IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI D. K. TYAGI, JM & HONBLE SRI B . C. MEENA , AM] I.T.A. NO.1191/KOL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 TARAKMONDAL -VS- INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-3, SUR I (PA NO.AKHPM 0137 F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SRI D. S. DAMLE RESPONDENT BY : SRI O. P. AGARWAL O R D E R PER D. K. TYAGI, JM: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ASANSOL DATED 22.04.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06 ON THE SOLE GROUND OF UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE TRANSPORTATION EX PENSES OF RS.1,52,688/-.. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAS ACTUALLY PAID TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS.2,12,190/ - AND UNLOADING CHARGES OFRS.32,610/- AND HE WAS MAINTAINING DEBIT VOUCHER S AND PROPER SIGNATURE OF THE RECIPIENT WHICH COULD BE VERIFIED BY THE AO. THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM I.E. TO ESTABLISH THE LINKAGE OF THE TRANSPORT CHARGES RS.2,12,190/- FOR TAKING DELIVERY OF THE GOODS FROM THE COMPANY. THE AO HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY TAKEN DELIVERY OF THE GOODS (190 BAGS ONLY) FROM SAINTHIA RECK POINT IN TWO OCCASION AND OTHER GOODS WERE DIRECTLY DELIVERED BY THE COMPANY TO THE ASSESEES GODOWN AT MOLLARPUR FOR W HICH RS.1,70,498.75 HAS BEEN PAID TO THE SUPPLIER COMPANY AS PER THE CONFIRMATION G IVEN BY THE COMPANY L &T/ULTRATECH. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESEE HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY COGENT REASON FOR EXPENSES OF RS.2,12,190/-. HE HA S ALLOWED ONLY RS.1000/- OUT OF THAT AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.2,11,190/- WAS DISALLO WED BY HIM. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,52,688/- OUT OF RS.2,12,190/- AND GAVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE FOR A SUM OF RS.59,502/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE REITERATING HIS SAME SUBMISSIONS AS SUBMITTED BEFOR E THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FURTHER FILED A RECONCILIATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF TRANSPORTATI ON CHARGES, WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK PAGE 10 AND ALSO FILED DISPATCH WISE PAR TICULARS WHICH ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FROM PAGES 11 TO 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND URGED BEF ORE THE BENCH TO DELETE THE ADDITION SO CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. SINCE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US FILED A RECONCILIATION STATEMENT AND DETA ILS IN RESPECT OF TRANSPORTATION, THE SAME REQUIRE VERIFICATION AT THE END OF THE AO. HE NCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FIL E OF THE AO TO ADJUDICATE AFRESH ON THE BASIS OF THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT AND VARIOUS D ETAILS FILED AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT . SD/- SD/- (B. C. MEENA) (D. K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH APRIL, 2010 COPY TO : 1. SHRI TARAK MONDAL, P.O. MOLLARPUR, PAENA MORE, DIST . BIRBHUM 2. ITO, WARD-3, SURI 3. CIT(A), ASANSOL 4. CIT, ASANSOL 5. D.R., ITAT, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR JD.(SR.P.S.) I.T.AT., KOLKATA