Mahendra_Kumar_Baid_Kolkata_vs_Acit_Circle_35_Kolkata_Kolkata_on_18_August_2017

Mahendra Kumar Baid, Kolkata vs Acit Circle 35, Kolkata, Kolkata on 18 August, 2017
Mahendra Kumar Baid, Kolkata vs Acit Circle 35, Kolkata,

Kolkata on 18 August, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : KOLKATA
[Before Hon'ble Shri A.T. Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ]

I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017
Assessment Year : 2014-15
Manish Kumar Baid -vs- ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata
[PAN: AHMPB 3024 E]
(Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017

Assessment Year : 2014-15
Mahendra Kumar Baid -vs- ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata
[PAN: AEJPB 7691 C]
(Appellant) (Respondent)
For the Appellant : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA

Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate
For the Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Date of Hearing : 10.08.2017
Date of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017
ORDER
Per M.Balaganesh, AM
1. These two appeals of the Assessee arise out of the independent orders of the Learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 10, Kolkata [ in short ld CITA] in Appeal
No.230/CIT(A)-10/Cir-35/16-17/Kol dated 28.3.2017 in the case of Manish Kumar Baid and in
Appeal No.228/CIT(A)-10/Cir-35/16-17/Kol dated 28.3.2017 in the case of Mahendra Kumar Baid,
against the independent order of assessments framed by ACIT, Circle-35, Kolkata [ in short the ld
AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 28.12.2016 in the
case of Manish Kumar Baid ITA Nos.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017 Manish Kumar Baid & Mahendra
Kumar Baid A.Yr.2014-15 and order of assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2016 in the
case of Mahendra Kumar Baid, for the Asst Year 2014-15. As the issues involved are identical in both
the appeals, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of
convenience. The facts in the case of Manish Kumar Baid are taken up for adjudication and the
decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force to Mahendra Kumar Baid also, except with
variance in figures.
2. Though the assessee had raised several grounds of appeal, the following common issues are
involved in both the appeals and the questions raised thereon are reframed as under:-
1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CITA was justified in
upholding the addition made by the ld AO u/s 68 of the Act in respect of sale
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124831106/ 1

proceeds of shares of Kailash Auto Finance Limited (KAFL) treating the same as
income from undisclosed sources after rejecting the assessee's claim of Long Term
Capital Gains (LTCG) on sale of those shares.
upholding the action of the ld AO in treating the transactions in shares of Kailash
Auto Finance Limited (KAFL) resulting in Long Term Capital Gain as bogus and
thereupon making addition u/s 69C on the presumption that commission @ 5% was
paid for arranging the aforesaid bogus Long Term Capital Gain.
upholding the disallowance made by the ld AO u/s 14A read with rule 8D of the Act.
upholding the charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.
3. The brief facts of the first issue as has been recorded by the ld AO in the Assessment Order are
that the assessee claimed long term capital gains from transactions in shares of Kailash Auto
Finance Limited (KAFL). The ld AO found that the assessee, on 20.12.2011, purchased 240000
shares of the face value of Rs.1 each in Careful Projects ITA Nos.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017 Manish
Kumar Baid & Mahendra Kumar Baid A.Yr.2014-15 Advisory Limited (CPAL) through off market
from M/s. Brijdhara Mercantile Private Limited (name changed to M/s Tremendous Mercantile
Private Limited ) for a consideration of Rs.2,40,000. The ld AO also found that CPAL was
amalgamated with KAFL by virtue of an order of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and in pursuance to
such amalgamation, the assessee was allotted 240000 shares of KAFL of the face value of Rs.1 each.
The ld AO also noted that another company named Panchsul Marketing Ltd. (PML) also merged
with the said KAFL. However, in the present case, we are not concerned with the merger of PML
with KAFL. The assessee sold these 240000 shares through M/s. Ashika Stock Broking limited, a
registered share broker of BSE. The said shares were sold through the online medium of stock
exchange on different dates falling within the previous year 2013-14 corresponding to the Asst Year
2014-15. The aforesaid transactions resulted in Long Term Capital Gains and the assessee claimed
exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act.
3.1 The ld AO observed that the assessee made gain of almost 3805% in a span of 24 months. The
price movement of the scrip in the span of 24 months raised doubts in the mind of the ld AO that
profit earned by the assessee were beyond human probabilities. The ld AO therefore made a deeper
study to ascertain whether the transactions were genuine investment transactions or sham /
colourable device to convert the unaccounted cash into tax exempt income.
3.2 The ld AO noticed that the company, CPAL, was incorporated on 18.09.2010 with authorized
and paid up share capital of Rs.1 lakh. The company increased its authorized share capital to
Rs.34.50 lakhs and thereafter issued 330155 shares of the face value of Rs.10 each at the premium of
Rs.590 to different entities. The ld AO also observed that during the FY 2011-12, CPAL increased its
authorised share capital to Rs.29 crores and then the shares of Rs.10 each were split into 1:10 i.e.

each shares of Rs.10 into shares of Re.1 each. The said company CPAL thereafter issued bonus
shares ITA Nos.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017 Manish Kumar Baid & Mahendra Kumar Baid A.Yr.2014-15
to the existing equity shareholders in the ratio of 1:55. The ld AO, considering the weak operating
profits of CPAL, suspected the issue of bonus shares in the unrealistic ratio of 1:55. He held that the
probable reasons were with a view to provide large amount of LTCG in the hands of beneficiaries
after amalgamating the said company with KAFL.
3.3 The ld AO further observed that CPAL was incorporated with a dubious plan and premeditated
arrangement and artifice to increase number of shares therein through sham and non genuine
transactions of its shares which resulted in fetching exhorbitant and unrealistic considerations in
the scheme of amalgamation. While arriving at the aforesaid conclusions, the ld AO also doubted the
scheme of amalgamation.
3.4 The ld AO referred to the statement of Shri Sunil Dokania recorded u/s 131 of the Act by the
Investigation wing on 12.06.2015, wherein, Shri Dokania has explained the modus operandi of
providing of LTCG in the scrip of KAFL. He stated that by way of amalgamation of CPAL with KAFL,
the beneficiaries of LTCG got higher number of shares of KAFL as against shares of CPAL. Mr.
Dokania, in the aforesaid statement, stated before the investigation wing that he had got equal
amount of cash from the beneficiaries, deposited the same to various undisclosed proprietorship
concerns, and finally transferred the same to bogus/shell companies, by layering through various
accounts, who had ultimately purchased the shares sold by the beneficiaries. The ld AO has also
relied upon another statement of Shri Sunil Dokania recorded u/s 131 by the Investigation wing on
6.3.2013, in the case of Rashmi Group of Kolkata ; Statement of Shri Bidyoot Sarkar recorded on
8.4.2015 u/s 133A in the case of Religare Securities Limited; Statement of Shri Narendra Balasia
recorded on oath u/s 133A in the case of SMC Global Securities Limited ; Statement of Shri Pradip
Jain recorded on 31.3.2015 u/s 131 and the two Statements of Shri Amit Dalmia recorded by the
Investigation wing on 31.3.2015 and 5.6.2015. The statements were annexed to the ITA Nos.1236 &
1237/Kol/2017 Manish Kumar Baid & Mahendra Kumar Baid A.Yr.2014-15 Assessment Order to
come to a conclusion that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of the transactions in shares of
KAFL which resulted in bogus claim of exempt LTCG.
3.5 The ld AO, on the basis of movement of price of KAFL quoted in Bombay Stock Exchange during
the period of September, 2013 to January, 2014 (the period of sale of shares of KAFL by the
assessee), found that the price of shares was increased by 267%. The ld AO concluded that while
Sensex showed almost no progress, price of shares of KAFL moved phenomenally. The ld AO also
referred to the financials of KAFL during the Financial years 2011-12 to 2015-16 and concluded that
Earnings per share (EPS) during that period was either nil or negative but the value of shares was
inflated highly. The ld AO observed that the prices of shares of KAFL were rigged by the entities
connected to KAFL.
3.6 The ld AO referred to three separate orders passed by SEBI dated 29th March, 2016, 15th June,
2016 and 31st October, 2016 in support of his adverse conclusions drawn against the assessee that
several entities related/connected to KAFL rigged the prices by 230% during the period of January,
2013 to June, 2013 (Patch-1), created artificial demand and thereafter provided exit to the

beneficiaries during the period of July 2013 to November, 2014 (Patch-2). The said orders passed by
SEBI contained list of related/connected parties of KAFL and also the list of beneficiaries. Some of
these were restrained from accessing the securities market and buying, selling or dealing in
securities. The ld AO concluded that the indepth analysis done by SEBI in the three orders is direct
evidence against the assessee to hold that the prices of KAFL were manipulated and artificially hiked
to create non-genuine LTCG in the transactions of KAFL. The ld AO further concluded that
confessions given on oath by the promoters/brokers/operators are the circumstantial evidence
against the assessee that the LTCG was arranged one.
ITA Nos.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017 Manish Kumar Baid & Mahendra Kumar Baid A.Yr.2014-15 3.7 The
ld AO made enquiries from the Bombay Stock Exchange as to the counter party members who
bought the shares of KAFL sold by the assessee through his share broker viz. Ashika Stock Broking
Limited. The ld AO found that the buyers of the shares had weak financials and therefore he
doubted the genuineness of the transactions. The summons issued to the said parties came back
un-served and/or no response was received thereon. The ld AO referred to his test check analysis of
one of the buyer of shares sold by the assessee viz. M/s. Rajwanshi Promoters Private Limited and
found that the source of funds for making investment by M/s. Rajwanshi Promoters Private Limited
was the funds received from different entities and observed that the ultimate source was cash
deposited in two bank accounts at 4th or 5th layers. On the basis of the said test check analysis, the
ld AO doubted the genuineness of purchases transactions done by all the buyers in relation to shares
sold by the assessee. The ld AO observed that the cash trail analysis prepared on sample basis
strengthens the suspicions over the genuineness of the buyers of shares and further suspected that
the unaccounted cash of the assessee was layered into the bank account of the exit providers.
3.8 The ld AO relying on the various decisions viz. Hersh Win Chaddha v. DCIT [ITA Nos.3088 to
3098 & 3104/Del/2005, Sumati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC), Durga Prasad More v. CIT,
Mcdowell & Co. V. CTO, CIT v. P. Mohankala] observed that tax liabilities can be assessed by
revenue authorities on consideration of material available on record, surrounding circumstances,
human conduct, preponderance of probabilities and nature of incriminating information/evidence
available on record. The ld AO ultimately concluded that in such clandestine operations and
transactions, it is impossible to have direct evidence or demonstrative proof of every move.
3.9 The ld AO concluded that the assessee's transactions resulting in LTCG on sale of shares of
KAFL were bogus and that the assessee ploughed back his unaccounted money in the books of
accounts which is assessable under section 68 of the Act.
ITA Nos.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017 Manish Kumar Baid & Mahendra Kumar Baid A.Yr.2014-15
4. On first appeal, the ld CIT(A) dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee against his claim of
exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act and he also confirmed the additions made by the ld AO under
section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.
5. The ld AR argued that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the ld AO on the
basis of the aforesaid findings and various observations made in the impugned assessment order.

The ld AR submitted that the findings of the ld AO are based on presumptions and suspicion alone
and are perverse. In the course of hearing of the case, the ld AR referred to various documentary
evidences furnished in the Paper Book in support of the claim of the assessee to prove the
genuineness of the transactions relating to LTCG on sale of shares of KAFL. The documentary
evidences included the following:
(i) Purchase Bill for purchase of 2,40,000 shares of CPAL from M/s Brijdhara
Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. on 20.12.2011 falling in the previous year relevant to the
Assessment Year 2012-13.
(ii) Bank Statement showing payment of the purchase consideration of shares of

CPAL to Brijdhara.
(iii) Balance Sheet of the Assessee for the FY 2011-12 to 2012-13 to show that the
investment in the shares of CPAL was duly disclosed.
(iv) Demat Statement with United Bank of India, a Depository Participant (DP)
showing the aforesaid shares of CPAL in the account of the assessee.
(v) The letter dated 8th June, 2013 of KAFL informing the assessee that the CPAL
was merged with KAFL by virtue of Court order and the assessee was allotted shares
of KAFL as against the shares of CPAL in the ratio of 1:1.
(vi) The Demat statement of the assessee with United Bank of India showing receipt
of shares of KAFL on amalgamation as aforesaid.
(vii) Contract Notes of Ashika Stock Broking Ltd., share broker through whom the assessee sold
shares of KAFL in the FY 2013-14 relevant to the AY 2014-15.
(viii) Bank Statement showing receipt of sale consideration from M/s Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. by
account payee cheques.
(ix) Demat statement showing delivery of shares of KAFL on sale of shares.
5.1. The ld AR submitted that the purchase of shares in the FY 2011-12 was accepted by the ld AO. In
the case of Sri Mahendra Kumar Baid the assessment order for the assessment year 2012-13 was
passed under section 143(3) on 30th January, 2015 and the purchase of shares of CPAL was
accepted. The assessment in the case of Manish Kumar Baid was processed under section 143(1) of
the Act accepting the purchase of shares. The ld AR also submitted that even in the impugned
assessment order the purchase of shares by the assessee was not held to be bogus. The ld AR
submitted that the evidences and documents furnished by the assessee were neither found to be
false nor fabricated. The ld AR submitted that the ld AO doubted the genuineness of the sale

transactions on the basis of various orders of SEBI and/or the Investigation Wing and the
statements of various persons recorded by Investigation Wing in the cases of persons unconnected
to the assessee. It was submitted that the ld AO disallowed the assessee's claim of LTCG on sale of
shares of KAFL on suspicion and presumptions alone. It was submitted that the lower authorities
have not brought any material or evidence on record to falsify the claim of the assessee or to hold
that the share transactions were bogus.
5.2. The ld AR has shown that the three orders of SEBI and the report of the Investigation Wing
and/or the statements of different persons recorded by Investigation Wing nowhere named the
assessee as a beneficiary to the transactions relating to KAFL. It is seen from the Interim Order
dated 29th March, 2016 that SEBI has listed the names of various entities/persons who were the
promoters and/or the connected or ITA Nos.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017 Manish Kumar Baid &
Mahendra Kumar Baid A.Yr.2014-15 related parties provided bogus transactions of LTCG to various
beneficiaries. The list of the names of the beneficiaries was also given in the said order. The ld AR
referring to the said lists has shown to us that the name of the assessee and/or his broker namely
Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. nowhere appear in the said lists annexed to SEBI's interim order dated
29th March, 2016. On a specific query to the ld DR appearing for Revenue, he fairly agreed that the
assessee's name and/or the name of Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. do not appear in the list annexed to
various orders of the SEBI including final order dated 15th June, 2016 referred to in the impugned
assessment order.
5.3. The ld AR also brought our attention to the enquiry report made by Pr. Director of Income Tax
(Investigation), Kolkata in the matter of transactions of KAFL. The ld AO relied on the statements of
different persons including Sri Sunil Kumar Dokania recorded by the Investigation Wing of Kolkata
who explained the modus operandi of providing accommodation entries of LTCG and Short Term
Capital Loss (STCL). These persons also provided the lists of beneficiaries to whom they provided
accommodation entries. The ld AR has shown that the list of beneficiaries provided by these persons
also did not contain the name of the assessee and/or the name of the share broker viz. Ashika Stock
Broking Ltd.
5.4. The ld AR, on the other hand, relied on the ad interim exparte order dated 29th March, 2016
passed by SEBI in favour of assessee. He drew our attention to Para 24 of the said order wherein
SEBI found that some innocent and gullible investors had been lured into the trading of shares of
KAFL and had been entrapped in the price fluctuation of the script. This finding of SEBI supports
the case of the assessee. In this case, the assessee was lured to purchase shares of CPAL, when he
knew that the company allotted bonus shares in the ratio of 1:55. The assessee sold the shares of
KAFL when he found that the prices increased substantially in the market. The ld AR submitted that
he ITA Nos.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017 Manish Kumar Baid & Mahendra Kumar Baid A.Yr.2014-15 being
innocent gullible investor, his name did not appear in the list of SEBI who were named as
beneficiary to the alleged scheme formulated by some persons.
5.5 The ld AR, in course of hearing before us, filed a copy of the audited financials of KAFL for the
FY 2012-13 and drew our attention to the Notice convening the AGM. He submitted that it was the
28th AGM of KAFL which shows that the said company was incorporated for more than 28 years as

on the end of the said financial year i.e. 2011-12. He concluded that in such circumstances, the
merger of the two companies with KAFL could not be said to be a premeditated arrangement to give
benefit of LTCG to beneficiaries. At least a gullible investor would be lured to make investment in
such companies.
5.6. The ld AR also brought to our notice the Financials of KAFL reported in SEBI's interim order
dated 29th March, 2016 to show that the Price Earnings Ratio (in short P/E ratio) of that Company
increased to Rs.4,065 in FY 2013-14 from Rs. Nil in the FY 2012-13. The ld AR stated that the
conclusion drawn by ld AO that the financials of the company shows Nil P/E ratio and did not give
rise to steep increase of market price of the shares of KAFL, is contrary to the facts on record.
5.7. The ld AR also referred to the statement of Sri Sunil Dokania relied on by the ld AO to draw
adverse inference against the assessee. He referred to the following statement against Q. No. 15 :-
Q.15 Please explain the modus operandi of getting bogus long term capital gain
through scrips controlled and managed by you.
Ans. Generally beneficiaries approached to the broker/entry operator in search of

generation of Capital in an easier manner without paying any tax on it. Brokers
identify the various bogus scripts to provide LTCG as the same is exempt from the
tax. Kailash Auto is such scrips which is engaged in providing accommodation entry
in form of LTCG / STCL to various beneficiaries. Beneficiaries are allotted the shares
at nominal price and the price of the shares ITA Nos.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017 Manish
Kumar Baid & Mahendra Kumar Baid A.Yr.2014-15 rise artificially by using loopholes
of stock exchange mechanism and the shares were sold at desired level to various
bogus entities. These bogus entities are paid by the unaccounted money of the
beneficiaries in cash. As a result unaccounted income ploughed back in the file of
individuals and HUFs in the form of bogus LTCG without paying income tax on it. In
process the bogus Short Term Capital Loss is also booked by the entities who wants
to reduce their taxability.
5.8. The ld AR submitted that there is no allegation by Shri Sunil Dokania and/or the
ld AO that the assessee ever approached Shri Dokania and/or any other person
whatsoever, to approach for such bogus LTCG. Therefore the ld AO has wrongly
drawn inference against the assessee from the statement of Shri Dokania. The ld. AR
also referred to the statements of various other persons annexed with the Assessment
order to show that none of the said persons named the assessee to have been
benefitted by them in respect of LTCG claimed by the assessee. The ld AR submitted
that the ld AO was unjustified in drawing an adverse inference against the assessee
on the basis of his enquiry made from BSE to find out the names of buyers who
ultimately bought the shares sold by the assessee. On the basis of such enquiry, the ld
AO prepared a cash trail to allege that cash deposited in 5th or 6th layer were the
unaccounted income of the assessee. It was his submission that the assessee did not
know the names of the buyers and has no connection and/or relations with any such

persons. The transactions of sale of shares were online trading system through his
broker from whom he received the sale consideration. The broker also receives
payments for all his transactions from Stock Exchange. The seller and the buyer
cannot know the names of each other as well as their respective brokers, who were
involved in the trading transactions in the secondary platform. In such a situation it
cannot be presumed that there could be any transfer of cash between the buyers and
sellers to convert the unaccounted money of the beneficiaries as alleged by the ld AO.
The ld AR referred to the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of
CIT vs. Lavanya Land Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 161 (Bom) to contend that
there was no evidence whatsoever to allege that money changed hands between the
assessee and the broker or any other person ITA Nos.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017 Manish
Kumar Baid & Mahendra Kumar Baid A.Yr.2014-15 including the alleged exit
provider whatsoever to convert unaccounted money for getting benefit of LTCG as
alleged. In the said case, the Hon'ble High Court at Para 21 held that in absence of
any material to show that huge cash was transferred from one side to another ,
addition cannot be sustained. Similar view was taken in the following cases:-
(i) Baijnath Agarwalla vs. ACIT [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra Third Member)
(ii) Ganeshmull Biijay Singh Baid HUF vs. DCIT - ITA No. 544/Kol/13 dated
4.12.2015 (Kolkata Tribunal)
(iii) Malti Ghanshyambhai Patodia vs. ITO - ITA No. 3400/Ahd/2015 (Ahmedabad
Tribunal)
(iv) Pratik Suryakant Shah vs. ITO -[ 2017] 77 taxmann.com 260 (Ahmedabad
Tribunal)
(v) Padduchari Jeevan Prashant vs. ITO - ITA No. 452/Hyd/2015 (Hyderabad
Tribunal)
(vi) Anil Nand Kishore Goyal vs.ACIT - ITA Nos. 1256/PN/2012 (Pune Tribunal)
(vii) CIT vs. Jamna Devi Agrawal - [2012] 20 taxmann.com 529 (Bom HC) 5.9. The ld
AR submitted that all the observations, conclusions and findings of the lower
authorities are based on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. It is a trite law that the
suspicion howsoever strong cannot partake the character of legal evidence. Reference
was made to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat
Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC). The ld AR submitted that the entire
case of the revenue hinges upon the presumption that the assessee has ploughed back
his own unaccounted money in the form of bogus LTCG. However, this presumption
or suspicion how strong it may appear to be true, but needs to be corroborated by
some evidence to establish a link that the assessee had brought back his unaccounted
income in the form of LTCG. The ld AR referred to the judgement of Special Bench of

