Pratap Kumar Biswal, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 32(4), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1218/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4659 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SALLONG YADEN ACIT SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: V N DUTTA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences; Documents seized
• Section: 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1218/KOL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2005-06 PRATAP KUMAR BISWAL 113, PRK STREET, PODDAR POINT, 6 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 016 [ PAN NO.AITPB 3875 F ] / V/S . ITO, WARD-32(4) 10, MIDDLETON ROW, KOLKATA /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI V.N.DUTTA, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SALLONG YADEN, ACIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 20-06-2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10-08-2016 /O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIX, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 169/CIT(A) -XIX/ITO,WD-32(4), KOL/10- 11 DATED 27.07.2011. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO W ARD-23(4), KOLKATA U/S 254/144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER RE FERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 21.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. ITA NO.1218/KOL/2011 A.Y.2005-06 PRATAP KR. BISWAL V. ITO WD-32(4) KOL. PAGE 2 2. IN THIS APPEAL VARIOUS REVISED GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED OUT OF WHICH GROUND 1 AND GROUND NO.5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT RE QUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. THE OTHER REVISED GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE PE R ITS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 2. FOR THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITIES IS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. FOR THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.1,71,81,741/-, RECEI VED FROM THE CONCERN PARTY TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IS NEITHER TENAB LE IN LAW NOR IN FACTS. 4. FOR THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF WHOLE EXPENSES OF RS.22,79,875/- OF THE BUSINESS INCOME. SHRI V.N.DUTTA, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEA RED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND SHRI SALLONG YADEN, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. 3. FIRST WE TAKE UP ISSUE NO.2 WHICH IS THAT LD. CI T(A) PASSED ORDER WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. 4. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THIS APPEAL IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 254 R.W.S. 144 OF THE ACT FOR SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR (05-06). THE ASSESSEE HAS EARLIER FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 680/KOL/2009 DATED 12.06.2009, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FIL E OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PER LAW AND ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO FILE FRESH EVIDENCE. IT IS CLEAR THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAVE ALRE ADY BEEN PROVIDED TO ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE REGARDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED, HENCE, SAME IS DISMISS ED. 5. NEXT ISSUE IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY SUSTAINING ADDITION OF 1,71,81,741/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 6. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CAS E IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN EXPORT BUSINESS AND HAS SHOWN LIABILITY IN HIS BALA NCE-SHEET OF THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:- 1. ADVANCE FROM M/S INTERLINK, AMOUNTING TO RS.25 44750 2. ADVANCE FROM FIRM TO THE TUNE OF RS.11019801 3. OTHER ADVANCE FROM FIRM TO THE TUNE OF RS.361 7190 ITA NO.1218/KOL/2011 A.Y.2005-06 PRATAP KR. BISWAL V. ITO WD-32(4) KOL. PAGE 3 ON QUESTION BY ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE FAILED T O SUBSTANTIATE THE AFORESAID ADVANCES ON THE BASIS OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. THER EFORE, AO ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE BY TREATING THE UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT.. 7. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A) WHEREAS ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED FROM FOLLOWIN G PARTIES:- NAME OF PARTY AMOUNT (RS) RECEIVED. A) M/S INTER-LINKED PVT. LTD. 25,44,750/- B) ADVANCE FROM FIRM 1,10,19,801/- C) ADVANCE FROM FIRM 36,17,190/- ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM M/S INTER-LINK PVT. LTD. WAS FOR FINDING OUT THE FOREIGN BUYERS IN CHINA, THE SAME MONEY WAS DEPOSITED IN CITY BANK ON 08.03.2005 . THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS THE PARTNER IN M/S BH ARAT MINMET CORPORATION AND RECEIVED ADVANCE OF 1 CRORE FROM THE FIRM ALONG WITH OTHER ADVANCES FR OM SAME FIRM FOR 36,17,190/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED PAN OF THE FIRM OF M/S BHARAT MINMET CORPORATION I.E. AAGFB 2429J AND SAME IS ASSESSED W ITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO. THEREFORE THE MONEY RECEIVED CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BY UPHOLDI NG THE ACTION OF AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- (8) I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT AND PERUSED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAD MADE ADDITION U/S 68 AGGREGATING TO RS.1,71,81, 741/- IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS ORDER U/S. 254/144 OF T HE ACT. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT, TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FRO M M/S INTERLINK PRIVATE LTD AND M/S. BHARAT MINMET CORPORATION AS ADVANCES. HOW EVER NEITHER DURING THE CURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR DURING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 254, THE APPELLANT DID FILE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO THE APPELLANT DID NO T FILE ANY SHORT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES INCLUDING COPY OF LEDGER ACCO UNTS AND BANK STATEMENTS OF THE RESPECTIVE CREDITORS. NO CONFIRMATION OF ACC OUNTS ETC., WAS FILED EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR DURING THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS. IN FACT, AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT WAS STATED BY THE APPELLAN TS AR THAT HE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO FILE ANY CONFIRMATION ETC. UNDER THE CI RCUMSTANCES, IMPUGNED ORDER AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKI NG THE ADDITION OF RS.1,71,81,741/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE APPE LLANT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITA NO.1218/KOL/2011 A.Y.2005-06 PRATAP KR. BISWAL V. ITO WD-32(4) KOL. PAGE 4 PRIMARY ONUS COST ON HIM, TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE ACT IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUND NO. 4 IS DISMISSED. (9) IN GROUND NO. 5 THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED ACTI ON OF THE AO MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS.22,79,875/-. DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXP ENSES AGGREGATING TO RS.22,97,875/- FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT PRODUCED ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS OR BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPO RT OF HIS CLAIM OF VARIOUS EXPENSES. IN THE ORDER U/S. 253/144 THE AO REPEATED THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE AS NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE BEFORE HIM AND NO DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE WERE PRODUCED. (10) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED AS UNDER: IT IS ADMITTED FACT, AND ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS BUSINESS INCOME DERIVING FROM FOREIGN COMMISSION TO THE TUNE OF RS. 31,63,452/- WHICH IS ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE WHOLE EXPENSES OF RS.22,79,875/- FOR EARNING OF SUCH INCOME COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS S UCH IT IS NEITHER TENABLE IN LAW. (11) I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE F ACTS I AM NOT INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT BECAUSE THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED AND DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. SINCE THE A PPELLANT HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES C LAIMED BY HIM, EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2 2,79,875/-. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS UPHELD. THE GROUND N O 5 IS DISMISSED. (12) IN GROUND NO.6 THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED ADDI TION OF RS.3,904/- UNDER THE HEAD INTEREST INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT IS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVE D INTEREST OF RS.3,904/- FROM ICICI BANK WHICH HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION. HENCE HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.3,904/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REPEATED THE ADD ITION IN THE ORDER U/S. 254/144 OF THE ACT. (13) DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS NO SUBMISSION WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT WITH REFERENCE TO ADDITION OF RS.3,90 4/-. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO HAS R IGHTLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,904/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME. THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUND NO.6 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1218/KOL/2011 A.Y.2005-06 PRATAP KR. BISWAL V. ITO WD-32(4) KOL. PAGE 5 BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSE E CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. BEFORE US LD. AR FILED PAPER BOOK WHICH IS RUNNI NG PAGES FROM 1 TO 62; TOGETHER WITH COPY OF NOTARY CERTIFICATE AND DEED O F PARTNERSHIP WHICH ARE KEPT WITH RECORD. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED BY POLICE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE THE RELE VANT DOCUMENTS COULD NOT PRODUCE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM SUBMITTED COPY OF ORDER OF LD. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE WHICH PL ACED ON PAGES 10 TO 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SEIZURE MEMO FOR THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED BY POLICE AUTHORITY WERE ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE LD. METROPOLITA N MAGISTRATE WHICH IS PLACED FROM PAGES 15 TO 44 OF THE PAPER BOOK. LD. AR FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS UNDER POLICE CUSTODY. THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION REGARDING SUBMISSION OF BAIL PETITION BEFORE LD. MAGISTRATE COURT WHICH IS PLACED ON PAGES 45 TO 52 OF THE PAPER BOOK. REGARDING LOAN FROM M/S INTERLINK PRIVA TE LTD., FOR AN AMOUNT OF 25,44,750/- OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN ON PAGE 55 OF T HE PAPER BOOK WHERE THE BANK STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE IS PLACED. HE FURTHER DREW OU R ATTENTION ON PAGE 58 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE THE RECEIPT OF 1 CRORE FROM M/S BHARAT MINMET CORPORATION IN THE BANK A/C OF ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED. LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM SUBMITTED THE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP ALONG WITH INCOME TAX RETURN, P AN OF ASSESSEE, IMPORT-EXPORT CODE ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, SALES TAX CERT IFICATE OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND PRAYED TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELO W. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE D ID NOT COOPERATE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND HAS NOT SUBMITTED RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM. HE VEHEMENTLY RELIE D ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT AUTHORI TIES BELOW MADE THE ADDITION FOR THE ABOVE STATED AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PRODUCTIO N OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. ITA NO.1218/KOL/2011 A.Y.2005-06 PRATAP KR. BISWAL V. ITO WD-32(4) KOL. PAGE 6 HOWEVER, FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT A SSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE ADVANCE FROM TWO PARTIES NAMELY M/S INTERLINK PVT. LTD. AND M/S BHARAT MINMET CORPORATION AND SUBMITTED THE BANK STATEMENT WHERE THE RECEIPT FROM M/S INTERLINK PVT. LTD. IS VERY MUCH REFLECTING IN THE BANK STATE MENTS. THESE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WERE DISREGARDED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AO HAS NOT ISSUED ANY NOTICE TO M/S INTERLINK PVT. LTD ., U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT BEFORE MAKING THE ADDITION. SIMILARLY, NO NOTICE U/S 133(6 ) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED TO M/S BHARAT MINMET CORPORATION TO VERIFY THE AMOUNT OF A DVANCE RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIATED THE AM OUNT OF ADVANCE FROM M/S INTERLINK PVT. LTD., ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSEES BANK STATEMEN T. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF M/S BHARAT MINMET CORPORATION, ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIAT ED THE AMOUNT RECEIVED OF 1 CRORE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF BANK STATEMENT. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED BY POLICE AUTHORITY AND THIS FACT IS NOT IN DOUBT, IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS IN POLICE CUSTODY. THER EFORE, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND AGAIN THIS FACT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. WE OBSERVE THAT BEFORE DISREGARDING THE PLEA OF ASSESS EE, IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO ACQUIRE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE P LEA OF ASSESSEE FALSE AND FOR THAT PURPOSE VARIOUS POWERS HAVE BEEN EMPOWERED TO THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THOSE POWERS HAVE NOT BEEN EXERCISED BY T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THEY RESORTED TO MAKE THE ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME O F ASSESSEE, WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IS NOT CORRECT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT WAS N ECESSARY FOR THE AO TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT EITHER TO THE PARTIES FROM WHOM T HE ADVANCE WAS RECEIVED OR TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE AFO RESAID PARTIES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AN D INCLINED TO GIVE RELIEF TO ASSESSEE FOR THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM M/S INTERLINK PVT. LT D., FOR AN AMOUNT OF 25,44,750/-. HOWEVER, IN CASE OF M/S BHARAT MINMET CORPORATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWED THE BANK ENTRY FOR 1 CRORE ONLY. THEREFORE, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF A UTHORITIES BELOW AND TO GIVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ADVANCE OF RS.1 CRORE AND DIFFERENCE OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FOR 46,36,991/- HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED FROM THE DOCUMENTS. THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO SUSTAIN TH E ADDITION OF 46,36,991/-. AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APP EAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.1218/KOL/2011 A.Y.2005-06 PRATAP KR. BISWAL V. ITO WD-32(4) KOL. PAGE 7 10. NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS THAT L D. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO BY DISALLOWING EXPENSE OF 22,79,875/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PRODUCTION OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. 11. DURING THE YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE INCOME OF 31,63,452/- BY WAY OF COMMISSION FROM FOREIGN PARTY AND AGAINST THE AFORE SAID INCOME ASSESSEE CLAIMED AN EXPENSE OF 22,79,875/-. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE AN Y DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE REFORE, AO HAS DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 12. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS UPHELD THE ACTION OF AO. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSE E CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE. 13. BEFORE US LD. AR REITERATED SAME SUBMISSION AS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE WAS IN POLICE CUSTODY AND ALL THE DOCUMENT S WERE SEIZED BY SAID POLICE AUTHORITY, THEREFORE, RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE NOT P LACED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. LD. AR PRAYED THAT THE EXPENSES INCURR ED BY ASSESSEE ARE GENUINE AND THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSE E. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW . 14. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT THE ADD ITION WAS MADE BY LOWER AUTHORITIES BECAUSE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. HOWEVER, FROM THE PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS APPELLATE ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSION INCOME OF ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES AND WE ALSO FIND THAT FOR RUNNING A BUS INESS ORGANIZATION LOT OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT EXPENSES ARE REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED. IN T HE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS GENUINELY PREVENTED FOR SUBMISSION OF NECESSARY DOC UMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS EXPENSE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE EARLIER SEIZED BY POLICE AUTHORITY AND THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WAS DETAINED IN POLICE CUSTODY. CONSIDERING THE ITA NO.1218/KOL/2011 A.Y.2005-06 PRATAP KR. BISWAL V. ITO WD-32(4) KOL. PAGE 8 FACTS OF THE CASE, IN TOTALITY, WE ARE INCLINED TO LIMIT THE DISALLOWANCE OF AFORESAID EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF 50% I.E., RS.11,39,937/-. HENCE, WE GIVE PARTLY RELIEF TO ASSESSEE AFTER SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF AUTHORITI ES BELOW. AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 15. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 10/08/2016 SD/- SD/- (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *DKP ! - 10/08/2016 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-PRATAP KR. BISWAL, 13, PARK ST, PODDAR P OINT, 6 TH FL, KOL-16 2. /RESPONDENT-ITOWARD-32(4), 10 MIDDLE ROW, KOLKATA 3. '# % / CONCERNED CIT 4. % - / CIT (A) 5. &'( ))'# , '# / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. (*+ / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ / '#,