Jediv Cargo Management Pvt. Ltd., , Kolkata V. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 1824/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7453 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RADHEY SHYAM
• Keywords: Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, D , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH D KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1824 / KOL / 20 18 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2013-14 JEDIV CARGO MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD., UNIT 802, P.S. CONTINENTAL BUILDING, 8 TH FLOOR, 83/2/1 TOPSIA ROAD, KOLKAT-46 [ PAN NO.AACCJ 0464 G ] V/S . DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KOLKTA-700 069 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT NONE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI RADHEY SHYAM CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 18-04-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30-04-2019 / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, KOLKATAS O RDER DATED 29.06.2018 PASSED IN CASE NO. 1444/CIT(A)-4/2015-16, INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARS AT THE ASSESSEES B EHEST. THE REGISTRY HAS ALREADY SENT THE ASSESSEE AN RPAD NOTICE DATED 27.08.2018 FOR TODAYS HEARING. WE THEREFORE PROCEED EX PARTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE IS NOW TAKEN UP ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 2. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE CHALLE NGES CORRECTNESS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION DISALLOWING ITS S EC. 35(1)(II) DEDUCTION CLAIM OF DONATION OF 8.75 LAC MADE TO SCHOOL OF HUMAN GENETICS AND POPUL ATION ITA NO.1824/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 JEDIV CARGO MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIR-12(`1), KOL. PAGE 2 HEALTH (SHPGH) IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AS UPHEL D LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS VIDE ITS FOLLOWING DETAILED DISCUSSION: - 6. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 8, 75,000/- BEING DONATION AND SUBSCRIPTION PAID U/S. 35(1)(II). THE AO HAS PASSED A DETAILED ORDER IN THIS ISSUE. 6.1. SOME OF THE SALIENT FEATURE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE ISSUE OF DONATION IS AS UNDER: I) DONATION HAS BEEN PAID TO SCHOOL OF HUMAN GENETI CS AND POPULATION HEALTH (SHPGH) ON WHICH SURVEY WAS CARRIED OUT BY I NVESTIGATION WING ON 27.01.2015 WHERE IT WAS FOUND THAT CONCERN IS PROVI DING ENTRY FOR BOGUS DONATION TO VARIOUS PARTIES. II) THE-ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE DONATION MADE IN ROW 15A OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT AND IT WAS SHOWN AS NIL. III) DURING SURVEY IT WAS FOUND THAT SHG&PH IS PROV IDING ENTRY FOR DONATION AND IS TAKING COMMISSION FOR THE SAME. THE COMMISSI ON RATE HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN 12 PER CENT TO 18 PER CENT WHERE 8 TO 10 PER CENT COMMISSION IS RETAINED BY SHG&PH AND 2 TO 8 PER CENT COMMISSION I S CHARGED FOR BROKER. IV) MORE THAN RS. 724 CRORE OF BOGUS DONATION WAS G IVEN TO THREE INSTITUTES BETWEEN 2011 AND 2015. V) STATEMENT OF PERSONS LIKE SECRETARY, TREASURER, PRESIDENT ARE AS UNDER- 'STATEMENTS OF KEY PERSONS LIKE SECRETARY/TREASURER /PRESIDENT AND OTHER PERSONS RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY AND CONFIR MING THE ABOVE IN MODOUS OPERANDI WAS ENCLOSED IN THE SURVEY REPORT. STATEMENTS OF THE AUDITORS OF THESE INSTITUTES ARE ENCLOSED IN THE SURVEY REPORT WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS LACUNAS IN THE AU DIT DONE BY THEM. MOST OF THE AUDIT IS CLONE FROM THE BANK STATEMENT. A NUMBER OF BROKERS/ ENTRY OPERATORS HAVE ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE CLONE BOGUS BILLING OR ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FOR TH ESE INSTITUTIONS WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE I NSTITUTE. STATEMENTS OF BROKERS/ ENTRY OPERATOR ARE ENCLOSED IN SURVEY R EPORT ANNEXURES. . MOST OF THE EXPENSE SIDE PARTIES OF THESE INSTITU TES WERE ISSUED NOTICES. THE REGISTER DALES HAS RETURN BACK AS NOT FOUND/ ADDRESS INSUFFICIENT ETC. PRE- SURVEY AND POST SURVEY PHYSI CAL INQUIRIES HAVE FOUND THAT MOST OF THE EXPENSE SIDE PARTIES OF THES E INSTITUTES ARE PAPER & BOGUS CONCERNS WHICH HAS RAISED BOGUS BILLS IN LIEU OF COMMISSION. THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THESE INSTITUTES SHOW CLEA R PATTERN OF DONATION COMING AND GOING VIDE ABOVE MODOUS OPERAND I. MOST OF THE DEBIT ENTRIES ARE IN NAME OF SHELL COMPANIES AND PA PER CONCERNS, WHICH ARE FOUND TO BE NON-EXISTING . SHG&PH HAVE GONE IN SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ADMITTI NG THAT IN LIEU OF SERVICE CHARGE THEY HAVE PROVIDED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF DONATION TO THE DONORS. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT THERE AT THEIR REG ISTERED OFFICES. IN CASE OF SHG&PH THERE ARE BROKER WISE LEDGERS OF COM MISSION. IN THIS CASES, NO PURCHASE BILLS WERE FOUND AT THEIR PREMIS ES RELATED TO F. Y 2014-15. DOCUMENTS RELATE TO COMMISSION WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED. ITA NO.1824/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 JEDIV CARGO MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIR-12(`1), KOL. PAGE 3 THEY DO HAVE SOME PERSON WITH GOOD C. V. ON THEI R BOARD. ON INQUIRY IT IS FOUND THAT THESE PERSONS ARE ASSOCIAT ED WITH THESE INSTITUTES ONLY IN HONORARY POSITION AND THEY ARE N OT INVOLVED IN THE DAY TO DAY ACTIVITIES OF THE INSTITUTES. SOME OF THEM A RE RELATIVES OF THE KEY PERSON OF THE INSTITUTE. THE RESEARCH WORK THEY ARE SHOWING IS JUST REPROD UCTION OF THE PUBLISHED MATERIAL. EVEN JUST ONE OR TWO PERSON HAS EDUCATION QUALIFICATION TO BE A RESEARCHER. THE INSTITUTES WE RE ASKED TO PRODUCE THE LIST OF RESEARCHER ALONG WITH THEIR EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION, RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION IN LAST THREE YEARS FOR THE I NSTITUTE, EXPENSES ON THEIR RESEARCH, AMOUNT PAID TO RESEARCHERS BY THE I NSTITUTES IN LIEU OF RESEARCH. NO DETAILS WERE FILED. THESE INSTITUTIONS HAVE MINISCULE PRESENCE AND TH EIR CONTRIBUTION TO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IS TOO NEGLIGIBLE FOR THE KIND OF DONATION THEY HAVE RECEIVED. ANY INDEPENDENT VALUATION OF THEIR RESEAR CH WORK WILL REVEAL THAT IT IS NOTHING BUT COPY, PLAGIARISM AND MIXING/ EDITING OF THE VARIOUS PUBLISHED ARTICLES. THE RESEARCH FACILITIES LIKE IN STRUMENTS, LAB. SKILLED STAFF, STORAGE FACILITIES ETC ARE NEAR ABOUT ABSENT AT THESE INSTITUTES. THE INSTITUTE APPROVED U/ S 35(1)(II) HAVE TO FOLLO W RULE 5C, 5D AND 5E OF INCOME TAX RULES. THESE INSTITUTES HAVE BLATANTL Y VIOLATED THE CONCERNED INCOME TAX RULES. ON PERUSAL OF THE SURVE Y REPORT IT IS SEEN THAT THE NATURE OF WORK OF THE ABOVE STATED RESEARC H INSTITUTION IS BOGUS. FURTHER, STATEMENTS OF MANY PERSONS SHOWN TO HAVE HOLD DIFFERENT POSITIONS IN THE INSTITUTE WERE TAKEN AND . RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY ACTION. THE STATEMENT OF BROKE R WHO HAS ACTED AS LIAISON BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THE INSTITUTE WAS A LSO RECORDED. THE FOLLOWING MANAGERIAL STAFF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RELATED PARTIES, BROKER HAVING ADMITTED THAT MOST OF THE RESEARCH WO RK IS FABRICATED, COPIED AND WHAT IS KNOWN AS CUT-PASTE RESEARCH AND ON PAPER ONLY AND CONFIRMING THE SAME THROUGH THEIR STATEMENTS AR E AS UNDER: 1. SMT. SAMADRITA MUKHERJEE SARDAR (SECRETARY OF BH G&PH) 2. SMT. MOUMITA RAGHAUAN (TREASURER OF SHG&PH) 3. SHRI PINAKI PAL/ACCOUNTANT OF (SHG&PH) 4. SHRI PROLAY BANEDEE STATEMENT 5. SHRI ARUIND TEWARI (AUDITOR OF (SHG&PH) 6. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL BROKER CUM ENTRY OPERAT OR OF SHG&PH) 7.SHRI GUPTA, (DUMMY DIRECTOR OF VIJAY KUMAR AGARWA L) 8. SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA, (DUMMY DIRECTOR OF VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL) 9. DISCLOSURE OF INCOME BY VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL 10. SHRI YOGESH AGARWAL (SHG&PH) 11. SHRI SAILESH GUPTA (SHG&PH) 12. SHRI SAILESH AGARWAL (SHG&PH) 13. SING NAUIN KUMAR CHHAWCHHARIA (SHG&PH) 14. SHRI GOUIND RAIN CHAUCLHCUY (SHG&PH) 15. SHRI MAKHANIAL SATNALIWALA (SHG&PH) 16. SINT. RUPEE KHETNKA (SHG&PH) 17. SHRI BIKASH KUMAR ROY (SHG&PH) 18. SHRI SIN HA ROY (BROKER OF (SHG&PH) 19. SHRI AKASH AGARWAL 20. SHRI SWILL KUMAR AGARWAL (SHG&PH) 21. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA (SHG&PH)' ITA NO.1824/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 JEDIV CARGO MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIR-12(`1), KOL. PAGE 4 (VI) THE AO HAS ALSO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO IDE A ABOUT THE ACTIVITY OF THE DONEE. THE AO HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT PRODUCE THE PERSON AT WHOSE REFERENCE THE DONATION WAS MADE. TH E STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF SHG&PH WAS RECORDED. IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION NO. 10 (REPRODUCED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER) HE HAS ADMITTED TH AT BOGUS EXPENSES HAVE BEEN BOOKED. HE HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSES SEE GETS A COMMISSION OF 3 PER CENT TO 8 PER CENT ON THE BOGUS DONATIONS. HE HAS ALSO STATED THAT BACK DATED APPEAL LETTERS ARE MADE TO THE DONORS AN D THE MONEY IS RETURNED TO THE DONORS AFTER DEDUCTING THE COMMISSION. THE TREASURER OF SHG&PH HAS ALSO STATED ON OATH WHE RE HE HAS ADMITTED THAT THE ORGANIZATION GETS 7 TO 8 PER CENT COMMISSI ON ON THE DONATION AMOUNT. HE HAS ALSO STATED THAT SERVICES OF BROKERS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR THE BOGUS DONATION.. (VII) STATEMENT OF MR. PINAKI PAL, ACCOUNTANT WAS A LSO RECORDED AND HE HAS ALSO ADMITTED ABOUT THE USE OF COMMISSION AGENTS FO R THE BOGUS DONATION AND USE OF BOGUS EXPENDITURE TO MATCH THE ACCOUNTS. (VIII) STATEMENT OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL, BROKE R CUM ENTRY OPERATOR WAS ALSO RECORDED HE HAS ADMITTED THAT HE HAS GIVEN BOG US BILLS OF 111.88 CRORE TO THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THE MODUS OPERA NDI OF ISSUING BOGUS BILLS TO THE ASSESSEE. (IX) THE ENTIRE MODUS OPERANDI HAS BEEN EXPLAINED B Y THE AO, THROUGH PICTORIAL CHART. IN VIEW OF THESE VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCES COLLECTED. BY THE AO] THERE IS NOT AN IOTA OF DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DONATION TO SHG&PH WH ICH ARE BOGUS IN NATURE. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BASED ON THE THEORY OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY AND IN THIS CASE THE A O HAS COLLECTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE DONATIONS MADE ARE BOGUS IN NATURE. REGARDING ID AR'S RELIANCE ON SOME OF THE TRIBUNAL' S CASES. IN THIS CASE AO HAS DISCUSSED THE FINDINGS OF SURVEY IN DETAIL TO ESTAB LISH THAT THE DONATIONS ARE BOGUS GIVEN THROUGH MIDDLEMEN WHO CHARGE COMMISSION AND R ETURN THE MONEY TO THE DONEES. SO MUCH EVIDENCE WAS NOT GATHERED IN OTHER CASES. THEREFORE OTHER. CASES CANT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL VALUE ON THIS ISSUE. HUNDREDS OF DONORS HAVE SURRENDERED THEIR DONATION AS INCOME IN VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE SCHEME LAUNCHED BY DEPARTMENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, GROUND NO. 1 IS DI SMISSED. 3. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RE VENUES SUPPORTING CONTENTIONS OF THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTS OUT THAT CBDT HAS CANCELLED T HE RECIPIENTS REGISTRATION AS WELL AS REGISTERED BODY ENTITLED TO RECEIVE CONT RIBUTION. WE FIND NO MERIT IN REVENUES INSTANT ARGUMENTS. THIS TRIBUNALS CO-ORD INATE BENCHS DECISION IN TUSHAR CHAWDA VS. ITO IN ITA NO.2362/KOL/2017 DECIDED ON 21.03.2018 FOR ITA NO.1824/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 JEDIV CARGO MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIR-12(`1), KOL. PAGE 5 THE VERY ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS DELETED IDENTICAL DISA LLOWANCE QUA THE RECIPIENT ENTITIES AS FOLLOWS:- 5. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, I AM OF THE VI EW THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT SUFFER ON ACCOUNT OF WITHDRAWAL OF NOTIFICATION GIVEN TO M /S SCHOOL OF HUMAN GENETICS AND POPULATION HEALTH, KOLKATA GRANTING APPROVAL U/S. 3 5(1)(II) OF THE ACT. THIS RECOGNITION WAS ORIGINALLY GRANTED ON 28 TH JANUARY, 2010 AND RENEWED ON 17 TH JUNE, 2010 BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHN OLOGY. IN RESPONSE TO LETTER DATED 03.02.2014 GIVEN BY M/S SCHOOL OF HUMAN GENET ICS AND POPULATION HEALTH, TO THE ASSESSEE, DONATION OF RS.15,00,000/- WAS MADE O N 31.03.2014 BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO THE DONEE ON 31.03.201 4 AND WITHDRAWAL WAS ON 15.09.2016 I.E. AFTER 17 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF DO NATION MADE IN MARCH, 2014. SUCH WITHDRAWAL IN MY VIEW CANNOT TAKE AWAY THE VESTED R IGHT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35(1) OF THE ACT. 6. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAJDA POLYMEERS VIDE ITA NO.333/KOL/2017 ORDER DATED 08.11.2017 AT PAGE 7 HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 5.6 WE FIND THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAD MADE AN OBSERVA TION WHICH HAS BEEN HEAVILY RELIED UPON BY THE LD DR THAT THE ASSESSEE S LINE OF BUSINESS HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO EVEN REMOTELY WITH THE HEALTHCARE OR HERBAL HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY MUCH LESS IN THE AREA OF RESEARCH THEREON AND ACCOR DINGLY THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE DONATION OF RS.14,00,000/- TO HHBRF. WE FIND THAT THIS ASPECT HAS BEEN DULY ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE BY STATING THAT ONE CARDIOLOGIST DOCTOR HAD INTRODUCED THE ASSESSEE TO HHBRF AND DONATIONS WERE GIVEN AFTER DUE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSEE B ASED ON PERSONAL VISITS TO THE TWO RESEARCH CENTRES OF HHBRF AND ACTIVITIES CA RRIED ON BY THEM. MOREOVER, IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT IT WAS ALWAYS THE PREROGRATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE OR NOT TO GIVE ANY DONATION TO A PARTICULAR INSTITUTION, WHICH WISDOM CANNOT BE QUESTIONED BY THE REVENUE. THE QUESTION O F BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY OF AN EXPENDITURE HAD TO BE VIEWED FROM THE POINT O F VIEW OF THE BUSMAN AND NOT FROM THE VIEW POINT OF THE REVENUE. THE BUSINES SMAN KNOWS HIS INTEREST BEST. HOWEVER, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THIS DONATI ON PAID TO HHBRF IS FREE FROM ANY SUSPICION. IT DEFINITELY LEADS TO FURTHER PROBE BY THE REVENUE, WHICH HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE REVENUE BY SUMMONING TH E DIRECTOR OF HHBRF. THE SAID DIRECTOR SHRI SWAPAN RANJAN DASGUPTA, THOU GH COULD NOT APPEAR IN PERSON BEFORE THE LD AO FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION (WHIC H WAS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE) BUT HAD CONFIRMED IN WRITING THAT THE DON ATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO HHBRF WERE GENUINE IN NATURE AND HAD FU RTHER CONFIRMED THAT HBRF HAD NOT PAID ANY CASH BACK TO ASSESSEE IN LIEU OF CHEQUE DONATIONS PAID TO THEM. THE REVENUE HAD LEFT THE MATTER AT TH IS STAGE ITSELF AND DID NOT FURTHER PROBE INTO IT TO CHEQUE THE VERACITY OF THE CONFIRMATIONS ITA NO.2362/KOL/201 TUSHAR CHAWDA AY 2014-15 MADE BY SH RI SWAPAN RANJAN DASGUPTA. THEREFORE THE LD AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITION ONLY BASED ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SWAPAN RANJAN DASGUPTA AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. IT MAY BE TRUE THAT IN RESPECT TO HE SAID STATEMENT , SWAPAN RANJAN DASGUPTA MAY HAVE DEPOSED TO THE FACT THAT HHBRF WERE IN REC EIPT OF VARIOUS DONATIONS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS SIN CHEQUES AND THE SAME WERE ROUTED BACK TO THE DONORS IN CASH AFTER RETAINING CERTAIN PORTI ON AS THEIR COMMISSION AND INTERMEDIARIES COMMISSION. THIS IS ONLY A GENERAL S TATEMENT GIVEN BY SWAPAN RANJAN DASGUPTA ABOUT THE MODUS OPERANDI CARRIED OU T BY HHBRF. BUT NOWHERE IN THE AID STATEMENT OR IN THE SUBSEQUENT E NQUIRIES/INVESTIGATION, IT CAME TO LIGHT THAT THE AS HEREIN HAD INDEED RECEIVE D BACK THE CASH IN LIEU OF CHEQUE DONATIONS GIVEN TO HHBRF. THIS SERVES AS A C LINCHING MISSING EVIDENCE IN THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF THIS CASE. ITA NO.1824/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 JEDIV CARGO MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIR-12(`1), KOL. PAGE 6 7. RESPECTFULLY APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAI D DOWN IN THIS CASE LAW TO THE FACTS OF CASE ON HAND AND AS THE DONATION TO SCHOOL OF H UMAN GENETICS AND POPULATION HEALTH WAS MADE WHILE IT WAS HOLDING THE APPROVAL IN QUESTION, WE DIRECT THE AO TO GRANT THE SAID DEDUCTION AS CLAIMED. IN THE RESULT THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE ADOPT ABOVE DETAILED DISCUSSION MUTATIS MUTAN DIS TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE MADE IN BOTH THE LOWER PROCEE DINGS. 5. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 30/ 04/2019 SD/- SD/- ( %) (' %) (DR.A.L. SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (- 30 / 04 /201 9 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-JEDIV CARGO MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD., UNTI 8 02, P.S. CONTINENTAL BUILDING, 8 TH FL, 83/2/1 TOPSIA ROAD, KOLKATA-46 2. /RESPONDENT-DCIT, CIR-12(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KOLKAT -69 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,