B. N. Brothers, Howrah V. DCIT, C ircle- 48, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1461/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 54468 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M BHATTACHARYA
• Assessee Lawyers: R SALARPURIA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH B , KOLKATA [ () , , . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . , , , , #$ ] ]] ] [BEFORE HONBLE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HONBLE S RI C. D. RAO, AM] & & & & /ITA NO.1461/KOL/2010 '( )*/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 (,- / APPELLANT ) - ' - ( /0,- /RESPONDENT) B.N.BROTHERS D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-48, KOLKATA (PAN:AACFB 7439 G) -VERSUS- KOLKATA ,- 1 2 #/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI R.SALARPURIA /0,- 1 2 #/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI M.BHATTACHARYA #3 / ORDER ( (( ( . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . ) )) ), , , , #$ PER SHRI C.D.RAO, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORD ER DATED 20.04.2010 OF THE CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA PERTAINING TO A.YR. 2005-06. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. FOR THAT AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2300722/ - AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT DUE TO UNDER STATEMENT OF THE SALE CONSID ERATION OF COKE IN AS MUCH AS COKES OF THE INFERIOR QUALITY WERE SOLD AT A LOW ER PRICE. 2. FOR THAT AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRANSPO RTATION CHARGES OF RS.25000/- IN AS MUCH AS THE SAID ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SURMISE AND CONJECTURE WHEREAS THE EXPENDITURE WERE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 3. FOR THAT AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWING OF TELEPHON E EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.30000/- IN AS MUCH AS THE TELEPHONE EXPENSES WER E INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT WHILE DOI NG THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.23,90,722/- ON ACCOUNT OF SA LE MADE BY THE SISTER CONCERN AND 2 RS.43,754/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES AN D RS.59,151/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES BY OBSERVING THAT :- A. SALES TO RELATED PARTY AT LOW PRICE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD COAL TO THE SISTER CONCERN AS UNDER :- DATE SISTER CONCERN QUALITY QUANTITY RATE AMOUNT 26/02/06 RAMA SHANKAR MISHRA BREEZE COKE 182 2350 427700 04/03/05 RAMA SHANKAR MISHRA BREEZE COKE 150 2350 352500 07/03/05 RAMA SHANKAR MISHRA BREEZE COKE 65.2 2350 153200 29/03/05 MISHRA UDYOG (P) LTD BREEZE COKE 54.5 2350 128075 30/03/05 MISHRA UDYOG (P) LTD BREEZE COKE 65.2 2350 153220 30/03/05 MISHRA UDYOG (P) LTD. BREEZE COKE 63.1 2350 148285 31/03/05 MISHRA UDYOG (P) LTD BREEZE COKE 49.127 2350 115448.45 TOTAL 629.127 2350 1478428.45 WHILE TO THE OTHER CONCERN THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD CO AL AT RATE RANGING FROM 7100 TO 3300. FROM THE ANNEXURE TA-3 OF TAX AUDIT REPORT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE TOTAL SALES OF RS.1420 BREEZE COKE AND OUT OF THESE THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 629.127 I.E. 44.3% OF THE TOTAL BREEZE COKE TO SIST ER CONCERN AT BELOW MARKET PRICE HENCE VIDE NOTE SHEET ENTRY DATED 10/04/2007 THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED EXPLAIN WHY THE COKE WAS SOLD AT LOWER RATE. THE AS SESSEE IS HIS LETTER DATED 24/04/2007 SUBMITTED THAT AS PER OUR NATURE OF BUSINESS PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR MATERIAL NAMED AS BREEZE COKE IS BOUGHT IN THE SIZE OF 0MM TO 15MM. AFTER UN LOADING THE MATERIAL IS SCREENED AND STACKED IN DIFFERENT SIZE. THE SALES P RIZE VARIES AS PER THE SIZE OF THE MATERIAL. THE BEST QUALITY SIZE COMES TO NEAR A BOUT 50% TO 60% OF THE TOTAL AFTER SCREENING WHICH IS SOLD AT HIGHER PRIZE AND T HE LOWER QUALITY AND DUST ARE SOLD AT LOWER PRICE. 3 PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SALES WERE MADE TO OUR SISTER CONCERN DURING THE YEAR WAS RELATED TO LOWER AND DUST QUALITY OF MATERIAL REMAI NING AFTER SCREENING FURTHER WE HAVE NO PARTY FOR SALE OF THE MATERIAL AT THAT T IME AND WE IN NEED OF MONEY THAT IS WHY WE SOLD TO OUR SISTER CONCERN WHO GAD R EADILY AVAILABLE CUSTOMER FOR THAT MATERIAL. PLEASE NOTE THAT WE HAVE MADE OV ERALL PROFIT ON SALES OF OPENING STOCK AND PURCHASE OF MATERIAL AS FOLLOWS MATERIAL BREEZE COKE QUANTITY COST OPENING STOCK 778.767 M.T. RS.2287734/- PURCHASE 641.515 M.T. RS.3858680/- SOLD TO QUANTITY RATE SALE VALUE S.K.MINERAL 409.14 7100/- 2904894/- SAMSON TRADERS 200.410 7100/- 1422911/- SHAH INC 138.67 6500/- 901355/- BHARAT METAL CORP 11.57 3300/- 38181/- RAJ FINOXIDE 19.875 2050/- 65588/- BHARAT METAL CORP 11.490 2050/- 23555/- R.S.MISHRA 397.2 2350/- 933420/- MISHRA UDYOG 231.927 2350/- 545028/- 1420.292 6834931/- THUS FROM THE BREAKUP SUBMITTED IT IS SEEN THAT BEL OW QUALITY 672.062 MT AND GOOD QUALITY WAS 748.220 MT WHICH COMES TO 47% LOWE R QUALITY 53% OF GOOD QUALITY COAL. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF TAX AUDIT REPO RT THERE WAS NO MENTION IN THIS RESPECT SINCE DUST AND LOWER QUALITY WAS CLAIM ED TO BE SUBSTANTIAL. ALSO ON PERUSAL OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THERE WAS NO SUCH BREAK UP OF BELOW QUALITY AND GOOD QUALITY COKE. MOREOVER FROM THE PURCHASE REGIS TER OF THE ASSESSEES IT IS FOUND THAT ASSESSES HAS PURCHASED BREEZE COKE FROM BHAWANI TRADING AND JOYMA TARA COKE UDYOG AT THE RATE OF RS.6299/MT AND 6000/MT THROUGH THE YEAR. FROM THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS AC COUNT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESEE IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY GODOWN FOR STORING THE COKE THUS IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DI RECT TRADING AGENT AND SUPPLIED THE COKE TO THE PARTY AS AND WHEN ORDERED. HENCE IT IS QUITE UNUSUAL THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED COAL @6000-6300/MT AND SOLD THE SAME TO ITS SISTER CONCERN AT BELOW MARKET PRICE. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE COAL TO ITS SISTER CONCERN DURING THE END OF THE FI NANCIAL YEAR I.E. ON FEBRUARY AND MARCH. TAKING THE PRINCIPLE OF FIRST IN FIRST O UT BASIS (FIFO), THE COAL WHICH THE ASSESSES SOLD TO ITS SISTER CONCERN ARE THE COA L WHICH THE ASSESSES BOUGHT DURING THE YEAR AT PRICE RANGING FROM RS.6000-6300/ - THE HENCE FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSES IS AN A FTER THOUGHT AND THE PRICE AT WHICH THE ASSESSES SOLD TO ITS SISTER CONCERN IS NO THING BUT SUPPRESSION OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD THE PRICE AT W HICH THE ASSESSEE SOLD TO THE SISTER CONCERN AT AN AVERAGE OF PURCHASE PRICE (600 0+6300)/2=6150. HENCE THE 4 TOTAL AMOUNT FOR WHICH THE COAL IS SOLD TO THE COAL IS SOLD TO THE SISTER COMES OUT TO BE RS6150*629.13 =RS.38,69,150/- HENCE THE DIFFE RENCE IN AMOUNT I.E. RS.23,90,722 IS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. C. TRANSPORTATION CHARGES THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED IN ITS TRADING ACCOUNT TRA NSPORTATION CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,75,015 ON BEING ASKED DETAIL OF T RANSPORTING CHARGES VIDE NOTE SHEET ENTRY DATED 18/12/07 THE ASSESSES VERBAL LY SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT IS PAID BY SELF MADE VOUCHER TO THE TRUCK DRIVERS A ND HENCE ITS ADDRESS CANNOT BE GIVEN. HENCE THE ASSESSEE SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY NOT 25% OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REPLY TO ABOVE SHOW CAUDSE NOTICE AND HENCE 25% OF 175015/- = R43754/- IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO TOTAL IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. D.ADMINISTRATIVE & OTHER EXPENSES IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED MOTO R CAR AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES IN THE INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND FURTHER CLA IMED DEPRECIATION ON THE MOTOR CAR. NOBODY CAN DENY THE FACT THAT A MOTOR CA R AND TELEPHONE ARE OF IMMENSE HELP FOR THE BUSINESS/PROFESSION. THUS, MAJ OR CHUNK OF SUCH MOTORCAR AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE BUSINESS EXPEN DITURE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME PERSONAL USE OF MOTOR CAR AND TELEPHONE IS ALSO A KNOWN FACT. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSSESSION OF ANY LOG BOOK FOR THE PURPOSE OF BIFURCATING BOTH TYPE OF USES. THERE FORE I AM OF THE FIRM OPINION THAT THE MOTOR CAR AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES ARE NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. HENCE, R S.59,151 AS 1/4 TH OF MOTORCAR EXPENSE, DEPRECIATION ON CAR AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES ARE BEING DISALLOWED IN FOLLOWING MANNER AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSES EXPENSES AMT.DEBITED IN P&L A/C 1/4 TH DISALLOWED VEHICLE EXPENSES 39665 9916.25 VEHICLE INSURANCE 5610 1402.5 MOTOR CAR DEPRECIATION 97277 24319.25 TELEPHONE EXPENSES DEPRECIATION ON PHONE [phone].75 528 TOTAL 236603 59150.75 3.1. ON APPEAL LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.23,90,722/-ON ACCOUNT OF SALE MADE TO THE SISTER CONCERN BY OBSERVING AS UND ER :- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE A.O. AT PAGE-1 OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER HAS ANALYSED THE DETAILS OF SALE MADE TO THE SISTER CONCERNS AT LOWER RATE. HE HAS GIVEN DETAILED REASONS IN PAGE-2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE QUALITY OF THE COKE SOLD TO THE SISTER CONCERN WAS LOWER FOR WHICH THE SALE PRICE HAD TO BE AT A LOWER 5 RATE. HOWEVER, THE TAX AUDIT REPORT HAS NOT MENTION ED ANYTHING ABOUT THE BREAK UP OF THE OPENING STOCK, WHAT IS THE EXTENT OF DUST AN D LOWER QUALITY STUFF IN THE CLOSING STOCK FIGURE. ALSO THERE IS NO MENTION OF SUCH BRE AK UP OF LOWER/INFERIOR QUALITY COKE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN O PENING STOCK OF BREEZE COKE AT A QUANTITY OF 778.76 MT. WHICH HAS BEEN VALUED AT RS. 22,87,734/- @ RS.2,938/- PER MT. THE PURCHASE OF BREEZE COKE HAS BEEN SHOWN @ RS.6,0 15/ PER MT. FROM THE DETAILS OF BREEZE COKE FILED BY THE APPELLANT, IT WOULD BE SEEN THAT FROM THE QUANTITY OF OPENING STOCK, SALE HAS BEEN MADE AT A PRICE OF RS .6,500/- PER MT. ONLY IN CASE OF BHARAT METAL CORPORATION, THE SALE HAS BEEN MADE AT RS.2050/- AND RS.3,300/-. ASSESSEE STARTED PURCHASE OF COKE FROM BHAWANI TRAD ING COMPANY ON 29.08.2004 AT A RATE OF RS.6,299/- PER MT. AND RS.6,300/- PER NIT . THE MAXIMUM QUANTITY OF SALE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE SISTER CONCERNS LIKE M/S. MISHRA UDYOG PVT. LTD. AND M/S.RAMA SHANKAR MISHRA IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY AND MARCH, 2005. EVEN, THE MAXIMUM SALE TO THE SISTER CONCERNS HAVE BEEN MADE FROM 29-03-20 05 TO 31-03-2005. OUT OF OPENING STOCK PLUS PURCHASE OF BREEZE COKE OF 1420 MT., SALE TO THE SISTER CONCERNS AMOUNTS TO AROUND 630 MT. IN OTHER WORDS, SUBSTANTI AL SALE TO THE SISTER CONCERN HAS BEEN MADE AT A LOWER RATE. THE APPELLANT HAS VALUED THE OPENING STOCK @ RS.2,938/-. WHILE VALUING THE OPENING STOCK AS ON 01-04-2004 OR CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31-03-2004, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BREAK UP OF THE STO CK AS TO HOW MUCH BELONGS TO THE INFERIOR QUALITY AND HOW MUCH BELONGS TO THE SUPERI OR QUALITY. FROM 01-04-2004. TO 29-08-2004, THERE WAS NO PURCHASE OF BREEZE COKE. T HE SALE WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AT A PRICE OF RS.6,500/- OBVIOUSLY IS THE SALE OUT OF TH E OPENING STOCK. SIMILARLY, WHEN THE FIRST PURCHASE WAS MADE ON 29-08-2004 AND SUBSEQUEN TLY AFTER, THE PURCHASE PRICE HAS ALWAYS BEEN RS.6,000/- PER MT. OR MORE. THE APPELLA NT STARTED SELLING TO THE SISTER CONCERNS FROM THE LAST WEEK OF FEBRUARY, 2005. IF T HERE WAS INFERIOR QUALITY, THEN THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN SOLD TO DIFFERENT PARTIES IN T HE PERIOD FROM APRIL TO AUGUST, 2004. IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO WHY THE INFERIOR Q UALITY OF BREEZE COKE REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE FAG END OF THE FINANCIAL Y EAR. IT WOULD BE SEEN FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE INITIAL SAL E MADE TO A CONCERN VIZ. SHAH INC IS RS.6,500/-. THE SALE PRICE TO THE SISTER CONCERNS M ARKED A QUANTUM INCREASE FROM 26- 02-2005 TO 31-03-2005. THIS DEFIES ALL LOGIC AND BU SINESS PRUDENCE. IF AT ALL, THERE WAS ANY STOCK OF INFERIOR QUALITY, THEN THE SAME WO ULD HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OFF AT THE INITIAL STAGE. MOREOVER, THE MAJOR CHUNK OF THE SAL E OF SO CALLED INFERIOR QUALITY OF COKE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE SISTER CONCERNS AT THE FA G END OF THE YEAR. THE A.O. HAS REASONABLY RAISED HIS DOUBT WITH REGARD TO THE GENU INENESS OF THE SALE PRICE. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, I AM IN AGREEMEN T WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT STATED AS TO WHAT METHOD IT FOLLOWED (WHETHER FIFO OR UFO). GOING BY THE FIFO METHOD, IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THE LOWER QUALITY OF STOCK WOULD BE LYING WITH THE APPE LLANT TILL THE FAG END OF THE YEAR WITHOUT BEING DISPOSED OF. THE CONTENTION OF THE AP PELLANT APPEARS TO BE AN AFTER THOUGHT AND COOKED UP STORY. THE APPELLANT HAS TAKE N SHELTER UNDER THE COLOURABLE DEVICE OF SHOWING SALE TO THE SISTER CONCERN SO AS TO SUPPRESS ITS TAXABLE INCOME. IT HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M C DOWELL & CO. V. C.T.O. 154 ITR 143 THAT COLOURABLE DEVICES CANT BE A PART OF THE PLANNING AND IT IS WRONG TO ENCOURAGE OR ENTERTAIN THE BELIEF THAT IT IS HONOUR ABLE TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAX BY RESORTING TO SUBTERFUGES. THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY ADDE D THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS.23,90,722/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLAN T AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6 3.2. REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES HE RESTRI CTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.25,000/- AS AGAINST RS.43,754/- AND OTHER ADMINI STRATIVE EXPENSES HE SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.30,000/- AS AGAINST RS.59,151/-. 3.3. AGGREIVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF THE SALES MADE TO THE SISTER CONCERN AND FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE REVENUE IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUBMISSIO NS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT TO TREAT THE SALE MADE TO THE SISTER CONCERN AT THE AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE AND TO ADD THE DIFFERENCE AS THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. AS REGARDING O THER EXPENSES HE CONTENDED THAT IT IS EXCESSIVE. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO REASONABLY DI SALLOW THE AMOUNT SUSTAINED. 5. THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE RE LIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT AS REGARDING THE SALE MADE TO THE SISTER CONCERN THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MA DE ANY SPECIFIC SUBMISSIONS TO THE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BUT TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. THEREFORE HE REQUESTED TO SU STAIN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE. 6. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREF UL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE OPENIN G STOCK OF COAL VALUED BY ASSESSEE AT RS.2,938 PER MT. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE AS SESSEE MADE SALES TO THE OTHER CONCERNS ALSO I.E. BHARAT METAL CORPORATION AT RS.3 ,300 AND RS.2050/- AND RAJ FINOXIDE AT RS.2050/- WHICH ARE NOT RELATED TO ASSE SSEES CONCERN. THE DEPARTMENTAL CONTENTION IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE DEFEC TIVE COAL IN THE CLOSING STOCK. THIS LEADS TO PRESUME THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED THE S ALE VALUE OF SALES MADE TO THE SISTER CONCERN IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS OF THE CLOSING STOCK VALUATION. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THOUGH ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT LOWER GRADE OF CO AL HAS BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE SISTER CONCERN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD. HOWEVER, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE REVENUE IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO APPLY AVERAGE RATE OF T HE PURCHASE RATE AS SALE CONSIDERATION 7 OF THE SALES MADE TO THE SISTER CONCERN. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND RESTORE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AT LIBERTY TO FILE THE CORROBORATI VE EVIDENCES IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6.1. AS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF OTHER EXPENSES WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME ON THESE ISSUE S. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22.08.2011. SD/- SD/- [ , ] [ .!'., #$ ] [ MAHAVIR SINGH ] [ C. D. RAO ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( (( ('$ '$ '$ '$) )) ) DATE: 22.08.2011. R.G.(.P.S.) #3 1 /4 5#4)6- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. B.N.BROTHERS, 44 & 45, KINGS ROAD, HOWRAH-711 101. 2 THE D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-48, KOLKATA 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A)-XXX, KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA 04 // TRUE COPY, #3';/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES