Nazrul Hossain, Murshidabad V. DCIT, Circle - Murshidabad, Murshidabad

CO 47/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6448 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S GUPTA; A K CHAKRABORTY
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MALAKAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 43B; 133(6); 131

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH A , KOLKATA [ () , , . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . , , , , '# ] ]] ] [BEFORE HONBLE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HONBLE S RI C. D. RAO, AM] % % % % /ITA NO.373/KOL/20 11 1111 11 '( )*/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 (,- / APPELLANT ) - ' - ( /0,- /RESPONDENT) D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-MURSHIDABAD. -VERSUS- NAZRUL HOSS AIN,MURSHIDABAD (PAN: AAEPI 2655 R) 12 % 12 % 12 % 12 %- -- - C.O.NO.47/KOL/2011 A/O % % % % /ITA NO.373/KOL/20 11 1111 11 '( )*/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 (,- / APPELLANT ) - ' - ( /0,- /RESPONDENT) . NAZRUL HOSSAIN,MURSHIDABAD D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-MURSHIDABAD (PAN: AAEPI 2655 R) ,- 3 4 '/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S.K.MALAKAR /0,- 3 4 '/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI A.K.CHAKRABORTY & SHRI P.S.GUPTA '5 / ORDER ( (( ( . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . ) )) ), , , , '# PER SHRI C.D.RAO, AM THE ABOVE TWO APPEALS ONE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE OTHER CROSS OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST ORDER DATED 13. 12.2010 OF CIT(A)-XXXVI,KOLKATA PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 121 DAYS IN FILING OF CROSS OBJECTION BY ASSESSEE FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CONDONATION PETITION EXPLAININ G THE REASONS FOR SUCH DELAY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS BY ASSESSEE THE DELAY I S CONDONED. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 2 THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED BOTH IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS : I) UNDISCLOSED PURCHASE RS.62,76,538/- II) UNDERSTATEMENT OF G.P. RS.8,72,488/- III) ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS CONSIGNMENT S FROM UNDISCLOSED INCOME WORTH RS.2,39,857/- MADE BY A.O. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OBTAINED U /S 133(6) OF THE I.T.ACT BEING AUDITED ACCOUNTS FILED WITH BANK FROM WHICH L AON WERE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING CROSS OBJECTI ONS :- 1. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HA VE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN BALANCE SHEET GIV EN TO THE BANK AND THE FINAL ACCOUNTS ACTUALLY SUBMITTED WITH I.T. RETURN IGNORI NG THE BALANCE SHEETS GIVEN TO THE BANK WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING LOAN I N CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS REFERRED TO HIM. 2.FOR THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE SUM OF RS.52361/- ON ACCOUNT OF EPF CONTRIBUTION SINCE THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BEFORE THE SUBMISSION OF THE I.T. RETURN WITHIN THE DUE DATE. 3. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF LIFE INSURANCE PREMIU7M OF RS.36,469/- UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 ALTERNATIVELY AND FURTHER PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS NO T GIVEN BY THE LD. AO AND IN THIS REGARD THE LD. AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT TO HAVE DEDUCTION OF THIS PREMIUM OF RS.36,469/- AS A RESULT OF ADDITION WITH THE TOT AL INCOME. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE THA T WHILE DOING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE AO HAS ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.62,76, 538/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES, RS.8,72,488/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERSTATEME NT OF GROSS PROFIT AND RS.2,39,857/- AS ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED TO WARDS CONSIGNMENT BY OBSERVING THAT : THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN MANUF ACTURING AND TRADING OF BIRIS. HE RUNS TWO PROPRIETARY CONCERNS NAMELY, (I) M/S. SAHABAZ TRADERS AND (II) M/S.SAHABAZ BIRI FACTORY,. THE ASSESSEE WAS EN JOYING OVERDRAFT FACILITY WITH THE MURSHIDABAD GRAMIN BANK, ANTARDIPA BRANCH, MURSHIDABAD. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND IN THE BAL ANCE SHEET OF M/S. SAHABAZ TRADERS THAT IT HAD A SECURED LOANS BALANCE OF RS.2 3.69 LAKHS WITH THE BANK. ON INQUIRY WITH THE BANK, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD FILED A SEPARATE SET OF AUDITED BALANCE SHEET TO THE BANK FOR AVAILING OVER DRAFT FACILITY. THE AO THEN EXAMINED THE SAID BALANCE SHEET WITH THE BALANCE SH EET FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN AND NOTED DOWN THE DIFFERENCE OF AMOUNTS IN BETWEEN TWO BALANCE SHEETS UNDER SOME SELECTED HEADS AS TABULATED BELOW : 3 PARTICULARS AS PER BALANCE SHEET SUBMITTED WITH RETURN AS PER BALANCE SHEET SUBMITTED WITH BANK DIFFERENCE PURCHASES 21,36,502 84,13,040 62,76,538 SALES 40,52,919 93,04,785 52,51,866 CARRIAGE INWARD 2,11,093 4,50,950 2,39,857 CLOSING STOCK 7,50,500 21,35,684 13,85,184 AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO IS OF THE VIEW THAT BALANCE SHEET FILED BEFORE THE BANK IS TH E CORRECT ONE AND THE BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN WAS MANIPULATED TO REDU CE THE TAX LIABILITY. THEREFORE, HE ADDED THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS TO THE RETUNED INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE :- 1. DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASES : RS.62,76,538/- 2. GROSS PROFIT ON EXCESS SALES OF RS.52,51,866/- @16.61% I.E. THE RATE DISCLOSED IN RETURN RS. 8,72,488/- 3. DIFFERENCE IN CARRIAGE INWARDS RS. 2,39,857/- RS.73,88,883/- 4.1. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE SAME BY OBSERVING THAT :- 5.4. HOWEVER, WHAT THE INCOME TAX ACT REQUIRES I N ALL CASES IS ASSESSMENT OF CORRECT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ULTIMATE AIM OF PASSING AN ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TO CORRECTLY COMPUTE THE INCOME OF AN ASSE SSEE WHICH IS IN CONSONANCE WITH LAW AND EVIDENCE AND AMENABALE TO PROOF. UNDOU BTEDLY THE AO HAS THE POWERS TO ESTIMATE INCOME BUT THE SAID ESTIMATION S HOULD BE FAIR AND HONEST ESTIMATE AND NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS. THE PRINC IPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE OPERATE AS IMPLIED MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAMI NG AN ASSESSMENT AND NON- OBSERVATION OF THE SAME AMOUNTS TO ARBITRARINESS AN D DISCRIMINATION AS HELD IN MANY JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN HELD IN MANY JUDGEMENTS THAT AN EVIDENCE CANNOT BE PARTLY ACCEPTED AND PART LY REJECTED. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON CIT VS TARA DEVI GOENKA, REPORTED IN 122 ITR 14 (CALCUTTA). 5.5. IN THIS CASE, INSTEAD OF TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE WHOLE OF THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED TO THE BANK, THE AO HAS RESTORED TO PICK & CHOOSE METHOD WHILE ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT ABOU T 79.50% OF THE TURNOVER. THOUGH THE AO DID NOT RELY UPON THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN, BUT ADDITIONS UNDER VARIOUS HEADS WERE MADE BY HIM AFTER COMPARING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUCH ADDITIONS WERE ALSO ADDED WITH THE DISCLOSED TOTAL INCOME AS PER RETURN . ONCE A BALANCE SHEET IS IGNORED, ITEMS OF THE SAME CANNOT OBVIOUSLY BE TAKE N FOR COMPARISON. THE AO HAS ADDED THE DIFFERENCE OF PURCHASES OF RS.62.76 L AKHS, IGNORING DIFFERENCE OF SALES OF RS.52.51 LAKHS. 4 5.6. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE BANK ALONE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR DERIVING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE NET PROFIT DISCLOSED IN THE BA LANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE BANK IS RS.76,420/-. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT T HE SAME AMOUNT OF RS.76,420/- AS NET PROFIT OF M/S. SAHABAZ TRADERS. THE ASSESEE THUS GETS RELIEF OF RS.73,74,578/- [62,115/- + 73,88,883/- MINUS 76, 420/-] ON THIS SCORE. 4.2. AGGRIEVED BY THIS REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND REITERATED THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BY AO IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON ORDERS OF CIT(A) AND FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS FILED THE CORRECT BALANCE SHEET TO THE BANK MANAGER MUCH BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSEE I.E. ON 26.10.2006 AND THE BANK HAS ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED TH E SAME WHICH WERE PLACED AT PAGES 41 AND 42 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER CONTE NDED THAT AO HAS NOWHERE REJECTED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HE ADDED THE DIFFERE NCE BETWEEN TWO BALANCE SHEETS WHICH ARE FAVOURING THE REVENUE IGNORING THE OTHER ASPECTS AND LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY POINTED OUT THAT EVEN IF HE TAKES THE BAL ANCE SHEET SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BANK AUTHORITIES THE NET PROFIT SHOULD BE TAKEN AT RS.76 ,420/- WHEREAS AO HAS PROCEEDED WITH NET INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BAL ANCE SHEET FILED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREF UL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE PAPER BOOK AT PAG ES 41 AND 42 WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE PREVIOUS AUDITED BALANCE SH EET WITH THE GENERAL AUDIT REPORT DATED 08.05.2006 SHOULD NOW BE TREATED AS CANCELLED AND THE AO HAS SIMPLY RELIED ON THE PREVIOUS BALANCE SHEET FILED BEFORE THE BANK AU THORITIES AND ADDED THE DIFFERENCE WHICH ARE FAVOURABLE TO THE REVENUE. THEREFORE WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO BY OBS ERVING THAT THE ULTIMATE AIM OF PASSING AN ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TO CORRECTLY COMPUTE THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE WHICH IN 5 CONSONANCE WITH LAW AND EVIDENCE AMENABLE TO PROOF. AO HAS THE POWER TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME BUT THE SAID ESTIMATION SHOULD BE FAIR A ND HONEST ESTIMATE AND NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. IN THIS CASE INSTEAD OF TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE WHOLE OF AUDITED ACCOUNT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK THE AO HAS RESTORED TO PICK A ND CHOOSE METHOD BY ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIR MITY IN THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) TO BE INTERFERED WITH. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. C.O.NO.47/KOL/2011 (BY THE ASSESSEE): 9. GROUND NO.1 AND 4 IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND REQUIRE NO ADJUDICATION. 10. GROUND NO.2 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS.52,361/- ON ACCOUNT OF EPF CONTRIBUTION. AO H AS ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.52,361/- BY OBSERVING THAT :- IT IS ASCERTAINED FROM THE P&L A/C THAT A SUM OF R S.52,361/- HAS BEEN DEBITED AN ACCOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND. AGAI N THE BALANCE SHEET SHOWS AN AMOUNT OF RS.94,042/- & RS.1,09,190/- AS OUTSTAN DING ON A/C. OF EMPLOYEE P.F. & EMPLOYER P.F. & EMPLOYER P.F. CONTRIBUTION R ESPECTIVELY. IN COURSE OF HEARING NO EVIDENCE CORROBORATING PAYMENT OF THE CO NTRIBUTION HAS BEEN PRODUCED. HENCE, THE SUM OF 52,361/- DEBITED TO P&L A/C IS HEREBY DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN SA HABAZ BIRI FACTORY ACCOUNT. 10.1. ON APPEAL LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARIN G ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.52,361/- HAS BEEN P AID PRIOR TO FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE DUE DATE AS PER IT ACT. THEREFORE HE REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR VERIFICATION. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHA LF OF THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 6 13. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CARE FUL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS AM OUNT OF RS.52,361/- IS RELATING TO THE EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION TO PF WHICH HAS BEEN DEBITE D TO P& L ACCOUNT AND ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS IS THAT THIS WAS PAID WITHIN THE DUE DA TE BEFORE FILING OF THE RETURN. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT MADE U/S 43B OF THE ACT IF THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT BEFORE SUBM ISSION OF THE IT RETURN BEFORE THE DUE DATE THE SAME IS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AND NO DISALLOWANCE IS MADE U/S 43B OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO T HE FILE OF AO TO VERIFY WHETHER THE EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OR NOT. IF HE PAYS THE SAME WITHIN THE D UE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 14. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO.2 OF THE CROSS OBJECTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. AS REGARDING GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CROSS OBJECTION THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION RELATING TO LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM PA ID IN RESPECT OF HIS WIFE ANJERA BIBI AND THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING P OLICIES :- LIC NO. SUM ASSURED PREMIUM NATURE NAME OF THE HO LDER 424475799 RS.2,05,000/- RS.14,993/- YLY ANJERA BI BI (WIFE) 423594029 RS.1,35,000/- RS.2666X4 QTLY ANJERA BIB I (WIFE) 4235593452 RS.1,35,000/- RS.2703X4 QTLY NAZRUL HOS SAIN(ASSESSEE) BY OBSERVING THAT : SO FAR AS SOURCE OF INCOME OF ANJERA BIBI, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, SHE HAS NO SOURCE OF INCOME AND SHE DOES NOT HAVE A NY TAXABLE RETURN AND NOT FILING ANY RETURN OF INCOME FROM WHICH THE INVESTME NT COULD BE VERIFIED. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TOTAL PREMIUM PAID DURING THE RE LEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH COMES TO RS.(14,993 + 10,664 + 10,812) 36,469/- MUS T HAVE BEEN PAID OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCE OF INCOME AND HENCE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME AS CONCEALED INCOME. 15.1. ON APPEAL LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME B Y OBSERVING THAT 6.2. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS PLEAS TAK EN BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT AND I FIND MYSELF UNABLE TO ACCEPT THEM. THE AR DID NOT SUBMIT A PIECE OF 7 EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS PLEAS THAT THE APPELLANT S WIFE HAD EITHER INCOME FROM DAIRY OR FROM RETAIN BIRI BUSINESS. SINCE TH E ALLEGED INCOME OF THE WIFE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY RETURN OF INCOME AS IT WAS BEL OW TAXABLE LIMIT, THE APPELLANT WAS TO SATISFY THE AO WITH EVIDENCES THAT SHE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT RESOURCES FOR PAYMENT OF ANNUAL LIC PREMIUMS OF RS. 25,657/-. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT FAILED TO FURNISH SINGLE EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. FURTHER, IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE PARTICULAR POLI CY NO.4235593452 IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME. DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT CAME OU T WITH A PLEA THAT THE PREMIUM OF RS.10,812/- (RS.2,703/- X 4) WAS PAID FR OM THE DRAWINGS OF RS.50,000/-. THIS IS NOT TENABLE. THE PREMIUM OF AN UNACCOUNTED POLICY COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE PAID FROM DISCLOSED DRAWINGS. THUS, THE ENTIRE ADDITIONS MADE ON THIS COUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.36,469/- IS UPHE LD.. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 16. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND POINTED OUT THAT NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAID INSURANCE PREMIUMS ARE PAID OUT OF THE DRAWINGS WHICH ARE SHOWN IN BOOKS O F ACCOUNT. 17. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHA LF OF THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 18. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CARE FUL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT AO HAS NOT MADE PROPER ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF INSURANCE PREMIUMS ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH HE MADE THES E ADDITIONS. THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE IS THAT AO HAS NOT SUMMONED THE WIFE OF AS SESSEE U/S 131 OF THE IT ACT SO AS TO ENABLE HER TO MAKE HER OWN DEPOSITION IN RESPECT OF LIC PREMIUM. AS REGARDING PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS IN RESPECT OF POLICY NO.4235934 52 AGAINST ASSESSEES NAME IF CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS MADE THIS PAYMEN T OUT OF HIS DRAWINGS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO ADDITION IS TO BE MADE. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO RE-DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8 19. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED AND CROSS OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 19.08.2011. SD/- SD/- [ , ] [ . !., '# ] [ MAHAVIR SINGH ] [ C. D. RAO ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( (( (!# !# !# !#) )) ) DATE: 19.08.2011. R.G.(.P.S.) '5 3 /6 7'6)8- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. NAZRUL HOSSAIN, VILL.SHERPUR, P.O.NIMTITA, DIST.MUR SHIDABAD. 2 THE DCIT.CIRCLE-MURSHIDABAD 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A)- XXXVI, KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA 06 // TRUE COPY, '5'