Susen Chaki, Murshidabad V. ITO, Ward-4, Murshidabad, Murshidabad

ITA 20/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9238 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAENDR PRASAD J
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJIB K DAS SARMA
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 40A(3); 142(1); 133(6); 147; 69; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH D KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.20/KOL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 SUSEN CHAKI 15/1, RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARJEE LANE, BERHAMAPORE, MURSHIDABAD-742101 [ PAN NO.ACGPC 6164 P ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, BERHAMPORE, MURSHIDABAD /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SANJIB K DAS SARMA, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI RAJAENDR PRASAD, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 11-01-2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10-03-2017 /O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXII, KOLKATA DATED 26.09.201 4. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY I.T.O., WARD-4, MURSHIDABAD U/S 147/143(3 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) VIDE H IS ORDER DATED 06.12.2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. SHRI SANJIB K DAS SARMA, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT IVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAJENDR PRASAD, LD. DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. ITA NO.20/KOL/2015 A.Y.2005- 06 SUSEN CHAKI VS. ITO WD-4 MSD PAGE 2 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN T HE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED IN THE TRADING BUSINESS O F SEEDS. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS FILED ITS RETURN O F INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,08,628/- WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF INC OME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS ONLY. THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT, ACCEPTING THE INCOME SHOWN BY TH E ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS PICKED UP UNDER INCOME ES CAPING ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICES U/S 148/143( 2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT WAS F RAMED U/S 147 R.W.S.143(3) OF THE ACT AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.12, 40,128/- AFTER MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN DETAILS HEREINAFTER. 3. WE FIRST TAKE UP GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEE WH ERE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIR MING THE ORDER OF AO BY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,36,564 ON ACCOUNT O F GROSS PROFIT ON THE UNRECORDED PURCHASES. THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED C ERTAIN DIFFERENCES IN THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE VIS- -VIS SALES SHOWN BY THE CORRESPONDING PARTIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS DETAILED BELOW COMPANY STATEMENT BY THE ASSESSEE UNDERSTATED:- NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT AS PER AMOUNT SHOWN AM OUNT BHARAT NURSERY PVT.LTD. RS.5,11,315.00 RS.5,04,690 RS.6,625.00 MAHYCO SEEDS LTD. RS.22,47,863.25 RS.1,40,150 RS .21,07,713.25 PALLI SHREE LTD. RS. 9,30,825.00 RS.1,55,570 R S. 7,77,255.00 PASHUPATI DAS & SONS RS.10,99,634.00 RS.6,16,132 RS. 4,83,502.00 RS.47,89,637.25 RS.14,14,342 RS.33,75,095.25 ON QUESTION BY THE AO ABOUT THE UNDERSTATED PURCHAS ES, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INFORMATION GATHERED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, THE AO DISREGARDED THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NO.20/KOL/2015 A.Y.2005- 06 SUSEN CHAKI VS. ITO WD-4 MSD PAGE 3 WORKED OUT THE PROFIT @ 6.55 % ON THE SALES WHICH I S COMING FOR RS.2,36,564.00 (3375095 X 6.55 DIVIDED BY 93.45). T HE ABOVE GROSS PROFIT ON UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO T HE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A).THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE I NFORMATION GATHERED U/S 133(6) FROM THE PARTIES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED FOR CONFRONTATION AND THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, OTHERWISE IT WILL BE AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATUR AL JUSTICE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DEFECT IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY IT AND NO DEFECT WAS REPORTED BY THE AO DURING T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT FOR DETERMINING THE PROFIT ON THE UNRECORDED PURCHASES THE NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE @5% SHOULD BE ADOPTED. HOWEVER, THE LD. CI T(A) DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- THE AO HAD FOUND OUT THAT THE ACTUAL PURCHASES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE VERY HIGH THAN THOSE REPORTED AND THESE FACTS ARE DETAIL ED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO APPLIED THE DECLARED GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 6. 55% TO THE TOTAL UNREPORTED PURCHASES OF RS. 33,75,095/- AND AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,36,564/- WAS MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACTS AND HAS NOT ADDUCED ANY OTHER FACT WHICH GOES CONTRARY TO T HE FACTS ENUMERATED BY THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE'S GROUND OF APPEAL AS EXPLAINED I N THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION IS VERY LIMITED. THE AR HAS CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED A G.P. RATE OF 6.55% AND A NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% IN HIS PROFIT & L OSS ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE THE AO SHOULD HAVE APPLIED THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% ON LY TO THE UNREPORTED PURCHASES. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS BASELE SS. THE EXPENSES IN THE P&L ACCOUNT ARE GENERALLY OF ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE OR ARE OTHERWISE FIXED AND THESE DON'T CHANGE ONLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS DO NE SOME UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES & SALES ALSO. IN THESE APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS THE A R HAS NOT ADDUCED ANYTHING TO EVEN REMOTELY SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO INCUR SOME NEW OR HITHERTO UNDECLARED EXPENSE TO EARN THE ADDITIONAL INCOMES. THEREFORE IT IS HELD THAT ALL THE EXPENSES OF THE P ROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ARE ALREADY ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO CAU SE FOR ALLOWING ANY FURTHER DEDUCTION FOR EXPENSES. ITA NO.20/KOL/2015 A.Y.2005- 06 SUSEN CHAKI VS. ITO WD-4 MSD PAGE 4 IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO MAD E AN ALTERNATIVE PLEA THAT THE AO HAD NOT SUPPLIED THE COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT OBTAINED FROM THE SELLERS AND THEREFORE A REPLY OF 'NOT ACCEPTED' WAS GIVEN TO THE AO EARLIER. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO REQUESTED FOR A REMAND BACK OF TH E MATTER 'FOR A PROPER REBUTTAL. IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS HELD THAT THE SU PPLIERS ARE NOT THIRD PARTIES BUT ARE THE CREDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD QUOTED THEIR NAMES AND ADDRESS TO SUPPORT HIS PURCHASES. THUS IN THE EYES OF THE LAW AS EXPLAINED IN THE CASE OF SUKH RAM V. ACTT (2001) 99 ITD 417 (DEL HI) ( CASE CONFIRMED BY DELHI HIGH COURT AND REPORTED AS 285 ITR 256), THE CREDITORS WERE THE WITNESSES OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY AND NOT OF THE REVEN UE. IT WAS. THEREFORE, INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ADDUCE PROOF IN HIS FAVOUR INSTEAD OF MERELY DISCLAIMING THE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS. MOREOVER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS AGAIN MADE NO NEW SUBMISSIONS AND THE AR VIDE ORDER SHEET DATED. 20.09.14 HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NO FURTHER ARGUMENTS TO MAKE AND NO REJOINDER TO THE REMAND RE PORT IS FILED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HEED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NO EXPLANATION OR EVIDENCES TO OFFER IN SUPPORT OF HIS GROUND OF APPE AL AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IS DISMISSED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) THE ASSE SSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 4) THAT THE ID.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 236564/- ON ACCOUNT OF GP ON UNRECORDED PURCHASE. 5. THE LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE INFORMAT ION GATHERED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FO R HIS CONFRONTATION AND THEREFORE THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. LD. DR PRESENT WAS DULY HEARD. HE FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RESTORED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATI ON. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE IS SUE IN THE PRESENT GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES AT THE GP RATE OF 6.55% THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 5%. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ITS NET PROFIT @ 5% OF THE T URNOVER AND ACCORDINGLY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAME AMOUNT OF PROFIT I.E. 5% SHOULD BE ADOPTED FOR THE IMPUGNED UNDISCLOSED P URCHASE. ITA NO.20/KOL/2015 A.Y.2005- 06 SUSEN CHAKI VS. ITO WD-4 MSD PAGE 5 ADMITTEDLY, THE UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES WERE FOUND BY THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE DISCOVERED AS A R ESULT OF MISMATCH BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES AS SHOWN BY THE ASS ESSEE AS WELL AS THE AMOUNT OF SALE SHOWN BY THE PARTIES. THE AFORESAID MISMATCH AMOUNT IN THE PURCHASES WAS DISCOVERED AS A RESULT OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE, AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AS WEL L AS AT THE TIME OF REMAND STAGE, FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE T O CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, THE ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INFORMATION GATHERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT WAS NOT CROSS VERIFIED IS BASELESS. ON EXAMINAT ION OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN BY TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES TO COUNTER THE ALLEGATIONS FRAMED BY THE AO BUT THE ASSESSEE F AILED TO DO SO. THE LD AR BEFORE US HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THE FINDING OF LD CIT(A). NOW COMING TO THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE AO FOR DETERM INING THE PROFIT ON THE UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES WE FIND THAT THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES HAVE TAKEN THE GP RATE AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RETURN OF INCOME AND THE SAME RATE OF PROFIT HAS ALSO BEEN APPLIED ON THE UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NET PROFIT ON THE UNDISCLO SED PURCHASES SHOULD BE USED TO WORK OUT PROFIT DOES NOT HAVE ANY FORCE. IT IS BECAUSE THAT ALL THE INDIRECT EXPENSES HAS BEEN DULY INCURRED AND CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE DISCLOSE SALES OF THE BUSINESS. THUS, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THERE WAS NO INDIRECT EXPENSE WHICH WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSES SEE IN RELATION TO UNDISCLOSED SALE AND NOT CLAIMED. THUS, IN OUR CONS IDERED VIEW THE GP RATE ADOPTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS REASONABLE IN T HE WORKING OUT THE TAXABLE INCOME ON THE UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES. HOWEVER, IN TH E INTEREST OF JUSTICE & FAIR PLAY WE ARE INCLINED TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE AS HE IS ALLEGING THAT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN CONFRONTED AND DR AL SO HAS NO OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE, WE ARE RESTORING THIS ISSUE TO T HE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. HENCE, THI S GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ITA NO.20/KOL/2015 A.Y.2005- 06 SUSEN CHAKI VS. ITO WD-4 MSD PAGE 6 7. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE ISSUE IN GROUND N O. 5 IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF AO BY SUSTA INING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,93,038/- ON ACCOUNT OF CIRCULATING CAPITAL INV ESTED IN THE UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES. 8. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS OBSERVED THAT THIS STOCK TURNOVER FROM THE DISCLOSED BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS COMING TO 4.87 TIMES AND ACCORDINGLY CALCULATED THE CIRCULATI NG CAPITAL INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS UNRECORDED PURCHASES WHICH WORKS OU T TO RS. 6,93,038/- (3375095 DIVIDED BY 4.87). THE AFORESAID CIRCULATIN G CAPITAL WAS BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT AND ADD ED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEFO RE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDIT ION ON ACCOUNT OF CIRCULATING CAPITAL HAS BEEN WORKED OUT WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTS. AS SUCH, THE SAME WAS DETERMINED BY THE AO IN HIS OWN SURMISE AN D CONJECTURES AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. HOWEVER, THE LD. CI T(A) DISALLOWED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- IN CONNECTION WITH THE UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES, WHIC H FACTS ARE MENTIONED IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL ABOVE, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS MADE A TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS. 47,89,637/- BUT HAD DECLARED ONLY RS. 14,14,542/- AS HIS PURCHASES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED FOR I NCOME TAX PURPOSES. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ROLLS-OVER STOCK 4. 87 TIMES BEFORE HE STARTS GETTING RETURNS ON THE SALES. THE AO THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE INVESTED UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL IN ACQUIRING UNAC COUNTED PURCHASES AND THIS WAS CALCULATED BY THE AO AT RS.6,93,038/-. IN THE A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE AR MERELY CLAIMED THAT THE ESTIMATION OF THE AO IS ER RONEOUS AND SUBJECTIVE. HOWEVER THE AR GAVE NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION BACK ED BY ANY EVIDENCE. THE FACTS OF THIS ADDITION ARE THE SAME AS FOR GROU ND NO. 2 ABOVE, IN THIS CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE ONLY MAKES GENERAL STATEMENT BUT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF FILING OF ANY VERIFIABLE FACTS, R EJOINDER TO REMAND REPORT AND OTHER ARGUMENTS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 IS ALSO DISMISSED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : ITA NO.20/KOL/2015 A.Y.2005- 06 SUSEN CHAKI VS. ITO WD-4 MSD PAGE 7 5) THAT THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADD ITION OF RS.693038/- UNDER THE HEAD CIRCULATING CAPITAL ON UNRECORDED PU RCHASE. 10. THE LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE INSTANT ISSUE IS DIRECTLY LINKED WITH UNRECORDED PURCHASES FOR WHICH GROUND NO.1 HAS BEEN RAISED. IN GROUND NO.1 IT WAS PRAYED TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE AO AND THEREFORE THE LD. AR FURTHER REQUESTED TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE AO F OR FRESH ADJUDICATION. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR RAISED NO OBJECTION IF THE MA TTER IS RESTORED TO THE AO. 11. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE IS SUE IN THE PRESENT GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE UNDISCLOSED MONEY INVESTED IN TH E UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES. IN THIS REGARD, WE HAVE ALREADY RESTORED THE GROUND NO. 4 TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN RELATION TO THE TAXABLE PROFI T ON THE UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES. INDEED, UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ELEMENT OF THE CIRCULATING CAPITAL IN VESTED IN THE UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES CANNOT BE IGNORED. THEREFORE, IT IS NECES SARY TO BRING THE SAME UNDER THE TAX NET. THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF CREDIT BUT HE FAILED TO B RING ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. AS THE PRESENT ISSUE IS CONCERNED AND CONNECTED WITH THE GROUND NO. 4 WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES, THEREFORE WE ARE ALSO INCLINED TO RESTORE THIS GROUND TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE. 12. THE THIRD ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF AO BY SU STAINING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT FOR RS.1,14,600/-. FOR THIS T HE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- ITA NO.20/KOL/2015 A.Y.2005- 06 SUSEN CHAKI VS. ITO WD-4 MSD PAGE 8 6) THAT THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DIS ALLOWANCE U/S.40A(3) AMOUNTING TO RS.114600/- 13. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE LD AR HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD CONTRARY TO T HE FINDING OF LD CIT(A). THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HERE BY DISMISSED. 14. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS A PPEAL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF AO BY SUSTA INING THE ADDITION OF RS.87,292/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, THE ASSESS EE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 7) THAT THE ID.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDI TION OF RS.87,292/- U/S.69. 15. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE LD AR HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD CONTRARY TO T HE FINDING OF LD CIT(A). THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED SEVERAL OPPORTUNI TIES AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE STAGE AND REMAND STAGE BUT DETAILS WAS SU BMITTED TO COUNTER THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO. EVEN BEFORE US THE LD. AR FAI LED TO SUBMIT ANY DETAILS. THUS WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HERE BY DISMISSED. 16. THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 HAS CHALLENG ED RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AND COMPLETED U/S 147 OF THE ACT. FOR THIS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1) THAT THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING REASO NABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO REPRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE HIM. 2) THAT THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE GROU NDS TAKEN IN APPEAL BEFORE HIM AGAINST THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT P ROCEEDING. 3) THAT THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INIT IATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AS VALID. ITA NO.20/KOL/2015 A.Y.2005- 06 SUSEN CHAKI VS. ITO WD-4 MSD PAGE 9 17. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. AR HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FRAMED BY THE AO U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS INFRUCTUOUS. HENCE, THESE GROUNDS OF AS SESSEES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 18. GROUND NOS. 8 AND 9 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND D O NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 19. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 10/03/2017 SD/- SD/- (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *DKP, SR.P.S ! - 10/03/2017 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-SUSEN CHAKI, 151, RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHERJ EE LANE, BERHAMAPOE , MURSHIDBAD-742101 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO, WARD-4, LALDIGHI, 57, R.N.TAGORE R OAD, BERHAMPORE MURSHIDABAD-7 42 101 3. '# % / CONCERNED CIT 4. % - / CIT (A) 5. &'( ))'# , '# / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. (*+ / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ / '#,