Swapnendu Mishra, Purba Medinipur V. JCIT, Range-Haldia, Purba Medinipur

ITA 1610/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5733 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOURAV KUMAR CITSRDR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 194C

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1610 / KOL / 20 16 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011-12 SWAPNENDU MISHRA KUMARPUR, CONTAI, PURBA MEDINIPUR-721401 [ PAN NO.AEYPM 6194 B ] V/S . JCIT, RANGE-HALDIA BASUDEVPUR, KHANJANCHAK, HALDIA, PUURBA MEDINIPUR- 721604 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SOURAV KUMAR, ADDL. CIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 14-01-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30-01-2019 / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, KOLKATAS O RDER DATED 30.05.2016, PASSED IN CASE NO.549/CIT(A)-7/RANGE-27/14-15, IN P ROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. WE NOTICE AT THE OUTSET THAT THE INSTANT APPEAL SUFFERS FROM 12 DAYS DELAY IN FILING. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD HIS CONDONATION PETITION / AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.08.2016 ATTRIBUTING REASONS THER EOF TO LACK OF PROPER DOCUMENTATION AND NECESSARY INSTRUCTIONS WITH THE A RGUING COUNSEL WITHIN THE LIMITATION PRESCRIBED. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE IS VERY FAIR IN NOT DISPUTING CORRECTNESS OF THESE SOLEMN AVERMENTS. WE THEREFORE CONDONE THE IMPUGNED 12 DAYS DELAY IN FILING OF THE INSTANT APP EAL AS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR DELIBERATE. THE CASE IS NOW TAKEN UP FOR ADJUDI CATION ON MERITS. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. ITA NO.1610/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2011-1 2 SWAPNENDU MISHRA VS. JCIT , RNJ, HALDIA PAGE 2 3. IT EMERGES DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE ASSESSEES TWIN SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS SEEK TO REVERSE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION MAKING ADDITION OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES SALE OF FREE STOC K INVOLVING CORRESPONDING SUMS OF 89,26,696/- (ENHANCED) IN LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS AS AGAINST 10,22,274/- ADDED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT(C LOSED) AND 46,02,570/-; RESPECTIVELY. THE CIT(A)S DETAILED DI SCUSSION QUA THESE TWO ISSUES READS AS FOLLOWS:- 2.0 ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE RELATED TO THE A BOVE ADDITION OF RS.10,2,274/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED GP MARGIN A ND CONCEALED RECEIPTS OF RS.46,02,570/-. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FLED THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL INDEPENDENTLY FOR EACH ADDITION. HOWEVER, DURING TH E HEARING, THE APPELLANT STATED THAT ALL THE ADDITIONS CONTESTED IN THIS APP EAL. 2.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISCUSSED THE ADDITIONS I N PAGE NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND C LARITY, I REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH READ S AS UNDER:- THE SALES FIGURE RECEIVED FROM THE COMPANY TOTALED TO RS.18,34,68,048/- (RS.5,98,37,653 + RS.12,36,30,395 /-) WHILE THE ASSESSEE IN HIS P&L ACCOUNT DECLARED PURCHASES OF O NLY RS.17,45,41,352/-. SRI P.K. JANA, AR FOR THE ASSESS EE VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DATED 28/03/2014 WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDER RECORDED HIS PURCHASES BY RS.89,26,696 AN D ALSO FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE RECEIPTS BY WAY OF COMMISSION OF RS.50 ,57,769/- GIVEN TO HIM BY THE COMPANY, AS PER HIS AUDITED PROFIT AND L OSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEES ENTIRE SALES ARE IN CASH AND AS PER HIS AUDIT REPORT HE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OR RECORDS OF HIS PURCHASES, SALES, OPENING STOCK AND CLOSING STOCK. IN OTHER WO RDS, THE ASSESSEE RECORDS IN HIS BOOKS THE TRANSACTIONS TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE CONVENIENT TO HIM. THE ASSESSEE HAS TOTALLY CONCEALED THE RECE IPT OF COMMISSION OF RS.50,87,769/- BY HIM (NET RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE COMPANY AFTER ADJUSTMENTS). ACCORDINGLY THE SAME REQUIRES TO BE A DDED TO HIS INCOME. FROM DISCOUNTED MARGIN OF RS.83,11,322/- TH E ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ONLY RS.10,22,195/- AS HIS MARGIN OF GROSS PR OFIT. IT UNBELIEVABLE THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL KEEP ONLY 0.58% AND GIVE AWA Y THE REST TO THE RETAILERS. THE ASSESSEE BY UNDER RECORDING HIS PURC HASE TO THE TUNE OF RS.89,26,696/- HAS CREED ROOM FOR MANIPULATING HIS SALES FIGURES RECEIVED ENTIRELY IN CASH. THE NORMAL PRACTICE IN T HE TELECOM SECTOR I.E.VODAFONE, TATA TELE SERVICES ETC., IS THAT THE DISTRIBUTOR KEEP ONE- FOURTH OF THE DISCOUNTED PRICE AND PASS ON THE REST TO THE RETAILERS. AS THE COMMISSION EARNED BY THEM IS ALSO SALEABLE STOC K, THEY NEVER DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE PAID FOR STOCK AND THAT REC EIVED AGAINST THEIR COMMISSION, WHEN IT COMES TO SELLING THE SAME THROU GH THE RETAILER I.E., IN OTHER WORDS THEY SELL THEIR FREE STOCK BY PAYING THE RETAILERS THE SAME MARGIN AS THEY PAY ON THE NORMAL STOCK. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE HAS RETAINED 3% AS HIS GP AND GIVEN 9% TO THE RETAILERS ON THE FREE STOCK TO THE EXTENT OF HI S COMMISSION, WHICH HE HAS SOLD THROUGH THEM. IN VIEW OF THE SAID FACTS TH E ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO.1610/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2011-1 2 SWAPNENDU MISHRA VS. JCIT , RNJ, HALDIA PAGE 3 EARNED RS.20,44,469/- AS HIS GROSS PROFIT MARGIN AL LOWING THE RETAILER TO EARN RS.62,66,853/- AS THEIR MARGIN ON THE STOCK PU RCHASED AND PAID FOR. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN THE RETAILS 9% OF RS.50,57,7 69/- = RS.4,55,199/-. IN CONCLUSION THE INCOME CONCEALED BY THE ASSESSEE IS R.46,02,570/- (RS.50,57,769 RS.4,55,199) AND RS.10,22,274/- (RS .20,44,469 RS. 10,22,195) BEING THE SUPPRESSED GP FROM HIS GROSS M ARGIN OF 3%. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS MANIPULATED HIS INCOME BY FUDGING IS FIGURES, CONCEALMENT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING SEPARATEL Y INITIATED. 2.2 DURING THE APPEAL THE APPELLANT MADE WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS AS UNDER:- 1. THAT IM SUFFERING IN SEVERE ILLNESS IN FRONTO C RONIC UBDURAL EMATOMA ON CLORIDOGRIEL AND OTHER DISEASE. 2. THAT THE INCENTIVE D COMMISSION DOES NOT RECEIVE D BY ME BY CASH, IT IS ADJUSTED WITH THE PURCHASE, SO THERE WAS NO CONC EALMENT. 3. THAT THE INCENTIVE AND COMMISSION RECEIVED BY ME HAS INCLUDED WITH THE PURCHASE & SALE FIGURE, SO THERE WAS NO CONCEAL MENT IN TOTAL TURNOVER OF MY BUSINESS. 4. THAT IN THE CASE OF DISTRIBUTORSHIP BUSINESS, TH E NET PROFIT CAN NEVER EXCEEDS 1% OF THE TURNOVER. HE PROFIT MARGIN OF MY BUSINESS IS VERY LOW BECAUSE SO MANY EXPENSES SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE SUB-DEALER TO MAINTAIN THE BUSINESS PROPERLY, YET I HAVE CLAIM ED MY BUSINESS NET PROFIT 0.35%. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALCULA TED THE INCOME OF MY BUSINESS ON THE MAXIMUM HIGH RATE. 5. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO PRESS NEW AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND OR TO MODIFY WITHDRAW REVISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IN COURSE OF HEARING OF THE CASE. 3.0. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND T HE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT. ON VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT H AS UNDERSTATED THE PURCHASE BY RS.89,26,696/- AND DID NOT DISCLOSE THE COMMISSION OF RS.50,57,769/- AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDIT ION OF RS.10,22,274/- TOWARDS THE SUPPRESSION OF THEE PURCHASES OF RS.89, 26,696/- AND RS.46,02,570/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION. THEREFORE , AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT WAS REQUESTED TO EX PLAIN THE REASONS FOR UNDERSTATEMENT OF PURCHASES AND NON-DISCLOSURE OF T HE COMMISSION RECEIVED DURING THE APPEAL HEARINGS. SINCE NO REPLY WAS FORT HCOMING I HAVE ISSUED AN ENHANCEMENT NOTICE ON 19.05.2016 WHICH WERE SERVED ON THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT ON THE SAME DATE DI RECTING HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ENTIRE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES OF RS.89,26,69 6/- AND UNDISCLOSED COMMISSION OF RS.50,57,769/- SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX. 3.1.IN REPLY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE A PP SUBMITTED HIS REPLY AS UNDER:- 1. A) THAT THE PURCHASE DIFFERENCE OF RS.89,26,696/ -MAY BE CORRECT BETWEEN THE PURCHASE FIGURE GIVEN BY THE COMPANY AN D THE PURCHASE FIGURE SHOWN IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE . DUE TO SEVERE ILLNESS IN FRONTO CRONIC SUBDUAL HEMATOM ON CLORIDOGRERL AND SUDDEN DEATH OF ASSESSEES FATHER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE ALL DOCUMENTS AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF ACCOUNT. SO THE DIFFERENCE PURCHASE FIGURE WILL NOT TREAT AS ITA NO.1610/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2011-1 2 SWAPNENDU MISHRA VS. JCIT , RNJ, HALDIA PAGE 4 UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE. REGARDING THIS DIFFERENCE THE ASSESSEE IS SILENT AND NOT MAKING ANY OBJECTION. B) IN THE CASE OF DISTRIBUTORSHIP BUSINESS, THE N ET PROFIT CAN NEVER EXCEED 1% OF THE TURNOVER. THE PROFIT MARGIN OF THE BUSINESS IS VERY LOW BECAUSE SO MAY EXPENSES SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO T HE SUB-DEALER TO MAINTAIN THE BUSINESS PROPERLY, YET THE ASSESSEE HA S CLAIMED 0.35% AS NET PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS. BUT THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS CALCULATED THE INCOME OF THE BUSINESS ON THE MAXIMUM HIGH RATE WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RUN SUCH TYPE OF BUSINESS. 2.THAT THE COMMISSION AMOUNT OF RS.50,57,769.00 WHI CH RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN TO THE SUB-DEALER SO THE COM MISSION AMOUNT WILL NOT BE ADDED WITH INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT THE COMMISSION AMOUNT AS GIVEN BY THE COMPA NY WHICH IS INCLUDED WITH THE PURCHASE & SALE FIGURE, SO THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT IN TOTAL TURNOVER OF MY BUSINESS. 4.0 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE BY THE APPELLANT. DURING THE APPEAL I HAVE GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNI TIES TO EXPLAIN THECAE AND TO PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 15 OCCASIONS. THE APPELLANT HAS MADE PURCHASES OF RS.18,34,68,048/- AND ACCOUNTED ONLY RS.17,45,41,35 2/- AND THERE WAS A SUPPRESSION OF RS.89,26,696/-. THE APPELLANT REQUIR ED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PURCHASES. THE APPELLANT ACCEPTED THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.89,26,696/- BUT HE STATED THAT DIFFERENCE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES. HE ARGUED THAT THE APPELLANT IS A DISTRIBUTOR OF BHARTI AIRTEL NET PROFIT HAS NEVER EXCEEDED 1% OF THE TURN OVER. THE PROFIT MARGIN WAS VERY LOW BECAUSE OF SO MANY EXPENSES INVOLVED IN TH E BUSINESS. THEREFORE HE REQUESTED THAT NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE ON ACC OUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES. THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVID ENCE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF PURCHASES IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES. T HE AO ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT ON UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE AND BROUGHT TO TAX. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF UNACCOUNTED PU RCHASES, THE ENTIRE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT RELATING TO THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX. SINCE THE APPELLANT FAILED TO FURNI SH ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SOURCE EITHER WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR WITH ANY OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE I HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT IS MADE OUT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY, I ENHANCE THE ADDITION OF RS.10,22,274 /- TO RS.89,26,696/- U9NDER SECTION69 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. I DIRECT THE AO TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF RS.89,26,696/- INSTEAD OF RS.10,22,274/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION IS ENHANCED. 5.0 THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.46,02,570/- ON A CCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED COMMISSION. AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE COMMISSION OF RS.50,57,769.-.THEAO ES TIMATED THE PROFIT ELEMENT ON UNDISCLOSED COMMISSION OF RS.50,57,769/- AT RS.46,02,570/-. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE COMMISSIO N, I HAVE REQUESTED THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT TO EXPLA IN AS TO WHY THE ENTIRE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX. THE AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT DID NOT SUBMIT THE RECONCILIATION. THEREF ORE I HAVE ISSUED ENHANCEMENT NOTICE VIDE MY LETTER DATED 19.05.2016. 5.1 IN RESPONSE TO MY LETTER THE APPELLANT FILED HI S REPLY AS UNDER:- ITA NO.1610/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2011-1 2 SWAPNENDU MISHRA VS. JCIT , RNJ, HALDIA PAGE 5 THAT IN THE CASE OF DISTRIBUTORSHIP BUSINESS, THE N ET PROFIT CAN NEVER EXCEEDS 1% OF THE TURNOVER. THE PROFIT MARGIN OF MY BUSINESS IS VERY LOW BECAUSE SO MANY EXPENSES SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE SUB-DEALER TO MAINTAIN THE BUSINESS PROPERLY, YET I HAVE CLAIM ED MY BUSINESS NET PROFIT 0.35%. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALCULA TED THE INCOME OF MY BUSINESS ON THE MAXIMUM HIGH RATE. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVED LEAVE TO PRESS NEW AND ADD ITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND OR TO MODIFY WITHDRAW REVISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IN COURSE OF HEARING OF THE CASE. 5.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT BUT DO NOT FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT. THE APPELLANT REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE COMMISSION PAID TO VARIOUS SUB-DEALERS. THE APPELLA NT FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY SUCH DETAILS OR ANY EVIDENCES. IN THE ABSENCE OF EV IDENCES THE ENTIRE UNDISCLOSED COMMISSION REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT TO TA X. HOWEVER, IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS I HAVE BROUGHT TO TAX THE UNDISCLOSED PU RCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.89,26,696/-. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF TH E APPELLANT REQUESTED TO GIVE TELESCOPIC BENEFITS OF RS.50,57,769/- FROM THE ADDITION OF RS.89,26,696/-. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AUTHO RIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AND AGREE WITH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESE NTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR TELESCOPIC BENEF IT FROM THE ADDITION OF RS.89,26,696/-. THEREFORE, NO SEPARATE ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED COMMISSION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THIS ASSESSEE I S A DISTRIBUTOR OF AIRTEL RECEIVING MOBILE COUPONS FROM CELLULAR OPERATOR AND FORWARDING THE SAME TO SUB-DISTRIBUTORS. THIS IS NOT THE REVENUES CASE TH AT ASSESSEE HAS SOURCED HIS SIM CARDS THROUGH ANY OTHER OPERATOR. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION GOING BY PURCHASE MARGIN S AND LACK OF SOURCE OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ASSESSE E HAS SOURCED HIS MOBILE COUPONS FROM CELLULAR OPERATOR M/S BHARTI AI RTEL ONLY. THIS OPERATOR HAS ACTED AS DEDUCTOR IN ASSESSEES FOR TDS PURPOSES U/ S 194C AND 194H OF THE ACT. FORM 26ASS IN ASSESSEES CASE FORMING PART OF THE CASE FILE REVEALS THAT THE DEDUCTOR HAS SHOWN TOTAL AMOUNT / PAID CREDITED TO THE TUNE OF 29,806,86/-. THESE CLINCHING FIGURES HAVE GONE UNRE BUTTED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US. WE THEREFORE GO BY THIS FORM 26AS FIGURES IN ASSESSEES CASE TO BE CORRECT AS PER DEPARTMENT RECORD ITSELF AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE IMPUGNED FORMER ADDITION OF 89,26,696/- TO THE EXTENT OF THE CELLULAR OPERATORS TDS STATEMENT ONLY AS PER L AW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO.1610/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2011-1 2 SWAPNENDU MISHRA VS. JCIT , RNJ, HALDIA PAGE 6 SHALL FINALIZE CONSEQUENTIAL COMPUTATION ACCORDINGL Y. THE ASSESSEE GETS PART RELIEF IN ABOVE TERMS IN FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND. 5. COMING TO LATTER ISSUE OF ADDITION OF 46,02,570/- THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ASSESSED THE S AME AS CONCEALED RECEIPTS FROM SALE OF FREE STOCK AGAINST COMMISSION. WE REIT ERATE THAT THIS ASSESSEE IS A SIM DISTRIBUTOR DERIVING COMMISSION INCOME. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NEITHER REJECTED HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR HAVE REBU TTED THE FACT THAT THE GROSS PROFIT COMPONENT THEREIN IS @ 0.58%. WE THEREFORE D IRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE IMPUGNED LATTER ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF GROSS PROFIT COMPONENT @ 0.58% ONLY AS PER REGULAR BUSINESS PROF ITS SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN CREDIT OF ALL DIRECT AND INDIREC T COSTS IN SIM CARD DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL FINALIZE CONSEQUENTIAL COMPUTATION GOING BY GROSS PROFIT RATE @ 0.5% QUA T HIS LATTER ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE GETS PART RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 6. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOV E TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 30/01/2019 SD/- SD/- ( %) (' %) (DR. A.L. SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (- 30 / 01 /201 9 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-SWAPNENDU MISHRA KUMARPUR, CONTAI, PURBA MIDINIPUR-721401 2. /RESPONDENT-JCIT, RANGE-HALDIA, BASUDEVPUR, KHANJAN CHAK, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR-721604 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/ / 3,