ACIT Circle -37,kolkata, Kolkata V. Sri Debasish Moulik, Kolkata

ITA 1616/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 161623514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VERMA JCIT LD SR DR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUTAPA ROYCH OUDHURY
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH: KOLKATA ( ) , , BEFORE HONBLE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, J M & HONBLE SRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM I.T.A NO. 1616/KOL/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA VS. SRI DEB ASISH MOULIK PAN : AEXPM8912J ( % /APPELLANT ) ( &'% / RESPONDENT ) I.T.A NO. 1674/KOL/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 SRI DEBASISH MOULIK VS. A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA PAN : AEXPM8912J ( % /APPELLANT ) ( &'% / RESPONDENT ) % / FOR THE APPELLANT/ DEPARTMENT : / SHRI VIVEK VERMA, JCIT/ LD .SR. DR &'% / FOR THE RESPONDENT/ ASSESSEE: MS. SUTAPA ROYCH OUDHURY, ADVOCATE, SRI R.N DUTTA, LD.ARS + , /DATE OF HEARING: 09/07/2014 + , /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14 /07/2014 / ORDER , SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CI T(A), XXIV, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.1069/CIT(A)-XXIV/C-37/11-12 DATED 24.08.2 012 ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ACIT, CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28. 12.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10. 2. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE IN THESE TWO CROSS APPEA L IS AS REGARDS TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) RESTRICTING THE ADDITION AT RS. 6,94,323 /- AS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO MAKING ADDITION AT RS.17,35,810/-. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUG H FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDU CTION UNDER THE HEAD LOSS OF STOCK ON ACCOUNT OF OBSOLENCE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON ITA NOS. 1616 & 1674/KOL/12-C-MVS, JM SRI DEBASHIS MOULIK . 2 QUERY FROM THE AO, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS S UFFERED A HUGE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF CANCELLATION OF TB( TEXT BOOK) NO.SYLL/HIST/B/IX-X /08/28 ON 28/01/2008, BY WEST BENGAL SECONDARY EDUCATION COUNCIL ON ACCOUNT OF N OT FOLLOWING THE PRESCRIBED NUMBER OF LINES PER PAGE AS AGREED. ACCORDING TO A SESSEE, THE TITLE OF THE OF BOOK IS BHARAT & ADHUNIK BISHWER ITIHAS WRITTEN BY DR. PRANABD KR. CHATTOPADHAYAY AND SUDEB MUKHOPADHYAY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED THE COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND WEST BENGAL SECONDARY EDU CATION COUNCIL, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON ASSESSMENT RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIM ED OBSOLENCE OF STOCK OF BOOKS TO THE EXTENT OF 4,84,863 COPIES, THE PRICE OF EACH COPY WAS AT RS.14.32 PER UNIT I.E. TOTAL AMOUNT COMES TO RS.69,43,238.16. ACCORDING T O THE AO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED 25% OF THE TOTAL CLAIM OF RS.69,43,238/- I.E. THE DISALLOWANCE COMES TO RS.17 ,35,810/-. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT( A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE RESTRICTED THE DISALLOW ANCE @ 10% OF RS.69,43,238/- I.E. AT RS.6,94,323/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.A/R. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEALS, THE LD.A/R HAS EXPLAINED TH AT THE APPELLANT IS A SCHOOL BOOK PUBLISHER. THE LOSS CLAIMED WAS DUE TO THE OBSOLENCE OF ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR BOOKS, NAMELY HISTORY IX/X PUBLISHED BY THE APPELLANT. DUE TO TECHNICAL DEFECTS, THE WHOLE OPE NING STOCK OF 5,38,412 COPIES OF HISTORY XI/X BOOKS WAS RENDERED OBSOLETE DURING THE YEAR. THE LD.A/R HAS EXPLAINED THAT ALMOST ALL THE BILLS FROM THE PRINTERS OF THE SAID BOOKS LYING AS STOCKS AS ON 01.04.2003 WERE PRODUC ED BEFORE THE AO. THE AO HAS OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ON 19/12/2011, IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD.A/R THAT THE CL AIM TO OBSOLETE STOCK WAS NOT FULLY ESTABLISHED. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF OBSOLETE STOCKS IS RESTR ICTED TO RS.6,94,323/- BEING 10% OF RS.69,43,238/- INSTEAD OF RS.17,35,810 /-. THUS, THE APPELLANT GET A RELIEF OF RS.10,41,487/- [ RS.17,3 5,810/- - RS. 6,94,323/- ]. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED, AGAINST RESTRICTION OF DISALLOWANCE @ 1 0% I.E AT RS. 6,94,323/- BY CIT(A) BOTH, REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE CAME IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE FIND FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES AND ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH SIDES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMPLETE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF OBSOLENCE OF STOCK. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAIN ED THAT HE HIMSELF IS BOOK ITA NOS. 1616 & 1674/KOL/12-C-MVS, JM SRI DEBASHIS MOULIK . 3 PUBLISHER AND THE DEDUCTION/LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF OBS OLENCE OF STOCK WAS FOR THE REASON THAT THE WEST BENGAL SECONDARY EDUCATION CO UNCIL CANCELLED THE TEXT BOOK ORDER FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE PRESCRIBED NUMBER OF LINES PER PAGE PER BOOK AS NOTIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED OBSOLETE STO CK OF 4,84,863 COPIES OF BOOK AND THE VALUE OF PER BOOK WAS AT RS.14.32 PER UNIT, WHICH COMES TO RS.69,43,238.16. EVEN THE CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THIS ASPECT AND NOTED THAT DUE TO TECHNICAL DEFECTS THE WHOLE OPENING STOCK OF 5,38,412 COPIES OF HISTORY BOOK OF CLASS XI/X WERE RENDERED OBSOLETE DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLA INED THAT ALMOST ALL THE BILLS FROM THE PRINTERS OF THE SAID BOOKS LYING AS STOCKS AS ON 01.04.2008 AND THE SAME WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) IS QUITE UNREASONAB LE IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE @ 10% OF RS.69,43,238/- I.E. AT RS. 6,94,323/- FOR THE REASON THAT COMPLETE EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO AND EVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A) REGARDING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION/ ON ACCOUNT OF OBSOLENCE OF STOCK. EVEN OTHER WISE, ADHOC DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT ANY REASON IS N OT POSSIBLE. THE ESTIMATION OF DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE ON THE OBASIS OF PROPER MATE RIAL AVAILABLE. NEVERTHELESS, THE AO IS NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE A PURE GUESS AND MAKE AN ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY MATERIAL AT ALL. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING MORE THAN BARE SUSPICION TO SUPPORT AS ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3 ) OF THE ACT. THE RULE OF LAW ON THIS SUBJECT HAS BEEN FAIRLY AND RIGHTLY STATED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DHAKESWARI COTTON MILLS LTD VS. CIT (1954 26 ITR 775(SC). THE COMPLETE PROCEDURE OF ESTIMATION HAS BEEN DESCRIBED IN JUDG MENT DELIVERED BY HONBLE LAHORE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SETH GURMUKH SING H VS. CIT (1954) 12 ITR 393 (LAH). IN TERM OF THE ABOVE, WE DELETE THE BALANCE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE AS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). FOR THIS COMMON GROUND, ASSESSEES A PPEAL IS ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. THE 2 ND COMMON ISSUE IN THESE CROSS APPEAL IS AS REGARDS TO THE RESTRICTION OF ADDITION BY THE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF DISTRIBUTIO N OF BOOKS FOR CANVASSING AS SPECIMEN COPIES AND DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS EE AT RS.97,90,995/- AS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AT RS. 24,47,749/- ITA NOS. 1616 & 1674/KOL/12-C-MVS, JM SRI DEBASHIS MOULIK . 4 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO C LAIMED THAT HE BEING AN ASTUTE BUSINESSMAN EMBARKS UPON THE PROFUSELY EFFECTIVE ME ANS OF SALES PROMOTION IN THE NAME OF CANVASSING. ACCORDING TO HIM, SPECIMEN COPI ES OF BOOKS ARE DISTRIBUTED TO ABOUT IN 8000 SCHOOLS AND ABOUT 250 AGENTS ALL OV ER WEST BENGAL. ACCORDING TO HIM, FOUR COPIES OF EACH AND EVERY TITLE IS ALLOTT ED FOR EACH SCHOOL, NAMELY ONE FOR THE HEADMASTER AND THREE FOR THE SUBJECT TEACHERS . THESE WERE POSTED IN DAK. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE AO CALLED FOR THE DETAILS OF VALUATION OF THE SPECIMEN COPIES AND CORROBORATING WITH THE DETAILS . THE ASSESSEE DISTRIBUTED 3,48,700 BOOKS AS SPECIMEN COPIES, WHICH WERE VALUE D AT RS.97,90,995/-.. THE AO ADMITTED THE FACT OF POSTAGE OF THE COPIES BASED ON THE RECEIPTS OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT, BUT HE TREATED 25% OF DEDUCTION AS UND ISCLOSED SALES AND DISALLOWED SAME WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED COMPLETE EVIDENCES OF DISTRIBUTION OF BOOKS INCLUDING POSTAGE TO VARIOUS SCHOOLS FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION. HOWEVER, AO HAS MADE A DISALLOWANCE @25% OF RS. 97, 90,995 /- I.E AT RS. .24,47,749/-. 8. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE RESTRIC TED THE DISALLOWANCE @ 10% OF RS. 97,90,995/- I.E AT RS.9,79,099/- BY OBSERVING A S UNDER:- 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO THE SUBMIS SION OF THE LD.AR. IT WAS CLAIMED BEFORE THE AO THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE APPELLANT HAD DISTRIBUTED 3,48,700 COPIES OF BOOKS VALUED AT RS. 97,90,995/- AMONG SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, HEADMASTERS AND TEACHERS FOR CAN VASSING AS SPECIMEN COPIES. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASS ESSMENT, THE LD.A/R HAD PRODUCED CHALLANS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF POST, WHICH SHOWED THAT BOOKS WERE DISPATCHED. HOWEVER, THE APPELLAN T DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY RECORD CONFIRMING THAT THE BOOKS WERE RECEIVED BY DIFFERENT PARTIES AS SPECIMEN COPIES. ACCORDING TO THE AO NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM TO PROVE THAT 3,48,700 COPIES OF BOOKS VALUED AT RS. 97,90,995/- WERE ACTUALLY DISTRIBUTED AMONG DIF FERENT PARTIES AS SPECIMEN COPIES AND THERE WAS NO CASH SALES OUT OF THE SPECIMEN COPIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE AM OUNT OF RS.24,47,749/- BEING 25% OF RS.97,90,995/- ON ACCOU NT OF PARTIAL CONFIRMATIONS AND NON-MAINTAINING OF RECORDS. DURIN G THE COURSE OF APPEAL, THE LD.A/R EXPLAINED THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIMEN COPIES IS A VERY POPULAR MARKETING STRATEGY. THE LD.A/R EXPLA INED THAT SPECIMEN COPIES OF BOOKS WERE DISTRIBUTED TO ABOUT 8000 SCH OOLS AND 250 AGENTS ALL OVER WEST BENGAL. HE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE TEACHERS AND THE ITA NOS. 1616 & 1674/KOL/12-C-MVS, JM SRI DEBASHIS MOULIK . 5 HEADMASTERS ARE THE RECOMMENDING AUTHORITIES FOR S ELECTION OF BOOKS IN THE SCHOOLS AND ASKING FOR ANY KIND OF CONFIRMAT IONS FROM THEM WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. CO NSIDERING THE FACT OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT DI D NOT MAINTAIN FULL RECORDS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIMEN COPIES AMONG VARIOUS PARTIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE VALUATION OF THE SPECIMEN COPIES ON ACCOUNT OF PARTIAL CONFIRMATIONS AND NON- MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS IS RESTRICTED TO RS.9,79,099/- BEING 10% OF RS.97,90,995/- IN PLACE OF RS.24,47,749/-. THUS THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS.14,68,650/- [RS.24,47,749/- - RS.9,79,099/-]. TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED, AGAINST RESTRICTION OF DISALLOWANCE @ 1 0% OF RS. 97,90,995/- I.E AT RS. 9,79,099/- BY THE CIT(A) BOTH, REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD FILED COMPLETE DETAILS OF VALUATION OF SPECIMEN COPIES OF 3,48,700 BOOKS AMOUNTING TO RS.97,90,995/- DISTRIBUTED TO VARIOUS SCHOOLS AND AGENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED COMPLETE EVIDENCES OF POST AGE OF THE COPIES BASED ON THE RECEIPTS OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT. BUT THE AO HAS SUMMARILY REJECTED THE SAME AND ESTIMATED THE DISALLOWANCE @25% OF RS. 97,90,995/- BEING RS. 24,47,749/-. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO RESTRICTED TH E DISALLOWANCE @10% OF RS.97,90,995/- I.E. AT RS. 9,79,099/- JUST ON THE B ASIS OF CONJECTURE AND SURMISES. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE @10% BY THE CIT(A) AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE EST IMATED EITHER @ 10% OR @15% AS THE CASE MAY BE. THE ESTIMATION OF DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE ON THE OBASIS OF PROPER MATERIAL AVAILABLE. NEVERTHELESS, THE AO IS NOT ENT ITLED TO MAKE A PURE GUESS AND MAKE AN ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY EVIDEN CE OR ANY MATERIAL AT ALL. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING MORE THAN BARE SUSPICION TO SUPPO RT AS ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE RULE OF LAW ON THIS SUBJECT HAS BEEN FAIRLY AND RIGHTLY STATED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DHAKESWARI COT TON MILLS LTD VS. CIT (1954 26 ITR 775(SC). THE COMPLETE PROCEDURE OF ESTIMATION HAS BEEN DESCRIBED IN JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY HONBLE LAHORE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SETH GURMUKH SINGH VS. CIT (1954) 12 ITR 393 (LAH). IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES, WE DELETE THE ITA NOS. 1616 & 1674/KOL/12-C-MVS, JM SRI DEBASHIS MOULIK . 6 DISALLOWANCE AS HELD BY THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, TH IS COMMON GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND THAT OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE IN THESE TWO CROSS APPEAL S IS AS REGARDS TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) RESTRICTING ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE AT RS.1 6,850/- AS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AT RS.42,128/-. 11. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUG H FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE FO LLOWING EXPENSES @25% BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- ITS IS UNDERSTOOD THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAINT AIN PROPER VOUCHERS WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN EXPENSES LIKE COOL IE & CARTAGE, CONVEYANCE, DAILY CONVEYANCE ETC. THEREFORE, IT IS DEEM FIT TO DISALLOW 25% OF SPECIFIC EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER C ANVASSING ON ACCOUNT OF NOT BEING PROPERLY VOUCHED. THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS:- SL.NO.. HEAD OF EXPENSES EXPENSES CLAIM FINALLY EXPENSES DISALLOWED 1. CANVASSING (LABOUR) 79,480/- 19,870/- 2. CANVASSING (TIFFIN) 28,083/- 7,021/- 3. CANVASSING (COOLIE & CARTAGE) 23,165/- 5,791/- 4. CANVASSING (CONVEYANCE) 37,785/- 9,446/- TOTAL 42,128/- 12. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE RESTRIC TED THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.16,850/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 3.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO THE SUBMI SSION OF THE LD.A/R. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE (I) THE DISALLOW ANCE OUT OF CANVASSING (LABOUR) EXPENSES IS RESTRICTED TO RS.7,948/- INST EAD OF RS. 19,870/- (II) THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CANVASSING (TIFFIN) IS REST RICTED TO RS.2,808/- IN PLACE OF RS.7,021/-, (III) THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CANVASSING (COOLIE) & CARTAGE) EXPENSES IS RESTRICTED TO RS., 2,316/- IN PLACE OF RS.5,791/- AND (IV) THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CANVASSING (CONVEYANCE ) EXPENSES IS RESTRICTED TO RS.3,778/- INSTEAD OF RS.9,446/-. AC CORDINGLY, THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CANVASSING EXPENSES IS RESTRIC TED TO RS.16,850/- (RS.7,948/- + RS.2,808/- + RS.2,316/- + RS.3,778/-) IN PLACE OF RS. 42,128/- . THUS, THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS. 25,278/- (RS.42,128/- - RS. 16,850/-). THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY AL LOWED. ITA NOS. 1616 & 1674/KOL/12-C-MVS, JM SRI DEBASHIS MOULIK . 7 AGGRIEVED, AGAINST THE ABOVE RESTRICTION OF DISALLO WANCES BY THE CIT(A) BOTH THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 13. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUG H FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPH OLD THE SAME. THIS COMMON ISSUE OF ASSESSEES AND REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISS ED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS STATED ABOVE. . , ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/07/2014 SD/- SD/- [ , ] [ , ] SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA HAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ( , ) DATED :14/7/2014 *PP 12 3 /SR.P.S. + &6 76 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. % /APPELLANT- ACIT, CIRCLE-37, PODDAR COURT, 8 TH FL, 18 RABINDRA SARANI, KOL-1. 2 &'% / RESPONDENT : SRI DEBASISH MOULIK 18, DR. KARTIC B OSE ST., KOL-73 3. / THE CIT, 4. ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 5. & / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA '6 & / TRUE COPY , / BY ORDER , /ASSTT. REGISTRAR