Sri Biswanath Pasari, Kolkata V. ACIT, Circle - 34, Kolkata

ITA 1099/KOL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48174 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: R SALARPURIA
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 6

Judgement Text

, A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA ( ) BEFORE , /AND , . . !' ) [BEFORE HONBLE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HONBLE SHR I C. D. RAO, AM] # # # # / I.T.A NO. 1099/KOL/2009 $% &' $% &' $% &' $% &'/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI BISWANATH PASARI (PAN-AAFYPP 9144 H) ()* /APPELLANT ) VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA (+,)*/ RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI R. SALARPURIA FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI A. SINGH !- / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM/ , : THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF CIT-XII, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. CIT-XII/TECH/263/09-10/148-150 DATED 01.06.2009 . THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ACIT, CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 VIDE H IS ORDER DATED 02.07.2008. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT REVISING THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING THREE EFFECTIVE G ROUNDS: FOR THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE EASE THE HONBLE CIT WAS WHOLLY WRONG AND UNJUSTIFIED IN INITIATING THE PROCEEDING U/S 263 OF THE I. T ACT, 1961 AND SUBSEQUENTLY PASSING AN ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT WI THOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND AND APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS. THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 BEING NOT VALID IN THE EYE OF LAW IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED / CANCELLED, AS NONE OF THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 WERE FULFILLED IN THE CASE. 2. FOR THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE HONBLE CIT WAS WHOLLY WRONG AND UNJUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE A.O I N HIS ORDER U/S 263 TO MODIFY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) BY MAKING FURTHER DISAL LOWANCE OF EXPENSE OF (I) RS. 48,33,222/- ON A/C OF EXCESS PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON LOAN AND (II) RS. 20,70,920/- U/S. 14A OF THE I.T ACT READ WITH RULE 8D(2)(II) & (III) OF THE IT RULES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE EARNING OF EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME, WHEN SUCH ISSUES WERE DULY CONSIDERED BY THE A.O ITA NO.1099/K/2009 BISWANATH PASARI A.Y 06-07 2 AND ACCEPTED IN ASSESSMENT AFTER BEING FULLY SATISF IED WITH THE RETURN AND THE PARTICULARS FILED. THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 ON A MERE GUESS AND CHANGE OF OPINION WAS WHOLLY UNREASONABLE, UNCALLED FOR, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AN D HENCE BAD IN LAW. 3. EVEN OTHERWISE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GR. NOS. 1 & 2 ABOVE, THE HONBLE CIT WAS WHOLLY WRONG AND UNJUSTIFIED IN COMPUTING THE F IGURE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE IT RULES AT RS.6,59,448 /- TWICE THE ACTUAL FIGURE OF RS.3,29,724/- DISALLOWABLE AS PER THE RULE. ACTION OF THE HONBLE CIT WAS WHOLLY UNREASONABLE, UNCALLED FOR AND BAD IN LAW. 3. BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED BY ACIT, CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA VIDE DATED 2 .7.2008 FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE CIT, SUBSEQUENTLY, GOING THRO UGH THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND FOR THE SAME HE ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO CIT/KOL -XII/TECH/263 NOT./07-08/1211 DATED 06/09.02.2009 AND THE RELEVANT REASONS AS NOT ED READS AS UNDER: (A). IT IS SEEN THAT YOU ARE THE PROPRIETOR OF M/ S. RAJIV PAPER TRADING CO. AND YOU HAVE SHOWN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.9,33,84,897/- WHILE LOAN OF RS.7,66,95,408/- WAS GIVEN BY YOU. YOU HAVE DEBITED INTEREST OF RS.55, 82,606/- @ 5.98% ON RS.9,33,84,897/- BUT NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED BY YO U ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.7,66,95,408/- GIVEN BY YOU TO M/S. RAJIV PAPER TRADING CO. TAKIN G THE SAME RATE OF INTEREST @ 5.98% THE INTEREST AMOUNT WOULD BE RS.55,86,385/-. THUS DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF INTEREST RS.45,86,385/-. THUS DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF INTEREST (RS.55,82,606 RS.45,86,385/- I.E. RS.9,96,221/- IS TO BE EITHER DISALLOWED OR INTERE ST OF RS.45,86,385/- IS TO BE NOTIONALLY ADDED AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES. B) AGAIN IN RESPECT OF M/S. NEERAJ TRADING CO. WHIC H IS ALSO YOUR PROPRIETARY FIRM. YOU HAVE SHOWN TOTAL LOAN OF RS.20,72,83,553/- WHI LE LOAN GIVEN BY YOU IS RS.11,49,68,282/-. YOU HAVE DEBITED INTEREST OF RS .50,64,486/- @ 2.44% ON RS.20,72,83,663/-, BUT NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED ON T HE AMOUNT OF LOAN GIVEN. TAKING THE SAME RATE OF INTEREST @ 2.44%, THE INTEREST AMOUNT OF THE LOAN GIVEN AMOUNT WOULD BE RS.22,55,722/-. THUS DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF INTEREST (RS.50,64,486 RS.22,55,722) I.E. RS.28,08,764/- IS TO BE EITHER DISALLOWED OR NOTIO NAL INTEREST OF RS.22,55,722/- IS TO BE ADDED TO YOUR TOTAL INCOME. C) YOU HAVE SHOWN DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.68,55,721/- WHICH IS AN EXEMPTED INCOME. NO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S. 14A WAS MADE BY TH E A.O. YOU HAVE ALSO SHOWN LTCG OF RS.58,28,622/- WHICH REQUIRES VERIFICATION AS TH E LTCG IS EXEMPTED U/S. 10(38). EXPENSES RELATABLE TO SUCH INCOME NEED TO BE DISAL LOWED. THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE V IDE LETTER DATED 21.04.2009 STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIES ON BUSINESS IN THE NAME O F BIJAY PAPER TRADING CO. AND AMOUNT OF LOANS SHOWN FOR BOTH DEBIT AND CREDIT TALLIES WI TH THE AMOUNT OF LOANS REFLECTED IN THE ITA NO.1099/K/2009 BISWANATH PASARI A.Y 06-07 3 BALANCE SHEET. (CIT WRONGLY PRESUMED THE NAME OF M/ S. BIJAY PAPER TRADING CO. AS RAJIV PAPER TRADING CO.). THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THA T BIJAY PAPER TRADING CO. HAS CHARGED A SUM OF RS.34,71,613/- AS INTEREST IN RESP ECT OF LOANS ADVANCED AND ALSO PAID INTEREST OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.65,82,606/-. THE ASSES SEE STATED THAT IT HAS DEBITED NET INTEREST OF RS.55,82,666/- AFTER ADJUSTING THE AMOU NT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE FROM THE AMOUNT PAID OR PAYABLE. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THA T NO INTEREST FREE AMOUNTS WERE ADVANCED TO ANY OF THE PARTY AND MOREOVER, THESE WE RE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. AS REGARDS TO M/S. NEERAJ TRADING CO., THE ASSESSEE CO NTENDED THAT IT HAS CHARGED INTEREST OF RS.68,37,462/- ON AMOUNT ADVANCED AND DEBITED ON LY NET AMOUNT OF INTEREST AT RS.50,64,486/-. AS REGARDS TO THE APPLICATION OF R ULE 8D, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THIS IS PROSPECTIVE AND NOT RETROSPECTIVE AND HENCE , RULE 8D OF I. T. RULES, 1962 CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDE D IN RESPECT TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN I.E. EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S. 10(38) OF THE ACT, W HICH HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY THE AO AND ACCORDING TO CITS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SAME REQUI RES VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD SHARES 16000 IN TERMS OF QUANTITY AS ON 31.3.2006 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.47,200/- TO MAHESWARI COM MERCIAL CO. AND THE CARRY FORWARD LOSS OF RS.58,28,622/- ON REDUCING THE SALE VALUE W AS CLAIMED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AND THERE IS NO EXEMPTION CLAIMED OR ALLOWED BY THE AO U/S. 10(38) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.58,28,622/-. BUT CIT PASSED REVISION ORDER BY GIVING FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEES A/R HAVE BEEN C ONSIDERED. FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF BIJAY PAPER TRADING CO., IT IS SEE N THAT UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.9,33,84,897/- IS IN THE DEBIT SIDE AND RS.7,66,9 5,408/- IN THE CREDIT SIDE. FROM THE DETAILS OF INTEREST SUBMITTED, INTEREST PA ID AMOUNTED TO RS.90,54,219/- AND INTEREST RECEIVED OF RS. 34,71,6 13/- ARE MENTIONED. 1NTEREST WAS PAID @ 9.69% WHEREAS @ 4.52% INTEREST WAS RECEIVED. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHARGED LESS INTEREST ON THE LOAN ADVANCED AND PAID HIGHER INTEREST ON THE LOAN TAKEN APPLYING THE RATE OF INT EREST RECEIVED ON THE LOAN AMOUNT TAKEN, THE INTEREST WILL BE RS.42,20,997/-, CAUSING A DIFFERENCE OF RS. 48,33,222/- (RS. 90,54,219 - RS. 42,20,997). THUS T HE EXCESS INTEREST .OF RS.43,33,222/- PROVIDED ON THE LOAN AMOUNT TAKEN IS UNREASONABLE AND LIABLE FOR DISALLOWANCE. FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF NIRAJ TRADING CO. IT IS S EEN THAT SECURED LOAN OF RS 20,35,624/- AND UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.20,52,47,92 9/- TOTALING RS 20,72 83 553/- IN THE DEBIT SIDE AND RS.11,49,68,282/- IN TH E CREDIT SIDE. FROM THE DETAILS OF INTEREST SUBMITTED, INTEREST PAID AMOUNT OF RS.1,19,01 907/- INTEREST RECEIVED OF RS.68,37,421/- ARE MENTIONED. CONSIDERI NG THE MORE OR LESS ITA NO.1099/K/2009 BISWANATH PASARI A.Y 06-07 4 SIMILAR RATE OF INTEREST ON THE LOAN AMOUNT RECEIVE D AND ADVANCED, THE CONTENTION OF THE A/R IS ACCEPTABLE. FROM THE COPY OF ACCOUNTS OF NIRAJ TRADING CO., (DE LHI BRANCH). DIVIDEND RECEIVED OF RS.68,55,721/- IS SHOWN AND DEBITED INT EREST OF RS.50,64,486/-. OUT OF THE TOTAL INCOME, THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME COMPRISES OF 3.39% OF THE TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEES A/R HAS MADE RELIA NCE ON THE DECISION OF ITAT, DELHI BRANCH A IN D.L.F. LTD. VS. CIT [2009 ] 27 SOT 22. FROM THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID DECISION, IT IS EVIDENT THAT T HIS IS NOT RELATED TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ALSO ITAT HAS NOT DECIDED LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE U/S 14A. THUS, DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A READ WITH RULE 8D IS THE AGGREGATE OF RS.14,11,472/- CALCULATED AS PER RULE 8D(2)(II) AND RS. 6,59,448/- CALCULATED AS PET RULE 8D(2)(III) TO TALING OF RS 20,70,920/-.THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE, THEREFORE, COMES TO RS. 69,04,1 42/- (RS. 43,33,222 + RS. 20,70,920/-) OVER AND ABOVE, WHAT HAS BEEN ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO MODIFY THE ORDER ACCORDINGL Y. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNA L. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ADMITTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED LOAN TO BIJAY PAPER TRADING CO. AND REFLECTED IN THE BALANC E SHEET AND ALSO PAID INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CHARGED INTEREST IN RESPECT TO LO ANS ADVANCED AND TOTAL INTEREST CHARGED IS AT RS.34,71,613/- AND DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT I.E. THE NET INTEREST OF RS.55,82,666/- AFTER ADJUSTING THE AMOUNT RECEIV ED OR RECEIVABLE FROM THE AMOUNT PAID OR PAYABLE. SIMILARLY, IN CASE OF NIRAJ TRADIN G CO., THE ASSESSEE HAS CHARGED INTEREST OF RS.68,37,421/- AND ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NET AMOUNT OF INTEREST OF RS.50,64,486/-, WHICH IS DISCLOSED IN T HE P&L ACCOUNT AFTER ADJUSTING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE FROM THE LOAN AMOUNT. EVEN WE FIND FROM THE ORDER OF CIT REVISING THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S. 143(3) THAT THERE IS NO ALLEGATION BY THE CIT THAT THIS INTEREST PAID OR INTEREST RECEIVED IS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMPLETE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT ON THE RELEVANT QUERY RAISED VIDE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 30.11.2007 VIDE QUERY NOS. 7 AN D 8, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 7. DETAILS OF CASH CREDITS, NEW OR OLD, WITH NEW S EPARATELY MARKED. THE INFORMATION SHOULD BE FURNISHED IN THE FOLLOWING PROFORMA: ITA NO.1099/K/2009 BISWANATH PASARI A.Y 06-07 5 SL. NO. NAME & COMPLETE POSTAL ADDRESS OF THE PARTY AMOUNT ON THE FIRST DAY & LAST DAY OF THE F.Y. RATE OF INTEREST WHEN WAS THE LOAN FIRST TAKEN ADDITIONAL LOAN TAKEN DURING THE YEAR, IF ANY REPAYMENT DURING THE YEAR ON THE FIRST DAY, ON THE LAST DAY. 8. DETAILS OF UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. & SECURED LOAN S RS,. AND FROM WHICH BANK AND TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF CO-LATERAL SECURITIES MADE TO THE BANK. TO SUBMIT AS PER THE PROFORMA GIVEN BELOW ALONG WITH LOAN CONFIRMATION C ERTIFICATES IN RESPECT OF NEW LOANS, OLD LOANS & SQUARED UP LOANS DURING THE YEAR. SL. NO. NAME OF LOAN CREDITORS WITH FULL POSTAL ADDRESS YEAR OF FIRST LOAN TAKEN AMOUNT B/F AS ON 1.4.2005 LOAN TAKEN DURING THE YEAR REPAYMENT DURING THE YEAR BALANCE C/F AS ON 31.03.2005 RATE OF INTEREST TDS MADE, IF ANY THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THESE QUERIES VIDE REPLY DATED 22.5.2008 AT 11 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 11. ACCOUNT CONFIRMATION OF UNSECURED LOANS IN RES PECT OF NIRAJ TRADING CO., BIJAY PAPER TRADING CO. AND INDUSTRIAL SALES & SERVICE. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER SATISFYING HIMSELF H AS FRAMED ASSESSMENT AND NO DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT TO INTEREST CHARGED AT LOWE R RATE IS ADDED. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHARGED INTEREST AND ALSO PAID INTEREST ON THE ADVA NCES AND THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE CIT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT HAS ERRED IN REVIEWING THE ASSESSMENT ON THIS ASPECT. AS REGARDS TO ANOTHER ISSUE OF RULE 8D, APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8D FOR INVOCATION OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EXEMPTED INCOME, NOW THIS ISSUE IS SETTLED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCEE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (BOM.) WHEREIN THE PRINC IPLE LAID DOWN BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AT PAGES 138 & 13 9 VIDE SUB PARAS (V) TO (VII) ARE AS UNDER: (V) THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RU LES WHICH HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED WITH EFFECT FROM MARCH 24, 2008, SHALL APP LY WITH EFFECT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09; (VI) EVEN PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHE N RULE 8D WAS NOT APPLICABLE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ENFORCE TH E PROVISIONS OF SUB- ITA NO.1099/K/2009 BISWANATH PASARI A.Y 06-07 6 SECTION (1) OF SECTION 14A. FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS DUTY BOUND TO DETERMINE THE EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN I NCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST ADOPT A REASONABLE BASIS OR METHOD CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AFTER FURN ISHING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE ALL GERMANE MA TERIAL ON THE RECORD; (VII) THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 -03 SHALL STAND REMANDED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER SHALL DETERMINE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED A NY EXPENDITURE (DIRECT OR INDIRECT) IN RELATION TO DIVIDEND INCOME/INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME AS CON TEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 14A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ADOPT REASON ABLE BASIS FOR EFFECTING THE APPORTIONMENT. WHILE MAKING THAT DETE RMINATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROVIDE A REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF PRODUCING ITS ACCOUNTS AND RELEVANT AND GERMANE MAT ERIAL HAVING A BEARING ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6. WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY DEBITED AS WELL AS CREDITED THE INTER EST FROM BIJAY PAPER TRADING CO. AND NIRAJ PAPER TRADING CO AND ACCOUNTED FOR THE NET IN TEREST PAYABLE AFTER ADJUSTING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE. THE AO DURING THE CO URSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS GONE INTO THESE DETAILS AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE AO IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND IT I S CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SAME IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IF AN AO ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW MAKES CERTAIN ASSESSMENTS, THE SAME CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCOR DING TO HIM, THE ORDER DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE ISSUE OR THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ELABORATELY. THE ORDER OF THE AO MAY BE BRIEF OR CRYPTIC BUT THAT BY ITSELF I S NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRAND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F REVENUE. WRITING AN ORDER IN DETAILED MAY BE A LEGAL REQUIREMENT BUT THE ORDER NOT FULFIL LING THIS REQUIREMENT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVE NUE REASONS BEING THE AO HAS ALREADY MADE ENQUIRIES BY ISSUING A QUESTIONNAIRE ON THIS P ARTICULAR ASPECT AND REPLY IS SOLICITED FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX COULD NOT POINT OUT AS TO WHAT WAS THE ERROR COMMITTED BY THE AO IN HAVING REACHED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF INTE REST PAID. THE CIT HAVING FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY ERROR, NO ERROR CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO FOR THE SIMPLE ITA NO.1099/K/2009 BISWANATH PASARI A.Y 06-07 7 REASONS THAT THE SAME IS BEREFT OF DETAILS. ACCORD INGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO IS NE ITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. HENCE, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.5.2011 SD/- SD/- . ., ,, , !' , , , , (C. D. RAO) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( (( ( ' ' ' ') )) ) DATED : 27 TH MAY, 2011 /0 $12 3 JD.(SR.P.S.) !- 4 +5 6!5&7- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . )* /APPELLANT - SRI BISWANATH PASARI, C/O SALARPURIA JAJODIA & CO., 7, C. R. AVENUE, KOLKATA-700 072. 2 +,)* / RESPONDENT ACIT, CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA 3 . -$ / THE CIT, KOLKATA 4 . -$ ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 5 . >? +$ / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA ,5 +/ TRUE COPY, !-$@/ BY ORDER, 2 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .