Sri Bidhan Ch. Biswas, Kolkata V. ITO, WD-37(4), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1367/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1844 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-02-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD GHAYAS UDDIN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 1367/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B(SMC) BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1367/KOL/ 2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 SRI BIDHAN CHANDRA BISWAS,......................... ............................APPELLANT 123/2, A.P.C. ROAD, KOLKATA-700 006 [PAN: AEBPB 9856 L] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ..................................RESPONDENT WARD-37(4), KOLKATA, 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-700 001 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE MD. GHAYAS UDDIN, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMEN T DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MARCH 28, 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MAY 05, 2017 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. .: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL-11, KOLKATA DATED 22.12.2015. 2. GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH IS APPEAL ARE GENERAL, WHICH DO NOT CALL FOR ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDIC ATION. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.64,896/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON FDR. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. I.T.A. NO. 1367/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 2 OF 8 4. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.10,38,284/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CO NFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOUND TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN BANK DEPOSIT. 5. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L, WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF MUSTARD OIL. THE R ETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY HIM ON 30 .09.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,62,697/-. AS PER THE INFORMATI ON RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE M ADE INVESTMENT OF RS.2,91,463/- AND RS.7,46,821/- IN FDRS WITH UCO BA NK, BEADON STREET BRANCH, KOLKATA ON 24.07.2007 AND 06.06.2007 RESPEC TIVELY, BUT NEITHER THE SAID INVESTMENT NOR THE INTEREST EARNED THEREON WAS DISCLOSED BY HIM IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION. HE, THEREFORE, REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO OFFER HIS EXPLA NATION IN THE MATTER. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO FRESH INVESTMENT MADE IN THE FDS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION AND THE INVESTMENT FOUND TO BE MADE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF TRANS FER FROM ONE ACCOUNT TO THE F.D. ACCOUNT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE A SSESSEE THAT THE SOURCE OF THE SAID INVESTMENT MADE ORIGINALLY WAS CASH OF RS.6,13,200/- RECEIVED BY HER MOTHER SMT. BHAGWATI BISWAS, WHICH WAS INHER ITED BY HER FROM THE HUSBAND ON HIS DEATH. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE S HE WAS NOT HAVING A PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER, THE CASH WAS INVESTED IN BANK F.D. IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER HAVING WITHDRAWN THE SAME IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPENDED T HE SAME FOR THE TREATMENT OF HIS MOTHER. AFFIDAVIT OF SMT. BHAGWATI BISWAS, MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, WAS ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THIS CONTENTION. THE SAID EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT OF HER MOTHER, HOWEVER, WAS NOT FOUND TO BE RELIABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (1) AS NOTED, IT WAS MENTIONED OF SL. NO. 2 OF THE SAID SUBMISSION THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS TRANSFERRED FROM ONE I.T.A. NO. 1367/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 3 OF 8 ACCOUNT TO FIXED DEPOSIT ACCOUNT OF THE SAME BANK, I.E. UCO BANK, BEADON STREET BRANCH, KOLKATA-6, WHICH LE ADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS FUND TRANSFER FROM ONE ACCOUNT TO ANOTHER. BUT, IN THE AFFIDAVIT WAS FOUND OTHERWISE SINCE IT WAS MENTIONED OF SL. NO. 3 THEREIN THAT THE MOTHER OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING CASH FUND TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,13,200/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE DEPOSITED INT O FIXED DEPOSIT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE AFFIDAVIT CLAIMED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS.6,13,200/- BUT THE INVESTMENT IN QUESTION IS OF RS.10,38,284/-. HE, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF HIS MOTHER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOTHING BUT AN AFTER-THOUGHT AND TREAT ING THE INVESTMENT FOUND TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK DEPOSI TS AS UNEXPLAINED, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.10,38,284/- TO THE TOTAL IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 16.12.2010. 6. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 143(3), AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CHALLENGING, INTER ALIA, THE ADDITION OF RS.10,38,284/- MADE TO HIS TOTAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT ALLEGEDLY MADE IN THE BANK DEPOSITS. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSION IN W RITING WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE ON THIS ISSUE:- 'IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT LD. AO HAS ADDED CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FIXED DEPOSIT AMOUNTING TO RS.10,38,284/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE SAME IN HIS BALANCE SHEET FOR THE FY 2007-08. IN REGARD TO THE ABOVE I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED TH AT THESE FIXED DEPOSITS ARE ACTUALLY BELONG TO HER MOT HER SMT. BHAGWATI BISWAS. WHICH SHE HAS MADE WITH THE MONEY SHE RECEIVED ON DEATH OF HER HUSBAND AMOUNTIN G TO RS.6,13,200/- IN THE YEAR 2003-04 AND SINCE SHE DOE S NOT HAVE ANY PAN CARD HENCE SHE HANDED OVER THIS MONEY TO I.T.A. NO. 1367/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 4 OF 8 HIS SON, THE ASSESSEE AS A CARETAKER TO MAKE FDR FO R HER FUTURE SECURITY PURPOSE. THE ABOVE AMOUNT TAKING TOGETHER INTEREST ACCRUED THEREON BECOME A SUM OF RS.10,38,284/- ON 06.06.2007 WHICH WAS THEN RENEWED VIDE HER AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC. KOLKATA DT. 09.11.2010, SHE HAS CONFIRMED THE ABOVE FACTS. THE LD. AO HAS CITED CERTAIN IRREGULARITY IN THE AB OVE AFFIDAVIT SUCH AS THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE AFFID AVIT WAS RS.6,13,200/- BUT THE INVESTMENT IN QUESTION IS OF RS.10,38,284/-. BUT THE FACT IS THAT SHE RECEIVED T HE MONEY IMMEDIATELY AFTER HER HUSBAND'S DEATH ON 20.12.2000 & HENCE THERE IS A GAP OF 6-7 YEARS BETW EEN DATE OF RECEIPT FROM HER HUSBAND I.E. 20.12.2000 (D ATE OF DEATH OF HER HUSBAND) & DATE OF REINVESTMENT I.E. 06/06/2007 & THE LD. A 0 HAS FORGET THIS FACT. WE A RE AGAIN SUBMITTING HEREWITH COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED B EFORE THE AO DURING SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS FOR YOUR KIND PE RUSAL. BASED ON THE AFORESAID FACTS AND ON THE CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPO N, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO OF ADDITION OF AMOUNT OF FIXED DEPOSIT OF MOTHER IS BAD IN LAW, AB INITIO VOID AND ILLEGAL & SHOULD BE DELETED. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND MERIT I N THE ABOVE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HER, FINDING OF FACT WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF HIS MOT HER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WAS AN AFTER-TH OUGHT. ACCORDINGLY ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE WAS SUSTAINED B Y THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 7. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF A LETTER D ATED 21.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED BANK, I.E. UCO BANK, BEADEN STREET BRANCH, KOLKATA CONFIRMING THAT THE INVESTMENT IN QUESTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK DEPOSITS WAS OUT OF MATURITY PROCEEDS OF THE I NVESTMENT MADE EARLIER IN THE BANK DEPOSITS, WHICH WAS RENEWED. AS SUBMITTED BY HIM, THE SAID LETTER WAS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM T HE BANK ONLY ON 21.06.2016 AND SINCE THE SAME WAS NOT AVAILABLE EIT HER DURING THE COURSE I.T.A. NO. 1367/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 5 OF 8 OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OR DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT( APPEALS), THE SAME COULD NOT BE FILED EARLIER. ALTHOUGH THE LD. D.R. H AS RAISED A STRONG OBJECTION FOR ADMISSION OF THE SAID LETTER AS AN AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BY THE LD. CIT( APPEALS) TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN BANK DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE, I FIND THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING AS RENEWAL OF FDS EARLIER MADE WITH T HE BANK AND THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE NOW BEING FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED BANK IS JUST TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THE SAID EXPLANATION. THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THUS IS V ERY MUCH RELEVANT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE SAME AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT THE SAME WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE EARLIER TO FILE IT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), I ADMIT THE SAME AS PER RULE 29 OF TH E APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE SAID A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGL Y TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO TH E ADDITION OF RS.3,41,122/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CON FIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING BA LANCE FOUND IN THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE BALANCE-SHEET FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, BALANCE IN THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT WITH UCO BANK WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE LIABILITY SIDE AS ON 31.03.2008 AT RS.10,47,358 /-. AS PER THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE UCO BANK, THE BALANCE IN THE OVERD RAFT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.03.2008 WAS APPEARING AT RS.7,06, 236/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THE SAID DIFFERENCE AN D SINCE NO EXPLANATION I.T.A. NO. 1367/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 6 OF 8 WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, THE DIF FERENCE OF RS.3,41,122/- WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE ADDITION OF RS.3,41,122/- MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION WAS OFF ERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE OVERDRAFT BALANCE:- 'IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT LD. AO HAS ADDED A SUM OF RS.3,41,122/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOU NTS OF OVERDRAFT FACILITY AVAILED FROM UCO BANK, AS PER BA LANCE SHEET & THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE BANK STATEMENT ON T HE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INFLATED THE CLOSING B ALANCE OF THE LIABILITY. IN REGARD TO THE ABOVE I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN THAT SINCE THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS ARE AN ONGOING PROCESS, I T GOES ON AND NOT STOPS EVEN ON THE LAST DAY OF THE FINANC IAL YEAR. BUSINESSMEN RECEIVE CHEQUES ON EVERYDAY INCLU DING ON LAST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR SIMILARLY HE ISSU ES CHEQUES TO THE PARTIES. SOME OF THE CHEQUES ISSUED THIS YEAR ARE PRESENTED FOR PAYMENT IN THE NEXT FINANCIA L YEAR FOR WHICH AN BANK RECONCILIATION STATEMENT IS PREPA RED. EACH & EVERY CHEQUE WAS NOT PRESENTED ON THE SAME D AY. IT TOOK 2-3 DAYS AND SOMETIMES EVEN MORE TIME IN CLEARING. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS ISSU ED CHEQUES AMOUNT TO RS.2,21,000/- & RS.99,840/- TO ON E OF HIS PARTY MS. SAMBHU TRADERS, CHEQUE OF RS.11,969/- & RS.8,313/- FOR HIS LIC PREMIUM WHICH WERE CLEARED O N 3 RD , 4TH APRIL, 2008 & 3RD MAY, 2008. ONE OF THE CHEQU E WAS LATER ON CANCELLED & FRESH CHEQUE WAS ISSUED IN THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2008. WE ARE SUBMITTING HEREWITH THE BANK RECONCILIATION STATEMENT CITING THEREIN ALL THE DET AILS & COPY OF BANK STATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, APRI L & MAY, 2008 AS A PROOF THAT SAME WERE CLEARED LATER O N. HENCE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INFLATED LIABILITY OF SECURED LOAN. FURTHER IT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNC EMENT THAT IF THERE BE INFLATED LIABILITY IN THE BALANCE SHEET, THEN THERE MUST BE CORRESPONDING INFLATED ASSETS IN THE BALANCE SHEET WHICH THE LD. AO HAS TO IDENTIFY. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE LD. AO HAS NOT MENTIONED ANY SUCH AMOUNT. I.T.A. NO. 1367/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 7 OF 8 BASED ON THE AFORESAID FACTS AND ON THE CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPO N, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTION OF THE A 0 OF ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE IN LOAN LIABILITY IS BAD IN LAW, AB INIT IO VOID AND ILLEGAL & SHOULD BE DELETED. 11. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ABOVE EX PLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, WAS NOT SATISFACTORILY SUBST ANTIATED. SHE, THEREFORE, PROCEEDED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE. 12. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO THE SUBMISSION MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE DIFFERENCE I N THE OVERDRAFT BALANCE IN ACCOUNT WITH UCO BANK WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSES SEE BY POINTING OUT THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN CHEQUES ISSUED BY THE ASSES SEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT THE SAME WERE NOT PRESENTED TO BANK FOR PAYMENTS UPTO 31.03.2008. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT A P ROPER RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, HOWEVER, WAS NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) COULD NOT APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSES SEE IN ORDER TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE IN OVERDRAFT BALANCE IN AC COUNT. HE HAS, THEREFORE, PREPARED AND FURNISHED ON RECORD A RECON CILIATION STATEMENT AND URGED THAT THIS MATTER MAY ALSO BE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE SAID R ECONCILIATION STATEMENT. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, I FIND MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE IS ACCORDINGL Y SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE BANK RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE ONE MORE OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. GROUND NO.4 IS ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. I.T.A. NO. 1367/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 8 OF 8 13. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 5 RELATING TO CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234A, 234B AND 234C IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF, IF ANY, TO THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TR EATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MAY 05, 2017. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 5 TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 COPIES TO : (1) SRI BIDHAN CHANDRA BISWAS, 123/2, A.P.C. ROAD, KOLKATA-700 006 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-37(4), KOLKATA, 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-700 001 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11, KOLK ATA; (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,KOLKAT A (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.