Shri Sadananda Singha, Purba Medinipur V. I.T.O, Ward - 1, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

CO 20/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9868 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAVID Z CHAWNGTHU
• Assessee Lawyers: K L BHOWMICK
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income
• Section: 40A(3); 144

Judgement Text

, B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , /AND , ! ) [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM] ' / I.T.A NO.133/KOL/2010 #$ %&/ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-1, HALDIA VS. SHRI SADANA NDA SINGHA (PAN: AJEPS0987M) (() /APPELLANT ) (*+()/ RESPONDENT ) & C.O. NO.20/KOL/2010 IN ' / I.T.A NO.133/KOL/2010 #$ %&/ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 & ' / I.T.A NO.1881/KOL/2009 #$ %&/ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI SADANANDA SINGHA VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, W D-1, HALDIA (CROSS OBJECTOR/APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING: 08.08.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.08.2014 FOR THE REVENUE: SHRI DAVID Z. CHAWNGTHU, CIT, DR FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI K. L. BHOWMICK, ADVOCATE / ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM : THESE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE AND REVENUE, AND CROSS OB JECTION BY ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF COMMON ORDER OF CIT(A)-XXXIII, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 112/CIT(A)-XXXIII/WD- 1,HAL/08-09 DATED 28.08.2009. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO, WARD-1, HALIDA U/S. 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 12.12.2008. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO.133/K/2010 BY REVENUE AN D C.O. NO. 20/KOL/2010 BY ASSESSEE. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS SEEN THAT THIS APPE AL BY REVENUE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 47 DAYS AND REVENUE HAS FILED CONDONATION PETITION SUPPORTE D BY AFFIDAVIT. WHEN THIS FACT WAS CONFRONTED TO LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI K. L. BHOWMICK, ADVOCATE, HE CONCEDED THAT 2 ITA NO.133/K/2010, ITA NO. 1881/K/2009 & C.O. NO.20/K/2010 SHRI SADANANDA SINGHA AY 2006 -07 THE DELAY CAN BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL CAN BE ADM ITTED. IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION AT RS.8,91,445/- AS AGAINST ESTIMATED BY A O AT RS.14,76,464/- AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN HIS CROSS OBJECTION IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GROUND NO. IV IN HIS CO, WHICH READS AS UNDE R: IV. IN PARTICULAR THE CLAIM OF ALLEGED WORKING CAP ITAL BY THE APPELLANT AT RS.15,0,280/- IN PLACE OF RS.14,76,464/- AS COMPUTE D BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSTT. ORDER AMOUNTS TO A REVISION ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT AND FOR THAT THE GROUND IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE I.E. GROUND NO. 1, WHICH R EADS AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE ADDITIONAL WORKING CAPITAL FOR UNDISCL OSED PORTION OF BUSINESS IS NOT RS.8,91,445/- [AS WORKED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(A)], BU T RS.15,08,280/-, WHICH IS MORE THAN THE TOTAL ADDITIONAL PROFIT GENERATED FROM THE UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS. HENCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS.14,76,464/- UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL EMPLOYED AND 2 ND APPEAL IS SUGGESTED ON THIS GROUND. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DEALER IN ELECTRONICS, MOBILE SET OF NOKIA RENDERING REGULAR RECHARGING AND ANCILLARY SERVICES TO THE CUSTOMERS. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE FACT THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THIS YEAR ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS, BALANCE SHEET ETC., WHICH WERE FINALISED AND FILED ON WRONG ADVICE WITHOUT INCLUDING FULL PARTICULARS OF BUSINESS FOR THE REASON THAT THE RELEVANT STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS AND BANK STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED IN TIME. THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT THE FACTS OF OMISSION OF PART OF BUSINESS TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND FOR THAT DETAILED REASONING H AVE BEEN GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO REJECTING TH E BOOK RESULTS BASED ON SOUND REASONING. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE REJECTION OF BO OK RESULTS AND ACCEPTED THE SAME AS IT IS. THE AO AFTER REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS CONSIDERED THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,55,40,533/-, EVENTUALLY WHICH WAS ENHANCED BY CIT(A) AT RS.1,57,84,783/-, AS ADMITTED BY ASSESSEE, AND DIRECTED THE AO TO APPLY GROSS PRO FIT RATE IN TERMS OF THE DIRECTION VIDE PARA 3.3 AS UNDER: 3.3. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT HERE THAT DURING THE CO URSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE A/R SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE W AS RS.1,57,84,783/-. THIS WAS CLAIMED TO INCLUDE INCOME FROM REPAIR WITH SPARE PA RTS AMOUNTING TO RS.15,05,000/. THS SHOWS THAT THE AMOUNT OF SALES INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL DISCLOSED TURNOVER OF RS.42,05,763/- INCLUDED MOBILE ELECTRIC/ GOODS SALE S OF NOT JUST RS.12 LAKHS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE HIGHER DISCLOSED GRO SS PROFIT RATE. EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED 3 ITA NO.133/K/2010, ITA NO. 1881/K/2009 & C.O. NO.20/K/2010 SHRI SADANANDA SINGHA AY 2006 -07 THAT THE TOTAL REPAIR WITH SPARE PART WAS INCLUDED IN THE DISCLOSED TURNOVER IT WOULD STLL MEAN THAT MOBILE ELECTRIC/ GOODS SALES OF AT LEAST RS.27 LAKHS WAS INCLUDED N THE DISCLOSED TURNOVER. THEREFORE THE JUSTIFICATION GIV EN FOR HIGHER G.P IN DISCLOSED ACCOUNT AND LOWER G.P FOR ESTIMATNG THE ACTUAL PRO FITS DOES NOT STAND THE TEST OF SCRUTINY. HOWEVER SINCE IT S ADMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE HIMSELF THAT ITS TURNOVER WAS RS.1,57,84,783/-, ASSESSING OFFICER WILL ADOPT THS WHILE DETERMINING THE TRADING PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDI NGLY. THIS ISSUE IS NOT UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE US. THE F ACTS REGARDING THE ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE TO FINANCE UNDISCL OSED TURNOVER OF RS.42,05,763/- WAS CONSIDERED BY AO AT RS.14,76,464/-. THE CIT(A) RES TRICTED THIS ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED WORKING CAPITAL AT 8,91,445/- VIDE PARA 3.3 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER AS UNDER: 3.3 THE TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL EMPLOYED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR DISCLOSED BUSINESS HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.3,23,793/ -. THIS WOULD THEREFORE REQUIRE TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL OF RS.12,15,238/- (RS.3,23,793 X 1, 57,84,783 42,05,763/-) AND THEREFORE ADDITIONAL WORKING CAPITAL REQUIRED FOR U NDISCLOSED PORTION OF BUSINESS WOULD BE RS.8,91,445/-. THE TOTAL ADDITIONAL PROFIT GENER ATED FROM THE UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS AND CONFIRMED BY ME FROM THE UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS C OMES TO RS.10,49,059/- (RS.1,57,84,783 RS.42,05,763 X 9.06%). SINCE THE ADDITIONAL PROFIT GENERATED DURING THE YEAR S MORE THAN THE ADDITIONAL CAPITAL REQUIR EMENTS DURING THE YEAR AND THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT PART OF THE UNRECORDED PURCHASE HAVE BEEN MADE ON CREDIT, IN MY OPINION NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT AS APPELLANT WILL GET THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE SUCCEEDS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ONLY TELESCOPED THIS IN COME AGAINST INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED PORTION OF BUSINESS AND ACCORDING TO HIM, THE UNDIS CLOSED BUSINESS INCOME WILL BE RS.10,49,059/- AS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAD ALREADY BEEN REJECTED AND ESTIMATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE DIRECTION O F CIT(A) TELESCOPING THIS INCOME AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES A PPEAL IS DISMISSED. SAME IS THE FATE OF THE GROUND NO. 4 RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN HIS CO BECAUSE T HE SAME IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HENCE, THE SAME IS ALSO DISMISSED. 6. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IS AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY AO OF RIP AT RS.1,39,941/- AS UNEXPLAINED I NVESTMENT. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.2: 2. THAT THE UNADJUSTED PROFIT SHOULD BE NEGATIVE ( -RS.4,59,222/-), INSTEAD OF POSITIVE (RS1,57,614/-) AS WORKED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDI TION MADE TREATING THE RIPS OF RS.1,39,941/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND 2 ND APPEAL IS SUGGESTED ON THIS GROUND ALSO. 4 ITA NO.133/K/2010, ITA NO. 1881/K/2009 & C.O. NO.20/K/2010 SHRI SADANANDA SINGHA AY 2006 -07 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ONLY TELESCOPED THE RIP INVESTMENT OF RS.1,39,941/- AGAINST THE LEFT OUT OF UNADJUSTED PROFIT OF RS.1,57,641/-. TH E CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED TELESCOPING BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: IT IS SEEN FROM THE SAID LETTER THAT IT NO WHERE M ENTIONS THAT THE RIPS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FROM FUNDS GIVEN AS LOAN. IT ONLY MENTIO NS THAT THE RIPS HAVE BEEN PLACED AS SECURITY AGAINST LOAN. IF THE MARGIN MONEY FOR THE LOAN IS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE BANK ITSELF THEN THE VERY PURPOSE OF MARGIN MONEY GETS DEFEATED . NO BANK WOULD ALLOW THIS. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE INVESTMENT IS THEREFORE BEING HELD TO BE OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. HOWEVER, IT IS SE EN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM HIS BUSINESS WHICH WAS NOT ACCOUNTED AND ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.10,49,059/- GENERATED FROM THIS HAS BEEN CONFIRM ED BY ME IN THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE WILL THEREFORE HAVE TO BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF TELE SCOPING. I HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ADDITIONAL CAPITAL REQUIRED IN GROUND NO.2 (RS.8,91,445/-). THIS LEAVES US WITH UNADJUSTED PROFIT OF RS.1,57,61 4/-. SINCE THIS AMOUNT IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN RIPS (RS.1,39,941/-), THE A SSESSEE WILL HAVE TO BE ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF THIS ADDITIONAL INCOME BEING THE SOURCE OF RIPS. THE ADDITION MADE TREATING THE RIP AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IS THEREFORE REQU IRED TO BE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AS H E IS TELESCOPED THE INVESTMENT IN RIPS AT RS.1,39,941/- AGAINST LEFT OUT UNADJUSTED PROFIT FR OM BUSINESS AT RS.1,57,614/-. HENCE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND, THER EFORE, THE ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. COMING TO THE GROUND NOS. 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSE SSEES CROSS OBJECTION. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE IS NOT AGITATING THESE ISSUES AND THESE ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 9. COMING TO ITA NO. 1881/KOL/2009. THE FIRST ISSU E IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN TREATING THE TRADE CREDITORS AS NON-EXISTENT. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.1 : 1. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ENTIRELY WRONG AND UNJUST IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,06,676.00 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION RELATED TO REGULAR SUPPLIERS OF GOODS PROVED WITH COPIES OF ACCOUNTS. 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUG H FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TREATED THE SUNDRY CREDITORS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,06,676/- AS NON-GENUINE. AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY DETAILS OR NO EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED IN RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING CREDITORS, THE SAME WERE ADDED AS NON- GENUINE. 5 ITA NO.133/K/2010, ITA NO. 1881/K/2009 & C.O. NO.20/K/2010 SHRI SADANANDA SINGHA AY 2006 -07 1) BISHNU PRIYA MOBILE = RS. 17,840/- 2) RUDRA ENTERPRISE = RS. 18,250/- 3) NEOSA ELEC (P) LTD. = RS. 46,479/- 4) SEVERAL SMALL PARTIES = RS. 24,107/- TOTAL RS.1,06,676/- AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO. AGGRIEVED, NOW ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. WE FIND THAT THESE TRADE CREDITORS/SUNDRY CREDI TORS EXIST IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO WRITE OFF MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE OR NO CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THIS IS THE POSITION, THIS CANNOT BE ADDED BECAUSE LIABILITY STILL EXISTS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DELETE THE ADDITION AND ALLOW THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSE ES APPEAL. 12. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY AO BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.2: 2. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT QUASHIN G THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,59,762.00 DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT AND ALS O WRONG IN DISREGARDING THE JUDGMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN RELIED UPON AND COPIES OF WHICH HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE JUSTIFYING THE DELETION. 13. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUG H FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES EXCEEDING A SUM OF RS.20,000/- OTHERWISE THAN CROSS BANK CHEQUE OR CROSSED BANK DRAFT AMOUNTING TO RS.7,98, 811/-. THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY 20% OF THIS SUM OFRS.7,98,811/- S HOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. AS THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION, AO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.1,59,762/-. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE A CTION OF AO VIDE PARA 8 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER AS UNDER: 8 HAVE GONE THROUGH THE APPEAL ORDER RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM THAT ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE U/S.40A(3) IN CASE ASSESSME NT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S.144. HOWEVER THE FACT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS THAT CASE. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS NOT A SIMPLE CASE OF REJECTION OF BO OKS BUT PROFITS HAVE HAD TO BE ESTIMATED AS PART OF THE BUSINESS WAS NOT DISCLOSED. IN EFFEC T ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF INCOME WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED BY THE ASSES SEE BUT WAS NOT INCLUDED BY IT. SECTION 40A(3) IS A DEEMING PROVISION WHERE EXPENSE S EVEN THOUGH GENUINE WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE AS DEDUCTION IF PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE OTHERWISE THAN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR DRAFT. THIS ADDITION IS THEREFORE TO BE M ADE IN ADDITION TO THE TRADING PROFT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE DETERMINING THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE FROM TS UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS WOULD NOT BE PRECLUDE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FROM MAKING ADDITION U/S.40A(3). HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WELL WITHIN HIS JUS TIFICATION TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(3) AFTER DETERMINING THE TRADING RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED 6 ITA NO.133/K/2010, ITA NO. 1881/K/2009 & C.O. NO.20/K/2010 SHRI SADANANDA SINGHA AY 2006 -07 BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ITS CASE FALLS WITHIN THE MITI GATING CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN RULE 6DD. IN ANY CASE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE RECEIVER OF THE PAYMENTS N CASH (EXCEEDING RS.20,000/-) WERE CITY BASED AND HAD BAN K ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THEM COULD NOT BE COVERED BY TH E CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN RULE 6DD. THIS ADDITION IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED. THIS GRO UND OF THE ASSESSEE FAILS. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AND THESE PURCHASES ARE INCLUDED IN THE ESTIMATED SALES OF RS. 1,57,84,783 /-. ONCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REJECTED AND PROFIT IS ESTIMATED ON THE DISPUTED TURNOVER/PURCHASES, NO FURTHER DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALL OWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AN D THAT OF REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 16. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.08. 2004. SD/- SD/- , ! , (SHAMIM YAHYA ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 13 TH AUGUST, 2014 ,- #./ 0 JD.(SR.P.S.) 1 *2 3 2%4- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . () / APPELLANT ITO, WARD-1, HALDIA. 2 *+() / RESPONDENT SHRI SADANANDA SINGHA, DURGACHAK, CP T MARKET, PO&PS-DURGACHAK, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR 3 . # ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. # / CIT KOLKATA 2:; *# / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA +2 */ TRUE COPY, #