ITO,Ward-40(1), Kolkata, Kolkata V. Shri Gourav Banka, Kolkata

ITA 1243/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78383 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TIBREWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 40A(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH C , KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HONBLE S RI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM ] ITA NO.1243/KOL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) I.T.O., WARD-40(1) . -VS- SHRI GOURAV BANKA KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN:AGLPB 9547 L) ITA NO.1215/KOL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) SHRI GOURAV BANKA -VS- I.T.O., WARD-40(1), KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN:AGLPB 9547 L) FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI GAYASUDDIN ANSARI, JCIT, SR.DR FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI A.K.TIBREWAL, FCA DATE OF HEARING : 02.07.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08. 07.2014. ORDER PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM THESE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE AS SESSEE EMANATE OUT OF ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-XII, KOLKATA DATED 21.05.2012 A ND PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO.1243/KOL/2012 (REVENUES APPEAL): 2. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IN THIS APPEAL READS AS UN DER :- 1. LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACT I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.29,08,464/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE MADE BY THE A SSESSEE BY ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. 2. LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,56,105/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. 3. LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.27,89,000/-, 10% OF TOTAL PURCHASE VALUE OF FOUR PROPERTIES. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, DELETE, ALTER OR MODIFY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ANY DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. ITA.NO.1243/KOL/2012 & 1215/KOL/2012 SHRI GOURAV BANKA A.YR.2009-10 2 3. APROPOS GROUND NO.1 : THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF VENDING OF TURMERIC IN THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AS GENERAL MERCHANT AND COMMISSION AGENT. WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE AO OBS ERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT IN CASH IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- FOR PURCHA SE OF TURMERIC FROM PRIVATE PARTIES. THE AO NOTED THAT THIS FACT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN TH E TAX AUDIT REPORT. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE STAND THAT THE CAS H PAYMENT WAS MADE TO FARMERS DIRECTLY AND HENCE CLAIMED EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVI SION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE I.T.ACT. THE ASSESEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE FARMERS AND A STATEMENT OF CASH PAYMENT TO THEM DATEWISE WITH C ORROBORATED EVIDENCE OF CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DETAILS :- 1) THE IDENTITY OF THE FARMERS FROM WHOM HE PROCURE D TURMERIC; 2) WHETHER THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE ON THE SAME DAY O R 6-7 DAYS AFTER TRANSACTIONS 3) WHETHER ANY CERTIFICATE FROM PARTIES INSISTING F OR CASH PAYMENT; 4) WHETHER THE FARMERS MAINTAINED BANK ACCOUNTS OR NOT 5) CASH FLOW STATEMENT; IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILED INFORMATION HE HELD THAT HE DISALLOWED 10% ON NET CASH PURCHASE OF RS.2,90,84,644/- DETERMINING THE UNACCO UNTED MONEY INVOLVED IN CASH PURCHASE. HENCE HE ADDED BACK RS.29,08,464/-. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T AO HAS NOT GIVEN A SINGLE INSTANCE WHERE THE PAYMENT ABOVE RS.20,000/- WAS MA DE IN CASH TO ANY PARTY. THAT EVEN THE AUDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT POINTED OU T ANY SUCH FINDING. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED A CERTIFICATE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED THAT THE PURCHASES WERE MADE BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING YARD FROM DIFFERENT FARMERS. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE SHOWING THE PAYMENT MADE TO AGRICULTURAL MARKETING COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASING TURMERIC FROM FARMERS. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE AO HAD DISALLOWED 10% OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES MADE ON E STIMATE BASIS WITHOUT BRINGING ITA.NO.1243/KOL/2012 & 1215/KOL/2012 SHRI GOURAV BANKA A.YR.2009-10 3 ANY EVIDENCE OR SUPPORTING INCIDENCE FOR HIS FINDIN GS ON RECORD.. ACCORDINGLY THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY INSTANCE OF PAYMENT A BOVE RS.20,000/- IN CASH. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOTED THAT THERE ARE MANY SUCH INSTANCES. FURTHERMORE THE AO HAS ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE PURCHASES. THE LD CIT(A), ON THE OTHER HAND, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED CERTIFICATE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN C ERTIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES FROM DIFFERENT FARMERS. IN THIS RESP ECT THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. WE FIND THAT THIS APPEARS CORRECT THAT THE ASSESEE HAS PRODUCED EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE AO. IN THIS REGARD WE F URTHER NOTE THAT CERTIFICATE FROM AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE ALONE CANNOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO PRODUCE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS SUPPORTI NG THE EVIDENCE FOR JUSTIFYING THE PURCHASES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS PROPER TO REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE AFRESH AND TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. 