ITO, Ward - 45(1), Kolkata, Kolkata V. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

ITA 1271/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8072 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K RAKSHIT
• Assessee Lawyers: N C NAHATA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Non passing of speaking order
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEN CH A, KOLKATA () BEFORE , ,, , , SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER. /AND . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . , '# SHRI C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ $ $ $ / ITA NO . 1271/KOL/2011 %& '(/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 (*+ / APPELLANT ) I.T.O., WARD-45(1), KOLKATA (,-*+/ RESPONDENT ) ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA (PAN:ACTPA 8719 P) *+ . / '/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI D.K.RAKSHIT, JCIT (SR.DR) ,-*+ . / '/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI N.C.NAHATA. 0%1 . !# /DATE OF HEARING : 12.10.2012. 2' . !# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.10.2012. '3 / ORDER . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . , '# PER SHRI C.D.RAO, AM THE ABOVE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST OR DER DATED 22.07.2011 OF THE LD. CIT-(A)-XXX, KOLKATA PERTAINING TO A.YR. 2004-0 5. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF FREIGHT CHARGES OF RS. 41,86,957/-. 2. THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY PASSING A NON SPEAKING ORDER AND NOT BRINGING ON RE CORD ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL WITH RESPECT TO HIS SATISFACTION OF THE INCURRING OF THE FREIGHT CHARGES DISALLOWED 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCE WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF HIS MIND. 4. THAT LD. CIT(A)S ORDER, BEING A NON SPEAKING OR DER ON THE MATERIAL FACT OF INCURRING OF FREIGHT CHARGES DISALLOWED, SUFFERS FROM VIOLATI ON OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2 THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO ADD, ALTER OR A MEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 3. THOUGH THERE ARE FOUR GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REV ENUE, ALL ARE RELATING TO THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY LD. AO ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.41,86,957/-. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT WHILE DOI NG THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AO HAS DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.41,86,957/- BY OBSER VING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. AGARWAL CARR YING CORPORATION CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT OF GOODS. THE MAIN BUSINESS A CTIVITY OF THE PROPRIETORSHIP COMPANY IS TO CONTACT LORRIES /TRUCKS FROM THE LOCA L AREA AND TRANSPORT THE GOODS TO THE DESTINATION POINT. HERE THE TRANSPORT COMPANY ACTS AS A BOOKING AGENT AND COLLECT GOODS FROM THE CONSIGNORS OFFICE / GODOWNS ETC. AND TRAN SPORT THEM TO DIFFERENT CONSIGNEES OFFICE / GODOWNS ETC THE GOODS ARE TRANSPORTED ALL OVER INDIA, MAINLY AT GUWAHATI TINSUKIA, MEGHALAYA ETC OF NORTH EASTERN STATES AD SOME OTHER PLACES OF WEST BENGAL , PUNE IN MAHARASTRA, JODHPUR IN RAJASTHAN ETC. THE ASSESSEE IN THE CAPACITY OF BOOKING AGENT ISSUE S CONSIGNMENT NOTES FOR TRANSPORTING THE GOODS TO CONSIGNEES DESTINATION POINTS THE TRA NSPORTED GOODS ARE MAINLY SHG ZINC, PW ZINC BEARING STEEL WIRE, ASBESTOS, TMT BAR, G.C. SHEET, G.P.COILS. ETC. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE A/R PRODUCED THE CONSIGNMENT NOTES THROUGH WHICH THE GOODS WERE TRANSPORTED DURING THE YEAR. FROM TH E CONSIGNMENT NOTES IT APPEARS THAT THERE ARC CERTAIN DETAILS LIKE (1) NO & DATE OF CON SIGNMENT (2) DESTINATION POINT (3) NAME & ADDRESS OF THE CONSIGNOR AND THE CONSIGNEEE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE CST NOS. (4) NO.OF PACKAGES (5) PARTICULARS OF GOODS TRANSPO RTED (6) WEIGHT (7) RATE (8) INVOICE NO (9) AMOUNT (10)VALUE OF GOODS AND (11) REMARKS S TATING THE DETAILS OF FRIEGHT CHARGE PER KG /C.FEET, SURCHARGE, HAMALI, CHARGES F OR COVERING CARRIERS RISK , THEFT , PILFERAGE, NON-DELIVERY , ST CHARGES AND TOTAL AMOU NT OF FREIGHT CHARGED FOR TRANSPORTATION GOODS. THUS IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE COLUMNS MENTIONED FR OM SL. 8 TO SL. 11 OF THE CONSIGNMENT NOTES HAS TO BE DEFINITELY FILLED UP TO GET A TRANSPARENT PICTURE OF THE BUSINESS DEALINGS UNDERTAKE IN THIS KIND OF BUSINES S ACTIVITY. AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CONSIGNMENT NOTES THERE LIES THE PROVISION FOR CONS IGNORS SIGNATURE. TRUCK NO. AND SIGNATURE OF THE BOOKING AGENTS. ONCE THE GOODS ARE BOOKED FOR TRANSPORTATION, THE B OOKING AGENT ISSUES ONE SUCH COPY TO THE DRIVER OF THE TRUCK TO BE KEPT WITH HIM DURING THE COURSE OF JOURNEY AND THE SAME IS TO BE PRODUCED AT THE CHECKING POINTS AS AN D WHEN REQUIRED. THE REMAINING (CARBON/DUPLICATE) COPIES ARC SENT AS PER NORMS TO THE CONCERNED PARTIES LIKE THE CONSIGNOR, THE CONSIGNEE, THE BOOKING AGENT ETC DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE A/R PRODUCED THE C ONSIGNMENT NOTES, ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE YEAR WHICH WERE EXAMINED. IN M OST OF THE CASES THE CONSIGNMENT NOTES HAVE BEEN FILLED UP WITH ALL THE DETAILS AS P ER SL.NO 1 TO 11 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE . HOWEVER, SOME OF THE CONSIGNMENT NOTES SEEM TO BE B OGUS AS THE DETAILS REQUIRED TO BE FILLED AS PER S1.NO. 8 TO 11 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, HA D BEEN LEFT BLANK. FURTHER THERE WAS NO MENTION OF FREIGHT CHARGES / KG. SURCHARGE , HAMALI , TOTAL FREIGHT CHARGES TO BE PAYABLE 3 ETC. THERE IS ALSO NO SIGNATURE OF THE CONSIGNOR AT THE STIPULATED PLACE . HENCE , THE SAME CONSIGNMENTS NOTES CANNOT BE SAID TO BE GENUINE . 4.1. THE DETAILS OF SUCH CONSIGNMENT NOTES ARE MENT IONED IN PAGE NOS. 2,3 AND 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE A/R WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE, DULY RECORDED IN THE ORDER SHEET ON 21.12.2006, REGARDING THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CONSIGNMENT NOTES WHICH SEEM TO BE BOGUS AND NOT KEEPING IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CONSIG NMENT NOTES NORMALLY REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED IN THIS KIND OF BUSINESS . THE A/R WA S ALSO ASKED TO EXPLAIN, SINCE THERE WAS NO MENTION OF FREIGHT CHARGES PAYABLE IN THE SA ID CONSIGNMENT NOTES THEN HOW THE SAME WAS PAID TO THE TRUCK OWNER : TRANSPORT EXPENS ES AND ON WHAT BASIS? THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 26.12.2006 REPLIED I NTER ALIA THAT FOR ALL THEA BVOE STATED CONSIGNMENT NOTES SEPARATE BILLS WERE RAISED AND TH ESE WERE PRODUCED BEFORE YOU FOR VERIFICATION. IT IS THE NORMAL PRACTICE THAT WHERE A BILL IS TO BE MADE SEPARATELY, NORMALLY FREIGHT CHARGES ARE NOT MENTIONED IN THE C ONSIGNMENT NOTES ETC. IT IS THE GENERAL PRACTICE THAT THE TRUCKS/LORRIES, TAKE THE GOODS AND LEAVE FOR DESTINATION POINT AFTER RECEIVING FULL PAYMENT FOR FREIGHT CHAR GES. THE CREDIT SYSTEM OF PAYMENTS ARE NOT ACCEPTED ON THE TRANSPORT LINES. THC TRUCKS MENTIONED ABOVE ARC MOSTLY HAVING REGIST RATION NOS. FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL. IN THAT CASE, THE TRRUCK DRIVER ALT ER TRANSPORTING GOODS TO ASSAM, MEGHALAYA, JODHPUR ETC . AS THE CASE MAY BE WILL NO T COME HACK TO KOLKATA FOR RECEIVING THE FREIGHT CHARGES FROM THE ASSESSEE. WHICH ALSO D EFIES LOGIC. AND THE FURTHER POINT OF QUERY WAS THAT ON REVERSE PAGES OF EVERY CONSIGNMEN T NOTES THE PAYMENTS ARE NOTED AND SAID PAYMENTS WERE MADE WELL ALTER THE DATES WHICH IS SHOWN IN THE CONSIGNMENT NOTES AND THAT TOO WERE PAID ON DIFFERENT DATES AND ALSO ALL SUCH PAYMENT WERE BELOW RS.20,000. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, I AM NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSE SSEE AND ALL SUCH CONSIGNMENT NOTES ARE TREATED AS BOGUS AND IT IS APPARENT THAT THESE CONSIGNMENT NOTES WERE ONLY TO INFLATE THE EXPENSES AND BRING DOWN THE PROFIT. AS SUCH THE EXPENSES INCURRED AS FREIGHT CHARGES THROUGH ALL SUCH CONSIGNMENT NOTES AMOUNTING TO RS. 41,86,957/-. 4.2. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER TAKING INTO CON SIDERATION OF THE VARIOUS SUBMISSION AND BASED ON THE TWO REMAND REPORTS DATE D 22.04.2008 AND 13.05.2008 AND THE RESPONSE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE OBSERVATION S OF AOS REMAND REPORT HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 5 THE MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. THE APPELLANT SHRI ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL IS HAVING INCOME FROM BUSINESS & OTHER SOURCES AND HE IS THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. AGARWAL CARRYING CORPORATION CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF TR ANSPORT OF GOODS. THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AS UNDE R I) ON RECEIVING THE REQUIREMENT OF TRUCK FROM THE CONSIGNOR THE ASSESSEE FIRM ARRANGES THE TRUCK FROM THE LOCAL MARKET. II) THE TRUCK IS SENT FOR LOADING TO THE CONSIG NORS PLACE. III) THE TRUCK IS LOADED AT CONSIGNORS PLACE. THE CONSIGNOR HANDS OVER THE INVOICE, EXCISE GATE PASS (IF APPLICABLE) AND THE WAY BILL/R OAD PERMIT TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THEN 4 THE ASSESSEE FIRM ON RECEIVING THESE DOCUMENT PREPA RES 4 (FOUR) COPIES OF THE CONSIGNMENT NOTE DULY MENTIONING THE CONSIGNOR NAME , CONSIGNEE NAME, DESCRIPTION AND QUANTITY OF MATERIAL, INVOICE NO OF THE CONSIGN OR, WAY BILL/ ROAD PERMIT NUMBER. IV) ONE COPY OF THE CONSIGNMENT NOTE IS HANDED OVE R TO THE CONSIGNOR AND ANOTHER COPY IS GIVEN TO THE DRIVER, TO BE USED BY HIM FOR TRANS PORTATION OF MATERIAL TO DESTINATION. ANOTHER COPY OF THE CONSIGNMENT NOTE IS SENT TO THE CONSIGNEE DIRECTLY. THE FOURTH COPY IS RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM FOR RECORD PURPOSE . V) THE TRUCK DRIVERS COPY IS DULY STAMPED IN THE TR ANSIT BY THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY AT THE BORDER OR ENTRY POINT OF THE STATES IN ROUTE TO THE DESTINATION. THE DRIVER ALSO GETS THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE MATERIAL RECEIVED FROM THE CONSI GNEE ON HIS COPY OF THE CONSIGNMENT NOTE. VI) THE DRIVER HANDS OVER HIS COPY OF THE CONSIGNME NT NOTE TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND THEN THE FREIGHT PAYMENT IS MADE TO HIM. VII) THE ASSESSEE FIRM THEN COLLECTS PAYMENT FROM T HE CONSIGNOR ON THE BASIS OF THIS COPY OF THE CONSIGNMENT NOTE EITHER ON THE PRODUCTI ON OF CONSIGNMENT NOTE OR BY RAISING A BILL ALONG WITH THE CONSIGNMENT NOTE. IN RESPECT OF THE FREIGHT CHARGES DISALLOWED BY THE A.O THE CONSIGNORS ARE MAINLY THE FOLLOWING : I) ASSAM ROOFING LIMITED, GUWAHATI II) CLASSIC STEELS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA III) MANAKSIA LTD., KOLKATA ALL THREE OF THESE PARTIES HAVE RESPONDED TO THE NO TICES ISSUED BY THE A.O IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND CONFIRMED THE FREIGHT CHARGES PAID TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THE DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS ALSO JUSTIFIED NOT POSSESSING THE ORIGINAL CONSIGNMENT N OTES VIDE SUBMISSIONS DATED 23.7.2008. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD COLLEC TED THESE DOCUMENTS FROM THE CONSIGNOR/CONSIGNEE ONLY TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS O F TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LORRY CHALLAN WITH C.T.O. SE AL IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT AS THE COPY IS RETAINED BY THE CONSIGNEE AND THE OT HER COPY IS ATTACHED ALONG WITH BILL AS EVIDENCE OF MATERIAL BEING TRANSPORTED AND THE O NLY COPY LEFT AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT IS THE OFFICE COPY WHICH DOES NOT HAVE TH E C.T.O. SEAL. A SIMILAR EXPLANATION HAS BEEN GIVEN IN RESPECT OF DECLARATION WITH C.T.O . SEAL AND T.O. NO. AS WELL AS OF THE CONSIGNMENT NOTE WITH C.T.O. SEAL, DO. AND BILL. IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT THOSE COPIES WITH CTO SEAL ARE NORMALLY ATTACHED WITH THE BILL AS PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF DELIVERY OF MATERIAL AGAINST WHICH PAYMENT IS BEING CLAIMED. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT TO TRUCK DRIVE R THE METHOD OF PAYMENT IS THE SAME EVEN IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DIS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT THE PAYMENT IS COLLECTED BY THE TRUCK DRIV ER OR THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE APPELLANT FIRM IN MANNER AND TIME SUITABLE TO THEM AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN ON THIS BASIS. 6. THE APPELLANT HAS IN THE PROCESS OF APPEAL PROC EEDINGS AND IN ITS SUBMISSIONS ON THE REMAND REPORT HAS JUSTIFIED THE FREIGHT PAYMENTS AN D THE GENUINENESS OF THE CONSIGNMENT NOTES. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE I NCOME AGAINST WHICH THE FREIGHT PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE, HAS BEEN REFLECTED AGAINS T SUCH CONSIGNMENT NOTES ISSUED TO THE THREE MAJOR CONSIGNORS, M/S. ASSAM ROOFING LTD. , CLASSIC STEEL LTD. AND MANAKSIA LTD. KOLKATA. IT HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED BY THE A.O . THAT EVIDENCE PROVIDED COULD NOT BE FULLY VERIFIED FROM THE PARTIES, THIS PART - COM PLIANCE OF INFORMATION BY THIRD PARTIES CANNOT BE HELD ADVERSELY AGAINST THE APPELLANT. THE FREIGHT CHARGES HAVE BEEN PAID BY AND CONFIRMED BY THESE THREE PARTIES AGAINST THE CO NSIGNMENT NOTES IN QUESTION. IT IS, THEREFORE, APPARENT THAT EVEN IF CERTAIN DISCREPANC IES WERE NOTICED IN THE 5 CONSIGNMENT NOTES, THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERE D AS SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR DISALLOWANCE OF FREIGHT CHARGES OR PAYMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT, ESPECIALLY WHEN EXPLANATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN RESPECT OF SUCH DI SCREPANCIES. IT IS SEEN THAT ADMITTEDLY THESE COLUMNS REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE BLANK, THE REASONS FOR THE SAME HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. THE EXPLANATI ON GIVEN VIDE LETTER DATED 23.7.2008 AND SUBSEQUENT EVIDENCES FILED IN RESPECT OF THESE CONSIGNMENT NOTES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE APPELLANTS EXPLANATION IS THEREFOR E JUSTIFIABLE IN RESPECT OF THE DISCREPANCIES NOTED BY THE A.O. WHICH HAVE BEEN EXP LAINED BY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO DISPEL THE SUSPICION THAT THESE NOTES WERE BOGUS OR CREATED JUST TO INFLATE SUCH EXPENSES. CONSIDERING ALL THE ABOVE, THE DISALLOWAN CE OF RS = 41,86,957/- IN RESPECT OF FREIGHT CHARGES IS DELETED. (RELIEF RS RS.41,86,957 /-). 