PRAFULLA KUMAR GHOSH,MALDA vs. ITO,WARD-2, MALDA, MALDA
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 686/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2015AY 2006-07
Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2006-07 (Appellant ) (Respondent) Prafulla Kumar Ghosh -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-2, Malda Malda (Pan:Adhpg 8048 C) For The Appellant : Shri K.M.Roy, Fca For The Respondent : Shri S.S.Alam, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cita In Appeal No. 279/Mld/Cit(A)/Jal/08-09 Dated 02.03.2012 For The Asst Year 2006-07 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).
For Appellant: Shri K.M.Roy, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Alam, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69B
6
Prafulla Kumar Ghosh
A.Yr.2006-07
reference to the fact that the difference in the cost of construction between DVO and that reported in the books was less than 15%. No finding independently had been given by the Karnataka High Court in this regard so as to become a binding precedent.
Moreover, this observation was also made