Goutam Das, Howrah V. DCIT,Cir-48,Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1235/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9291 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 1209 & 1235 OF 2012 GOUTAM DAS, AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KO LKATA [BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI PARTHA SARAT HI CHAUDHURY, JM] I.T.A NOS.1209 & 1235/KOL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 GOUTAM DAS (PAN:ADVPD8295Q) VS. DEPUTY COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-48, KOLKATA. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 02.02.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.03.2017 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY, ADVO CATE FOR THE RESPONDENT: N O N E ORDER PER SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM: BOTH THESE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF S EPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA VIDE APPEAL NO. 402/CIT(A)-XXX/CIR-48/2008- 09 & 106/CIT(A)-XXX/CIR- 48/2009-10 DATED 27.02.2012. ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAME D BY DCIT, CIRCLE-48, KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR AYS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 VIDE HIS SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 31.12.20 08 AND 25.11.2009 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE SOME OF THE ISSUES ARE COMMON AND FACTS ARE IDENTIC AL, WE DISPOSE OF BOTH THESE APPEALS BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE . 2. THE FIRST INTERCONNECTED ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THESE APPEALS IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD CITA WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION IN THE SUMS OF RS. 10,89,507/-17,84,000/- TOWARDS CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT FOR ASST YEAR S 2006-07 AND 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE AS SESSEE IS DERIVING INCOME FROM TRADING AND EXPORT OF LEATHER GOODS AND RAW LEATHER UNDER THE N AME AND STYLE OF ARJUN ASSOCIATES. RELEVANT FACTS FOR ASST YEAR 2006-07 2 ITA NOS. 1209 & 1235 OF 2012 GOUTAM DAS, AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN CASH DE POSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 10,89,507/- IN ASST YEAR 2006-07 IN STANDARD CHARTERED BANK SAVINGS A/C NO. 32210392324 . THE ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE THE LD AO THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS AND BANK BOOK TOGETHER WIHE ANALYSIS OF DATE WISE STATEMENT FOR CASH DEPOSIT WITH BANK VIS A VIS CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND THE SURP LUS BUSINESS CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD AO HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCE D THE EXPLANATION PROCEEDED TO HOLD THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT WERE NOT PRO PERLY EXPLAINED AND HENCE BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF TH E ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 10,89,507/- . RELEVANT FACTS FOR ASST YEAR 2007-08 THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN CASH DEP OSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 12,95,000/- IN ASST YEAR 2007-08 IN STANDARD CHARTERED BANK A/C NO. 32210392324 ; RS. 1,66,000/- IN ASST YEAR 2007-08 IN STANDARD C HARTERED BANK A/C NO. 33005030082; AND RS. 3,23,000/- IN ASST YEAR 2007-08 IN STANDAR D CHARTERED BANK A/C NO. 33010088204. THE ASSESSEE WHEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN T HE SOURCES FOR CASH DEPOSITS IN THE AFORESAID BANK ACCOUNTS REPLIED THAT THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF SURPLUS CASH IN BUSINESS. MOREOVER, HE REPLIED THAT ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS WER E ALREADY DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.3.2007. THE LD AO HOWEVER , NOT CONVINCED THE EXPLANATION PROCEEDED TO HOLD THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK AC COUNT WERE NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED AND HENCE BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED CASH C REDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 17,84,000/- . 2.2. BEFORE THE LD CITA, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE EXPLAINED BY CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK AND OUT OF CASH FLOW STAT EMENT OF THE ASSESSEE . MOREOVER, THE COPIES OF BANK BOOK, BANK STATEMENTS TOGETHER WITH CASH ANALYSIS STATEMENT WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD AO WHICH HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPREC IATED BY THE LD AO. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO REFLECT HUG E BANKING TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVAILING HIGHER CREDIT LIMITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF HI S BUSINESS, HAD TO RESORT TO THIS CIRCULATION TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS BY FREQUENT WITHD RAWALS AND FREQUENT DEPOSIT OF CASH IN 3 ITA NOS. 1209 & 1235 OF 2012 GOUTAM DAS, AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 BANK ACCOUNT. THIS WAS DONE ONLY TO ACHIEVE A TARG ETED CREDIT TURNOVER TO UPLIFT THE ACCOUNTS STATUS TO GET VARIOUS FINANCIAL ASSISTANC ES FROM THE BANK. MOST OF THE TIMES, CASH WAS WITHDRAWN THE PREVIOUS DAY AND DEPOSITED THE NE XT DAY. SOMETIMES CASH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM ONE BANK ACCOUNT AND DEPOSITED IN AN OTHER BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE . BOTH THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE USED FOR BUSINESS PURPO SES AND BOTH THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE DULY DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE . IN SUPPORT OF ALL TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT ALONG WIT H THE RELEVANT STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT. THOUGH ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS AND EVIDENCES WERE SU BJECT MATTER OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD AO, THE LD AO REITERATED THE STAND TA KEN AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE FIRST CASH DEPOSIT I N THE BANK ACCOUNT HAD STARTED ONLY ON 2.11.2005 ON WHICH DATE THE CASH BALANCE WAS SUFFIC IENTLY AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. 