4.3. AGGRIEVED BY THIS NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE HAS REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY AO IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER WHICH ARE INCORPORATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. THE AO IS JUSTIFIED TO CONSIDER THE CONSIGNMENT NOTES RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGES 2 TO 4 AS BOGUS SINCE THE DETAILS REQUIRED TO BE FILLED AS PER SL.NOS. 8 TO 11 HAD BEEN LEFT BLANK I.E. FREIGHT CHARGES, HAMALI, AND WEIGHTAGE OF GOODS TRANSPORTED . THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF A O. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE REPLY GIVEN TO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE INCORP ORATED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT PARA NO.4 AND CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUST IFIED IN DELETING THE SAME. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF LD . CIT(A). 7. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREF UL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE STATEMENT OF ACCO UNTS FOR A.YRS. 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 AND THE OBSERVATIONS M ADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE AO IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACT THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) WERE ISSUED TO ALL THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE CONS IGNMENT TRANSACTIONS REFERRED BY THE AO. NO ADVERSE INFERENCE HAS BEEN DRAWN ON THE BASI S OF THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM THESE COMPANIES. MOREOVER, THE CONSIGNMENT NOTES HA S ALSO BEEN AUTHENTICATED BY THE 6 REGULATORY AUTHORITIES ESTABLISHING THE BONA FIDE O F THE CONSIGNMENT NOTE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE INFORMED THE AO THAT IN THIS C ASE THE COLUMNS REFERRED BY AO HAD BEEN LEFT BLANK ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CONS IGNMENT AS SEPARATE BILL WERE TO BE RAISED TO THE CONSIGNOR. THESE INVOICES WERE CLAIME D TO HAVE BEEN DULY PRODUCED BEFORE AO AND WERE VERIFIED. MOREOVER THE PARTIES T O WHOM THE INVOICES WERE RAISED ARE MENTIONED ABOVE AND THE TRANSACTIONS TO THESE P ARTIES WERE DULY VERIFIED BY ISSUING NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF ACT AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.YR.2005-06 NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY AO. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) TO BE INTERFER ED WITH. WE CONFIRM THE SAME AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 19.10.2012. SD/- SD/- , , , , MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . , , , , '# '# '# '# , C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( (( (!# !# !# !#) )) ) DATE: 19.10.2012. R.G.(P.S.) 7 '3 . ,4 5'4'6- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL, 161/1, M.G.ROAD, KOLKATA-70000 7. 2 I.T.O., WARD-45(1), KOLKATA. 3. THE C.I.T. 4. CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA. 5. THE CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA -4 ,/ TRUE COPY, '3%0/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES 8