M/s Controlla Electrotech (P) Ltd., Kolkata V. The DCIT, Cen. Cir-XXI, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1443/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7839 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJOY KR SINGH PE
• Assessee Lawyers: SAJJ AN KR TULSIYAN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries; Assessment record
• Section: 69C; 147; 69; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. & SHRI GEORGE MATHA N, J.M. ] I.T.A. NO.1443 & 1444/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS :2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. CONTROLLA ELECTROTECH (P) LTD. (PAN: AABCC 1029K) .. ( APPELLANT ) -VS- DCIT, CIRCLE-51, KOLKATA .. ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 03.09.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 09.09.2014 APPEARANCES : FOR THE APPELLANTS : SHRI SAJJ AN KR. TULSIYAN, ADVOCATE : FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI AJOY KR.SINGH , CIT(DR), O R D E R PER SHRI GEORGE MATHAN,J.M. ITA NO.1443/KOL/2014 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), CENTRAL-II, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO .06 & 05/CC-XXI/CIT(A)C- II/14-15 DATED 20 TH JUNE, 2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND ITA NO.1444/KOL/2014 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), CENTRAL-II, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.06 & 05/CC -XXI/CIT(A)C-II/14-15 DATED 20 TH JUNE, 2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. AS BOT H THE APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE, HENCE THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN THE ASSESSEES APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAIS ED THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS WHICH ARE COMMON IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS. 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE A.O. WAS J USTIFIED IN INITIATING THE PROCEEDING U/S.147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE I.T. ACT FOR THE PR ESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND MAKING ADDITION U/S.68 & 69 OF THE I.T. AC T, 1961. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD H AVE COMPLIED WITH 2 ITA NO.1443 & 1444/KOL/2014 CONTROLLA ELECTROTECH (P) LTD. ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 THE REQUISITION ISSUED BY THE A.O. COMPLETELY IGNOR ING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS DISPUTING THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT ITSELF AS ISSUED BY THE LD. A.O. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROCEEDING WAS NOT REOPENED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SURESH KEJRIW AL AND WAS REOPENED ON FURTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE A.O . 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED O N BY THE APPELLANT WERE NOT APPLICABLE WITH THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE U/S.68 & 69 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 COMPLETELY IGNORING THE FACT THAT ALL THE EVIDENCES REQUIRED FOR ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CRED ITWORTHINESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAD BEEN FILED BEFORE HIM DURING THE AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAD ALSO BEEN FORWARDED TO THE A. O. BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR HIS COMMENTS. 3. SHRI SAJJAN KR. TULSIYAN, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI AJOY KR. SINGH, CIT(DR) REPRESENTED ON BEH ALF OF THE REVENUE. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R., REPRESENTING O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY WHICH IS DOING THE BUSINE SS OF REAL ESTATE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN O F INCOME ON 30.11.2006 ORIGINALLY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 HAD BEEN ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REOPENING ON 25.03.2013. IT WAS A SU BMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED FOR THE COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED. THE REASONS RECORDED HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE A LETTER DATED 20.05. 2013. THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE REASONS RECORDED WHICH WAS SHOWN A T PAGES 43 & 44 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE REASONS RECORDED WERE ALSO EXTRACTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGES 1 TO 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE REASONS RECORDED SHOWED THAT THE REASONS DRAWN BY THE AO SHOWED THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIO N ON THE GROUP AND IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A, AN APPRAISAL REPORT WAS 3 ITA NO.1443 & 1444/KOL/2014 CONTROLLA ELECTROTECH (P) LTD. ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 RECEIVED FROM THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-IV, KOLKATA, REGARDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE FORM OF UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN BY THE CASES OF MANI SQUARE LTD. GROUP. IT WAS A FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE REASONS FURTHER SHOWED THAT THE ALLEGATION WAS THAT THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ARE N OTHING BUT THE OWN FUNDS OF MANI SQUARE LTD. GROUP PUMPED IN THROUGH ACCOMMODAT ION PROVIDERS AS UNSECURED LOAN AND THAT ONE SHRI SURESH KEJRIWAL, D IRECTOR OF SAKET VINIMAY HAD, IN COURSE OF SURVEY CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF YU THIKA VYAPAAR IN THE YEAR 2009, HAD ADMITTED THE SAME. THE LD. AR FURTHER DRE W OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 76 TO 78 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH WAS A COPY OF THE STATE MENT OF SHRI SURESH KEJRIWAL, THE DIRECTOR OF SAKET VINIMAY PVT. LTD. RECORDED ON 26.02.2010, WHICH WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 20.01.2014. IT WAS A SU BMISSION THAT IN QUESTION NO.3 IN THE SAID STATEMENT RECORDED, SHRI SURESH KEJRIWA L HAD IDENTIFIED 13 PARTIES TO WHOM HE HAD ALLEGEDLY PROVIDED THE FINANCIAL MANAGE MENTS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEES NAME WAS NOWHERE IN THE SAID LI ST. A COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SURESH KEJRIWAL, AS REFERRED TO BY THE LD. A.R . IS EXTRACTED BELOW. STATEMENT OF SHRI SURESH KEJRIWAL, DIRECTOR OF SAKE T VINIMAY PVT. LTD. AT 12, SIR HARIRAM GOENKA STREET, KOLKATA-700 007 AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT 261, CHITTARANJAN AVENUE, KOLKATA-70006 9 RECORDED U/S.131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AT AAYAKAR BHAWAN ANNEXE, P-13, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA700069 ON 26.02.2010. I, SURESH KEJRIWAL, S/O LATE HARI PRASAD KEJRIWAL AGED 47 YEARS DO SWEAR IN THE NAME OF GOD THAT I SHALL SPEAK THE TRU TH, THE WHOLE FACT AND NOTING BUT TRUST. SD/- (OATH ADMINISTERED BY) (OATH TAKEN FROM) 26-2-2 010 Q.1. PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF? ANS. I, SHRI SURESH KEJRIWAL SON OF LATE H.P. KEJRI WAL, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT 261, CHITTARANJAN AYENUE, KOLKATA- 700 069. I AM ALSO THE DIRECTOR OF SAKET VINIMAY PVT. LTD. AT 12. HARIRAM GOENKA STREET, KOLKATA- 700 007. MY PAN IS AJSPK8583B AND I AM A REGULAR RE TURN FILER FOR LAST 15 YEARS I AM ASSESSED IN JTO, WARD-38(4), KOLKATA. Q.2. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AT THE OFFICE PREM ISE OF YUTHIKA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., RESPECT VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. & OTHERS AT P 41,PRINCEP STREET, 6 TH 4 ITA NO.1443 & 1444/KOL/2014 CONTROLLA ELECTROTECH (P) LTD. ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 FLOOR, ROOM NO. 611 & 612, KOLKATA700072 SOME INC RIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN IMPOUNDED CPU BEARING I.D. MARK.ANSPL/ 4 IN RESPECT OF SAKET VJNIMAY PVT., LTD. WERE FOUND IN WHICH THERE IS A FILE MAINTAINED AS SAKET HISAB WHICH CONSISTS THE YEAR-WISE CALCULATIO N OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED TO SEVERAL PARTIES. THE RATE OF J AMA KHARCHI RECEIVED FOR PROVIDING SUCH ENTRIES IS 30 PAISE. HOWEVER, YOU HA VE DISCLOSED 1.25 CRORE VIDE DISCLOSURE PETITION DATED 26.02.2010 AS UNACCO UNTED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF RECEIVED COMMISSION ON SUCH ENTRIES ON BEH ALF OF DIRECTOR OF SAKET VINIMAY PVT. LTD. AND ONE FIRM AND TWO OTHER COMPAN IES NAMELY AYUSH ENTERPRISES, SUBHAM FAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD., AND OLIV ER MOULDS AND PLASTICS PVT. LTD. RESPECTIVELY. SINCE YOU HAVE STATED THAT THESE TWO COMPANIES AND ONE FIRM OTHER THAN SAKET VINIMAY PVT. LTD. ARE BEI NG RUN BY YOU, THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.4,85,53,249/- HAS NOT BEEN C ONSIDERED FOR DISCLOSURE BY YOU. COMMENTS PLEASE. ANS. THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.4,85,53,249/- HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES TO WHOM FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEE N MADE. ACTUALLY THIS COMPUTER PRINT OUT CONSISTS OF CALCULATION OF FINAN CIAL CHARGES RECEIVED AND RECEIVABLE FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES. IT IS ALSO EVIDE NT FROM THE DOCUMENTS WHERE CONSOLIDATED FIGURES ARE WRITTEN THAT RECEIVE D AMOUNT IS ONLY RS.1,25,00,000/- AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.4.85,5 3,249/- IS RECEIVABLE PRIOR TO THE LAST CALCULATION AS SUMMARY OF SHRI SA NJIB ACCOUNT IT IS EVIDENT THAT INTEREST HAS BEEN INCREASED FROM 21 % TO 24% T O PUT THE PRESSURE ON THE PARTY TO PAY THE AMOUNT EARLY. IT IS ALSO EVIDE NT FROM THE STATEMENT THAT THE FINANCIAL CHARGES HAS BEEN DUE SINCE LONG PERIO D WHICH CAN BE PERUSED FROM THE SAME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT. FURTHER IT IS COMMON THAT THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS DOES NOT ENSURE THE CERTAINTY OF COMMIS SION TO BE RECEIVED EARNED FOR SUCH FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT BUT DUE TO THE PARTIES. SO, THE REMAINING BALANCE IS NOT A PART OF MY INCOME THAT I S WHY THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME. Q.3. I AM SHOWING YOU THE COMPLETE SHEET OF SAKET H ISAB MAINTAINED IN IMPOUNDED CPUANSPL/4 IMPOUNDED FROM YUTHIKA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. AT P- 41, PRINCEP STREET, 6 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.611&612, KOLKATA 700 072 DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON 05.11.2009 WHICH CONTAINS N AME OF VARIOUS PARTIES TO WHOM ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. O UT OF THOSE PARTIES THE MAIN PARTIES WHO HAVE TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRI ES FROM SAKET VINJMAY AND OTHER TWO COMPANIES SUBHAM FAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD, AND OLIVER MOULDS AND PLASTICS PVT. LTD. AND ONE FIRM AYUSH EN TERPRISES AFTER PAYING 30 PAISE JAMA KHARCHI TO THE SAID CONCERNS RUN BY Y OU FROM THE F.Y. 2003- 04 TO 2007-08 1. DR PLASTICS 2. MANI SHANKAR PROPERTIES 3. MANI VILLS PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. 4. MANI ENCLAVE PVT. LTD. 5 ITA NO.1443 & 1444/KOL/2014 CONTROLLA ELECTROTECH (P) LTD. ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 5. MANI HIRISE PVT. LTD. 6. MANI KUNJ PVT. LTD. , 7. MANI MATRIX VILLA (P) LTD. 8. MANIDIPA PVT. LTD. 9. M.ANL SQUARE PVT. LTD. 10, R.D. MOTORS PVT. LTD. 11. R.D. PROPERTIES 12. TANTIA FINANCIAL SERVICES 13. TANTIA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. COMMENTS PLEASE. ANS. I AGREE THAT THESE ARE THE MAIN COMPANIES TO WHOM FINANCIAL MANAGEMENTS HAVE BEEN DONE ON WHICH COMMISSION AT T HE RATE OF 30 PAISE HAS BEEN CALCULATED. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.6,20,90 ,617 INCLUDES THE AMOUNTT OF SOME COMMISSION EARNED ON FINANCIAL MANA GEMENTS TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED PARTIES FROM 1 TO 13 OUT OF WHICH SOME CO MMISSION HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND SOME ARE DUE. THE TOTAL RECEIVED COMMI SSION OF RS.1,25,00,000/- INCLUDES THE COMMISSION EARNED FRO M THE ABOVE 13 PARTIES. Q.4. WHAT ARE THE NATURE OF FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS MADE TO THE PARTIES AS MENTIONED IN Q. NO.13 BY YOUR CONCERNS AS PER SAKET HISAB OF ANSPL/4? ANS. THE NATURE OF FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT TO THE AB OVE PARTIES ARE IN THE FORM OF LOAN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. Q.5. FROM THE SAKET HISAB OF IMPOUNDED CPU ANSPL/4 IT IS EVIDENT THAT THERE IS DETAILS OF SALE FROM SAKET VINIMAY PVT. LT D. FROM F.Y. 2002-03 TO 2006-07 TO THREE DIFFERENT COMPANIES PLEASE EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF SALES AND TRANSACTIONS RECORDED THEREIN. ANS. THESE ARE THE SAID TRANSACTIONS TO VARIOUS PAR TIES FROM SAKET VINIMAY PVT. LTD. I CANNOT REMEMBER RIGHT NOW THESE TRANSAC TIONS. THE DETAILS OF THE SAME WILL BE FURNISHED ON 10.03.2010 ALONG WITH BOO KS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENT. Q.6. DO YOU WANT TO ADD OR ALTER ANYTHING? ANS. YES, I AM VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSING RS.1.25 CROR E AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION ON FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT M ADE BY SAKET VINIMAY PVT. LTD., SUBHAM FAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND OLIVER MOULDS AND PLASTICS PVT. LTD. AND ONE FIRM AYUSH ENTERPRISES. I HAVE READ THE ABOVE RECORDED STATEMENT CAREFULLY AND UNDERSTAND ITS CONTENTS AND FULLY SATISFIED. THE ABOVE HAD BEEN RE CORDED CORRECTLY WITHOUT THREAT, FORCE AND COERCION. SD/- SURESH KEJRIWAL 26-2-2010 6 ITA NO.1443 & 1444/KOL/2014 CONTROLLA ELECTROTECH (P) LTD. ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 THE ABOVE STATEMENT HAS BEEN RECORDED BEFORE ME WH ICH HAS BEEN READ AND MADE UNDERSTOOD TO THE SHRI SURESH KEJRIWA L IN HINDI ALSO. SD/- A.O. 4.1 IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBJEC TED TO THE REOPENING BY SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING THAT THE REOPENING COULD NO T BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SURESH KEJRIWAL. IT WAS A SUBMISS ION THAT THIS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF REOPENING WAS REFUTED BY THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 16.12.2013 WHEREIN IN PARA 10 OF THE SAID LETTER, T HE AO HAD FURTHER IMPROVED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY STATING THAT THE REOPENING WAS NOT ONLY BASED ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SURESH KEJRIWAL BUT WAS SUPPORTED BY AN ELECTRONIC STORAGE DEVICE IMPOUNDED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY. IT WAS TH US THE SUBMISSION THAT AT THE OUTSET, THE REOPENING WAS NOT VALID IN SO FAR AS NO CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SHRI SURESH KEJRIWAL HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS A FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE SO-CALLED STATEMENT OF SHRI SURESH KEJRIWAL DID NOT CONTAIN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE MUCH LESS THERE BEING ANY REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS A FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE STATEMENT HAVING NO REFERENCE T O THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO AND THE AO HAD DONE NOTHING FURTHER. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIGNATURE HOTELS PVT. LTD., REPORTED IN 338 ITR 51 (DEL.) JUST ON THE BASIS OF AN APPRAISAL REPORT AND THE AO NOT EXAMINING THE EVIDENCES, THE RE-ASSESSMENT WAS LIABLE TO BE HELD INVALID. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMI SSION THAT THE FACT THAT THE AO ATTEMPTED TO MAKE FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO THE REASO NS RECORDED VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 16.12.2013 CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAD RECOGNIZED THE WEAKNESS IN THE REASONS ORIGINALLY RECORDED. IT WAS A SUBMIS SION THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SU KHDEO PRASAD AGARWALLA REPORTED IN 140 ITR 1010 (CAL.), THERE BEING NO DIR ECT NEXUS OR LIVE LINK BETWEEN THE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF SHRI SURESH KEJRIWAL AND THE ASSESSEE AND THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF OF THE AO THAT THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THE REOPENING WAS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THIS 7 ITA NO.1443 & 1444/KOL/2014 CONTROLLA ELECTROTECH (P) LTD. ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 IDENTICAL PROPOSITION WAS ALSO THE VIEW OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS REPORTED IN 103 ITR 437. IT W AS A FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE SO-CALLED IMPROVEMENT TO THE REASONS RECORDED F OR REOPENING COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SO FAR AS ONLY SUCH REASONS RECORDED FOR OBTAINING THE SANCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF REOPENING COULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED A ND NONE OTHER, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF EQUITABLE INVESTMENT CO. (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 174 ITR 714. THE LD. AR FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL REASONS HAD BEEN RECORDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REOPEN ING IN THE CASES OF VARIOUS MANI SQUARE LTD. GROUP WHICH HAD APPROACHED THE HON BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, WHICH HAD IN ITS ORDER DATED 03.06.2014 IN PARA 38 HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 38. JAMA KHARCHI TRANSACTIONS THROUGH ENTRY OPERATO R SRI SURESH KEJRIWAL: (I) THE CIT(DR) SUBMITTED, THAT IN COURSE OF A SUR VEY ACTION CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF YUTHIKA VYAPAAR LTD. ON 05.11.1999, ENTRY OPERATOR MR. SURESH KEJRIWAL HAD ACCEPTED RECEIPT OF RS.1.25 CRO RE AS COMMISSION ON PROVIDING ENTRIES TO VARIOUS COMPANIES INCLUDING TH E APPLICANT COMPANY. IN HIS SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT, THE DEPARTMENT HAS FURNIS HED DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. AS PER THE SAME, RS.18,45,00,000/- WO ULD HAVE TO BE TAXED U/S.68 AND RS.79,50,589/- HAVE TO BE TAXED U/S 69C TOWARDS THE AMOUNT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND COMMISSION PAID THEREOF. (II) THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SRI SANJAY JHUNJHUNW ALA, IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, HAD CATEGORICAL LY SUBMITTED THAT THEY HAVE NEVER ENTERED INTO ANY JAMA KHANCHI TRANSACTIO N WITH THE SO-CALLED SURESH KEJRIWAL. THE A.R. FURTHER STATED THAT THE S EARCH HAS REVEALED THAT THE APPLICANT COMPANY HAS BEEN BORROWING HEAVILY FR OM THE MARKET THROUGH THE FINANCE BROKERS BOTH IN CHEQUE AND IN CASH. AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF INDULGING INTO ENTRY TRANSACTIONS, WHIC H WAS RESORTED BY PERSONS HAVING SURPLUS, AND MORE SPARE BLACK MONEY, WHEREAS IN CASE OF THE APPLICANT COMPANY THERE WAS SHORTAGE OF FUNDS. HE F URTHER STATED THAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE THAT LOANS MIGHT HAVE BEEN P ROVIDED BY THIRD PARTIES IN NAME OF THE LENDING PARTIES IN CONNIVANC E WITH MR KEJRIWAL. NEITHER THE APPLICANT COMPANY WAS AWARE OF ANY SUCH THING NOR WAS IT AWARE OF THE DETAILS OF LENDING PARTIES SINCE THE L OANS WERE RECEIVED THROUGH THE BROKERS. MOREOVER, MOST OF THE LOANS WERE REPAI D BACK WHEN IN CASE OF JAMA KHARCHI TRANSACTIONS, SUCH ENTRIES OF LOANS AR E CARRIED FROM YEAR TO YEAR. MOREOVER, THE APPLICANT COMPANY WAS SEARCHED AND NOT AN IOTA OF 8 ITA NO.1443 & 1444/KOL/2014 CONTROLLA ELECTROTECH (P) LTD. ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 EVIDENCE WAS FOUND RELATING TO THE APPLICANT HAVING INDULGED IN ANY JAMA KHARCHI TRANSACTION. FURTHER, THE DEPARTMENT DID NO T AFFORD THE APPLICANT COMPANY ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE MR. KEJRIW AL THOUGH THE HEARINGS OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS WERE HELD ON 11 DI FFERENT DATES. BEING A TAINTED PERSON MR. KEJRIWAL'S UNILATERAL STATEMENT SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON WITHOUT PUTTING THE SAME TO THE TEST OF FURTHER SCR UTINY. (III) DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IT WAS SUBMITTE D BY THE A.R. THAT IF THESE ARE THE ONLY JAMA KHARCHI TRANSACTIONS, THE NORMAL TENDENCY OF ANY PERSON IS TO CARRY THE ENTRIES [OR A LONG PERIODS, AND NOR MA1LY, THERE WILL NOT BE ANY REPAYMENT IN A SHORT PERIOD. IT WAS ALSO SUBMIT TED BY HIM THAT NOT ONLY THE MONEY HAS BEEN BORROWED FROM THESE PARTIES, BUT THE REPAYMENT HAS ALSO BEEN MADE BY CHEQUE, AND THE INTEREST ON THE S AME HAS ALSO BEEN PAID BY CHEQUE, ON WHICH THE TDS HAS ALSO BEEN DEDUCTED. (IV) THE DIT, ITSC, VIDE HIS LETTER DT. 31.3.2014 REQUESTED THE APPLICANT TO FILE THE COPY OF COMPLETE ACCOUNTS ALONG WITH THE D ETAILS OF INTEREST ON TDS DEDUCTED. THE DETAILS WERE FILED BY THE APPLICANT O N 3.4.2014. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AR THAT THE APPLICANT AND ITS GROU P IS NOT ACQUAINTED WITH SHRI SURESH KEJRIWAL AND THEY HAD NOT ENTERED INTO ANY JAMA KHARCHI TRANSACTIONS WITH SHRI SURESH KEJRIWAL. THE LOAN RE CEIVED FROM THEM HAS SINCE BEEN RE-PAID AND MANY OF THE REPAYMENTS ARE B EFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. (V) WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E A.R. AND THE CONDUCT OF THE APPLICANT. WE FIND THERE ARE REPAYMENTS MADE TO THESE COMPANIES EVEN IN THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE INTEREST HAS ALSO BEEN PAID TO THESE COMPANIES BY CHEQUE ON WHICH THE TDS HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR THAT IN CASE OF JAMA KHAR CHI TRANSACTIONS, NORMALLY THE ENTRIES/FUNDS ARE CARRYING FOR LONGER DURATIONS, WHILE IN THE CASE OF THE APPLICANTS THE REPAYMENTS ARE WITHIN SH ORT PERIOD ALSO. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO ACCEPT THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MA DE IN THIS SETTLEMENT IN THE MANNER SUGGESTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 4.2 IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT NO EVIDENCES HAD BEEN FOUND NOR ANY EVIDENCE SHOWN TO SUPPORT THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ANY ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE FORM OF LOAN FROM SHRI SURESH KEJRIWAL. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT IN FACT, SHRI SURESH KEJRIWAL HAD R EFERRED TO MANY OF THE CONCERNS IN THE MANI SQUARE LTD. GROUP BUT THE ASSESSEES NA ME WAS CONSPICUOUS BY ITS ABSENCE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE NEXUS AND T HE LIVE LINK BETWEEN THE REASONS 9 ITA NO.1443 & 1444/KOL/2014 CONTROLLA ELECTROTECH (P) LTD. ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 RECORDED AND THE SO-CALLED INFORMATION WHICH GAVE T HE GROUND FOR REOPENING, BEING NOT THERE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REOPENIN G WAS LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 4.3 IN REGARD TO THE MERITS, IT WAS A SUBMISSION TH AT THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RAISED ANY ARGU MENT ON MERITS, THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) CLEARLY REFERRED TO THE MERITS AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO ON THE WRITT EN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CONTROVERT ANY OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO MERITS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE LOAN HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM M/S.SAKET VINIMAY PVT. LTD. THE LOAN CARRIED AN INTEREST RATE OF 9 PE RCENTAGE. TDS WAS DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED WITH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. THE LOAN WAS TAKEN BETWEEN OCTOBER, 2005 AND MARCH, 2006 ON VARIOUS DATES. THE LOAN WAS REPAID BETWEEN APRIL, 2006 AND JULY, 2007 ALONG WITH INTEREST. THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AT PAGES 211 TO 214 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT W AS A SUBMISSION THAT M/S. SAKET VINIMAY PVT. LTD. HAD ALSO SHOWN THE LOAN GRANTED T O THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BALANCE- SHEET. THE LD. AR PLACED BEFORE US THE COPIES OF TH E DIRECTORS REPORT AND THE BALANCE-SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNTS OF SAKET V INIMAY PVT. LTD. FOR THE PERIOD 31.03.2005 AND 31.03.2006. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT EVEN ON MERITS, THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SAKET VINIMAY PVT. LTD. WAS LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. IT WAS ALSO THE SUBMISSION THAT THE HONBL E SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, WHILE DECIDING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASES OF MANI SQUARE LTD. GROUP, HAD ACCEPTED THE CLAIM. HE DREW OUR REFERENCE TO PARA 3 8 OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AS HAS BEEN EXTRACTED EARLIER . IT WAS THUS A SUBMISSION THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS LIABLE TO BE QUASHE D AND EVEN ON MERITS, THE ADDITION WAS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 5. IN REPLY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENIN G WAS DONE ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE. REASONS HAD BEEN CORRECTLY RECORDED AND THE REQUISITE APPROVAL OBTAINED. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT IN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SURESH KEJRIWAL, ONLY THE MAIN PARTIES HAD BEEN REFER RED TO. IT WAS FURTHER A 10 ITA NO.1443 & 1444/KOL/2014 CONTROLLA ELECTROTECH (P) LTD. ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 SUBMISSION THAT SHRI SURESH KEJRIWAL HAD GIVEN A DI SCLOSURE, WHICH THE LD. DR POINTED OUT AT PAGE 79 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH REA DS AS FOLLOWS: TO, SHRI AJAY KUMAR KESHARI, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.) UNIT-IV(5), KOLKATA, P-13, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 5 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.1, KOLKATA 700 069. SIR, REG: VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF RS.1.25 CRORES IN PUR SUANCE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS U/S.133A IN THE CASE OF RESPECT VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., AKASH NET SALES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED AT THE OFFICE PREMISES OF R ESPECT VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., AKASH NET SALES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS AT P-41, PRINCEP STREET, 6 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.611 AND 612, KOLKATA-700 072. SEVERA L BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, CPUS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED, OUT OF WHICH SOME IN CRIMINATING DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT, OF AYUSH ENTERPRISES, SUBHAM & INDIA PVT. LTD., SAKET VINIMAY PVT. LTD. AND OLIVER MOULDS AND PLAST ICS PVT. LTD. WERE FOUND, IN WHICH SOME FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BE EN MADE. FOR THIS FINANCIA1 ARRANGEMENTS SOME COMMISSION/BROKERAGE WE RE EARNED WHICH ARE UNACCOUNTED. I, SURESH KEJRIWAL, BEING A DIRECTOR OF SAKET VINI MAY PVT LTD., USED TO OPERATE THESE THREE COMPANIES AND ONE FIRM FROM THE SAID SURVEY PREMISE. I AM ALSO MAINTAINING AND MANAGING THE AFFAIRS OF OLI VER MOULDS AND PLASTIC PVT. LTD. AND SUBHAM & INDIA PVT. LTD AND ONE FIRM AYUSH ENTERPRISES. HOWEVER, I AM NEITHER THE DIRECTOR OF THE ABOVE TWO COMPANIES NOR THE PROPRIETOR OF THE SAID ENTERPRISES. DURING THE SURVEY, COMPUTER PRINT OUTS HAVE BEEN T AKEN OUT WHEREIN THE STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTION ENTERED BETW EEN DIFFERENT COMPANIES, FIRMS ARE MENTIONED BELONGS TO ME AND MY COMPANIES, THE INCOME ARISING BASED ON SUCH IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT HAS BEEN EARNED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS WHICH ARE NOT ACCOUNTED IN OUR BOOKS.. OUT OF THE TOTAL INCOME EARNED SO, THE THREE COMPANIES AND ONE FIRM HAVE RE CEIVED ONLY RS.1.25 CRORE REMAINING INCOME IS DUE. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS DOES NOT ENSURE THE CERTAINTY OF COMMISSION RECEIVA BLE. THEREFORE, I AM VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSING RS.1.25 CRORE ONLY ON THE BA SIS OF INCOME RECEIVED FOR ARRANGING SUCH FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THESE THREE COMPANIES AND ONE FIRM IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND AVOI D PROLONGED LITIGATION 11 ITA NO.1443 & 1444/KOL/2014 CONTROLLA ELECTROTECH (P) LTD. ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 WITH THE DEPARTMENT WITH THE HOPE THAT NO PENALTY A ND PROSECUTION PROCEEDINGS WILL BE INITIATED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. I WILL PAY THE TAX ON THE ABOVEMENTIONED AMOUNT SH ORTLY. YOURS SINCERELY, SD/- DATE : 2010 (SURESH KEJRIWAL) 5.1 IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT REOPENING WAS VALIDLY MADE AND WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON MERITS, AD MITTEDLY, TDS HAD BEEN DEDUCTED BUT DETAILS OF THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN PRODU CED BEFORE THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND THE SAME HAD BEEN PRODUCED ONLY IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS FAIRLY AGREED THAT TH E SAME HAD BEEN PUT BEFORE THE AO IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. CIT,DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERU SAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN THE REASONS HAD BEEN RECORDED FOR REOPENING, CLEARL Y SHOWS THAT THE REOPENING HAS BEEN DONE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE ST ATEMENT AND DISCLOSURE PETITION FILED BY SHRI SURESH KEJRIWAL. THIS SO-CALLED STATEMENT AND DISCLOSURE ARE THE FOUNDATION ALONG WITH THE APPRAISAL REPORT. AT THE OUTSET, A P ERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT FROM SHRI KEJRIWAL SHOWS THAT THIS IS THE STATEMENT TAKEN IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THIS STATEMENT LOOSES ITS EVIDENTIARY VALUE IN SO FAR AS THE STATEMENT RECORDED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY HAS NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENTIARY VALU E. IT IS NOT RECORDED UNDER OATH. NO OATH HAS BEEN ADMINISTERED. THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE APPRAISAL REPORT AND THE REOPENING FAIL BECAUSE OF THIS PRIMARY DEFECT. ASSUMING, WE ARE GIVING EVIDENTIARY VALUE TO THIS STATEMENT, IN QUESTION NO.3 IN THE ST ATEMENT AS HAS BEEN SPECIFIED BY THE LD. CIT,DR, LIST OF THE MAIN PARTIES TO WHOM THE SAID ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED BY SAKET VINIMAY PVT. LTD. HAS BEEN LISTED OUT 13 IN NUMBER. WHEN THESE NAMES ARE COMPARED WITH THE CHART IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS SPECIFYING THE REASONS FOR REOPENING, SHOWS THAT M ANY OF THE NAMES IN THE LIST TALLIED WITH THAT IN THE CHART BUT THE ASSESSEE S LOAN AMOUNT IS THE HIGHEST. OBVIOUSLY, ASSESSEES NAME MUST BE THE MAIN PERSON THAT SHRI SURESH KEJRIWAL 12 ITA NO.1443 & 1444/KOL/2014 CONTROLLA ELECTROTECH (P) LTD. ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 WOULD HAVE REMEMBERED, AS THE ASSESSEE IS THE PERSO N TO WHOM SUCH A HUGE LOAN HAD BEEN EXTENDED. BUT THE ASSESSEES NAME IS CONSP ICUOUS BY ITS ABSENCE IN THAT LIST. THUS, THE REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI KEJRIWAL FOR THE PURPOSES OF REOPENING IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE A GAIN FAILS WITHOUT A FOUNDATION, AS THE ASSESSEES NAME IS NOWHERE REFERRED TO IN TH E STATEMENT RECORDED ON THE CONFESSIONAL DISCLOSURE. SIMILARLY, EVEN IF AN ATTE MPT TO PROTECT THE REOPENING IS MADE BY REFERENCE TO THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY SHRI KE JRIWAL EVEN THERE, THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, PRIMA FACIE, THERE IS NO LIVE LINK NOR DIRECT NEXUS TO THE STATEMENT OF SHRI KEJRIWAL OF HAVING PROVIDE D ANY ACCOMMODATION ENTRY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. ON THIS GROUND ITSELF, THE REOPENING IS LIABLE TO BE HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW AND WE DO SO. 6.1 COMING TO THE IMPROVEMENT TO THE REASONS RECORD ED, AS HAS BEEN ALLEGED BY THE LD. AR BY REFERRING TO THE LETTER OF THE AO DAT ED 06.12.2013, WE ARE UNABLE TO GIVE ANY SUPPORT TO THE REOPENING IN SO FAR AS SUCH COMPUTER EXTRACT IS NOT FOUND IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS NOR HAS IT BEEN PLACED BEFOR E US. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF EQUITABLE INVESTMENT CO. (P) LTD. REFERRED TO SUPRA, CLEARLY HOLDS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN SO FAR A S ONLY SUCH REASONS RECORDED FOR OBTAINING THE SANCTI ON FOR THE PURPOSES OF REOPENING IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHICH CAN BE CONSIDE RED. THIS VIEW IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS, REFERRED TO SUPRA . THUS, ON ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS, IT IS HELD THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS STAND CANCELLED AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT OR DERS PASSED FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH REOPENING ALSO STAND CANCELLED. 6.2 EVEN COMING TO THE ISSUE ON MERITS, IT IS NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE EVIDENCES TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF THE LOAN, THOUGH BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND REPORT HAS ALSO BEEN CALLED IN FR OM THE AO. THE AO OTHER THAN SUPPORTING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, HAS NOT DISLODGED ANYTHING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED IN RESPECT OF GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION. THE 13 ITA NO.1443 & 1444/KOL/2014 CONTROLLA ELECTROTECH (P) LTD. ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 BALANCE-SHEET OF SAKET VINIMAY PVT. LTD., WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, CLEARLY SHOWED THAT EVEN SAKET VINIMAY PV T. LTD. HAD GRANTED LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ACCOUNTS. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN ACCO MMODATION ENTRY. THERE IS NEITHER ANY STATEMENT NOR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO Q UESTION THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TAKEN AND REPAID BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN FURTHER , UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, ONE JUDICIAL FORUM, BEING THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT CO MMISSION IN ITS ORDER IN THE CASE OF MANI SQUARE LTD. GROUP, HAD REACHED A SPECI FIC CONCLUSION THAT IT HAS NOT FOUND ANY REASON TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE D EPARTMENT THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MADE, AS SUGGESTED BY THE DEPARTMENT . ONE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY HAVING TAKEN THIS VIEW AND THIS VIEW HAVING NOT BEE N DISLODGED BY ANY SUPERIOR COURTS NOR THIS VIEW HAVING BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN OBTAINED THROUGH FRAUD OR MISREPRESENTATION AND THE REVENUE HAVING FAILED TO DISLODGE THIS FINDING, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S. SAKET VINIMAY PVT. LTD. IS LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS A GENUINE TRANSACTION AND THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS AND UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) STAND DELETED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 TALUKDAR(SR.P.S.) 14 ITA NO.1443 & 1444/KOL/2014 CONTROLLA ELECTROTECH (P) LTD. ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. CONTROLLA ELECTROTECH (P) LTD., Y-10, SECTOR-V , EP BLOCK, SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKATA 700 091 2 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXI, KOLKATA 3. THE CIT(A), 4. CIT, 5. DR, TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA