Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Ranjika Gupta Benefit Trust, Kolkata vs I.T.O.,Ward-36(1), Kolkata on 27 June, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH "SMC" KOLKATA Before Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.2527/Kol/2018 Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Yogesh Kumar Randar, बनाम / Income Tax Officer 99/1 Narkeldanga Main V/s . Ward-63(4), 169, AJC Road, Kolkata-700054 Bose Road, "Bamboo [PAN No.ADAPR 1466 Q] Villa" Central Revenue Building, Kolkata-14 अपीलाथ /Appellant .. यथ /Respondent अपीलाथ क ओर से/By Appellant Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate यथ क ओर से/By Respondent Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT-SR-DR सुनवाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing 27-06-2019 ITA No.263/Kol/2019 Assessment Year:2014-15 N.P.Patodia & Sons (HUF) बनाम / Income Tax Officer BB-23, Sector-I, Salt Lake V/s . Ward-50(3), DS-III&III, City, Kolkata-700064 Uttarapan Complex, [PAN No.AABHN 2382 R] Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-54 अपीलाथ /Appellant .. यथ /Respondent अपीलाथ क ओर से/By Appellant Shri Rajeev Kumar, Advocate यथ क ओर से/By Respondent Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT-SR-DR सुनवाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing 27-06-2019 ITA No.2195/Kol/2018 Assessment Year:2014-15 Mala Choudhary बनाम / Income Tax Officer 30, Bentinck Street, 3 r d V/s . Ward-4(3), Aayakar Floor, Kolkata-700001 Bhawan, P-7, [PAN No.ACSPC 0851 B] Chowrinighee Square, Page 2 Kolkata-69 अपीलाथ /Appellant .. यथ /Respondent अपीलाथ क ओर से/By Appellant Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate यथ क ओर से/By Respondent Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT-SR-DR सुनवाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing 27-06-2019 ITA No.2511/Kol/2018 Assessment Year:2015-16 Shri Ashok Kr. Agrawalla बनाम / Income Tax Officer Flat No.5D, 34/1 Bondel V/s . Ward-22(4), 54/1, Rafi Road, Kolkata-700019 Ahmed Kidwai Road, [PAN No.ACVPA 7413 J] 4 t h Fl. Kolkata-16 अपीलाथ /Appellant .. यथ /Respondent अपीलाथ क ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sumal Surana, Advocate & Shri Abhishek Bansal, FCA यथ क ओर से/By Respondent Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT-SR-DR सुनवाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing 27-06-2019 ITA No.2686/Kol/2018 Assessment Year:2014-15 Bakul Ghoshdastidar बनाम / Income Tax Officer C/o S.N.Ghosh & V/s . Ward-24(1), Aaykar Associates, Advocates Bhawan G.T.Road, "Seben Brothers'Lodge" Khadina More, P.O. Buroshibtala, P.S. P.O.&P.S Chinsurah,, Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly- Dist. Hooghly 712105 [PAN No.AFRPG 5381 A] अपीलाथ /Appellant .. यथ /Respondent अपीलाथ क ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sarnath Ghosh, Advocate यथ क ओर से/By Respondent Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT-SR-DR सुनवाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing 27-06-2019 Page 3 ITA No.182/Kol/2019 Assessment Year:2015-16 Ranjika Gupta Benefit बनाम / Income Tax Officer Trust, C/o Subash Agarwal V/s . Ward-36(1), Aaykar & Assocaites, Advocates Bhawan, Poorva, 9 t h Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Floor, 110, lane, Suite 213, 2 n d Floor, Shantipally, Kolkata-
Kolkata-700069 110 [PAN No.AABTR 5909 A] अपीलाथ /Appellant .. यथ /Respondent ITA No.2524/Kol/2018 Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Anita Digga बनाम / Income Tax Officer Geetea Katra, 2 n d Floor, 1, V/s . Ward-43(4), 3, Govt. Mullick Street, Kolkata- Place (West), Kolkata- 700007 01 [PAN No.ADEPD 7460 H] अपीलाथ /Appellant .. यथ /Respondent आवेदक क ओर से/By Assessee Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate राज व क ओर से/By Revenue Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT-SR-DR सुनवाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing 27-06-2019 ITA No.2367 & 2368/Kol/2018 Assessment Year:2015-16 Pooja Pansari Poddar Court, Gate No.3, 2 n d Floor, 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700001 [PAN No.AGRPP 1705 G] Income Tax Officer बनाम / Ward-35(1), Aaykar Piyush Pansari (HUF) Bhawan Poorva, 110, V/s . Podoar Court, Gate No. 3 Shantipally, Kolkata- 2 n d Floor, 18, Rabindra 107 Sarani, Kolkata-700001 [PAN No.AAIHP 4738 E] Page 4 अपीलाथ /Appellant .. यथ /Respondent आवेदक क ओर से/By Assessee Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA राज व क ओर से/By Revenue Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT-SR-DR सुनवाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing 27-06-2019 ITA No.1723 & 1724/Kol/2018 Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Preeti Yadav 27, Sanaatan Mistry Lane, Salkia, P.S. Golabari, Howrah-711106 [PAN No.AEMPY 8416 N] Income Tax Officer बनाम / Ward-48(4), 3, Govt. Sri Sunil Yadav Place, Kolkata-001 V/s . 27, Sanatan Mistry Lane, Salkia, P.S. Golabari, Howrah-711106 [PAN No.ACAPY 3106 H] अपीलाथ /Appellant .. यथ /Respondent ITA No.2075/Kol/2018 Assessment Year:2014-15 M/s Jaychand Lal Chopra बनाम / DCIT, Circle-47, 3, [HUF], 88, Block-G, 4 t h V/s . Govt. Place (West), Floor, Rabindra Nagar,a Kolkata-01 Complex, College Road, Howrah-711103 [PAN No.AABHJ 7560 B] अपीलाथ /Appellant .. यथ /Respondent ITA No.1515/Kol/2018 Assessment Year:2015-16 Shri, Vinod Kumar Jajoo बनाम / Income Tax Officer 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, V/s . Ward-36(4), Aayakar Kolkata-700001 Bhawan Poorva, [PAN No.ACSPJ 4673 Q] R.No.815 110, Page 5 Shantipally, E.M. Byepass, Kolkata-107 अपीलाथ /Appellant .. यथ /Respondent ITA No.2069-2074/Kol/2018 Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Birendra Kr. Chopra बनाम / Income Tax Officer 3A, Surendra Mohan Ghosh V/s . Ward-43(4), 3, Govt. Sarani, 1 s t Fl., Kolkata-001 Place (West), Kolkata- [PAN No.ACPPC 0363 F] 01 M/s Birendra Kr. Chopra (HUF)88, Block-G, 4 t h बनाम / Income Tax Officer Floor, Rabindra Nagar V/s . Ward-46(3), Kolkata Complex, College Road, Howrah-711103 [PAN No.AAAHC 8463 M] Shri Ravindra Kumar बनाम / Income Tax Officer Chopra, 3A, Surendra V/s . Ward-36(1), Aayakar Mohan Ghosh Sarani, 1 s t Bhawan Poorva, 8 t h Floor, Kolkata-700001 Floor, R.No. 810, 110, [PAN No.ACAPC 4647 H] Shantipally, E.M.Bypass,Kolkata- 107 M/s Ravindra Kr. Chopra (HUF), 88, Block-G, 4 t h Floor, Rabindra Nagar . Complex, College Road, Howrah-711103 [PAN No.AABHC 0183 M] Shri Abhinandan Chopra 88, Block-G, 4 t h Floor, Rabindra Nagar Complex, College Road, Howrah- 711103 बनाम / Income Tax Officer [PAN No.AFPPC 6666 L] V/s . Ward-46(3), 3, Govt. Place (West), Shri Gaurav Chopra Kolkakta-700001 88, Block-G, 4 t h Floor, Rabindra Nagar Complex, College Road, Howrah- Page 6 711103 [PAN No.AITPC 1161 H] अपीलाथ /Appellant .. यथ /Respondent आवेदक क ओर से/By Assessee Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate राज व क ओर से/By Revenue Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT-SR-DR सुनवाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing 27-06-2019 घोषणा क तार ख/Date of Pronouncement 27-06-2019 आदे श /O R D E R
These assessees have filed their instant appeals involving different assessment year(s) against the respective Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) separate order(s) affirming the Assessing Officer(s) identical action treating varying sums of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) / Long/Short Term Capital Loss (LTCL); as the case may be as involving unexplained cash credits u/s 68, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short 'the Act'.
2. I have heard these appeal(s) together of the fact that the sole identical issue raised in the instant entire batch is that of genuineness of assessees' LTCG/LTCL, as the case may be, derived from sale of shares held in various scrips. It is in this identical backdrop that I am treating ITA No.2527/Kol/2018 in case of Shri Yogesh Kumar Randar vs. ITO Wd-63(4), Kolkata for assessment year 2014-15 as the "lead" case.
3. Both the learned representative(s) take me to CIT(A)'s detailed discussion whilst treating the impugned STCL pre-arranged bogus loss in the instant "lead" case vide the following lower appellate discussion:-
"3. Grounds No. 1 to 9 of the appeal are directed against the action of the A.O. to disallow appellant's claim of Long Term Capital Gain/ Short Term Capital Gain u/s 10(38) and hold it as bogus Long/Short Term Capital Gain for Rs.22,55,599/ -. The A.O. has discussed the facts of the case of his assessment order. In nut shell, the appellant on 13.10.2011 privately purchased 80 shares of M/ s Pinnacle Vintrade Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs. 100,000/- from M/s Uniglory Developers Pvt. Ltd. M/s Pinnacle Vintrade Ltd was at a later date renamed as M/ s Unno Industries and the Page 7 appellant received 72,800 scripts of the M/ s Unno Industries Ltd. Subsequently, on different dates during F.Y. 2013-14, the appellant sold shares for Rs. 21,61,082/ - and thereby had a capital gain of Rs.20,59,571/- which he has claimed to be totally exempt under the provisions of section 10(38) of the Act. The appellant also showed STCG of Rs. 1,94,517/- on sale of shares of M/s Turbotech Engineers Ltd. The sale was made through broker M/ s Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. The A.O. in the meanwhile had received information from DIT(Inv.), Kolkata that: they have investigated and identified 84 Penny Stock Companies. Search and Survey were also conducted in the office premises of 32 share brokers who accepted that they were involved in bogus LTCG / STCG Seam. Two such penny stock company identified by the DIT(Inv.), Kolkata are M/s Unno Industries Ltd. and M/s Turbotech Engineers Ltd the A.O. found that this scrip has also been banned by SEBI. Basic trading pattern of all these 84 penny stock scrips represented a bell shaped trading i.e. prices start at a low range and rises rapidly, stays there for a while and then decreases rapidly. This makes a bell shaped pattern. The A.O. of his order has demonstrated this phenomenon of M/ s Unno Industries Ltd. which follow bell shaped pattern. Such movement of share is not supported by actual financial credentials as the company concerned has almost no fixed asset, no turnover, no profitability and do not pay taxes. Hence, such companies were designed only for the limited purposes of bogus LTCG/STCG to willing any beneficiary. The A.O after giving due opportunity to the appellant of being heard held that the investment of the appellant increases by almost 21 times within a span of 18 months is nothing but booking of bogus LTCG. Accordingly, the entire amount of LTCG of Rs.20,61,082/- was added back as bogus LTCG to the income of the appellant. During the appellate proceedings, the A/R of the appellant appeared on 05.06.2018 and filed a written submission along with some supporting documents.
3.1 I have carefully considered the assessment order wherein the addition of Rs. 20,61,082/- has been made by the A.O. on account of bogus Long Term Capital Gain. I find that the A.O. at the time of completion of the assessment proceedings has framed the assessment after analyzing various information received from the Investigation Wing. Some of the observations which come to light upon examination of the records of the appellant are as below:-
a. There is a common pattern in the trading of such scripts and the pattern is that they represent a bell shape in their trading.
b. From Balance Sheet of the listed penny stocks it is found that they have no actual financial credentials to support their share movement pattern. Almost all the companies have no fixed assets, no turnover, no profitability, poor EPS and Book Value. The A.O has analysed the financial result of M/s Unno Industries for 5 years from March 2010 to march 2014 on pages 7 to 9 of his assessment order.
c. No such event of growth happened for which investment in shares could have jumped around 21 times in a very short span of time of 18 months.
d. In the whole project total 84 listed penny stock companies were identified and worked upon. After that, number of search and surveys were conducted in the Office premises of more than 32 share broking entities who have accepted that they were involved in the bogus LTCG j STCL scam. Surveys were also Page 8 conducted in the office premises of many accommodation entry providers and their statements recorded. All have accepted their role in the seam.
e. Out of 84 listed penny stocks which have been used for generating bogus LTCG, M/s Unno Industries Ltd. and M/s Turbotech Engineers which had been sold by the present assessee, is one of them.
3.2 A deeper examination of the Paper Book filed by the appellant gives a much clear picture of the entire process being staged managed. The most vital aspect to be considered is what prompted him to make a decision for investment in this company.
On perusal of the details of investment made by the appellant, it is evident that the appellant mostly made investment in renowned companies. Therefore, the investment made by the appellant in such a company which does not have any credentials, does not match with the nature of investment of the appellant. The appellant could not explain as to how it came to know that a Mumbai based company, M/s Uniglory Developers was holding the shares of M/s Pinnacle Vintrade and was willing to sell it. The appellant is a salaried employee and could not explain his investment behaviour before the A.O when his statement under oath u/s 131 was recorded.
3.3 I have also perused all the submissions made by the appellant during the course of appeal proceedings alongwith the supporting evidences. The main contention of the appellant that all the supporting evidences in the form of bank statement, contract notes, delivery instruction proves the genuineness of the transactions. In my view, all these documents as referred to by the appellant are mere documents and not any evidence. The whole transactions are not natural at all. In my opinion, payment made through banking channel does not constitute the transactions to be genuine transaction since the banking documents are merely self serving recitals. None of the material produced by the appellant is enough to justify the huge gains as claimed under the head Capital Gains.
3.4 In a penny stock which has no business activity or any plan or initiative or any prospect for growth, investors normally sell off such stock whenever price has appreciated to some extent and there is total uncertainty to hold such stock for fabulous appreciation when the investment is not backed by any fundamental of the company, its business policy and future prospect. In absence of any such fact the person who is sure for huge appreciation in value of such stock is probably the person who knows beforehand that its price is being manipulated in a concerted way and he is part of such system. Price movement and volume movement of this stock indicates such fact. This defies all logic of human probability. In this context the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) has held that the surrounding circumstances must be seen to find out the reality of the recitals made in the document. This principle was reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in 214 ITR801 where in it was held that the apparent can be rejected where there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real fact.
3.5 I am of the opinion that the A.O. correctly held the transactions relating to Long Term Capital Gain to fall in the realm of "Suspicious" and "dubious" transactions. In the instant case, the A.O. completed the assessment very meticulously after considering the surrounding circumstances.
Page 9 3.6 I find all the judgments relied upon by the appellant fall flat in the face of the facts of the case and the preponderance of probability against the assessee. Recently, the Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjoy Birnalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT, vide an order dated 10.04.2017 held that the assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction meant to account for· the undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain since the assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain how the price of shares unknown company has jumped in no time.
3.7 In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the order of the AO and I confirm the action or the A.O. in holding the Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.20,61.082/ to be bogus and also Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.1,94,517/- to be bogus."
4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. Learned departmental representative vehemently supports both the lower authorities' identical action holding the assessee's STCL as bogus since derived from rigging of the scrip prices in issue and involving accommodation entry in collusion with the concerned entry operators. Hon'ble apex court's decisions in Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 80 Taxmann.89/214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) are quoted before me during the course of hearing at the Revenue's behest. It strongly argues that the department has disallowed/added the impugned STCL based on circumstantial evidence unearthed after a series of search actions / investigations undertaken by the DDIT(Inv). I find no merit in Revenue's instant arguments. The fact remains that the assessee has duly placed on record the relevant contract notes, share certificate(s), detailed corroborative documentary evidence indicating purchase / sale of shares through registered brokers by banking channel, demat statements etc., The Revenue's only case as per its pleadings and both the lower authorities unanimously conclusion that there is very strong circumstantial evidence against the assessee suggesting bogus STCL accommodation entries. I find that there is not even a single case which could pin-point any making against these assessees which could be taken as a revenue nexus. I make it clear that the CBDT's circular dated 10.03.2003 has itself made it clear that mere search statements in the nature of admission in absence of supportive material do not carry weight. I notice that this tribunal's co- ordinate bench's decision in ITA No. 2474/Kol/2018 in Mahavir Jhanwar vs. ITO decided on 01.02.2019 has taken into consideration identical facts and circumstances Page 10 as well as latest developments on legal side whilst deleting the similar bogus LTCG addition as follows:-
"2. The sole issue that arises for my adjudication is whether the Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the claim of the assessee that he had earned Long Term Capital Gains on purchase and sale of the shares of M/s Unno Industries. The AO based on a general report and modus operandi adopted generally and on general observations has concluded that the assessee has claimed bogus long term capital gain. He made an addition of the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income and rejected the claim of exemption made u/s 10(38) of the Act. The evidence produced by the assessee in support of the genuineness of the transaction was rejected.
3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal and the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon "circumstantial evidence"
and "human probabilities" to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called "rules of suspicious transaction". No direct material was found to controvert the evidence filed by the assessee, in support of the genuineness of the transactions. In other words, the overwhelming evidence filed by the assessee remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. The entire conclusions drawn by the revenue authorities, are based on a common report of the Director of Investigation, Kolkata, which was general in nature and not specific to any assessee. The assessee was not confronted with any statement or material alleged to be the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing of the department and which were the basis on which conclusion were drawn against the assessee. Copy of the report was also not given.
4. The ld. D/R, submitted that the transaction was not genuine. He argued that the entire capital gain was stage managed by a few operators and investors. He relied on the order of ld. Assessing Officer and argued that the same be upheld. He relied on the order of the Chennai 'A' Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Pankaj Agarwal & Sons (HUF) vs. ITO in ITA No. 1413 to 1420/CHNY/2018; order dt. 06/12/2018, for the proposition that such capital gains have to be brought to tax. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Nagpur; [2018] 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) and the decision of the Smt. M.K. Rajeshwari vs. ITO;
ITA No.1723/Bng/2018; Assessment Year 2015-16, order dt. 12/10/2018.5. After hearing both sides, I find that in a number of cases this bench of the Tribunal and Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court has consistently held that, decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. In all cases additions were deleted. Some of the cases were, detailed finding have been given on this issue, are listed below:-
Sl.No. ITA No.s Name of the Assessee Date of order/judgment 1 ITA No.714 to 718/Kol/2011 ITAT, DICT vs. Sunita Khemka 28.10.2015 Kolkata 2 214 ITR 244 Calcutta High Court CIT vs. Carbo Industrial Holdings Ltd. 3 250 ITR 539 CIT vs. Emerald Commercial 23.03.2001 Ltd. 4 ITA No.1236-1237/Kol/2017 Page 11 5 ITA No.569/Kol/2017 Gautam Pincha 15.11.2017 6 ITA No.443/Kol/2017 Kiran Kothari HUF 15.11.2017 7 ITA No.2281/Kol/2017 Navneet Agarwal vs. ITO 20.07.2018 8 ITA No.456 of 2007 Bombay High CIT vs. Shri Mukesh Ratilal 18.01.2018 Court Marolia 9. ITA No.95 of 2017 (O&M) PCIT vs. Prem Pal Gandhi 18.01.2018 10 ITA No.1089/Kol/2018 Sanjay Mehta 28.09.2018
6. Regarding the case laws relied upon by the ld. Departmental Representative, I find that, in the case of M/s. Pankaj Agarwal & Sons (HUF)(supra), the issue was decided against the assessee for the reason that, the assessee could not justify his claim as genuine by producing evidence and was only arguing for the matter to be set aside to the lower authorities on the ground of natural justice. As similar arguments were not raised before the lower authorities by the assessee, the ITAT rejected these arguments. In the case on hand, all evidences were produced by the assessee. In the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain, legal heir of Santi Devi Bimalchand Jain, the Hon'ble High Court upheld the stand of the Revenue that the transaction in question is an adventure in nature of trade and the profit of the transactions is assessable under the head of 'Business Income'. In the case on hand, the ld. Assessing Officer has not assessed this amount as 'Business Income'. In any event, I am bound to follow the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in this matter. I find that the assessee has filed all necessary evidences in support of the transactions. Some of these evidences are (a) evidence of purchase of shares, (b) evidence of payment for purchase of shares made by way of account payee cheque, copy of bank statements,
(c) copy of balance sheet disclosing investments, (d) copy of demat statement reflecting purchase, (e) copy of merger order passed by the High Court , (f) copy of allotment of shares on merger, (g) evidence of sale of shares through the stock exchange, (h) copy of demat statement showing the sale of shares, (i) copy of bank statement reflecting sale receipts, (j) copy of brokers ledger, (k) copy of Contract Notes etc.
7. The proposition of law laid down in these case laws by the Jurisdictional High Court as well as by the ITAT Kolkata on these issues are in favour of the assessee. These are squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The ld. Departmental Representative, though not leaving his ground, could not controvert the claim of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the issue in question is covered by the above cited decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court and the ITAT. I am bound to follow the same.
8. In view of the above discussion I delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Act, on account of Long Term Capital Gains."
5. Coupled with this, hon'ble jurisdictional high court's other decisions in CIT vs. Rungta Properties Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.105 of 2016, CIT vs. Shreyahi Ganguly ITA No. 196 of 2012, M/s Classic Growers Ltd vs. CIT ITA No. 129 of 2012 also hold such transactions in scrips supported by the corresponding relevant evidence to be genuine. I adopt the above extracted reasoning mutatis mutandis therefore to delete the Page 12 impugned STCL disallowance / addition of Rs.20,61,082/-. Unexplained commission expenditure disallowance, if any shall automatically follow suit as a necessary corollary. No other argument or ground has been agitated before me during the course of hearing. This "lead" case ITA No.2527/Kol/2018 is allowed in above terms. [Same order to follow in all the remaining eighteen appeal(s)] in absence of any distinction being pointed out at Revenue's behest.
6. All these assessees' nineteen appeals are allowed in above terms as per the pronouncement made in the open court on the date of hearing itself i.e. 27th June, 2019. A copy of the instant common order be placed in the respective case file(s).
Sd/-
(S.S. Godara)
Judicial Member
Kolkata,
*Dkp/Sr.PS
"दनांकः- 27/06/2019 कोलकाता
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant-Shri Yotgesh Kr. Randar, 99/1 Narkeldanaga Main Road, Kolakta-54/N.P.Patodia & Sons(HUF), BB-23, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-a64, Mala Choudhary, 30, Bentinck St, 3rd Fl. Kolkata-001/Shri Ashok Kr Agrawalla, Flat No.5D, 34/1, Bondel Rd, Kolkata-19/Bakul Ghoshdastidar, C/o. S.N.Ghosh Seven Brothers; Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly-712105/Ranjika aGupta Benefit Trust, C/o Subash Agarwal & Assocaites, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Fl. Kolkata-69/Smt. Anita Digga, Geeta Katra, 2nd Fl. 1, Mullick St, Kolkata-07/Pooja Pansari-Piyush Pansari (HUF) Poddar Court, Gate No.3, 2nd Fl, 18, Rabindra Sarani,Kolkata-001/Smt. Preeti Yadav-Sri Sunil Yadav, 27, Sanatan Mistry Lane, Salkkia, P.S. Golabari, Howrah-711106/ M/s Jaychand Lal Chopra (HUF) 88, Block-G, 4th Fl, Rabindra Nagar, Complex, College Rd. Howrah-711103/Shri Vinod Kr. Jajoo, 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkat-001/Shri Birendra Kr. Chopra, 3A, Surendra Mohan Ghosh Sarani, 1st Fl. Kolkta-001/ M/s Birendra Kr. Chopra (HUF), 88, Block-G, 4th Fl. Rabindra Nagar Complex, College Rd. Howrah-711103/Ravindra Kr. Chopra, 3A, Surendra Mohan Ghosh Sarani, 1st Fl. Kolkata-01/ M/s Ravindra KR. Chopra HUF, 88, Block-G, 4th Fl. Rabindra Nagar Complex, College Rd. Howrah-711103/Abhinandan Page 13 Chopra-Gaurav Chopra, 88, Block-G, 4th Fl. Rabindra Nagar Complex, College Rd. Howrah-711103
2. यथ /Respondent-ITO Wd-63(4), 169, AJC Bose Rd, "Bamboo Villa" Central Revenue Bldg. Kolkata-14/ITO Wd-50(3), DDS-III&III, Uttarapan Complex, Manicktala Civic Centre, Kolkata-54 ITO Wd-4(3), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7,Chowringhee Sq. Kol-69 ITO Wd-22(4), 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Rd.,4th Fl. Kol-16 ITO Wd-24(1), Aaykar Bhawan, G.T. Road, Khadina More, P.O.&P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly/ITO Wed-36(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 9th Fl, 110, Shantipaly, Kolakta-110/ITO Ward 43(4),3 Govt. Place (West), Kolkata-01 ITO Wd-35(1), Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-107/ITO Wd-48(4)/DCIT Cir-47, 3 Govt. Place, Kolkata-001/ITO Wd- 36(4), Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, R.No.815 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-107/ITO Wd-43(4), 3, Govt. Place (West), Kolkat-01/ ITO Wd-46(3), Kolkata/ITO We-36(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 8th Fl. R.No.810, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Byhpass, Kolkata-107/ITO Wd-46(3), 3, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata-01
3. संबं%धत आयकर आयु'त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु'त- अप ील / CIT (A)
5. (वभागीय +त+न%ध, आयकर अप ील य अ%धकरण कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata
6. गाड- फाइल / Guard file.
By order/आदे श से, /True Copy/ उप/सहायक प ज ं ीकार आयकर अपील य अ%धकरण, कोलकाता ।