Mumbai ITA Nos.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017 Manish Kumar Baid & Mahendra Kumar
Baid A.Yr.2014-15 Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 164
ITD 1 (Mumbai-
Trib.)(SB) The Tribunal observed as under:
46.............Ultimately the entire case of Revenue hinges upon the presumption that
assessee is bound to have some large share in so called secret money in the form of
premium and its circulation. However, this presumption or suspicion how strong it
may appear to be true but needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a
link that GTC actually had some kind of a share in such secret money. It is quite a
trite law that suspicion howsoever strong may be but cannot be the basis of addition
except for some material evidence on record. The theory of 'preponderance of
probability' is applied to weigh the evidences of either side and draw a conclusion in
favour of a party which has more favourable factors in his side.
The conclusions have to be drawn on the basis of certain admitted facts and materials and not on the
basis of presumptions of facts that might go against the assessee. Once nothing has been proved
against the assessee with aid of any direct material especially when various rounds of investigations
have been carried out, then nothing can be implicated against the assessee .
5.10. The ld AR submitted that there is no direct evidence against the assessee brought on record by
ld AO to hold that the assessee introduced its own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG. The
direct evidence as alleged by the ld AO to be the SEBI's orders is no evidence against the assessee for
the reasons stated earlier. The ld AR submitted that although various investigations were carried out
by different agencies, there is no evidence against the assessee to hold that the assessee was a
beneficiary to the modus operandi adopted by different entities / brokers / entry operators. The ld
AR submitted that, in view of the aforesaid judgement of Special Bench of Hon'ble Mumbai
Tribunal, various judgements relied on by the ld AO against the assessee are irrelevant in as much as
the said judgements are based on conclusions drawn on the basis of circumstantial evidences only
without any material evidence on record.
5.11. The ld AR vehemently submitted that the assessee has furnished all evidences in support of the
claim of the assessee that it earned LTCG on transactions of his investment in shares. The purchase
of shares had been accepted by the ld AO in the year ITA Nos.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017 Manish Kumar
Baid & Mahendra Kumar Baid A.Yr.2014-15 of its acquisition and thereafter until the same were
sold. The off market transaction for purchase of shares of CPAL is not illegal as was held by the
decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dolarrai Hemani vs. ITO in ITA No.
19/Kol/2014 dated 2.12.2016. The transactions were all through account payee cheques and
reflected in the books of accounts. The purchase of shares and the sale of shares were also reflected
in Demat account statements. The sale of shares suffered STT, brokerage etc. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the transactions were bogus. The ld AR referred to
the following judgements of Jurisdictional High Court:-

(i) M/s Classic Growers Ltd. vs. CIT [ITA No. 129 of 2012] (Cal HC) - In this case the
ld AO found that the formal evidences produced by the assessee to support huge
losses claimed in the transactions of purchase and sale of shares were stage managed.
The Hon'ble High Court held that the opinion of the ld AO that the assessee generated a sizeable
amount of loss out of prearranged transactions so as to reduce the quantum of income liable for tax
might have been the view expressed by the ld AO but he miserably failed to substantiate that. The
High Court held that the transactions were at the prevailing price and therefore the suspicion of the
ld AO was misplaced and not substantiated.
(ii) CIT V. Lakshmangarh Estate & Trading Co. Limited [2013] 40 taxmann.com 439 (Cal) - In this
case the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that on the basis of a suspicion howsoever strong it is not
possible to record any finding of fact. As a matter of fact suspicion can never take the place of proof.
It was further held that in absence of any evidence on record, it is difficult if not impossible, to hold
that the transactions of buying or selling of shares were colourable transactions or were resorted to
with ulterior motive.
(iii) CIT V. Shreyashi Ganguli [ITA No. 196 of 2012] (Cal HC) - In this case the Hon'ble Calcutta
High Court held that the Assessing Officer doubted the transactions since the selling broker was
subjected to SEBI's action. However the transactions were as per norms and suffered STT,
brokerage, service tax, and cess. There is no iota of evidence over the transactions as it were
reflected in demat account. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
(iv) CIT V. Rungta Properties Private Limited [ITA No. 105 of 2016] (Cal HC) - In this case the
Hon'ble Calcutta High Court affirmed the decision of this tribunal , wherein, the tribunal allowed
the appeal of the assessee where the ld AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee in respect
of his transactions in alleged penny stocks. The Tribunal found that the ld AO disallowed the loss on
trading of penny stock on the basis of some information received by him. However, it was also found
that the ld AO did not doubt the genuineness of the documents submitted by the assessee. The
Tribunal held that the ld AO's conclusions are merely based on the information received by him. The
appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
(v) CIT V. Andaman Timbers Industries Limited [ITA No. 721 of 2008] (Cal HC) - In this case the
Hon'ble Calcutta High Court affirmed the decision of this Tribunal wherein the loss suffered by the
Assessee was allowed since the ld AO failed to bring on record any evidence to suggest that the sale
of shares by the Assessee were not genuine.
(vi) CIT V. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal [2009- TMI-34738 (Cal HC) in ITA No. 22 of 2009 dated
29.4.2009] - In this case the Assessee claimed exemption of income from Long Term Capital Gains.
However, the ld AO, based on the information received by him from Calcutta Stock Exchange found
that the transactions were not recorded thereat. He therefore held that the transactions were bogus.
The Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITA Nos.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017 Manish Kumar Baid & Mahendra Kumar

Baid A.Yr.2014-15 High Court, affirmed the decision of the Tribunal wherein it was found that the
chain of transactions entered into by the assessee have been proved, accounted for, documented and
supported by evidence. It was also found that the assessee produced the contract notes, details of
demat accounts and produced documents showing all payments were received by the assessee
through banks. On these facts, the appeal of the revenue was summarily dismissed by High Court.
5.12. The ld AR submitted before us that where the purchase and sale transactions are supported
and evidenced by Bills, Contract Notes, Demat statements and bank statements etc., the
transactions of purchase of shares were accepted by the ld AO in earlier years, the same could not be
treated as bogus simply on the basis of some reports of the Investigation Wing and/or the orders of
SEBI and/or the statements of third parties. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the ld AR, in
addition to the aforesaid judgements, has referred to and relied on the following cases:-
(i) Baijnath Agarwal vs. ACIT - [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra (TM)
(ii) ITO vs. Bibi Rani Bansal - [2011] 44 SOT 500 (Agra) (TM)
(iii) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal - ITA No. 289/Agra/2009 (Agra ITAT)
(iv) ACIT vs. Amita Agarwal & Others - ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT)
(v) Rita Devi & Others vs. DCIT - IT(SS))A Nos. 22-26/Kol/2p11 (Kol ITAT)
(vi) Surya Prakash Toshniwal vs. ITO - ITA No. 1213/Kol/2016 (Kol ITAT)
(vii) Sunita Jain vs. ITO - ITA No. 201 & 502/Ahd/2016 (Ahmedabad ITAT)
(viii) Ms. Farrah Marker vs. ITO - ITA No. 3801/Mum/2011 (Mumbai ITAT)
(ix) Anil Nandkishore Goyal vs. ACIT - ITA Nos. 1256/PN/2012 (Pune ITAT)
(x) CIT vs. Sudeep Goenka - [2013] 29 taxmann.com 402 (Allahabad HC)
(xi) CIT vs. Udit Narain Agarwal - [2013] 29 taxmann.com 76 (Allahabad HC)
(xii) CIT vs. Jamnadevi Agarwal [2012] 20 taxmann.com 529 (Bombay HC)
(xiii) CIT vs. Himani M. Vakil - [2014] 41 taxmann.com 425 (Gujarat HC) ITA
Nos.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017 Manish Kumar Baid & Mahendra Kumar Baid
A.Yr.2014-15
(xiv) CIT vs. Maheshchandra G. Vakil - [2013] 40 taxmann.com 326 (Gujarat HC)

(xv) CIT vs. Sumitra Devi [2014] 49 Taxmann.com 37 (Rajasthan HC) (xvi)
Ganeshmull Bijay Singh Baid HUF vs. DCIT - ITA Nos. 544/Kol/2013 (Kolkata ITAT)
(xvii) Meena Devi Gupta & Others vs. ACIT - ITA Nos. 4512 & 4513/Ahd/2007
(Ahmedabad ITAT) 5.13. The ld AR further submitted before us that once the
assessee has furnished all evidences in support of the genuineness of the
transactions, the onus to disprove the same is on revenue. He referred to the
judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnanand Agnihotri vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh [1977] 1 SCC 816 (SC). In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the
appellant owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so
and the burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing evidence of a definite
character which would directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances
unerringly and reasonably raising inference of that fact. The Hon'ble Apex Court
further held that it is not enough to show circumstances which might create suspicion
because the court cannot decide on the basis of suspicion. It has to act on legal
grounds established by evidence. The ld AR submitted that similar view has been
taken in the following judgements while deciding the issue relating to exemption
claimed by the assessee on LTCG on alleged Penny Socks.
(i) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal - ITA No. 289/Agr/2009 (Agra ITAT)
(ii) ACIT vs. J. C. Agarwal HUF - ITYA No. 32/Agr/2007 (Agra ITAT) 5.14. The ld AR further
submitted that the ld AO was not justified in taking an adverse view against the assessee on the
ground of abnormal price rise of the shares and price rigging. It was submitted that there is no
allegation in orders of SEBI and/or the enquiry report of the Investigation Wing to the effect that
the assessee and/or his broker was a ITA Nos.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017 Manish Kumar Baid &
Mahendra Kumar Baid A.Yr.2014-15 party to the price rigging or manipulation of price in BSE. The
ld AR referred to the following judgements in support of this contention wherein under similar facts
of the case it was held that the ld AO was not justified in refusing to allow the benefit under section
10(38) of the Act and to assess the sale proceeds of shares as undisclosed income of the assessee
under section 68 of the Act :-
(i) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal - ITA No. 289/Agr/2009 (Agra ITAT)
(ii) ACIT vs. Amita Agarwal & Others - ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT)
(iii) Lalit Mohan Jalan (HUF) vs. ACIT - ITA No. 693/Kol/2009 (Kol ITAT)
(iv) Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT - [2006] 6 SOT 247 (Mum) 5.15. The ld AR also
submitted that the ld AO was not justified in disallowing the assessee's claim of
exemption under section 10(38) of the Act by concluding that the transactions of the
assessee resulting in LTCG on sale of shares of KAFL were bogus relying on the
statements of various persons recorded by Investigation Wing wherein these persons
accepted to have provided accommodation entries of various natures including LTCG

to different persons. The ld AR submitted that in the statement of third parties, the
name of the assessee was not implicated. Even otherwise, no adverse inference could
be taken against the assessee on the basis of untested statements without allowing
opportunity of cross-examination. The ld AR referred to and relied on the following
judgements in support of the aforesaid submissions:-
(i) Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE - [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC)
(ii) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal - ITA No. 289/Agr/2009 (Agra ITAT)
(iii) ACIT vs. Amita Agarwal & Others - ITA No. 247/(Kol) of 2011 (Kol ITAT)
(iv) ITO vs. Bijaya Ganguly - ITA Nos. 624 & 625/Kol/2011 (Kol ITAT)
(v) Ganeshmull Bijay Singh Baid HUF vs. DCIT - ITA Nos. 544/Kol/2013 (Kolkata
ITAT)
(vi) Rita Devi & Others vs. DCIT - IT(SS))A Nos. 22-26/Kol/2p11 (Kol ITAT) ITA
Nos.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017 Manish Kumar Baid & Mahendra Kumar Baid
A.Yr.2014-15
(vii) Malti Ghanshyambhai Patadia vs. ITO - ITA No.3400/Ahd/2015 (Ahmedabad

ITAT)
(viii) Pratik Suryakant Shah vs. ITO - [2017] 77 taxmann.com 260 (Ahmedabad
ITAT)
(ix) Sunita Jain vs. ITO - ITA No. 201 & 502/Ahd/2016 (Ahmedabad ITAT)
(x) Atul Kumar Khandelwal vs. DCIT - ITA No. 874/Del/2016 (Delhi ITAT)
(xi) Farah Marker vs. ITO - ITA No. 3801/Mum/2011 (Mumbai ITAT) 5.16. The ld AR
also submitted that the ld AO was not justified in invoking the provisions of section
68 of the Act to hold that the sale proceeds of shares of KAFL received by the assessee
from M/s Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. was not satisfactorily explained by the assessee.
There is no evidence on record to disbelieve that the assessee sold shares of KAFL
through M/s Ashika Stock Broking Ltd., a registered share and stock broker with
BSE. The assessee produced all evidences to explain the source of the amounts
received by the assessee from M/s Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. The ld AO was not
justified in assessing the sale proceeds of shares of KAFL as unexplained cash credit
under section 68 of the Act.
5.17. The ld AR submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of
incontrovertible evidences produced by the assessee, the ld AO was not justified in concluding that

the assessee's transactions relating to LTCG on sale of shares of KAFL were bogus. The ld CIT(A)
was also not justified in dismissing the appeal without properly appreciating the facts of the case
and the evidences produced by the assessee in support of his case. Various judgements referred to
by the assessee in support of assessee's claim of exemption of LTCG on sale of shares of KAFL was
not distinguished on facts and/or on law by the ld CIT(A) . On the other hand, he agreed with the ld
AO, who relying on surrounding circumstances held that the assessee's transactions of LTCG were
bogus ignoring all legal evidences furnished by the assessee ITA Nos.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017 Manish
Kumar Baid & Mahendra Kumar Baid A.Yr.2014-15 in support of the genuineness of the
transactions resulting in LTCG. The ld AR prayed that the order of the ld CIT(A) be set aside and the
exemption under section 10(38) of the Act be allowed to the assessee.
6. We have heard both the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find
lot of force in the arguments of the ld AR that the ld AO was not justified in rejecting the claim of the
assessee on the basis of theory of surrounding circumstances, human conduct, and preponderance
of probability without bringing on record any legal evidence against the assessee. We rely on the
judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. (supra) for this
proposition. The various facets of the arguments of the ld AR supra, with regard to impleading the
assessee for drawing adverse inferences which remain unproved based on the evidences available on
record, are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. The principles laid down in various case laws relied
upon by the ld AR are also not reiterated for the sake of brevity. We find that the amalgamation of
CPAL with KAFL has been approved by the order of Hon'ble High Court. The ld AO ought not to
have questioned the validity of the amalgamation scheme approved by the Hon'ble High Court in
May 2013 merely based on a statement given by a third party which has not been subject to cross
-examination. Moroever, it is also pertinent to note that the assessee and / or the stock broker
Ashita Stock Broking Ltd name is neither mentioned in the said statement as a person who had
allegedly dealt with suspicious transactions nor they had been the beneficiaries of the transactions
of shares of KAFL. Hence we hold that there is absolutely no adverse material to implicate the
assessee to the entire gamut of unwarranted allegations leveled by the ld AO against the assessee,
which in our considered opinion, has no legs to stand in the eyes of law.
We find that the ld DR could not controvert the arguments of the ld AR with contrary material
evidences on record and merely relied on the orders of the lower authorities ITA Nos.1236 &
1237/Kol/2017 Manish Kumar Baid & Mahendra Kumar Baid A.Yr.2014-15 apart from placing the
copy of SEBI's interim order supra. We find that the SEBI's orders relied on by the ld AO and
referred to him as direct evidence against the assessee did not contain the name of the assessee
and/or the name of Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. through whom the assessee sold the shares of KAFL
as a beneficiary to the alleged accommodation entries provided by the related entities / promoters /
brokers / entry operators. In the instant case, the shares of CPAL were purchased by the assessee
way back on 20.12.2011 and pursuant to merger of CPAL with KAFL, the assessee was allotted equal
number of shares in KAFL, which was sold by the assessee by exiting at the most opportune moment
by making good profits in roder to have a good return on his investment. We find that the assessee
and / or the broker Ashita Stock Broking Ltd was not the primary allottees of shares either in CPAL
or in KAFL as could be evident from the SEBI's order. We find that the SEBI order did mention the
list of 246 beneficiaries of persons trading in shares of KAFL, wherein, the assessee and / or Ashita

Stock Broking Ltd's name is not reflected at all. Hence the allegation that the assessee and / or
Ashita Stock Broking Ltd getting involved in price rigging of KAFL shares fails. We also find that
even the SEBI's order heavily relied upon by the ld AO clearly states that the company KAFL had
performed very well during the year under appeal and the P/E ratio had increased substantially.
Thus we hold that the said orders of SEBI is no evidence against the assessee, much less to speak of
direct evidence. The enquiry by the Investigation Wing and/or the statements of several persons
recorded by the Investigation Wing in connection with the alleged bogus transactions in the shares
of KAFL also did not implicate the assessee and/or his broker. It is also a matter of record that the
assessee furnished all evidences in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statements and the bank
accounts to prove the genuineness of the transactions relating to purchase and sale of shares
resulting in LTCG. These evidences were neither found by the ld AO to be false or fabricated. The
facts of the case and the evidences in support of the assessee's case clearly support the claim of the
assessee that the transactions of the assessee were bonafide and genuine and therefore the ld AO
was not justified in ITA Nos.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017 Manish Kumar Baid & Mahendra Kumar Baid
A.Yr.2014-15 rejecting the assessee's claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act. We also
find that the various case laws of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court relied upon by the ld AR and
findings given thereon would apply to the facts of the instant case. The ld DR was not able to furnish
any contrary cases to this effect. Hence we hold that the ld AO was not justified in assessing the sale
proceeds of shares of KAFL as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. We accordingly
hold that the reframed question no. 1 raised hereinabove is decided in the negative and in favour of
the assessee.
7. The next common issue in the appeals is against the addition of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C
of the Act on the ground that the assessee must have incurred commission expenses @ 5% of the
LTCG. The Ld. AR submitted that there is no evidence of incurring such expenditure. It was pleaded
that no addition u/s 69C of the Act could be made unless it is found that the assessee incurred some
expenditure which were not recorded in the books of accounts and the assessee failed to substantiate
the source of such expenditure.
7.1. We have already held that the transactions relating to LTCG were genuine and not the
accommodation entries as alleged by the ld AO. Consequently the addition u/s 69C of the Act is
hereby directed to be deleted. We accordingly hold that the reframed question no. 2 raised
hereinabove is decided in the negative and in favour of the assessee.
8. The next common issue in the appeals relate to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The ld AR of the
assessee submitted that the ld AO disallowed expenditure u/s 14A of the Act without recording any
satisfaction in terms of section 14A(2) of the Act read with Rule 8D(1) of the Rules, having regard to
the accounts of the assessee. The assessee submitted before the ld AO that he did not incur any
expenditure in relation to exempt income except demat expenses which the assessee did not claim
any deduction. The ld ITA Nos.1236 & 1237/Kol/2017 Manish Kumar Baid & Mahendra Kumar Baid
A.Yr.2014-15 AR placing reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of
CIT vs. REI Agro Ltd. in ITAT No. 161 of 2013 submitted that the disallowance made by the ld AO be
directed to be deleted in the absence of satisfaction recorded by the ld AO with reference to the
books of accounts examined by him. The ld DR vehemently relied on the orders of the lower

authorities and argued that for the year under appeal , the provisions contained in Rule 8D(2) of the
Rules are very much applicable and hence the same had been rightly worked out by the ld AO.
8.1. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the ld AO did not record any
satisfaction in terms of section 14A of the Act. We also find that Demat expenses were not claimed
by the assessee in the return filed. We hold that the ld AO ought to have recorded primarily his
satisfaction as mandated in terms of section 14A(2) of the Act and Rule 8D(1) of the Rules and
without resorting to the same , he ought not to have proceeded directly as per Rule 8D(2) of the
Rules. Only if the test provided in Rule 8D(1) of the Rules fail, the ld AO is authorized in law to
proceed with the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. In view of this
finding and respectfully following the judgement of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court (supra) , we hold
that the ld AO was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule
8D of the Rules. The disallowance made by the ld AO is directed to be deleted. Accordingly, the
reframed question no. 3 raised hereinabove is decided in the negative and held in favour of the
assessee.
9. The next common issue is against charging of Interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The
Charging of Interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C are mandatory and in any case is only
consequential in nature. The ld AO is directed to recalculate the amount of interest on finally
assessed tax after giving effect to this order.
10. The assessee Mr. Manish Kumar Baid in ITA No.1236/Kol/2017 has raised another issue relating
to addition of Rs.2,00,000 under section 68 of the Act in respect of unsecured loan obtained from
Smt. Manju Devi Dugar and consequential disallowance of interest of Rs.51,929 paid thereon. This
was stated to be not pressed during the course of hearing in view of smallness of the amount.
Accordingly the Regular Ground No. 8 raised by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed in view of
the smallness of the amount.
11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1236/Kol/2017 is partly allowed and appeal of
the assessee in ITA No. 1237/Kol/2017 is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 18.08.2017
Sd/- Sd/-
[A.T. Varkey] [ M.Balaganesh ]
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated : 18.08.2017
SB, Sr. PS
Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. Manish Kumar Baid & Mahendra Kumar Baid, 20, Old Court House Street, Dalhousie,
Kolkata-700001
2. ACIT, Circle-35, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107
3..C.I.T.(A)-10, Kolkata 4. C.I.T.- Kolkata.
5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.
True copy By Order Senior Private Secretary Head of Office/D.D.O., ITAT, Kolkata Benches

Mahendra_Kumar_Baid_Kolkata_vs_Acit_Circle_35_Kolkata_Kolkata_on_18_August_2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mahendra_Kumar_Baid_Kolkata_vs_Acit_Circle_35_Kolkata_Kolkata_on_18_August_2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mahendra Kumar Baid, Kolkata vs Acit Circle 35, Kolkata, Kolkata on 18 August, 2017

Mahendra Kumar Baid, Kolkata vs Acit Circle 35, Kolkata,

[Before Hon'ble Shri A.T. Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ]

I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017

For the Appellant : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124831106/ 1

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124831106/ 2

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124831106/ 3

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124831106/ 4

(ii) Bank Statement showing payment of the purchase consideration of shares of

(ix) Demat statement showing delivery of shares of KAFL on sale of shares.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124831106/ 5

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124831106/ 6

Ans. Generally beneficiaries approached to the broker/entry operator in search of

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124831106/ 7

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124831106/ 8

Trib.)(SB) The Tribunal observed as under:

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124831106/ 9

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124831106/ 10

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124831106/ 11

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124831106/ 12

(i) Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE - [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC)

(vii) Malti Ghanshyambhai Patadia vs. ITO - ITA No.3400/Ahd/2015 (Ahmedabad

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124831106/ 13

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124831106/ 14

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124831106/ 15

Order pronounced in the Court on 18.08.2017

Copy of the order forwarded to:

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124831106/ 16

2. ACIT, Circle-35, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107

3..C.I.T.(A)-10, Kolkata 4. C.I.T.- Kolkata.

5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/124831106/ 17

You might also like