6. APROPOS GROUND NO.2 : ON THIS ISSUE THE AO NOTED THAT SUNDRY CREDITORS ON FARMERS ACCOUNT WAS SHOWN AT RS.72,80,529/-. THE AS SESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE LIST OF THE FARMERS WITH THEIR NAMES AND ADDRESS FO R VERIFICATION OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE ASSESEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY AUTHENTIC EVIDENCE SUCH AS RATION CARD, VOTER CARD ETC. HENCE, THE AO DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS SINCE THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTY WAS NOT E STABLISHED AND BEING DISSATISFIED WITH ASSESSEES VERBAL EXPLANATION, HE ADDED BACK 20% OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS.14,56,105/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. ITA.NO.1243/KOL/2012 & 1215/KOL/2012 SHRI GOURAV BANKA A.YR.2009-10 4 7. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT AO HAS ACCEPTED THE PURCHASE FROM THE FARMERS. THAT TH E AO HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE PAYMENTS TO THE FARMERS. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT WITHOUT REJECTING THE PURCHASES AND PAYMENTS THEREOF SUNDRY CREDITORS RELATED TO SUCH PURCHASES AND PAYMENT CANNOT BE DOUBTED AND DISALLO WED. HENCE HE DELETED THE ADDITION. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT SUNDRY CREDITORS ON FARMERS ACCOU NT WAS AT RS.72,80,529/-. THE AO WANTED TO MAKE VERIFICATION OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS REGARDING THE VERACITY. THE ASSESEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE NECESSARY DETAILS IN THIS REGARD. IN THIS REGARD THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED N ECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE AO. WE FIND THAT THE SAID DETAIL IS PRODUCED AT PAGE 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK BEFORE US. THE SAID LIST CONTAINS NAMES OF THE FARMERS WITHOUT THE IR COMPLETE ADDRESS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, PROPER VE RIFICATION OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS IS NOT POSSIBLE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS THAT WHEN THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED THERE IS NO NEED TO VE RIFY THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. WE FIND THAT EVEN WHEN PURCHASES VOUCHERS ARE ACCEPTED VERI FICATION OF SUNDRY CREDITORS CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH. NEVERTHELESS WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE PAYMENTS TO THE FARMERS AS GENUINE AS HE HAS MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF THE PURCHASES. WE NOTE THAT HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE C ASE OF KAPOORCHAND SHRIMAL VS CIT 131 ITR 451 HAS HELD THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO CORRECT THE LACUNAE IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND IF IT IS REQUIRED TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO THEM. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION IN THIS CASE THIS I SSUE NEEDS TO BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 9. APROPOS GROUND NO.3 : ON THIS ISSUE IT IS SEEN T HAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED FOLLOWING PROPERTY DURING THE YEAR VALUED TOTALING AT RS.2,78,90,000/- AS FOLLOWS : ITA.NO.1243/KOL/2012 & 1215/KOL/2012 SHRI GOURAV BANKA A.YR.2009-10 5 1. BHOPAL PROPERTY RS.45,50,000/- 2. GUNTUR PROPERTY RS.97,90,000/- (RESIDENCE) 3. GUNTUR PROPERTY RS.86,00,000/- (LAND) 4. BOMMIDALA SRI RAM AGRO TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED RS.4 9,50,000/-. AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WAS VERIFI ED AND FOUND ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE IN CHEQUE. THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ENQUIRY IT WAS REVEALED THAT UNACCOUNTED MONEY WAS USED IN THE PURCHASE OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY FROM HIS UNDISCLOSED SOURCE OF INCOME. ALL THE REGISTERED D EED SUBMITTED WERE IN TAMIL LANGUAGE AND HENCE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO SUBMIT THE FULL ADDRESS OF SELLER FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION WHETHER THE PAYMENTS WERE MA DE IN CHEQUE OR CASH. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SAME. CONSIDERING TH E ABOVE AND AFTER VERIFICATION OF BANK STATEMENT SUBMITTED AO OBSERVED THAT IT WAS ES TABLISHED THAT CASH TRANSACTION WAS INVOLVED FROM ASSESSES UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. HUGE CASH DEPOSIT WERE FOUND IN ASSESSES DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNT AND WHEN ASKED ABOU T THE SOURCE OF THE SAID CASH DEPOSIT, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE REASONABLE ANS WER. HENCE, 10% OF TOTAL PURCHASE VALUE OF RS.2,78,90,000/- WAS TAKEN AS UNDISCLOSED SOURCE OF MONEY USED FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. ACCORDINGLY THE AO ADDED BACK RS.27,89 ,000/- WITH ASSESSES INCOME ON THIS GROUND. 10. ON THIS ISSUE THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE SUBMI SSION THAT SINCE ALL THE FOUR PROPERTIES WERE PURCHASED AND REGISTERED IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS THEREFORE NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF SUCH PROPERTIES CAN BE MADE IN A.YEAR 2009-10. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT IT IS SIMPLY THE GUESS WORK O F THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE INTRODUCED CASH IN PURCHASING PROPERTIES BECAU SE NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO. HENCE THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED TH E ADDITION. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT CONCERNED PROPERTIE S WERE NOT PURCHASED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. HENCE THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION CANNOT BE ITA.NO.1243/KOL/2012 & 1215/KOL/2012 SHRI GOURAV BANKA A.YR.2009-10 6 MADE FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. FURTHERMORE HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY COGENT BASIS ON WHICH THE ADDITION IS BEING MADE. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ONLY ON ESTIMATION WHICH CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. HENCE WE UPHOLD THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION IN THIS REGARD. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.1215/KOL/2012 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) 13. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THIS APPEAL READ AS U NDER :- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,51,546/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LOW PERCENTAGE OF BROKERAGE FROM TRANSACTIONS ON MCX AN D NCDEX. 2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 ABOVE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL CONSIDER ING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,51,548 WHEREAS THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO THE TUNE OF RS.24,50,383 AND THE APPELLANT ALSO CLAIMED RELIEF OF RS.24,50,383. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CLAIMS RELIEF OF RS.24,50383 ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LOW BROKERA GE EARNED FROM BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AT MCX AND NCDEX. 14. APROPOS GROUND NO.1 : ON THIS ISSUE THE AO NOTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DOING COMMODITY BROKING BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF GAURAV CO MMODITIES THROUGH MSC & NCDEX AND SHOWN NET PROFIT OF RS.4,521/- ON A TOTAL TURNOVER OF 678 CRORES OF RUPEES DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE BRO KERAGE SHOWN DURING THE YEAR WAS RS.16,22,641/-. AO OBSERVED THAT THE BROKERAGE RECE IVED FROM MCX & NCDEX HAS NO EVIDENCE. HE OPINED THAT BROKERAGE FROM MCX & NC DEX SEEMS TO BE VERY LOW SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE AO DETERM INED @0.05% BROKERAGE ON TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.678,83,75,672/- ON MCS WHICH COMES TO RS.33,94,187/-. HENCE, THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.17,71,546/- (RS.33,94,187 RS .16,22,641) WAS ADDED BACK WITH ASSESSES INCOME. SIMILARLY AO HELD THAT SINCE TOTAL TURNOVER OF NCDEX WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO DETERMINED THE BROKERAGE AT RS.6,78,837/-. 15. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED SOME PAPERS OF SOME OTHER BROKERS SHOWING VERY LOW PERCENTAGE OF COMMISSION EARNED. DESPITE THIS HE HELD THAT HE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN VERY LOW ITA.NO.1243/KOL/2012 & 1215/KOL/2012 SHRI GOURAV BANKA A.YR.2009-10 7 PERCENTAGE FROM MCS AND NCDEX. HE UPHELD THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO AT RS.17,71,546/-. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL B EFORE US. 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN MADE SOLELY ON THE G ROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED VERY LOW COMMISSION EARNED FROM THE COMMODITY EXCHA NGE. WE NOTE THAT THIS ALONE CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR ESTIMATING THE ADDITION. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT IN THE EARLIER PERIOD THERE WAS HIGHER BROKERAGE INCOME SHOWN. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE THAT THERE ARE COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE WHEREBY OTHER ASSESSES ARE SHO WING HIGH COMMISSION EARNED. AS AGAINST THIS SOME EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT OTHER BROKERS ARE ALSO EARNING SIMILAR LOW BROKERAGE. IN THESE CI RCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THERE IS NO COGENT BASIS ON WHICH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. APROPOS GROUND NO.2 : THIS ISSUE RELATES TO GRO UND NO.1 AS ABOVE. THE ASSESSEE HAS URGED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DEC IDING THE APPEAL BY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,51,548/- WHEREAS THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO TO THE TUNE OF RS.24,50,383/- AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED RELIEF OF RS.24,50,383/-. 18. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WE NOTE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY HELD WHILE DEALING WITH THE ABOVE GROUND NO.1. THAT THE ADDITION HAS B EEN MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT ANY COGENT BASIS. THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED T HE AOS ACTION WITH REFERENCE TO THE BROKERAGE EARNED THROUGH MCX WE NOTE THAT THE A DDITION MADE ON NCDEX IS ALSO ON THE SAME BASIS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD.CI T(A) HAS NOT REFERRED THE SAME IN THE APPELLATE ORDER WHEREAS HE HAS CONFIRMED THE AO S ACTION. WE FIND THAT ADJUDICATION IN THIS CASE IS SAME AS ABOVE BY US IN GROUND NO.1 ABOVE. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THIS ADDITION MADE. IT IS NEITHER THE CAS E THAT THERE ARE INSTANCES THAT ASSESSEE HAS EARNED HIGHER INCOME IN THE OTHER YEARS OR THAT COMPARATIVE EVIDENCES ARE FOUND ITA.NO.1243/KOL/2012 & 1215/KOL/2012 SHRI GOURAV BANKA A.YR.2009-10 8 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE I S EARNING VERY LOW INCOME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED.. WE HOLD THAT WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 19. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED... ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 8.7.2014. SD/- SD/- [ MAHAVIR SINGH ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE:8.7.2014. R.G.(.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI GOURAV BANKA, 194A, MANICKTALA MAIN ROAD, KOLK ATA-700054. 2 I.T.O., WARD-40(1), KOLKATA 3 . CIT(A)-XII, KOLKATA 4. CIT - KOLKATA. 5. CIT-DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES