IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH C , KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI P.K.BANSAL, AM & HONBLE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] ITA NO.1590/KOL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ( APPELLANT ) - (RESPONDENT) SRI NABA KUMAR MONDAL I.T.O., WARD-2(2) DURGAPUR -VERSUS- DURGAPUR (PAN:AFDPM 2235 B) FOR THE APPELLANT: NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI A.P.ROY, JCIT,SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 13.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.01.2014. / ORDER PER SHRI P.K.BANSAL, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)- DURGAPUR DATED 18.08.2011 BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING E FFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 2. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT( A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.45,40,624/- U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT61 , WHEN THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE OT BANK, AND THE SAME IS COVERED UNDER RULE 6DD(A) OF THE I.T.RULES62, AND AS SUCH THE ADDITION MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE APPELLA NT IS AN ADVANCE DEPOSITOR OF MONEY IN BANK, (WHICH IS GOVERNED BY SEC 269SS OF THE ACT61 ) AND THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 40A(3) OF THE ACT61, IS NOT ATTRACTED. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN T HOUGH AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PLAUSI BLE REASON WE DISMISSED THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION AND DECIDED TO DISPOSE OFF THI S APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND CAREFULLY CONSIDER ED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY HIM. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A). WE NOTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR A SUM OF RS.45,40,624/- U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTLY PURCH ASED THE DIRECT CONSIDERATION TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SALARY AND DUE TO THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY THE EXPENDITURE BEING INCURRED IN THE SAME MANNER AND THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS COVERED BY RULE 6DD OF THE IT RULES, 1962. THE LD. CIT(A), WE NOTED, INSTEAD O F GIVING A CLEAR FINDING WHETHER ITA NO. 1590/KOL/2011 SRI NABA KUMAR MONDAL, DU RGAPUR A.YR.2008-09 2 THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY RULE 6DD OR NOT SIMPLY DECIDED THE ISSUE BY MENTIONING THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN ELABORATELY DISC USSED BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER AND THEREFORE HE UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE. THUS WE NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CO VERED BY RULE 6DD. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DECIDED SUCCINCTLY W HICH IS NOT EXPECTED FROM AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE LD.M CIT(A), IN OUR OPINIO N, IS REQUIRED TO DEAL WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN CASE IT IS CONVI NCED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HE SHOULD HAVE REJECTED THE SAME BY GIVING REASONS HOW RULE 6DD IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFO RE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL READJUDICATE TH IS ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND AFTER GIVING PROPER FINDINGS WHETHER THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTION AS GIVEN IN RULE 6DD OR NOT. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17.01.2014. SD/- SD/- [MAHAVIR SINGH ] [P.K.BANSAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 17.01.2014. R.G.(.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SRI NABA KUMAR MONDAL, VILL & PO:SANCTORIA,DT.BURDW AN. 2 I.T.O., WARD-2(2), DURGAPUR. 3 . CIT KOLKATA 4 . CIT(A)-DURGAPUR. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 1590/KOL/2011 SRI NABA KUMAR MONDAL, DU RGAPUR A.YR.2008-09 3