2.2.1. THE LD CITA OBSERVED THAT THESE DEPOSITS WER E ADMITTEDLY BEING MADE IN THE PERSONAL SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE STANDAR D CHARTERED BANK ACCOUNT NO. 33210392324 WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM BUT IN THE PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET. WITH REGARD TO THE CONS OLIDATED CASH BOOK FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE STATED THAT THE SAID CASH BOOK HAS NO RELEVANCE AND AS THIS CASH BOOK IS PART OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN AND THEREFORE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PREPARED ONLY TO BOL STER THE ARGUMENTS OF BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THESE TRANSACTION. ACCORDINGLY HE CONCLUDED THA T THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENT OR EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR CASH WITHDRAWALS AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE DEPOSITS. HE OBSERVED THAT THE SE ARE NOT TRANSACTIONS RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS P ERSONAL SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. BASED ON THESE OBSERVATIONS, HE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE LD AO. 2.3. FOR THE ASST YEAR 2007-08 , BEFORE THE LD CI TA , THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE LD AO HAD STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS AND HAVING SAID SO, HE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AS ADMITTEDLY THE SAID SECTION IS APPLICABLE ONLY IF ANY SUM IS FOUND CRED ITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE BANK PASS B OOKS CANNOT BE TREATED AS BOOKS OF 4 ITA NOS. 1209 & 1235 OF 2012 GOUTAM DAS, AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 ACCOUNTS AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. IN SUP PORT OF THIS PROPOSITION, THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANANDRAM RAITANI VS CIT REPORTED IN (1997) 223 ITR 544 (GAU) HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS BHA ICHAND H GANDHI REPORTED IN (1983) 141 ITR 67 (BOM) HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS TAJ BOREWELLS REPORTED IN (2008) 202 TAXMAN 413 (MAD). APART FROM THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD AO THAT THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS ARE MET OUT OF PREVIOUS CA SH WITHDRAWALS AND AVAILABLE SURPLUS CASH IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS STATED THAT THE LD AO HAD NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FURNISHED BEFORE HIM. THE LD CITA OBSERVED THAT THE TAX AUDITOR HAD STATED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN HIS TAX AUDIT REPORT. BUT THE SAID BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE ONLY NOT PRODUC ED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD AO. ACCORDINGLY HE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT C LAIM THAT THE ENTRIES WERE NOT THERE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD AO. 2.4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND :- 2. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSI TION OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION MADE BY ID AO WHEREIN HE HAD ER RED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1 0,89,507/- BY ERRONEOUSLY HOLDING THAT THE CASH DEP OSIT IN BANK IS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON TIRE FOLLOWING GROUNDS THAT THE ABOVE ADDITION IS ERRONEOUS SINCE THE SO URCE OF EACH CASH DEPOSIT WAS DULY EXPLAINED. THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK IS OUT OF WITHDRAWA LS EITHER FROM SAME BANK ACCOUNT OR OTHER BANK ACCOUNT (S). ALL SUCH BANK ACCOUNTS ARE DISCLOSED BY THE APPEL LANT IN HIS ANNUAL STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS DULY SUBMITS IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT. THAT THE ADDITION MADE WITHOUT FINDING OUT ANY UT ILIZATION OF WITHDRAWALS OF CASH IS ILLEGAL. THAT THE ABOVE ADDITION IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS THE SAME GROUND IS RAISED FOR ASST YEAR 2007-08 ALS O EXCEPT WITH VARIANCE IN FIGURES. 5 ITA NOS. 1209 & 1235 OF 2012 GOUTAM DAS, AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 2.5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AR AND PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE PAPER BOOK COMPRISING OF DETAILS OF CASH DEPOSITS I N STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, ANALYSIS OF SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT, CASH FLOW STATEMENT , BANK STATEMENTS OF STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, BALANCE SHEET OF ARJUN ASSOCIATES ( BUSINESS BALANCE SHEET) , BALANCE SHEET OF ASSESSEE (INCLUDING PERSONAL TRANSACTIONS) AMONG OTHERS. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND WE FIND THAT THE LD DR HAD SOUGHT A DJOURNMENT FOR 11 OUT OF 19 CASES LISTED FOR HEARING DUE TO ILLNESS. SINCE ALL THE DETAILS REQUIRED WERE AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS PART OF THE RECORDS BEFORE US, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS ON HEARING THE LD AR. THE LD AR ONLY REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT PA GES OF THE PAPER BOOK APART FROM REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER A UTHORITIES THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE DULY EXPLAINED OUT OF AVAILABLE CASH BALANCE WITH T HE ASSESSEE AS COULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ENT IRE PAPER BOOK AND WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE HUGE CASH WITHDRAWALS ON A FREQUENT BASIS AND HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS ON A FREQUENT BASIS. WE ALSO FIND THAT SO METIMES THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN THE CASH ON THE PREVIOUS DAY AND HAD DEPOSITED THE SAME IN THE NEXT DAY. SOMETIMES CASH IS WITHDRAWN FROM ONE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE SAME IS DEP OSITED IN ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED WITH STANDARD CHARTERED BANK. HENCE IT COULD BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MERELY RESORTED TO CIRCULATION OF CASH TRANSACTIONS IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ENTIRE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BALANCE SHEET COMPRISING OF BOTH PERSONAL AND BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. WE HAVE GONE T HROUGH ALL THE BANK STATEMENTS TOGETHER WITH THE CASH BOOK AND THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT CLEA RLY DEPICTING THE AVAILABLE CASH BALANCE ON EACH DAY OF DEPOSIT AND WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS GOT SUFFICIENT SOURCES FOR CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND NO PART OF T HE SAME IS UNEXPLAINED. THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS ADMITTEDLY PREPARED TAKING ASSISTANCE FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE UTILIZED FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE SO AS TO PROVE THAT THE SAID CASH IS NOT AVAILABLE TO MEET THE SUBSEQUENT DEPOSITS. WE FIND THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD RESORTED TO CIRCULATION IN BANK TRANSACTIONS ONLY TO REFLECT TH E HIGHER BANKING TURNOVER IN ORDER TO AVAIL 6 ITA NOS. 1209 & 1235 OF 2012 GOUTAM DAS, AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 HIGHER CREDIT FACILITIES FROM BANKS IS ACCEPTABLE. IN ANY CASE, THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF INCOME INVOLVED THEREIN AS THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE DULY EXPL AINED. HENCE WE HOLD THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD ERRONEOUSLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 IN THE INSTANT CASE AND WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THIS REGARD IN THE SUMS OF RS. 10,89,507/- AND RS. 17,84,000/- FOR ASST YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 RESP ECTIVELY ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY , THE GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASST YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 IS ALLOWED. 3. THE GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASS T YEAR 2006-07 IS STATED TO BE NOT PRESSED BY THE LD AR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING F OR WHICH NECESSARY ENDORSEMENT WAS ALSO MADE BY HIM IN OUR FILE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GRO UND NO. 3 FOR ASST YEAR 2006-07 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. THE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 4 RAISED FOR THE ASST YE AR 2006-07 AND GROUND NOS. 1, 4 AND 5 FOR ASST YEAR 2007-08 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE A ND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL FO R ASST YEAR 2007-08 IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD CITA WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF TH E LD AO IN DISALLOWING ACCOUNTING CHARGES OF RS. 60,000/- U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED RS. 60,000/- AS ACCOUNTING CHARGES IN THE PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT. THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT THE SAME WAS PAID WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURC E U/S 194J OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE SAME U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD MADE PAYMENT ONLY FOR ACCOUNTING CHARGES WHO DOES NOT EX HIBIT ANY PROFESSIONAL SKILL WHILE PREPARING THE ACCOUNTS AND HENCE THE SAME DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE AMBIT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTEMPLATED U/S 194J OF THE ACT. THIS EX PLANATION DID NOT FIND FAVOUR IN THE MIND OF THE LD CITA AND HENCE THE ACTION OF THE LD AO WA S UPHELD IN THIS REGARD. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GR OUND:- 7 ITA NOS. 1209 & 1235 OF 2012 GOUTAM DAS, AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 3. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL POSI TION OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ALLEGED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.60,000/- U /S. 40(A)(IA) ON ACCOUNT OF CHARGES WHICH HAD ALREADY PAID IN THE RELEVANT YEAR BY IGNORING THE TEXT OF THE SECTION WHEREIN IT HAD STATED THAT SEC. 40(A)(IA) IS ONLY APPLICABLE ON THE AMOUN T PAYABLE. 5.2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AR AND WE FIND LOT OF F ORCE IN THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD AR THAT THE PAYMENT MADE FOR ACCOUNTING CHARGES DOE S NOT FALL UNDER THE AMBIT OF FEE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES U/S 194J OF THE ACT AS THE S AID PERSON RENDERING ACCOUNTING SERVICES DOES NOT POSSESS ANY PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION FOR RENDERING THE SAID ACCOUNTING SERVICES. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE LD AO TO DELETE THE DISA LLOWANCE MADE IN THIS REGARD U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE GROUND NO. 3 RAISED FOR ASST YEAR 2007-08 IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1209/KOL/2012 FOR ASST YEAR 2006-07 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IN ITA NO. 1235/KOL/2012 FOR ASST YEAR 2007-08 IS ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.03.2017 SD/- SD/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 8 TH MARCH, 2017 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT SHRI GOUTAM DAS, BALLY, DURGAPUR, HOWRA H-711205. 2 RESPONDENT DCIT, CIRCLE-48, KOLKATA. 3. THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT, KOLKATA. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .