DCIT,Central Circle-VI, Kolkata, Kolkata V. Shri Jagdish Prasad Agarwala, Kolkata

ITA 1420/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 142023514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Valuation report
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO . 1420 / KOL ./20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S 200 8 - 200 9 PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1420 / KOL / 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 200 9 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, .... ... ........ ..... ... .. .APP ELL ANT CENTRAL CIRCLE - VI, KOLKATA, 3 RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, E.M. BYE PASS, 110, SHANTI PALLI, KOLKATA - 700 107 - VS. - SHRI JAGADISH PRASAD AGARWAL,............................ . RESPONDENT 35, AHIRPUKAR ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 0 19 [PAN : ACMPA 9295 R] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI KANHIYA LAL KANAK, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI RAVI TULSIYAN, FCA , FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MAY 05, 2 01 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MAY 13 , 201 5 O R D E R PER P. K. BANSAL : THIS APPEAL HA S BEEN FILED BY THE REVENU E AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. C OMMISSIONER OF I NCOME T AX (APPEALS) DATED 13 .0 7 .201 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ( 1 ) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS OF THE CASE IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.6,45,000/ - TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME AMOUNT AND IN DELETING THE SAID ADDITION; AND ( 2 ) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS OF THE CASE IN HOLDING THAT THE JEWELLERY ITEMS BEARING ID MARKS JPA/98, JPA/136 AND JPA/138 WERE EXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS, IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.42,77,233/ - ON THIS SCORE. I.T.A. NO . 1420 / KOL ./20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S 200 8 - 200 9 PAGE 2 OF 7 2. GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.6,45,000/ - THERE WAS A SEARCH OPERATION UN DER SECTION 132 CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTEIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS GROUP ON 20.09.2007. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, CASH OF RS.12,34,750/ - WAS FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE OF ASSESSEE AT UPPER BAZAR, CHIRKUNDA DHANBAD AND CASH OF RS.2,16,000/ - W AS FOUND AT KOLKATA RESIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE CASH FOUND BELONGED TO THE VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE HUF OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHERS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THE MEMBERS WHO OWNED THE CASH FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,45,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT THAT CASH OF RS.6,45,000/ - BELONGED TO THE LADIES OF THE FAMILY, RS.1,45,000/ - BELONGED TO SMT. KARUNA AGARWALL , RS.1,00,000/ - BELONGED TO SMT. SWATI AGARWALLA, RS.50,000/ - TO SMT. MADHURI AGARWALLA, RS.1,30,000/ - BELONGED TO SMT. SUNITA AGARWALLA, RS.1,20,000/ - TO SMT. NIDHI AGARWALLA AND RS.1,00,000/ - TO SMT. MADHU AGARWALLA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED SAID ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE AO. ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMIS E AT UPPER BAZAR, CHIRKUNDA, DHANBAD, CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.12,34,750J - WAS FOUND. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE CASH FOUND BELONGED TO VARIOUS MEMBERS INCLUDING LADY MEMBERS OF FAMILY. THE APPELLANT FIL ED THE DETAILS OF OWNERSHIP OF CASH OF EACH MEMBER AND FILED DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. IT IS OBSERVED THAT AFTER VERIFICATION, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM THE APPELLANT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,45,OOO/ - WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE BELONGING TO VARIOU S LADY MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE REASON THAT THE LADY ASSESSEES HAD OFFERED HIGHER AMOUNT OF INCOME IN THEIR RETURN UNDER THE HEAD 'MISCELLA NEOUS RECEIPTS', I.T.A. NO . 1420 / KOL ./20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S 200 8 - 200 9 PAGE 3 OF 7 THOUGH IN EARLIER YEARS NO INCOME OF SUCH MAGNITUDE WAS OFFERED BY THEM. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ENGINEERED A DEVICE TO EXPLAIN THE CASH OF R S.6,45,000/ - IN THE HANDS OF OTHER ASSESSEES OF THE F AM I LY. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS ARGUED BY THE APPELLANT THAT HE IS RESIDING IN A';JOINT FAMILY AND THE CASH FOUND AT RESIDENCE IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH BELONGED TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT THAT TO CONDUCT THE SEARCH OPERATION AT THE RESID ENCE OF THE APPELLANT THE DEPARTMENT HAD ISSUED THE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION JOINTLY IN THE NAME OF APPELLANT AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. IT PROVES THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT RESIDING ALONE IN THE SAID PREMISE BUT ALONG WITH OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. IT IS ALSO ARGUED BY THE APPELLANT THAT ONCE THE AO HAS ASSESSED MISCELLANEOUS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF RESPECTIVE LADY ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO QUESTION TO AGAIN MAKING THE ADDITION OF THE CASH IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT. THAT, THE ACTION OF THE AO TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE AD DITION OF SAME AMOUNT. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,45,OOO/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE REASON GIVEN BY HIM. IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE THAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR S THE LADY MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT'S FAMILY HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE MISCELLANEOUS INCOME IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR THEY HAD DISCLOSED CASH UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS INCOME AND SAME WAS ALSO ASSESSE D TO TAX BY THE AO. CONSIDERING THE MISCELLANEOUS INCOME DISCLOSED BY THEM, THEY WERE HAVING CASH IN HAND AND IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2008, THEY HAVE SHOWN THE CASH OWNED AND CLAIMED BY THEM. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF CASH FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS CLAIMED WITHOUT OFFERING THE SAME FOR TAXATION. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ONCE THE AO HAS ASSESSED THE MISCELLANEOUS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF LADY MEMBERS, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ADDING THE CASH OF RS.6,45,000/ - IN THE HANDS OF APPEL LANT. THE AO HAS BROUGHT NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT WAS INCORRECT OR THAT THE CASH FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH BELONG TO THE APPELLANT ONLY. I FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ACTION OF THE A O TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION OF SAME AMOUNT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,45,000/ - AND SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE GROUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWED . 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE LADIES MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE S FAMILY HAD DULY DISCLOSED THE CASH FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIOU S YEAR UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS INCOME AND THE SAME HAS DULY BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ONCE THE I.T.A. NO . 1420 / KOL ./20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S 200 8 - 200 9 PAGE 4 OF 7 SAID CASH IN HAND HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE LADIES AS MISCELLANEOUS INCOME, IN OUR OPINION, THERE HAS NO ILLEGALITY OR I NFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE SAID CASH IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 5. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.42,77,233/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT IN JEWELLERY. 6. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH JEWELLERY VALUED AT RS.1,76,00,045/ - AND SILVER UTENSILS VALUED AT RS.21,18,000/ - WERE FOUND. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THREE ITEMS OF THE JEWELLERY MARKED AS JPA/98, JPA/136 & JPA/138 VALUED AT RS.81,705/ - , RS.35,35,576/ - AND RS.6,59,952/ - RESPECTIVELY. THE ITEM NO. JPA/98 W AS PAIR OF PEARI ENAMELLED KARA SET WITH POLKI LAC INSIDE 20 CT. AS PER DVO S REPORT, KARAS ARE FITTED WITH POLKA DIAMOND WEIGHING 2.50 CT. WHILE AS PER ASSESSEE S VALUATION REPORT, THERE WAS NO POLKA DIAMOND BUT THE WHITE STONE. THE ITEM NO. JPA/136 IS O NE PIECE OF SINGLE LINE NECKLACE SET WITH DIAMOND. AS PER THE DVO, THE WEIGHT OF DIAMOND WAS 50 CT. AND HE APPLIED THE RATE OF RS.70,000/ - PER CT. BUT AS PER ASSESSEE S VALUATION THE WEIGHT OF DIAMOND WAS 30 CT. AND RATE OF RS.20,000/ - PER CARAT WAS APPLIE D. THE THIRD ITEM I.E. JPA/138 IS ONE PIECE OF NECKLACE AND TWO PIECES OF EARRINGS ALL SET WITH DIAMONDS. AS PER THE DVR THE WEIGHT OF DIAMOND WAS 55 CT. , W HEREAS AS PER THE ASSESSEE S VALUER REPORT THE WEIGHT OF THE DIAMOND WAS 22 CT. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD TAKEN THE VALUE AS PER THE DVR AND ULTIMATELY ADDED THE SUM OF RS.42,77,233/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 7. LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION BY O BSERVING AS UNDER: - ON PERUSAL OF REVALUATION REPORTS OF THE SAME DEPARTMENTAL VALUER ONE THING IS CLEAR THAT HE HAD NOT VALUED THE THREE I.T.A. NO . 1420 / KOL ./20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S 200 8 - 200 9 PAGE 5 OF 7 ITEMS OF JEWELLERY UNDER REFERENCE CORRECTLY AT THE TIME OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. IN THE REVALUATION REPORTS, HE MADE T HE ESTIMATION AND SLIGHTLY DIFFERED FROM THE APPELLANT S VALUATION REPORT FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, BUT REACHED CLOSER TO THE AVR. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND ON PERUSAL OF ORIGINAL VALUATION REPORT, REVALUATION REPORTS AND THE VALUATION REPORTS OF TH E APPELLANT, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE THREE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY MARKED AS JPA/98, JPA/136 AND JPA/138 WERE THE ITEMS OTHER THAN THE ITEMS DECLARED BY THE RESPECTIVE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT IN THEIR VALUATION REPORTS, SPECI ALLY THE DESCRIPTION AND GROSS WEIGHT OF ITEMS IS ALMOST SAME IN THE DVR AND AVR. I FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IF THE CONTENTION OF THE AO IS ACCEPTED THAT THE AFORESAID THREE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY WERE UNEXPLAINED, IN THAT CASE, CERTA IN EXTRA ITEMS OF JEWELLERY TALLYING WITH THE DESCRIPTION AND WEIGHT OF THE APPELLANT S JEWELLERY IN HIS VALUATION REPORT WOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HOWEVER, NO SUCH OTHER ITEM OF JEWELLERY WAS FOUND AND IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF AO. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE THREE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY WERE UNEXPLAINED AND NOT DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS IN THEIR RETURNS. HENCE, THE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY VALUED AT RS.42,77,233/ - CANNO T BE HELD AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM. THE GROUND NO. 2 IS ALLOWED . 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD DISPUTED THE VALUATION OF THE THREE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY MARKED AS JPA/98, JPA/136 AND JPA/138 , LD. CIT CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GET THE REVALUATI ON DONE OF THE THREE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED HIS REPORT IN RESPECT OF THREE ITEMS AND STATED THAT THE JEWELLERY ITEMS MARKED JPA/98 AND JPA/138 WERE DULY INSPECTED BY SHRI HARERAM ROY, DEPARTMENTAL VALUER AND SHRI S.K. MEHTA, AS SESSEE S VALUATION ON 18.03.2011 AND VALUED THE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY. AS PER THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER THE ITEM JPA/98 CONTAINS TWO PIECES OF ENAMELLED KARA WHICH ARE SET WITH WHITE STONE AND POLKIES WITH LAC INSIDE. I TEM N O. JPA/138 CONTAINS ONCE NECKLACE AN D TWO PIECES OF EARRINGS ALL SET WITH I.T.A. NO . 1420 / KOL ./20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S 200 8 - 200 9 PAGE 6 OF 7 DIAMONDS IN GOLD PLATED WHITE METAL WITH ESTIMATED DIAMOND WITH OF 32 CARATS. THE ASSESSEE S VALUER STATED THAT IN ITEM NO. JPA/98 THERE ARE NO POLKIES AND ONLY WHITE STONES ARE THERE. SIMILARLY IN RESPECT O F ITEM NO. JPA/138 HE ESTIMATED WEIGHT OF DIAMONDS AT 22 CARATS. WITH REGARD TO REVALUATION OF I TEM N O. JPA/136, THE ASSESSING O FFICER SUBMITTED THAT JEWELLERY MARKED AS ITEM NO. JPA/136 WAS RE - EXAMINED BY SHRI HARERAM ROY AND SHRI S.K. MEHTA, DEPARTMENTAL VALUER AND ASSESSEE S VALUER RESPECTIVELY IN THE CHAMBER OF DDIT (INVESTIGATION), KOLKATA ON 11.01.2012. AS PER THE RE - EXAMINATION REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER, ITEM NO. JPA/136 IS ONE PIECE OF SINGLE LINE NECKLACE SET WITH DIAMONDS HAVING GROSS WEIGHT AT 57.94 0 GMS. AND NET WEIGHT 51..340 GMS. THE NUMBERS OF PIECES OF DIAMOND WERE SHOWN AT 51 AND WEIGHT 33 CARATS. THE ASSESSEE S VALUER HAS CERTIFIED THE NUMBER OF PIECES OF THE DIAMOND AT 51 AND WEIGHT AT 30 CT. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER S REPO RT, IT IS APPARENT THAT THERE IS NO CONSISTENCY IN THE VALUATION MADE BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER. THE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE CARAT OF THE DIAMOND WAS ESTIMATED BY HIM IN THE ORIGINAL VALUATION REPORT, VIS - A - VIS , THE REVALUATION REPORT. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE DESCRIPTION S OF THE ITEMS OF THE JEWELLERY ARE NOT GROSS WEIGHT . I N RESPECT OF ALL THE THREE ITEMS ARE THE SAME AND THEIR DIFFERENCE IS MAINLY IN THE CARAT OF THE DIAMOND AND THAT DIFFERENCE HAS ARISEN DUE TO THE DIFFERENT ITEMS BEING MADE B Y THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER AT DIFFERENT TIME. ALL THE THREE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY ARE DULY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE S FAMILY MEMBERS. IT IS NOT A CASE THAT THESE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY ARE NOT DECLARED IN THEIR WEALTH - TAX RETURNS. THE DIFFERENCE RELATES ONLY TO TH E ESTIMATION OF THE VALUATION OF JEWELLERY. SINCE THE JEWELLERY ITEMS WERE DULY DECLARED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THESE ITEMS REPRESENT UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE JEWELLERY BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69. THE ONUS IS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY MADE THE INVESTMENT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND SUCH INVESTMENTS ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT , IF MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME AND T HE ASSESSEE O FFER S NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE I.T.A. NO . 1420 / KOL ./20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR S 200 8 - 200 9 PAGE 7 OF 7 NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE OPINION OF ASSESSING OFFICER SATISFACTORY. THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINA NCIAL YEAR. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE JEWELLERIES WERE DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE JEWELLERIES WERE NOT DISCLOSED. IT IS NOT A CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE JEWELLERIES WERE ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESS ME N T YEAR. SINCE JEWELLERIES DULY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN, THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION OF THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY. WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEA LS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 9. I N THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH MAY , 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - MAHAVIR SINGH P.K. BANSAL ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( A CCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 13 TH D AY OF MAY , 201 5 COPIES TO : (1) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - VI, KOLKATA, 3 RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, E.M. BYE PASS, 110, SHANTI PALLI, KOLKATA - 700 107 (2) SHRI JAGADISH PRASAD AGARWA L, 35, AHIRPUKAR ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 019 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B ENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S .