ACIT, Circle - 1, Hooghly, Hooghly V. M/s. Dakshineswari Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly

ITA 138/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 54648 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K ROY
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMNATH GHOSH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Fair market value

Judgement Text

1 , A , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH- A, KOL KATA [ , . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . , , , , '# ] BEFORE SRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI C.D. RAO, AC COUNTANT MEMBER $ $ $ $ / ITA NO. 138 (KOL) OF 2011 %& '( / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1, HOOGHLY. DAKSHINESWARI COLD STORAGE P.LTD. HOOGHLY, (PAN-AABCD2315B ) (+, / APPELLANT ) - - - VERSUS - (/0+,/ RESPONDENT ) +, 1 2 '/ FOR THE APPELLANT: / SRI S.K. ROY /0+, 1 2 ' / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SRI SOMNATH GHOSH 3 1 !# / DATE OF HEARING : 08/11/2011 4' 1 !# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/11/2011 '5 / ORDER ( . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . ), '# (C.D. RAO), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2010 OF LD. C.I.T.(A)-XXXVI, KOLKATA PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-08. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT READ AS UNDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, L D. C.I.T. (APPEALS) HAD ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PLANT &. MACHINERY AMOUNTING TO RS.52,37,840/- BY NOT ASKING FOR A REM AND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE VALUATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. NOT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS) HAD ERRED IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.6,34,945/- IN RESPECT OF COMMISSION PAYMENT DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)( IA) OF THE I.T. ACT AS T.D.S. NEEDS TO BE DEDUCTED WHEN COMMISSION PAYMENT EXCEED S RS.2,500/- AND NOT RS.20,000/- U/S 194H OF THE I.T. ACT. FURTHER, RULE 30(1)(B)(I)(1) OF THE I.T. RULES STATES THE TIME LIMIT FOR PAYMENT OF T.D.S. I N THE GOVT. ACCOUNT IS WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IF THE PAYMENT IS MADE IN THE LAST MONTH. THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS) HAD ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT T.D.S. DEDUCTED IN MARCH, 2007 AND DEPOSITED IN GOVT. ACCOUNT ON 08.06 .2007, I.E. BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN WAS VALID. 2 2. THE ASSESSEE, A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, CARRIE S ON THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING A COLD STORAGE. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION, THE ASSESSEE AS PER ANNEXURE-I OF TAX AUDIT REPORT HAD DISCLOSED THE W.D.V. OF PLA NT & MACHINERY AT RS.11,82,897/- AND ADDITION MADE TO SUCH EXISTING MACHINERY WAS IN THE SUM OF RS.7,63,263/-. THE A.O. RELYING ON THE VALUE OF PLANT & MACHINERY INSU RED AT RS.71,84,000/- BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.52,37,840/ - U/S. 69 OF THE ACT ALLEGING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER :- SL. NO. DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS WDV + ADDITION SUM INSURED DIF FERENCE 1 MACHINERY RS.11,82,897 RS. 7,63,263 RS.71,84,000 RS.52,37,840 THE A.O. HAS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194H OF THE ACT ON THE COMMISSION PAID OF R S.6,34,945/- TO VARIOUS AGENTS, NOR PROOF FOR PAYMENT THEREOF WAS PRODUCED. HE, THEREF ORE, DISALLOWED THE SAID EXPENSES INCURRED ON COMMISSION PAYMENT BY INVOKING PROVISIO NS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. C.I.T.(A) DELETED THE ADDITI ON OF RS.6,34,945/- MADE BY THE A.O. U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDE R :- 4.2. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION FILED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT AND EXAMINED THE DETAILS ENCLOSED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT PAID AGENCY COMMISSION EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- EACH TO SEVENTEEN PERSONS, TO TALING TO RS.6,03,600/-, FOR WHICH TOTAL TAX OF RS.30,784/- WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2007 AND THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED IN GOVERNMENT A/C ON 08/06/2007 I.E. BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN. THE BALANCE COMMISSION OF RS.31,345 /- WAS PAID TO 26 PARTIES; EACH BEING LESS THAN RS.20,000/- NO TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. THIS BEING THE FACT, I FIND THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.6,03,600/- MADE BY THE A0 WAS UNCALLED FOR AND THEREFORE, DELETE THE SAME. THE LD. C.I.T.(A) ALSO DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS .52,37,840/- MADE BY THE A.O. U/S. 69 OF THE ACT TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT I N MACHINERIES BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.2. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR OF THE APPELLA NT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED CAREFULLY IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE ME AND THE C ASE LAW REFERRED TO. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPE LLANT HAD ADDED P & M TO THE TUNE OF RS.7,63,263/- WITH THE EXISTING MACHINERIES , W.D.V. OF WHICH WAS OF RS.11,82,897/-. THE A.O. DID NOT FIND ANY DISCREPA NCY ON THAT AND ALLOWED 3 DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, FR OM THE COVER NOTE OF THE INSURANCE POLICY AO FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD GO T THE SAID P & M VALUED AT RS. 71,84,000/- BY A GOVT. APPROVED VALUER FOR INSURANC E PURPOSE AND ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING UNDISCLOSE D INVESTMENTS IN P & M FOR THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS.52,37,840/- AND ADDED THE S AME U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. THIS ACTION OF AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 CAN ONLY BE INVOKED AFTER ESTABLISHING A REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACHIN ERIES EXISTED IN APPELLANTS PREMISES AND MACHINERIES DECLARED IN THE BOOKS. HOW EVER, TAKING LEAD FROM THIS HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BOOKS VALUE OF OLD MACHINER IES VIS--VIS VALUATION DONE BY THE APPELLANTS VALUER FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE, THE AO SHOULD HAVE UNDERGONE A DETAILED YEAR-WISE, ITEM-WISE AND VALUE-WISE COMPAR ATIVE STUDY FOR EACH MACHINERY AS WELL AS REFERRED THE CASE TO THE GOVERNMENT VALU ER FOR FRESH VALUATION AND THEREAFTER SHOULD HAVE TRIED TO FIND OUT YEAR-WISE DISCREPANCIES. THE AO ALSO COULD HAVE INVESTIGATED THE MATTER WITH THE INSURANCE COM PANY TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAD ENCASHED ANY INSURANCE CLAIM DURING T HE YEAR USING OTHER THAN DISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT, AS THIS KIND OF PRACTICE IS PREVALENT IN THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS. INSTEAD OF THAT HE MADE THE ADDITION ON SURMISES AN D CONJECTURES, WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW. 5.3. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS CLEAR TH ATTHERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR ADDITION IN THE CURRENT YEAR FOR UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN MACHINER IES AS THE AO DID NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN BOTH W.D.V. AND ADDITION TO P & M AND ALLOWED FULL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. I, THEREFORE , INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.52,37,840/- WAS U NCALLED FOR AND ACCORDINGLY, DELETED THE SAME. HENCE THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A.O., WHEREAS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A). IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.2 OF THE DEPARTM ENTS APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED TWO SEPARA TE LISTS OF PERSONS TO WHOM COMMISSION WAS PAID ONE CONTAINING THE NAMES OF P ERSONS TO WHOM PAYMENTS MADE WERE OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF SEC. 194H OF THE ACT AND THE OTHER CONTAINING THE NAMES OF THOSE PERSONS COMING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC. 194H OF THE ACT AND THE TAX CHALLAN IN PROOF OF DEDUCTION OF TDS WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. COPIES OF DETAILS OF AGENT COMMISSION WITH TDS AND WITHOUT TDS HAVE BEEN FILED AT PAGES 27 & 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND COPIES OF TDS CHALLAN AND TDS RETURN FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE PLACED AT PAGES 13 TO 22 OF THE P APER BOOK. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.6,34,945/- BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) 4 OF THE ACT ON MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS AND THE LD . C.I.T.(A) HAS JUSTIFIABLY DELETED THE SAME, WHICH SHOULD BE UPHELD. IN REGARD TO OTHER ADDITION OF RS.52,37,840/- VID E GROUND NO.1 OF THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING REGARDING ANY UNRECORDED INVESTMENT HAVING BEEN MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE IN PLANT & MACHINERY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS THE PRINCIPAL REQUIREMENT FOR INVOKING PRO VISIONS OF SEC. 69 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD ALONG WITH BALANCE SHEET AND P/L ACCOUNT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED B EFORE THE A.O. AND NO SORT OF IRREGULARITY AND DEFECT COULD BE POINTED OUT BY HIM . COPIES OF THESE DOCUMENTS ARE PLACED AT PAGES 63 TO 91 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN SUPP ORT OF HIS SUBMISSION, THE LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF USHAKANT N. P ATEL VS. CIT [282 ITR 553 (GUJ)]. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. WHILE MAKING ADDITI ON ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNRECORDED ADDITION TO THE PLANT & MACHINERY SOLELY RELIED ON THE PROVISIONAL POLICY SCHEDULE ISSUED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS BEEN RUNNING THE COLD STORAGE FOR A LONG TIME AND DUE TO IMPACT OF THE PR OVISION OF SEC. 43(6) OF THE ACT ON THE MACHINERIES, THE W.D.V. OF SUCH ASSETS HAD COME DO WN IMMEASURABLY AS COMPARED TO THEIR FAIR MARKET VALUE AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY C ONSIDERED IT APPROPRIATE ACCORDING TO ITS PRINCIPLES TO INSURE SUCH ASSETS AT THEIR FA IR MARKET VALUE OF RS.71,84,000/-. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CONCEPT OF ARRIVING AT T HE W.D.V. OF AN ASSET MEANS THE BALANCE VALUE REMAINING IN THE BOOKS AFTER DEDUCTIN G DEPRECIATION ALLOWED THEREON YEAR AFTER YEAR, WHEREAS THE DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKE T VALUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF INSURING THE SAME IS TO FIND OUT THE REPLACEMENT COST OF SUC H ASSET. THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE MACHINERY ADOP TED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE W.D.V. OF SUCH ASSETS CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENTS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAD INSURED TH E IMPUGNED MACHINERIES AT THE SAME VALUE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS ALSO AND, THEREFO RE, THE ASSUMPTION OF THE A.O. REGARDING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT HAS NO BASIS. COPI ES OF INSURANCE RECEIPTS FOR A.YS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 ARE PLACED AT PAGES 10 TO 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. COUNSEL 5 SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETE D THE ADDITION MADE ON SUCH ACCOUNT AND THE SAME SHOULD BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW. APROPOS GROUND NO.1 OF THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IN RESPECT OF DELETION OF ADDIT ION OF RS.52,37,840/-, WE OBSERVE THAT THE A.O. BASING ON THE COVER NOTE OF THE INSURANCE POLICY FOUND DIFFERENCE OF RS.52,37,840/- BETWEEN THE SUM INSURED AND WDV OF T HE MACHINERIES AND ADDITION THEREOF DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH HE ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. SECTION 69 OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER :- 69. WHERE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE NOT RECORDE D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IF ANY, MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS OR T HE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SATISFACTO RY, THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENTS MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. THEREFORE, AS PER SEC. 69 OF THE ACT, ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IS CALLED FOR WHEN THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IF ANY, MAINTAINED BY HIM AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT OR THE EXPLANAT ION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY BY THE A.O. IN THE INSTANT CASE , WE OBSERVE THAT THE A.O. HAS SOLELY ACTED ON THE COVER NOTE OF INSURANCE POLICY FOR PLA NT & MACHINERY IN SUPPORT OF HIS PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE MADE FRESH INVESTMENTS WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS FULLY WITHOUT POINTING OUT O R MATCHING SUCH DISCREPANCY BETWEEN VALUE SHOWN IN THE INSURANCE COVER NOTE AND VALUE R EFLECTED IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH PRESUMPTION, THE A.O. COULD NOT BRI NG ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN FACT, MADE INVESTME NTS IN PLANT & MACHINERY DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH REMAINED UNRECORDED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE POSSIBL E EVIDENCES INCLUDING THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS U NFAIR ON THE PART OF THE A.O. TO TREAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WDV OF PLANT & MACHINERY AND ADDITION THEREOF DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND VALUE SHOWN IN THE INSURANCE COVER NOTE AS ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE AC T. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE DERIVE 6 SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. NOORJAHAN (P.K.)(SMT.), REPORTED IN 237 ITR 570 (SC), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT MERE REJECTION OF AN EXPLANATION WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLE T HE A.O. TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FOR THA T PURPOSE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 69 SHALL NOT BE WARRANTED. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD, WE UPHOLD THE ORD ER OF LD. C.I.T.(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.52,37,840/-. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE DE PARTMENTS APPEAL IS THUS DISMISSED. 5.1. NOW COMING TO GROUND NO.2 OF THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL, THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES OF RS.6,34,945/- INCURRED ON PAYMENT OF CO MMISSION TO SEVERAL AGENTS ALLEGING NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON SUCH COMMISSION PAYMENTS AN D ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF VIOL ATION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194H OF THE ACT. THE LD. C.I.T.(A) ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD S OBSERVED THAT COMMISSION IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- EACH TO 17 AGENTS TOTALLING TO RS.6, 03,600/- WAS PAID TO 17 AGENTS AND TOTAL TAX OF RS.30,784/- WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON SUCH PAYMENTS AND DEPOSITED IN THE GOVT. ACCOUNT. THE BALANCE COMMISSION TOTALLING TO RS.31,345/- [RS.6,34,945 RS.6,03,600] TO 26 AGENTS WAS LESS THAN RS.2,500/- (WRONGLY MENTIONED BY LD. C.I.T.(A) AS RS. 20,000/-) EACH AND HENCE NO TDS WA S REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE A.O. H AS WRONGLY DISALLOWED THE COMMISSION PAYMENT TO THE AGENTS AND THE LD. C.I.T. (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. APROPOS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT HAS STATED THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR PAYMENT OF TDS IN GOVT. ACCOUNT IS WITHIN TWO MONTH S FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IF THE PAYMENT IS MADE IN THE LAST MONTH AND, THEREFORE, T HE LD. C.I.T.(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT TDS DEDUCTED IN MARCH, 2007 AND DEPOS ITED IN GOVT. ACCOUNT ON 08/6/2007, I.E. BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RE TURN, WAS VALID. WE FIND THAT AS PER PROVISO (A) TO SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, IF TAX IS DEDUCTED DURING THE LAST MONTH OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR BUT PAID AFTER THE SAID DUE DATE, I.E . ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S. 139(1) OF THE ACT, THEN SUCH SUM SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. IN THIS CASE ADMITTEDLY TDS OF RS.30,784/- DEDUCTED IN MARCH, 20 07 WAS DEPOSITED IN GOVT. ACCOUNT ON 08/6/2007, WHICH WAS BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILI NG OF THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT 7 YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSID ERED OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) IN ALLOWING THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON THIS ACCOUNT. WE, THER EFORE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND GROUND NO.2 OF THE DEPA RTMENTS APPEAL IS THUS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.11.2011. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . ) '# (N.VIJAYAKUMARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER (C.D. RAO), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( (( (!# !# !# !#) )) ) DATE: 11 -11-2011 '5 1 /%% 6''7- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +, / THE APPELLANT : A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KHADINAMORE, CHINSURAH, H OOGHLY-712 102. 2 /0+, / THE RESPONDENT : DAKSHINESWARY COLD STORAGE PVT. LT D., VILL & PO- BHANDERHATI, HOOGHLY-712 405. 3. %5 () : THE CIT(A)-XXXVI, KOLKATA. 4. %5/ THE CIT, KOL- 5 . ;%< /% / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA 6 . GUARD FILE . 0 /%/ TRUE COPY, '5/ BY ORDER, (DKP) ASSTT. REGISTRAR .