Ratan Sarkar, North 24 Parganas V. ITO, Ward - 49(1), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1123/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99878 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PINAKI MUKHERJEE JCITSRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: S CHATTERJEE
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Business expenditure; Principle of natural justice; Peak credit
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1123 / KOL / 2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2005-06 RATAN SARKAR P.O. TENTULIA, P.S. SWARUPNAGAR, DIST. 24- PARGANAS (NORTH) PIN- 743286 [ PAN NO.AVDPS 8871 K ] V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-49(1), BAMBOOVILA, 169, AJC BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA 700 014 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI S.CHATTERJEE, CA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI PINAKI MUKHERJEE, JCIT, SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 07-09-2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07-10-2015 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XXXII, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.2/ CIT(A)XXXII/08- 09/WD.49 (1)/KOL DATED 28.01.2010. ASSESSMENT WAS F RAMED BY ITO WARD-49(1) KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 27.1 2.2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. ITA NO.1123/KOL/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 RATANSARKAR V. ITO WD-49(1) KOL. PAGE 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROU NDS:- 1 (A) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAVING ADMITTED THAT ASSESSEES RECURRING DEPOSIT A /.C BI, 410299 WITH TENTULIA, SUB-POST OFFICE SHOWED MATURITY PROCEED O F RS.81,115/- ON 31.07.2004 IS WRONG IN HOLDING THAT PURCHASE OF K.V .P. OF RS.80,000/- FROM THE SAME POST OFFICE OUT OF SUCH MATURITY PROCEED D OES NOT AMOUNT TO COGENT EVIDENCE. (B) THAT THE APPELLANT NOW CLAIMS THAT K.V.P. OF RS .35,000/- WAS PURCHASED FROM TENTULIA, SUB-POST OFFICE IN MAY2004 OUT OF M ATURITY PROCEED OF ANOTHER RECURRING DEPOSIT NO. 410273 WITH THE SAME POST OFF ICE. 2. (A) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING CASH DEPOSITS SIN OVERDRAFT A/.C N O.32 WITH ALLAHABAD BANK, SWARUPNAGAR BRANCH AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. (B) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE I N O.D. A/C NO. 32 OUT OF CASH SALES OF MEAT IN ORDER TO KEEP THE LIABILITY W ITHIN THE SANCTIONED LIMIT. THAT EVEN ASSUMING THAT CASH SALES AS REPRESENTED BY CASH DEPOSITS IN OD A/C NO. 32 ARE NOT INCLUDED IN DISCLOSED TURNOVE R, LD. CIT(A) IS WRONG AND UNJUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE TOTAL DEPOSIT OF RS.1 9,58,770/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME INSTEAD OF THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN TH E SUCH UNDISCLOSED SALES. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, AND KEEPING IN VIEW SIMILAR LOGIC AS STATED IN GROUND NO. 2 LD. CIT(A ) IS WRONG IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.2,98,520/- AS DEPOSITS IN C.C A/C NO . 345 AND SAVING A/C NO. 8913 WITH ALLAHABAD BANK WITHOUT CONSIDERING WITHDR AWALS FROM THESE ACCOUNTS WHICH REPRESENTED BUSINESS EXPENSES. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DENY EXEMPTION OF RS.25,000/- AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS RELIED ON IRRELEVANT FAC TS AND EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. 2. FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,15,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN IND IVIDUAL AND DEALING IN THE BUSINESS OF BROILER MEAT. DURING THE YEAR AS SESSEE HAS AVAILED OVERDRAFT FACILITY FROM SWARUPNGAR BRANCH OF ALLAHA BAD BANK BY PLEDGING ITA NO.1123/KOL/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 RATANSARKAR V. ITO WD-49(1) KOL. PAGE 3 THE KVP. ON EXAMINATION OF THE DETAILS OF KVPS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE 12 NOS. OF KVPS VALUED AT RS. 115000.00 WERE PURCHASED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 BUT THIS TRANSACTION WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31-03-2005. THE A SSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF KVPS IN SPITE OF SEVERAL REMINDERS ISSUED TO HIM. HENCE, AO ADDED THIS INCOME TO ASSESSEES ACCO UNTS. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHERE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATED THAT KVPS WORTH OF RS. 35,000/- WAS PURCHASED IN THE MONTH OF MAY 2004 AND KVPS WORTH O F RS. 80,000/- WAS PURCHASED IN THE MONTH OF JULY 2004. THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF KVPS WORTH OF RS. 1,15,000/- WERE E XPLAINED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER : 1) RS. 25,000/- WAS RECEIVED ON MONEY BACK POLICY F ROM LIC ON DATED 21-4-2004 IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH UBI. 2) RS.10,000/- ON CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. 3) RS.80,000/- WAS OUT OF THE MATURITY RECURRING DE POSIT WITH POST OFFICE. THE CIT(A) SOUGHT THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO ON THE ABOVE SAID SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND THE AO HAS SUBMITTED IN HI S REMAND REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT THE MONEY INVESTED IN KVPS WAS OUT OF TH E SAID AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM LIC AND ON MATURITY OF POST OFFICE RE CURRING DEPOSITS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MONEY WAS INVE STED OUT OF THE RECEIPT FROM LIC AND MATURITY OF RECURRING DEPOSITS , THE CIT(A) HAS DISREGARDED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE P REFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. MR. S. CHATTERJEE, LD. AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE ITA NO.1123/KOL/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 RATANSARKAR V. ITO WD-49(1) KOL. PAGE 4 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND MR. PINAKI MUKH ERJEE, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK RUNNI NG FROM PAGE NOS. 1 TO 41. BEFORE US THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HE PASS-BOOK ISSUED BY POST OFFICE IN SUPPORT OF RECURRING DEPOSIT ACCO UNT NO. 410299 WHEREIN WITHDRAWAL OF RS.81,115/- WAS CLEARLY RECOR DED ON DATED 31-07- 2004. OUT OF THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY, A SUM OF RS. 80, 000/- WAS INVESTED IN THE KVPS. THE PASS BOOK OF THE POST OFFICE FOR S UCH FD ACCOUNT NO. 410299 IS PLACED AT PAGES 16 TO 25 OF THE PAPER BOO K. HOWEVER FOR THE ANOTHER INVESTMENT OF RS. 35,000/- IN THE KVPS, THE LD AR HAS TAKEN A NEW PLEA THAT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY INVESTED WAS OUT OF THE MATURITY OF ANOTHER RECURRING DEPOSIT VIDE NO. 401273 WITH THE POST OFFICE FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS. 40,557/-.THE PASS BOOK OF THE POST OF FICE FOR SUCH FD ACCOUNT NO. 410273 IS PLACED AT PAGES 26 TO 35 OF T HE PAPER BOOK.IN RESPECT OF THIS ADDITIONAL FD ACCOUNT NO. 410273 TH E LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS FD STATEMENT AMOUNTS TO ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW SO THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL MA Y CONFINE THE FINDINGS ONLY IN RESPECT OF DISPUTED ADDITION OF RS. 80,000/ -. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. A CAREFUL ANALYSIS REVEALS THAT THE AO AND LD. CIT( A) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE WANT OF SOURCE OF INVESTMEN T IN KVPS AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REALLY PRODUCE THE DESIRED DOCUM ENTS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER, NOW THE LD. AR HAS PRODUCED THE STATEMENT OF THE FD A/C FOR OUR CONSIDERATION AND REQUEST TO DELETE THE ADDITIO N CONFIRMED BY THE A.O. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE ARE INCLINED TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR JUSTI FICATION OF THE SOURCE ITA NO.1123/KOL/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 RATANSARKAR V. ITO WD-49(1) KOL. PAGE 5 OF INVESTMENT IN KVPS TO THE AO. WE ALSO DISREGARD THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO LIMIT THE FINDING OF INVESTMENT IN KVPS TO EXTENT OF RS. 80,000/-. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT B E DEPRIVED FROM THE BENEFIT GIVEN IN THE LAW AND SHOULD NOT UNNECESSARY BE PENALIZED. HENCE WE RESTORE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL TO THE AO TO ADJUDICATE AFRESH AS PER LAW. THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR THE STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 7. COMING TO ASSESSEES SECOND ISSUE IS THAT THE CI T(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF AO BY TREATING THE DEPOSIT OF RS.19,58,770/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. IN THIS CASE, ASSES SEE HAS DECLARED HIS TURNOVER OF RS.6,42,359/- BUT AS PER THE BANK S TATEMENT THERE WAS TOTAL DEPOSIT OF RS.21,51,420/-. ON QUESTION BY AO TO THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE DEPOSITS OF THE SAID MONEY IN EXCESS OF T HE TURNOVER DECLARED IN HIS RETURN INCOME,THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE OUT OF THE SAID SUM RS. 19,58,770/- BELONGS TO HIS DAUGHTER, SMT RAMA S ARKARWHO IS RUNNING A BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF RAMA BROILER TRADERS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS HOLDING A JOINT ACCOUNT WITH HIS DAUGHTER. BUT ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SUPPOR TING DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM AND THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEF ORE AO WERE NOT RELEVANT. THEREFORE, AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASS ESSEE AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE A SUM OF RS.19,58,770/-. AGG RIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 8. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT AN AMOU NT OF RS. 19,58,770/- DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS THE TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS OF HIS WIFE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED TH E INCOME TAX RETURNS, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, TRADE LICENSE OF HIS WIFE. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT THE RECEIPT OF THE MONEY ITA NO.1123/KOL/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 RATANSARKAR V. ITO WD-49(1) KOL. PAGE 6 IN BANK BELONGS TO HIS WIFE. HENCE THE CIT(A) DISRE GARDED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL. 9. BEFORE US THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THA T TREATING THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSIT AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE I S AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL NATURAL JUSTICE. THE BANK ACCOUNT WHERE C ASH WAS DEPOSITED WAS A BANK CURRENT ACCOUNT AND USED ONLY FOR THE BU SINESS PURPOSE. THIS ACCOUNT WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEE T OF THE ASSESSEE. SO ALL THE TRANSACTIONS SHOULD BE TREATED BUSINESS TRA NSACTIONS. THE LD. AR PRAYED TO TAX THE BUSINESS RECEIPT BY APPLYING GP R ATIO. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUGGESTED SOME ALTERNATE METHOD FOR APPLYING T HE TAX ON THE RECEIPT OF MONEY IN BANK WHICH WAS PRESENTED IN THE FORM OF CASH FLOW. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF A UTHORITIES BELOW. 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND EXAMINED TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO S UBSTANTIATE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT BELONGS TO HIS WIFE/ DAUGHTER. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE LD AR SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THA T THE CASH RECEIPT BELONGS TO THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE BUT HE CHA NGED HIS STATEMENT BEFORE CIT(A) BY STATING THAT THE CASH RECEIPT BELO NGS TO HIS WIFE. SO THE ASSESSEE SUMMARILY FAILED TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM. H OWEVER FOR THE SAKE OF MORE CLARITY WE ARE REPRODUCING THE RELEVANT POR TION OF AO ORDER FROM PAGE NO. 4 MIDDLE PARA AS UNDER : THE CREDIT IN HIS OD A/C NO. 32 TO THE TUNE OF RS. 19,58,770/-, AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE THE BUSINESS RECEIPT OF HIS DAUG HTER SMT RAMA SARKAR AND SUBMITTED THROUGH HIS LETTER ON 16.11.2007, IS CONSIDERED TO BE NOTHING BUT HIS OWN BUSINESS RECEIPT IN THE GUISE OF RAMA B ROILER TRADERS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HENCE, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 19,58 ,770/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONSIDERING AN Y FURTHER EXPENSES WHATSOEVER. ITA NO.1123/KOL/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 RATANSARKAR V. ITO WD-49(1) KOL. PAGE 7 A CAREFUL ANALYSIS TO THE ORDER OF THE AO REVEALS T HAT THE AO HAS RECORDED THE CASH DEPOSIT ENTRIES AS BUSINESS RECEI PT. AT THE SAME TIME THE AO TREATS THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSIT AS INCOME WIT HOUT CONSIDERING ANY FURTHER EXPENSES WHATSOEVER. HERE WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE BUSINESS RECEIPT CAN BE TREATED INCOME ONLY AFTER DEDUCTING THE RELEVANT EXPENSES IN RELATION TO BUSINESS RECEIPT. BESIDES IT IS IMPO RTANT TO NOTE THAT ALL THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BUSINESS BANK OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THE SAME WAS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. ON THIS BA SIS WE ARE INCLINED TO APPLY THE EFFECTIVE RATE OF INCOME ON THE UNDISCLOS ED RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL TO T HE FILE OF AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THIS GROUND AFRESH AS P ER LAW. HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE . 11. NEXT GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS THE ADDITIO N OF RS.2,98,520/- AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE BANK A CCOUNTS IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. HOWEVER, ON QUESTION BY THE AO TO THE A SSESSEE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF MONEY DEPOSITED WITH THE BANKS, THE ASSES SEE COULD NOT GIVE SATISFACTORY REPLY.SO AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,9 8,520/- BEING PEAK CREDIT BALANCE IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS UPHELD T HE ORDER OF AO. NOW, ASSESSEE PREFERRED SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL. 12. BEFORE US LD. AR OF ASSESSEE PRAYED NOT TO TREA T THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS.2,98,520/- TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AND OFFERED TO APPLY THE GROSS PROFIT RATE ON THE SUM DEPOSITED WITH THE BANKS. HO WEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT WAS ALSO NOT DISCL OSED IN THE INCOME OF RETURN. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE FROM ITA NO.1123/KOL/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 RATANSARKAR V. ITO WD-49(1) KOL. PAGE 8 THE SIDE OF ASSESSEE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AD DITION MADE BY AO AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN CORRECTLY DONE . THEREFORE WE DO NOT INTERFERE INTO THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 13. COMING TO LAST GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE FOR TH E DISALLOWANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.25,000/-. DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AN INCOME OF RS.25,000/-WHICH TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTED FROM TAX. THE ASSESSEE TREATED THE INCOME FROM THE BROILER BUSINESS AS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVI TY, HENCE CLAIMED EXEMPTION. HOWEVER, THE AO DISREGARDED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THIS INCOME OF RS. 25,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO. NOW, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) , ASSESSEE PR EFERRED APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 14. BEFORE US THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS BEEN SHOWING THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL BUSINESS FOR T HE LAST SEVERAL YEARS AND THE SAME WAS ADMITTED BY THE REVENUE. THE OBSER VATION OF THE AO THAT SUCH EXEMPTION WAS CLAIMED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF BROILER CHICKEN DOES NOT HOLD ANY MERIT. THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED T HE PARCHAS AT THE TIME OF REMAND REPORT IN SUPPORT OF AGRICULTURAL LA ND ALONG WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS. THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO S HOWS THE AGRICULTURAL INHERITED LAND (WITHOUT ANY VALUE). TH E LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. A CAR EFUL ANALYSIS OF THE LD. AR SUBMISSION CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN SHOWING THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN THE RETURN O F INCOME FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS. THE BALANCE SHEET ALSO CONTAINS THE INH ERITED AGRICULTURE ITA NO.1123/KOL/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 RATANSARKAR V. ITO WD-49(1) KOL. PAGE 9 LAND. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLEADED THAT THE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME SHOWN AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION FROM THE TAX IS NOT FROM BROILER BUSINESS AND THE AO HAS WRONGLY TREATED THE SAME FROM BROILER BUSINESS. THE RELEVANT DETAIL OF AGRICULTURAL BUSINESS HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED. HOW EVER IN THE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE ARE INCLINED TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM BE FORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS RESTOR ED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AS PER LAW. HENCE THIS GROUN D OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 15. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 07/ 10/2015 SD/- SD/- (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP !- 07 /10/2015 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT- RATANSARKAR, P.O. TENTULIA, P.S. SWAR UPNAGAR, DIST. 24-PARGANS (N), PIN.743 286 2. / RESPONDENT- ITO WARD-49(1), BAMBOOVILA, 169, AJC BOSE RD., KOL-14 3. * +, - - . / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4.- - .- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 012 33+,,- +, , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 267 89 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ - , /TRUE COPY/ / - +, ,