Ghosh Bishayee & Associates, Burdwan V. ACIT, Circle-1, Burdwan, Burdwan

ITA 1550/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1893 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Retraction
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 132

Judgement Text

, B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1550 / KOL / 20 16 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011-12 GHOSH BISHAYEE & ASSOCIATES, P.O. VILL. BIJUR, P.S. MEMARI, DIST. BURDWAN-713422 [ PAN NO.AAEFG 9412 A ] V/S . ACIT, CIRCLE-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, COURT COMPOUND, BURDWAN- 713101 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI S. DASGUPTA, ADDL. CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 01-08-2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31-08-2018 / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ARISES FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, KOLKATAS O RDER DATED 29.02.2016, PASSED IN CASE NO.544/CIT(A)-7/WD-25(3)/142-15, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IN CHALLENGING CORRECTNESS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES MAKING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT ADDITION OF 77,89,600/- BASED ON ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES FOUND IN PADDY STOCK DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IN QUESTION FOLLOWED BY THE GROSS ITA NO.1550/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 GHOSH BISHAYEE & ASSOCIATES VS. ACIT, CIR-1 BWD. PAGE 2 PROFIT ESTIMATION @ 8.92% COMING TO 6,94,832/-; RESPECTIVELY IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AS AFFIRMED IN LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS. 3. BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES TAKE US TO THE CIT(A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION ON THE FORMER MAIN ISSUE OF STOCK DISCRE PANCY ADDITION AMOUNTING TO 77,89,600/- READING AS UNDER:- 2.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS TAKEN THE PHYSICAL STOCK AVAILABLE IN THE BUSINESS PREMIS ES AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY AND WORKED OUT THE DIFFERENCE AS PER THE BOOKS STOCK AS WELL AS THE PHYSICAL STOCK. THERE WAS NO DISPUTE AS FAR AS TAKING UP PHYSICAL STOCK I S CONCERNED. THE APPELLANT FURNISHED COPY OF LETTER DATED 04.03.2011 ADDRESSED TO THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN, OBJECTING THE METHOD OF STOCK TAKING STATING THAT T HE SURVEY TEAM HAS TAKEN THE PHYSICAL STOCK WITHOUT ANY PAINS FOR COUNTING THE B AGS FULL OF PADDY. THEY DID NOT GIVEN BREAK THE STAGE TO GET THE ACTUAL STOCK POSIT ION, HENCE THE STOCK POSITION AS TAKEN IS FALSE, CONCOCTED AND MOTIVATED. THE ACTUAL STOCK AS PHYSICALLY APPEARED IN THE GODOWNS WAS TALLYING WITH THE REGISTERS MAINTAI NED BY THE RICE MILL. THE COUNTING OF STOCK IS NOT AN EASY TASK AN IT WILL TAKE AT LEA ST 2 HOURS IF YOU ENGAGE SUFFICIENT STAFF BUT THEY SURVEY TEAM HAS GOT IT COUNTED WITHI N ONE HOUR.. THE OBJECTION LETTER WAS FILED BEFORE THE ACIT CIRCLE-1 WHO WAS NEITHER THE AO NOR THE ITO CONDUCTED THE SURVEY. DURING THE SURVEY THE PARTNER WAS PRESENT A ND SIGNED THE STOCK STATEMENT AND GIVEN A STATEMENT THAT THE PHYSICAL STOCK WAS C ORRECT. THE PARTNER ALSO ACCEPTED THE METHOD OF STOCK TAKING IN THE STATEMENT RECORDE D AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. HOW THE STOCK WAS INVENTORIZED, WHAT WAS THE METHOD FOLLOWE D BY THE SURVEY TEAM, HOW MUCH TIME THE SURVEY TEAM SPENT FOR TAKING STOCK WA S NOT MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT OR IN THE STOCK INVENTORY. THE APPELLANT ALSO DID NOT MAKE ANY SUCH OBJECTIONS IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SURVEY OR IN THE PHYSICAL INVENTORY THE APPELLANT ALSO DID NOT MAKE ANY SUCH OBJECTIONS IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SURVEY OR IN THE PHYSICAL INVENTORY STATEMENT. AFTE R BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE HAVE SATISFIED THEMSELVES REGARDING TH E CORRECTNESS OF STOCK INVENTORY, IT WAS COMPLETED AND SIGNED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. TH E METHOD OF STOCK TAKING AND THE CORRECTNESS OF STOCK INVENTORY WERE NOT DISPUTED BY THE APPELLANT TILL COMPLETION OF THE SURVEY. IF THE MANNER AND METHOD OF STOCK WAS O BJECTIONABLE THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE RAISED OBJECTION BEFORE THE SURVEY TEAM LEFT THE PREMISES SO THAT THE STOCK CAN BE REINVENTORISED PHYSICALLY. THE OBJECTI ON MADE BY THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE STOCK WAS TAKEN A FTER FOUR DAYS OF COMPLETING THE SURVEY IS NOT A BONA FIDE OBJECTION AND IT IS NOTHI NG BUT AN AFTERTHOUGHT. 2.2(1) THE APPELLANT STATED IN HIS ARGUMENT THAT TH E SURVEY WAS CARRIED OUT BY INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), BURDWAN ON 28.02.2011 . OBJECTION THEREON WAS PREFERRED ON 04.03.2011 BEFORE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURD WAN AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BURDWAN. THE FAULTY METHOD OF COUNTING OF STOCK WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 52(3), KO LKATA ON 21.02.2014 I.E. BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. THE REASON FOR FILLING T HE OBJECTIONS WITH ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BUDWAN WHO WAS NEITHER THE AO NOR THE ITO CONDUCTED THE SURVEY WAS BETTER KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT BUT NOT EXPLAINED AND MADE ANY ARG UMENT. THE APPELLANTS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION VETS WITH THE BURDWAN WHEREAS THE AM JURISDICTION VETS WITH THE ITO WARD 52(3), KOLKATA. THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE ITO WARD 2(2), BURDWAN AND THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE OBJECTION WITH THE ACIT CIRCLE-1, BU9RDWAN WHO WAS NEITHER THE ASSESSING OF FICER NOR THE OFFICER WAS CONDUCTED THE SURVEY. THE APPELLANT IS WELL AWARE O F HIS ASSESSMENT JURISDICTION BECAUSE HE IS A REGULAR ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE OB JECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ITA NO.1550/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 GHOSH BISHAYEE & ASSOCIATES VS. ACIT, CIR-1 BWD. PAGE 3 VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 04/03/2011 BEFORE THE ACIT- CIRCLE-1 WHO DID NOT HOLD THE JURISDICTION IS NOT VALID. ACCORDINGLY, THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IN GROUND NO.1 REGARDING THE MANNER AND METHOD OF PHYSICAL VERIFICATION IS NOT T ENABLE AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 2.3 AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY THE PHYSICAL STOCK AVA ILABLE, THE BOOK STOCK AND THE DIFFERENCE OF PADDY WAS AS UNDER: NAME OF THE ITEM PHYSICAL VERIFICATION QNTLS. BOOKS QNTLS. REMARKS EXCESS(+)/SHORT(-) PADDY 19320.00 9583.00 9737.00 THE AO ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF DIFFERENCE OF STOCK O F PADDY @ RS.800/- PER QUINTAL WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS.77,89,600/- FOR WHICH THE AP PELLANT COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT EITHER AT THE TIME OF SURVEY O R DURING THE ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.77,89,600/- TO THE R ETURNED INCOME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 2.3(I) THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE SURVEY WAS CARRIED OUT BY INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), BURDWAN ON 28.02.2011. OBJECTION THEREON WAS PREFERRED ON 04.03.2011 BEFORE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BURDWAN AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, (BURDWAN). THE FAULTY METHOD OF COUNTING OF ST OCK WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 52(3), KOLKAT A ON 21.02.2014. IT WAS ALSO ALLEGED THAT SIGNATURE OF SHRI HARI SADHAN GHOSH, P ARTNER WAS TAKEN ON THE INVENTORY STATEMENT BY COERCION. THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER RAISED NOR BEFORE THE OFF ICER WHO HAS CONDUCTED THE SURVEY. THEREFORE THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPE LLANT VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 04/03/2011 CANNOT BE HELD AS VALID. FIRST TIME THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BEFORE THE AO WAS ON 21/02/2014 BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. THOUGH NOT ACCEPTING THAT THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT WAS VALID EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED TO BE VALID THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED THE OBJECTION REGARDING THE ST OCK TAKING ONLY AFTER THE FOUR DAYS OF COMPLETING THE SURVEY THAT TOO BEFORE THE OFFICE R WHO DID HAVE THE JURISDICTION. THE METHOD OF STOCK TAKING AND IF ANY DISPUTE IN THE PH YSICAL STOCK, SHOULD BE POINTED OUT BEFORE THE SURVEY TEAM LEAVES THE PREMISES SO THAT THE STOCK INVENTORY CAN BE REINVENTORISED PHYSICALLY. BUT IN THIS CASE THE APP ELLANT FILED THE LETTER AFTER THE FOUR DAYS OF COMPLETING THE SURVEY WHICH IS NOT TENABLE. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT THE PHYSICAL STOCK AVAILABLE AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY WAS CORREC TLY TAKEN AND THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE PHYSICAL STOCK AVAILABLE AS ON THE DATE O F SURVEY. 2.3(II) THE SECOND CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS THAT THE SURVEY TEAM HAS TAKEN THE STATEMENT ON COERCION. THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED WITH AN INTENTION TO COLLECT THE EVIDENCES USEFUL FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND THERE IS NO REASON TO COERCE THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS CERTIFIED IN THE STATEMENT RECORD ED U/S. 133A THAT THE STATEMENT WAS GIVEN VOLUNTARILY WITHOUT ANY COERCION. THEREFO RE, THE ARGUMENT OF THE APP THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER COERCION HAS NO BASIS AND ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 2.3(IIII) THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO OBJECTED THE STAT EMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 133A ON OATH PLACING RELIANCE ON HON'BLE HIGH COURT JUDG MENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KHADER KHAN & SONS (2013) 352 ITR 480. THIS ISSUE H AS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. DINE SH JAIN V. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 11(2)-2, [2014] 45 TTAXMANN.COM 442(BOMBAY) MUMBAI AND HELD THAT STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 133A DOES NOT LOSE ITS EVIDENTIARY VA LUE MERELY BECAUSE IT IS MADE ON OATH. IN THE CITED CASE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: 4. WE SHALL NOW CONSIDER THE QUESTIONS AS PROPOSED FOR THE APPEAL RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. ITA NO.1550/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 GHOSH BISHAYEE & ASSOCIATES VS. ACIT, CIR-1 BWD. PAGE 4 (A) REGARDING QUESTION NO.A: (I) THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE US IS THA T NO RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED UPON THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT DUR ING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT FO R THE REASON THAT IT WAS RECORDED ON OATH. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT EVEN UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT DEALING WITH SURVEY PROCEED INGS, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE ENTITLED TO RECORD THE STAT EMENT OF ANY PERSON WHICH MAY BE USEFUL OR RELEVANT TO PROCEEDIN GS UNDER THE ACT. THE POWER TO RECORD A STATEMENT DURING SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IS FOUND IN SECTION 133A(3) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT P ORTION OF WHICH READS AS UNDER:- POWER OF SURVEY SECTION 133AA (1)TO (2) (3) AN INCOME TAX AUTHORITY ACTING UNDER THIS SECTI ON MAY:- (I) & (II) ** ** ** (III) RECORD THE STATEMENT OF ANY PERSON WHICH MAY BE USEFUL FOR, OR RELEVANT TO, ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT. THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING A STATEMENT ON OATH IS FOUND IN SECTION 132 OF THE ACT I.E. DURING SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCE EDING AND SUCH A REQUIREMENT IS NOT FOUND IN SECTION 133A OF THE ACT . NEVERTHELESS, A STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT DOES NOT LO OSE ITS EVIDENTIARY VALUE MERELY BECAUSE IT IS MADE ON OATH. BESIDES, T HE STATEMENT IN THIS CASE IS ONE OF THE EVIDENCES BEING RELIED UPON AND NOT THE SOLE EVIDENCE. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS RE CORDED THAT THE ADDITION OF INCOME IS BASED NOT ONLY ON THE STATEME NT OF THE APPELLANT- ASSESSEE BUT ALSO BASED ON PAGE NO.17. THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IN THE MA TTER OF CIT V. S. KHADER KHAN SON ARISING FROM THE DECISION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT V. S. KHADER KHAN SON PROCEEDED ON THE FACT THA T THE AUTHORITIES DID NOT ACCEPT THE RETRACTION MADE BY A DEPONENT OF A STATEMENT MADE ON OATH DURING SURVEY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION.133 A OF THE ACT. THIS WAS ON THE GROUND THAT STATEMENT WAS MADE ON O ATH. BESIDES THE SOLE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE WAS THE STATEMENT MADE ON OATH DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDING S WHICH IS NOT THE CASE IN THE PRESENT FACTS. FURTHER, IN THIS CAS E THE APPELLANT- ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE STATEME NT MADE IS NOT CORRECT AND/OR UNBELIEVABLE. THEREFORE, THE CASE LA W RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE IS COMPLETELY DISTINGUISHABL E AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT FACTS. FURTHER HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F SANJEEV AGRAWAL V. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, ALLAHABAD [2015] 56 TAXMAN N.COM 214 HELD THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN DURING THE SURVEY IS A VALID PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND CANNOT BE RETRACTED AT THE WHIMS AND FANCIES OF THE ASSESSEE. I REPRODUCE HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON' HIG H COURT. 10. IN PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO LTD. V. STATE OF KERALA THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT AN ADMISSION IS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE THOUGH IT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. CONSEQUENTLY A STATEMENT MADE VOLUNTARY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE RETRACTED UNLESS THE ASSESSEE FIL ES EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ADMISSION MADE IN THE STATEMENT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS WRONG AND AGAINST THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE MERE FACT THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN HIS REPORT HAS HELD THAT THE STATEMEN T GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER WAS ON OATH AN THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE RETRACTED IS IMMATERIAL IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE HAVE SAID AFORESAID. ITA NO.1550/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 GHOSH BISHAYEE & ASSOCIATES VS. ACIT, CIR-1 BWD. PAGE 5 11. NO DOUBT, SECTION 132(4) AND 133A OF THE ACT AR E DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT. UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO PROVISIO N TO ADMINISTER OATH AND TO TAKE A SWORN STATEMENT WHEREAS UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT THERE IS NO PROVISION TO EXAMINE A PERSON ON OATH. BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT A STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT CAN BE RETRACTED AT T HE WHIM AND FANCY OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID, THE ASSERT IONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF STOCK AND ON THE BASIS OF PHYSICAL INVENTORY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 133A WAS RECORDED, THEREFOR E, THE CASE LAW RELIED UP ON BY THE APPELLANT HAS NO APPLICATION AND THE CASE LAWS REFERRED BY ME ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. THEREFORE, I HOL D THAT STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 133A BY THE AO IS VALID AND THE RETRACTION HAS NO BASIS AND THE PHYSICAL STOCK AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS CORRECT. THE AO ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF DIFFERENCE OF STOCK OF PADDY @ RS.800/- PER QUINTAL WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS.77,89,600/-. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY OR DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDING. THE REFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO R.77,89,600/- IS CONFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RI VAL CONTENTIONS. THE ASSESSEE REITERATES HIS STAND ADOPTED THROUGHOUT TH AT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS NOT BASED UPON ANY MATERIAL FUND DURING THE COUR SE OF SURVEY SINCE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE GONE BY THE ALLEGED SURVEY S TATEMENT ONLY WHICH IS AGAINST CBDTS CIRCULAR DATED 10.03.2003. WE FIND N O MERIT IN EITHER OF THESE TWO SUBMISSIONS. IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT BOTH TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE MADE THE FORMER ADDITION BASED ON PHYSICAL VERIFICA TION TO ASSESSEES PADDY STOCK DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY THERE ON MERE STA TEMENT RECORDED THEREIN OR WITH REFERENCE TO ANY VAGUE EVIDENCE. WE THUS FIND NO REASON TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IN PRINCIPLE. 5. NOW COMES THE EQUALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION AS TO W HETHER THE ENTIRE DISCREPANCY IN STOCK ADDITION OR ONLY THE PROFIT EL EMENT EMBEDDED THEREIN IS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. WE FIND TH IS ISSUE TO BE NO MORE RES INTEGRA AS CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN M/S SUBARNA RICE MILL VS. ITO ITA NO.1781/KOL/2014 DECIDED ON 30.06.2015 HOLDING ONLY THE PROFIT ELEM ENT LIABILITY TO BE ADDED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES; STAND UPHELD BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS RECENT JUDGMENT DATED 2 0.06.2018 IN ITAT 196 OF 2015 GA NO.4047 OF 2015. WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT THE IMPUGNED FORMER ITA NO.1550/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 GHOSH BISHAYEE & ASSOCIATES VS. ACIT, CIR-1 BWD. PAGE 6 ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE DISCREPANCY IN STOCK DESERVE S TO BE DELETED. WE ACCORDINGLY ACCEPT ASSESSEES FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GR OUND CHALLENGING CORRECTNESS THEREOF. ITS LATTER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND STANDS DECLINED IN VIEW OF OUR FOREGOING DISCUSSION. WE CONFIRM THE GROSS PROF IT ADDITION OF 6,94,832/- IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. 6. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 31/08/2018 SD/- SD/- ( %) (' %) (DR. A.L. SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (- 31 / 08 /201 8 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-GHOSH BISHAYEE & ASSOCIATES, P.O.& VILL. BIJUR, P.S. MEMARI DIST. BURDWAN-71 3422 2. RESPONDENT-ACIT, CIR-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, COURT COMP OUND, BURDWAN-713101 3. 3 4 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 4- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 7 ''3, 3, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO 3,