Amiya Kumar Samanta, Kolkata V. ITO, WD-34(2), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 1311/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2502 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RADHEY SHYAM
• Assessee Lawyers: U DASGUPTA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure; TDS
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM ./ITA NO.1311/KOL/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12) AMIYA KUMAR SAMANTA 35, ARMENIAN STREET, KOLKATA-700001 VS. ITO, WARD-34(2), KOLKATA AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-700107. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO.: ALXPS 9225 M (ASSESSEE) .. (REVENUE) ASSESSEE BY :SHRI U. DASGUPTA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RADHEYSHYAM, CIT DR / DATE OF HEARING : 31/12/2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/03/2019 / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAIN ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, KOLKATA (IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)], WHICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 30.0 3.2014. 2. THE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDE R: AMIYA KUMAR SAMANTA ITA NO.1311/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 2 22 2 1. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A) IS ARBITRARY AND THE CIT(A) WAS NOT LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAIN ING THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,383/- BEING AMOUN T RECEIVED FROM THE PRINCIPAL SELLER (HUL) ON A/C OF SALES PROMOTION, O N THE BASIS OF FORM 26AS, WHEN THE ENTIRE AMOUNT HAS DULY FORMED A PART OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSED TO RETAILERS (AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY ELEME NT OF PROFIT), THE ADDITION MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS. 25,144/- U/S 40A(3), BEING CASH PAYMENT MADE FOR PURCHASE OF MOTOR CAR (BEING CAPITAL ASSET), AN D NOT CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE, THE ADDITION WRONGLY MADE MAY PLEASE B E DELETED. 4. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 34,00,000/- ON A/C O F ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM RETAILERS (CUSTOMERS) AGAINST PROPOSED SALES OF GOO DS EFFECTED IN IMMEDIATELY SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR, AND MORE SO, THE DISPUTED SUM HAS FORMED A PART OF GROSS SALE PROCEEDS IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THE ADDITION MADE ON SUSPICION MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 5. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.62,21,210/- UNDER THE HEAD UNDISCLOSED PROFITS, WHEN THE SAME ARE CREDIT NOTES ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL (HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD.) AS REIMBURSEMENT OF PAYMENTS DISBURS ED TO VARIOUS RETAILERS, BY THE APPELLANT, AS PER COMPANY INSTRUCTIONS, AND THE ADDITION MADE ON SUSPICION AND PRESUMPTION, MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 6. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,71,996/- ON ACCOUN T OF CASH RECEIPTS WHEN THE SAID CASH HAS BEEN REALIZED FROM CUSTOMERS AGAINST SALES OF GOODS AND THE ADDITIONS MADE ON PRESUMPTION AND SUS PICION MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS GENERAL IN NATURE THEREFORE DOES NOT REQUIRE ADJUDICATION. 4. GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO A DDITION OF RS.29,383/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN FORM NO. 26AS VIS--VIS AM OUNT RECEIVABLE FROM THE PRINCIPAL SELLER (HUL), ON ACCOUNT OF SALES PROMOTI ON. AMIYA KUMAR SAMANTA ITA NO.1311/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 3 33 3 5. THE BRIEF FACT QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT F ROM26AS STATEMENT, THE AO NOTED THAT DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HA D RECEIVED CONTRACTUAL PAYMENT OF RS.4,13,808/- FROM HINDUSTHAN UNILEVER LTD. (HUL ) WHICH WAS SUBJECTED TO TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE FOR RS.4,147/-. HOWEVER, IN THE RETURN, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED CREDIT FOR TDS AT RS. 3,893/-. DURING THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW CONTRACTUAL RECEIPT FROM HUL HAD BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE ACCOUNT AND WHY TDS CREDIT WAS CLAIMED AT RS .3,893/- INSTEAD OF RS. 4,147/-. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE AO THAT RECEIPT WAS ACCOUNTED FOR RS.4,15,603/- CREDITED TO PROFIT &LOSS ACCOUNT UNDE R THE HEAD MISC. RECEIPT (SALES PROMOTION). IN THE PROFIT &LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE ALSO DEBITED RS. 4,15,603/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALES PROMOTION. ON VERIFI CATION OF SALES PROMOTION ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IT WAS OBSERVED THAT RECEIPT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3,84,425/-FROM HUL HAD BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR AND SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PAID AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT I.E. RS. 31,178/- (RS. 4,15,603 - RS . 3,84,425) WAS PAID IN CASH FOR SALES PROMOTION BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. ASSESSEE S UBMITTED A COPY OF THE SALES PROMOTION ACCOUNT BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, AO NOTE D THAT RECEIPT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.29,383/- (RS. 4,13,808 - RS. 3,84,425) FROM H UL WAS NOT TAKEN IN THE ACCOUNT AND CREDIT FOR TDS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 254 /- ALSO REMAINED UNCLAIMED. ACCORDINGLY, RS. 29,383/- WAS ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 6. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT THE AO HAS CLEARLY BROUGHT THAT RECEIP TS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 29,383/- (FOR WHICH A TDS OF RS. 254/- WAS ALSO AVAILABLE) H AVE NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR. THE REASONS OFFERED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , ARE VERY GENERAL AND NON- SPECIFIC IN NATURE, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY AO IS JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE BENCH, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT INSTEAD OF DISALLOWING THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS. 29,383 /- ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT SHOULD BE DISALLOWED. THAT IS, THE SAID AMOUNT OF R S. 29,383/- BELONGS TO EXPENSES AND ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT SHOULD BE DISALLOWED. T HE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS AMIYA KUMAR SAMANTA ITA NO.1311/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 4 44 4 FAIRLY AGREED WITH THE PROPOSITION CANVASSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISAL LOW ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT OUT OF RS. 29,383/- I.E. THE NET PROFIT RATE OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT TO COMPU TE THE TAX PAYABLE BY ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DIS ALLOW THE PROFIT ELEMENT BY APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATIO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE PARTLY. 8. GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO AD DITION OF RS. 25,144/- U/S 40A(3) BEING CASH PAYMENT MADE FOR PURCHASE OF MOTO R CAR. 9. AT THE OUTSET ITSELF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 25,144/ PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS RELATED TO R EGISTRATION FEE DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO REGISTER OF THE VEHICLE WITH V EHICLE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, IT IS NEITHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE NOR EXPENSES BUT IT IS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE DEBITED TO VEHICLE-FIXED ASSETS ACCOUNT . MOREOVER, THE COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN ROUTED THROUGH THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE. WE NOTE THAT THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS FAIRLY AGREED WITH THE BENCH THAT THE SUM OF RS.25,144/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO REGISTER THE VEHICLE WITH APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, IS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. MOREOVER, THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY OF THE VEHICLES IN CASH DOES NOT ATTRACT THE DISALLOWA NCE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.25,144/- MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 10. GROUND NO. 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.34,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE RECEIPT FROM RETAIL CUSTOMERS AG AINST PROPOSED SALES OF GOODS EFFECTED IN IMMEDIATELY SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR. AMIYA KUMAR SAMANTA ITA NO.1311/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 5 55 5 11. AT THE OUTSET ITSELF, LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED BEFO RE US THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ADVANCE PAYMENT AGAINST SUPPLY FROM 298 PARTIES FRO M HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED (HUL). HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOTED THAT THE N ARRATION FOR EACH RECEIPT OF ADVANCE WAS MERELY BEING CASH RECEIVED FROM HUL PAR TY AS ADVANCE' OR 'BEING CASH RECEIVED AGAINST SALE BILL'. THE NAME OF THE P ARTY HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE LD COUNSEL AGAIN SUBMITTED BEFORE US T HAT THAT FOR SOME OF THE PRODUCT OF M/S HUL THERE ALWAYS WAS A HUGE DEMAND I N THE MARKET, AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WOULD TAKE ADVANCE PAYMENT FROM INTERE STED CUSTOMERS. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT NEITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT STAGE NOR DURING THE APPELLATE STAGE , THE COMPLETE LIST OF VERIFIABLE ADDRESS OR PAN OF THE PARTIES WERE PRESENTED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVING ADVANCES FROM THESE PARTIES, AND PURPORTEDLY HAVING CONTINUOUS TRANSACTION WITH THEM AT LEAST HE OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN VERIFIABLE ADD RESS WITH POSTAL PIN CODES. ADMITTEDLY IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER ADDRESSES IT IS DIFFICULT FOR THE AO TO CARRY OUT FURTHER VERIFICATION. PER CONTRA, THE LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT ASSESSEE NOW FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE RETAILERS IN RESPECT OF CASH RECEIPT FROM HUL PARTY AS ADVANCE. WE NOTE THAT THESE CONFIRMATIONS WERE NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THESE ARE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE US . THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN MIND AND FAIR PLAY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CONFIRMATIONS OF PARTIES. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE- ADJUDICATE THIS ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIO N MADE (SUPRA ). THEREFORE, STATISTICAL PURPOSES THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED TO BE ALLOWED. 12. GROUND NO. 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.62,21,210/- UNDER THE HEAD UNDISCLOSED PROFIT. AMIYA KUMAR SAMANTA ITA NO.1311/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 6 66 6 13. AT THE OUTSET ITSELF THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE REQUESTED THE BENCH TO REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR FRESH EXAMINATION. THE COUNSEL SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD , ON THE INSTRUCTION OF HUL ALLOW VARIOUS KINDS OF CREDITS, DISCOUNT AND INCENT IVE TO THE RETAILERS, AND SUBSEQUENTLY PLACED SUCH CLAIMS BEFORE HUL IN CUSTO MER CLAIM SUMMERY FORM. PER CONTRA, LD DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT ONLY CERTAIN ACCOUNTS ARE DEBITED (IN CASH) WHEN PAYMENTS ARE BEING MADE TO CUSTOMERS. HOWEVER, NONE OF THE CUSTOMER'S NAME ARE FOUND IN THE NARRATIONS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE AO REQUIRE THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT TH E NAME OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM CASH PAYMENT ARE BEING MADE PURPORTEDLY FOR DISPLAY OF GOODS. HOWEVER, SUCH A LIST WAS NEITHER PRODUCED DURING THE ASSESSMENT STA GE NOR DURING THE APPELLATE STAGE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUPPLY A C OMPREHENSIVE AND VERIFIABLE LIST DESPITE HAVING BEEN GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BY AO, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT THERE IS MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AS HE POINTED OUT THAT TO RECONCILE THE GROSS PURCH ASE AS PER HUL ACCOUNT WHICH IS SHOWN IN COLUMN NO. B, VIDE PARA 3.4.11 OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICERS ORDER, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PROVIDE THE FIGURES T O THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF COLUMN NO. B OF THE TABLE WHICH IS GIVEN IN PARA 3. 4.11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REPLY PROPERLY AN D COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS BONAFIDE DURING THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. HENCE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE BENCH TO REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE IN COLUMN NO. B OF THE TA BLE GIVEN IN PARA NO. 3.4.11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO FAIRLY AG REED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROVIDED THE INFORMATION WHICH IS GIVEN IN COLUMN NO. B, VIDE PARA 3.4.11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROV IDE INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS GIVEN IN COLUMN NO. B, VIDE PARA 3.4.11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IN TURN THE ASSESSEE SHOULD SUBMIT THE RECONCILIATION AND REQUIRED DOCUMENT TO AMIYA KUMAR SAMANTA ITA NO.1311/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 7 77 7 SUBSTANTIATE HIS BONAFIDE . THEREFORE, STATISTICAL PURPOSES THE GROUND NO. 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED TO BE ALLOWED. 15. GROUND NO. 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 3,71,996/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH RECEIPTS. 16. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE AO H AS OBSERVED THAT ON 9.4.2010, THE CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DEBITED BY RS.6,6 7,310/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED AGAINST SALE BILL, ALTHOUGH THE MAXIMUM CA SH COLLECTION THAT COULD HAVE BEEN EFFECTED OF DEBTORS AND SALES MADE DURING THE DAY WAS RS.5,81,048/-. THE A.O HAS THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.86 ,262/- WAS INTRODUCED INTO BUSINESS ON THAT DAY. SIMILAR WERE THE CONCLUSIONS FOR AMOUNTS OF RS.2,08,580/- ON 01.05.2010 AND RS.77,154/- ON 03.05.2010. THESE ADD TO RS3,71,996/- WHICH THE AO HAS HELD AS HAVING BEEN INTRODUCED FROM UNDISCLO SED SOURCE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUG HT ON RECORD TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O., EXCEPT FOR STATING THAT THE S AME AMOUNT WAS COLLECTED AS PER DEMAND OF MATERIALS AND THE BILLS WERE SENT IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS. HOWEVER, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED IN THIS MAT TER, THEREFORE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,71,996/-. 17. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ANNEXURE-B REFEREED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN CASH BOOKS WHICH IS TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR SEEMS TO BE FAIRLY AGREED WITH THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTE THAT CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD PROVIDE THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN ANNEXURE-B TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSE SSEE TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED DETAILS AND INFORMATION AFTER GETTING THE ANNEXURE B FROM AO, TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS AMIYA KUMAR SAMANTA ITA NO.1311/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 8 88 8 BONAFIDE . STATISTICAL PURPOSES THE GROUND NO. 6 RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS TREATED TO BE ALLOWED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 08.03.2019 SD/- ( A.T.VARKEY ) SD/- (A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA; / DATE: 08/03/2019 ( SB, SR.PS ) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. AMIYA KUMAR SAMANTA 2. ITO, WARD-34(2), KOLKATA 3. C.I.T(A)- 4. C.I.T.- KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKA TA BENCHES