J.C.I.T Range - 1,Asansol., Asansol V. Avinash Transport, Asansol

ITA 1909/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99703 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Onus to prove
• Section: 68; 133(6)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO . 1 9 0 9 / KOL ./20 1 2 ASSESS MENT YEAR: 200 8 - 20 0 9 PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1 9 0 9 / KOL / 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 20 0 9 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, .... ........ . APPELLANT RANG E - 1 , ASANSOL , LOWER CHELIDANGA, ASANSOL - 713304 - VS. - M/S. AVINASH TRANSPORT,.............. ............... ... . RESPONDE NT 11, CHATTAPATHAR, BYE PASS, KALI PAHARI - 713339, ASANSOL [PAN : AA KFA 3496 J ] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI PINAKI MU KHERJEE, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : AUGUST 0 6 , 2 01 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : AUGUST 13 , 201 5 O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA : THIS A PPEAL HA S BEEN FIL ED BY THE REVENU E AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , ASANSOL D ATED 1 2 . 10 .20 1 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 . 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESESE , A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, DERIVED INCO ME FROM TRANSPORTING BUSINESS. THE NATURE OF ASSESSEE S BUSINESS WAS TO CARRY OUT MINING, TRANSPORTING, LOADING JOB OF COAL FOR EASTERN COAL FIELD LIMIT ED, BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED . IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS.34,91,938/ - . I.T.A. NO . 1 9 0 9 / KOL ./20 1 2 ASSESS MENT YEAR: 200 8 - 20 0 9 PAGE 2 OF 9 THE AS SESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.87,03,385/ - AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: - (1) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION - RS. 35,13,409/ - ; (2) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIED CREDIT BALANCE OF RAVI BHATTAR - RS.6,50,0 00/ - ; (3) DISALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF EPF RS.1,30,526/ - ; (4) DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE DUMPER AND VEHICLE HIRE CHARGES RS.4,17,512/ - ; (5) DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE S CLAIM FOR VARIOUS EXPENSES RS.5,00,000/ - BEING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, T HE ASSESSEE WAS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL WAS ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 3. AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) , THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), ASANSOL HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.35,13,409/ - DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), ASANSOL HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.6,50,000/ - , DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. (3) THAT THE LD. CIT(A), ASANSOL HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.1,30,00 0/ - DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF EPF AFTER THE DUE DATE. (4) THAT THE LD. CIT(A), ASANSOL HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.4,17,512/ - , DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESSIVE LIABILITY SHOWN. (5) THAT THE L D. CIT(A), ASANSOL HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.4,17,512/ - , DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESSIVE EXPENSES CLAIMED. I.T.A. NO . 1 9 0 9 / KOL ./20 1 2 ASSESS MENT YEAR: 200 8 - 20 0 9 PAGE 3 OF 9 4 . BRIEF FACTS APROPOS GROUND NO. 1 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.95,07,297/ - . OUT OF THIS, DEPRECIATION ON THE DUMPERS HAD BEEN CLAIMED AT THE RATE OF 30% AMOUNTING TO RS.70,26,818/ - ON THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF RS.2,34,22,726/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF RATE OF DEPRECIATION AT 3 0%. HE ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 15% ONLY BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PUT ANY SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT TO JUSTIFY THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVING DUMPERS ON HIRE TO OTHER OPERATOR S FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTING AND ALLIED ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ITSELF INVOLVED IN THESE ACTIVITIES FOR VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS LIKE ECL AT NABOKAJORS, MADHABPUR, BCCL AND WAS RAISING THE GROSS BILL ON THOSE ENTITIES. PRIMARILY HE DISALLOW E D THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVING THE DUMPERS ON HIRE BUT USING FOR ITS OWN BUSINESS FOR EARNING THE HIRING INCOME/RENTAL INCOME. 5. LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL, INTER ALIA, OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF WAS INV OLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF LOADING/ UNLOADING AND TRANSPORTING FOR VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. ACCORDINGLY HE ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM BY OBSERVING THAT THE DUMPERS WERE PREDOMINANTLY USED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITS VEHICLES WERE USED IN TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS FOR CARRYING GOODS BELONGING TO CONTRACTEES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DISCLOSING INCOME FROM MINING, TRANSPORTING AND LOADING JOB AND THIS FACT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER. LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, C ONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS USING THESE VEHICLES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF THE GOODS OF OTHER PERSONS. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANUP CHAND & CO. REPORTED IN 239 ITR 466 AND CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 652 DATED 1 4.06.1993, HE ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM. 6 . LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE REFERRED PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVING THE DUMPERS ON HIRE BECAUSE IT WAS RAISING GROSS BILLS. I.T.A. NO . 1 9 0 9 / KOL ./20 1 2 ASSESS MENT YEAR: 200 8 - 20 0 9 PAGE 4 OF 9 7 . WE HAVE CON SIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS OF THE CASE. AS PER NEW APPENDIX 1 UNDER RULE 5 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE) RULES , 1962 DEALING WITH RATES AT WHICH DEPRECIATION IS ADMISSIBLE : - III. MACHINERY AND PLANT : (2) MO TOR CARS, OTHER THAN THOSE USED IN A BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE, ACQUIRED OR PUT TO USE ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1990. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT WHEN THE DUMPERS ARE GIVEN ON HIRE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 30%. HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW , BECAUSE IF THE ASSESSEE IS TRANSPORTING THE GOODS OF OTHER PERSONS, THEN ALSO THE DUMPER IS GIVEN ON HIRE AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE M ADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANUP CHAND & CO. REPORTED IN 239 ITR 466 THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION AS THE VEHICLES ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS BEING GIVEN ON HIRE FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS OF OTHER PERSONS. THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT TRANSPORTING ITS OWN GOODS BUT THE GOODS OF OTHER PERSONS AND DERIVING HIRE CHARGES. BY CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS COUNT. RESULTANTLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. BRIEF FACTS APROPOS GROUND NO. 2 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE CURRENT LIABILITIES FOR EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,19,93,756/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) HAD BEEN ISSUED T O RAVI BHATTAR WHICH WAS SHOWING THE TRANSACTION DETAILS AS UNDER: - SR. NO. NAME OF THE PERSON OPENING BALANCE TRANSACTION PAID DURING THE YEAR TDS DEDUCTED AMOUNT AS SHOWN ON 31.03.2008 1. RAVI BHATTAR NIL RS.6,50,000/ - - - RS.6,50,000/ - I.T.A. NO . 1 9 0 9 / KOL ./20 1 2 ASSESS MENT YEAR: 200 8 - 20 0 9 PAGE 5 OF 9 DETAILS OF NOT ICE GIVEN UNDER SECTION 133(6) HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGE 4 & 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SINCE NEITHER THE PERSON TO WHOM NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) HAD BEEN ISSUED, HAD FILED ANY DOCUMENT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 TO SHOW THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS TO ENT ER TRANSACTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE WITH THE ASSESSEE NOR THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ANY RELY REGARDING THE ABOVE QUERY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF RS.6,50,000/ - . 9. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION BY , INTER ALIA, OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE ADDRESS OF THE TRADE CREDITOR BUT NO ENQUIRIES HAD BEEN CONDUCTED BY HIM IN THIS REGARD. MERELY BECAUSE REPLY TO A Q UERY UNDER SECTION 133(6) HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT A TRADE CREDITOR HAS NOT CREDITWORTHINESS. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PANCHAM DAS JAIN REPORTED IN 205 CTR 444, WHEREIN, ON SIMILA R FACTS, THAT ADDITION WAS DELETED. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS OF THE CASE. OUT OF THE TOTAL SUNDRY CREDITORS AGGREGATING TO RS.2,19,93,756/ - , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.6,50, 000/ - AS THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRODUCED THE CREDITORS NOR G A VE ANY DETAILS IN REGARD TO SUPPLIERS. MERELY SUBMITTING THE BILLS IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASES CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR DELETING THE ADDITION UNLESS THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES WAS DULY ESTABLISHED. LD . CIT(APPEALS) HAS MERELY DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT IDENTITY HAD NOT ULTIMATELY BEEN DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, WHEN CONFIRMATION WAS NOT FILED BY THE CREDITORS, THEN PROPER COURSE WAS TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSES SEE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF CREDITORS. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS GROUND AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. I.T.A. NO . 1 9 0 9 / KOL ./20 1 2 ASSESS MENT YEAR: 200 8 - 20 0 9 PAGE 6 OF 9 11. BRIEF FACTS A PROPOS GROUND NO. 3 ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED THE PAYMENT OF EPF AMOUNTING TO RS.1,30,526/ - AFTER THE DUE DATE. HE, THEREFORE, MADE THE ADDITION. IN APPEAL, LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF VINAY CEMENT LIMITED REPORTED IN (2009) 313 ITR (ST.) 1, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT STATUTORY ITEMS LIKE PF AND ESI IF PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN HAVE TO BE ALLOWED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE CONTRIBUTIONS RELATED TO THE EMPLOYER O R THE EMPLOYEE. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. WE, ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS). RESULTANTLY, THE GROUND NO. 3 STANDS DISMISSED. 12. BRIEF FACTS APROPOS GROUND NO. 4 ARE THAT FROM THE DETAILS OF CURRENT LIABILITIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THERE WAS DUMPER AND PAY LOADER HIRE CHARGES PAYABLE AT RS.89,93,832/ - . HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED THE DUMPER AND PAY LOADER HIRE CH ARGES OF RS.4,77,58,229/ - IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED AS UNDER: - (I) IT CONTAINS 502 NAMES OF THE PERSONS, (II) ALL THE PAYMENTS PAYABLE WERE SHOWN TO BE LESS THAN RS.20,000/ - . (III) THE SUM OF THE PAYMENTS COMES TO BE RS.89,93,832/ - . (IV) THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVIDED THE DETAILS OF REGISTERED NOS. OF VEHICLES ALONG WITH DETAILS OF REGISTRATION PAPERS OF VEHICLE TO PROVE THE OWNERSHIP/CONTENTION THAT THE DUMPER AND PAY LOADER HIRE CHARGES WERE PAYABLE TO THESE PERSONS APPEARING IN THE LIST. FROM THESE DETAILS, HE CONCLUDED THAT THE DUMPER AND VEHICLE HIRE CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT FULLY VERIFIABLE. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED RS.4,17,512/ - AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER: - I.T.A. NO . 1 9 0 9 / KOL ./20 1 2 ASSESS MENT YEAR: 200 8 - 20 0 9 PAGE 7 OF 9 PERUSAL OF THE AUDIT REPORT FOR AY 2007 - 08 INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING DUMPER AND PAY LOADER HIRE CHARGES PAYABLE AT RS.1,59,34,372/ - , WHEREAS DUMPER AND PAY LOADER HIRE CHARGES PAID AS DEBITED IN P& LA/C. FOR AY 2007 - 08 WAS RS.8,87, 32,394/ - . THE RATIO OF DUMPER AND PAY LOADER HIRE CHARGES PAYABLE/ DUMPER & PAY LOADER HIRE CHARGES PAID FOR AY 2007 - 08 IS 17.85%. APPLYING THIS RATIO TO THE DUMPER AND PAY LOADER HIRE CHARGES PAID IN AY 2008 - 09 IS 4,77,58,229/ - . THE DUMPER AND PAY LOADER HIRE CHARG ES PAYABLE COMES TO BE RS.85,76,319/ - WHILE DUMPER AND PAY LOADER HIRE CHARGES PAYABLE SHOWN IN THE AUDIT REPORT WAS RS.89,93,832/ - . THUS EXCESS DUMPER & PAY LOADER HIRE CHARGES PAYABLE OF RS.4,17,512/ - (RS.89,93,832/ - - 857632/ - ) IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION, INTER ALIA, OBSERVING THAT NO MATERIAL HAD BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INDICATE THAT ASSESSEE S CLAIM WAS FALSE AND FROM THE FACE OF MATHEMATICAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE RATIOS CA LCULATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE DISALLOWANCE COULD NOT BE MADE. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE BY APPLYING THE R ATIO OF EXPENSES CLAIMED IN DIFFERENT YEARS WITHOUT POINTING OUT EVEN ON A SINGLE ITEM, WHICH WAS NOT VERIFIABLE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS). HENCE, GROUND NO. 4 OF REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 14. WE OBSERVE THAT THE GROUND NO. 5 CONTAIN S A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN REGARD TO THE AMOUNT THEREIN BECAUSE THE GROUND RAISED RELAT ES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,00,000/ - WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND NOT RS.4,17,512/ - . WE , THEREFORE, MODIFY TH IS GROUND AS UNDER: - (5) THAT THE LD. CIT(A), ASANSOL HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.5,00,000/ - , DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESSIVE EXPENSES CLAIMED. I.T.A. NO . 1 9 0 9 / KOL ./20 1 2 ASSESS MENT YEAR: 200 8 - 20 0 9 PAGE 8 OF 9 15. BRIEF FACTS APROPOS GROUND NO. 5 ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,00,000/ - OF VARIOUS EXSPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT GROSS RECEIPTS HAD DECREASED BY 41.38%, BUT THERE WAS INCREASE IN EXPENSES NOTED AT PAGE 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDI TION OBSERVING THAT THE MAJOR INCREASE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF EXPLOSIVES OF WHICH THERE HAD BEEN INCREASED USE THIS YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF EXPLOSIVES DEBITED REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT DEDUCTED BY M/S. EASTERN COALFIELDS & M/S. BHARAT COKI NG COAL LIMITED FROM THEIR BILLS AND SUCH EXPLOSIVES HAD BEEN SUPPLIED BY THE CONTRACTEE. FROM THESE SUBMISSIONS, HE POINTED OUT THAT WHEN THE ASSESESE HAD DISCLOSED THE FACTS BY WAY OF EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTED AND WITHOUT MAKING ENQUIRIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT BRUSH SUCH EXPLANATIONS ASIDE. HE POINTED OUT THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS ACTUALLY BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 16. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR INCREASE IN EXPENSES AS NOTED BY THE LD. CITR(APPEALS) AND THE ASSESSEE S EXPLANATION ON ACCOUNT OF EXPLO SIVES BEING SUPPLIED BY CONTRACTEE HAD NOT DULY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE , IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER , WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE , ACCORDINGLY , CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 17 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH A UGUST , 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - MAHAVIR SINGH S.V. MEHROTRA ( JUDICIAL MEMBE R) ( ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 13 TH D AY OF AUGUST , 201 5 I.T.A. NO . 1 9 0 9 / KOL ./20 1 2 ASSESS MENT YEAR: 200 8 - 20 0 9 PAGE 9 OF 9 COPIES TO : (1) JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, ASANSOL, LOWER CHELIDANGA, ASANSOL - 713304 (2) M/S. AVINASH TRANSPORT, 11, CHATTAPATHAR, BYE PASS, KALI PAHAR I - 713339, ASANSOL (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) , ASANSOL (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - , KOLKATA ( 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B ENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S .