and accordingly all the conditions as per Explanation 3 are not satisfied. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to Explanation 5 to section 18(1)(c) of the Act inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 w.e.f. 1.10.1984 where the word "unless" squarely apply to the case of the assessee and sub-clause (2) of clause (b) of Explanation 5 reads as under :-
"Explanation 5 - Where in the course of a search under section 37A, the assesee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing (hereafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee claims that such assets represent or form part of his net wealth, -
(a).......................
(b) On any valuation date falling on or after the date of the search, then notwithstanding that such assets are declared by him in any return of net wealth furnished on or after the date of the search, he shall, for the purposes of imposition of a penalty under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of the section, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of such assets or furnished inaccurate particulars of such asset, unless -
(1)............................
(2) he, in the course of the search, makes a statement under sub-section (4) of section 37A that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found in his possession or under his control, forms part of his net wealth which has not been disclosed so far in his return of net wealth to be furnished before the expiry of the time specified in sub-section (1) of section 14 and also specifies in the statement the manner in which such net wealth has been acquired and pays the taxes, together with interest, if any, in respect of such net wealth." [emphasis supplied] 6.2. It is also not disputed that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act with regard to the ownership and existence of gold and diamonds recorded in the seized documents was accepted as genuine as purchase and sale of gold and diamond in the earlier years. In view of the facts and circumstances of the facts of the present case Explanation 5 (2)(b)is applicable. In the present facts and circumstances of the case which is reproduced herein above, the AO accordingly is not justified in invoking Explanation 3 to impose maximum penalty @500% of the tax sought to be evaded.WTA Nos.2 to 8/Kol/2013 9
Shri Vivek Kr.Kathotia A.Yrs.2002-03 to 2008-09 6.3. The penalty is leviable on the date on which the concealment of wealth is committed i.e. the date of offering the return of wealth. Therefore in the present case it will not be justified to refer to the returned wealth u/s 14(1) of the Act for the initiation of penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore when there is no concealment there is no question of penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Prem Arora vs DCIT (2012) 149 TTJ 590 where it has been held that the concept of a voluntary return of income may be important in penalty proceedings initiated in the course of normal assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) or 147 of the Act but not u/s 153A of the Act. When accepted by the AO then there is no concealment of income and consequently penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed. The concealment of income is to be determined with regard to the return of income in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act. Therefore in the present circumstances and facts of the case once the returned wealth is accepted by the AO u/s 153A of the Act then there cannot be a case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the circumstances and facts of the case the decision in the case of Prem Arora vs DCIT (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case, since in the present case the assessee has disclosed gold and diamond in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during the search operation itself, in the wealth tax return the Tribunal has approved the findings in quantum with regard to the genuineness of the declaration of gold and diamonds. Accordingly the assessee is not liable to have penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the decisions of various benches of the Tribunal as under :-
(i) Hissaria Brothers vs DCIT (2009) 126 TTJ (jd)291/31 DTR 223.
(ii) ACIT vs Malu Electrodes (P)Ltd 127 TTJ 599 (Nag)
(iii)DCIT vs Shri Samit Roy & Sachin Kiron Roy Memorial Trust order dated 31/07/2009 in ITA Nos. 175 6to 179/Kol/2009
(iv)ACIT vs Shri Amardeed Singh Dhanjal ITA Nos.33 to 37/Kol/2009
(v)Addl. CIT vs Prem Chand Gard - 24 DTR (Del-TM) 513
(vi)CIT vs Bimal Kumar Damani - 261 ITR 87 (Cal)
(vii) CIT vs Kanhaiyalal - 299 ITR 19 (Raj.,)
(viii) CIT vs Mahendra C.Shah - 299 ITR 305 (Guj) and
(ix) CIT vws S.D.V. Chandru - 266 ITR 175 (Mad).WTA Nos.2 to 8/Kol/2013 10
Shri Vivek Kr.Kathotia A.Yrs.2002-03 to 2008-09 6.4. In view of our findings herein above and the ratio of the decisions cited herein above AO is not justified in imposing penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of the WT Act 1957 for the impugned year and we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CWT(A), who has rightly cancelled the penalty so levied by the AO.
7. Now we take up the appeals of the revenue in WTA Nos. 3 to 8/Kol/2013 for A.Yrs. 2003-04 to 2008-09.
7.1. Since the issue in the present appeals is identical to the appeal of the revenue in WTA No.02/Kol/2013 as mentioned herein above, accordingly our decisions in WTA No.02/Kol/2013 of even date is identically applicable in the revenue's appeal in WTA Nos.03 to 08/Kol/2013 and accordingly all the appeals of the revenue in WTA Nos.03 to 08/Kol/2013 are dismissed.
8. In the result the appeals of the revenue in WTA Nos.2 to 08/Kol/2013 are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the court on 15.05.2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ Mahavir Singh ] [B.P.Jain]
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Date: 15.05.2015.
R.G.(.P.S.)
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Shri Vivek Kr.Kathotia, 7/1A, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700026.
2 D.C.W.T., Central Circle-VI, Kolkata
3. CWT(A)-Central-I, Kolkata 4. CIT - Kolkata.
5. CIT-DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata True Copy, By order, Deputy /Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata Benches WTA Nos.2 to 8/Kol/2013 11 Shri Vivek Kr.Kathotia A.Yrs.2002-03 to 2008-09