Sudhansu Podder, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 49(2), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 2032/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1715 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN CHOUDHUR Y
• Assessee Lawyers: K M ROY
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Non-deduction of tax; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 40(a)(ia); 194C

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 2032/KOL/2014 SUDHANSU PODDER, AY 2009-10 , B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOLKATA ( ) BEFORE . . , /AND . , ) [BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM] I.T.A. NO. 2032/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SUDHANSU PODDER (PAN: AFTPP5896H) VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-49(2), KOLKATA APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 26.03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.06.2019 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI K. M. ROY, FCA FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI ROBIN CHOUDHURY, ADDL. CIT, SR. DR ORDER PER SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-XXXII, KOLKATA DATED 20.08.2014 FOR AY 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 496561/- AND RS.281360/= AND RS. 65000/= U/S 40(A)(IA) TOWARDS NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON COMMISSION AND FREIGHT AND ACCOUNTING CHARGES IS UNSUSTAINABLE. 2.THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.20534/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE TOWARDS COMMISSION IS ERRONEOUS SINCE NO EXCESS EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 3.THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 988890/= TOWARDS BOGUS HANDLING AND FORWARDING CHARGES IS DEVOID OF MERIT AS CIT(A) HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THESE REPRESENT STATUTORY CHARGES PAID TO AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS AGENCIES WHICH ARE REIMBURSED ON ACTUAL BASIS BY THE CLIENTS. 4. THAT THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE @ 20% ON TELEPHONE, TRANSP6RTATION AND TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE AGGREGATING TO RS. 484916/= IS BAD IN LAW IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 5. THAT THE ADDITION OF INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSIT ON ESTIMATED BASIS FOR RS. 63200/= IS BASELESS IN ABSENCE OF ACCRUAL DURING FINANCIAL YEAR. 2 ITA NO. 2032/KOL/2014 SUDHANSU PODDER, AY 2009-10 6.THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 602932/= TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT, PARTIALLY SUSTAINED AT RS. 362438/= BY CIT(A) , IS ARBITRARY SINCE SUCH INVESTMENT IS RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 7. THAT APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AMEND ANY OF THE GROUND DURING HEARING. 2. GROUND NO. 1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,96,561/-, RS.2,81,260/- AND RS.65,000/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) TOWARDS NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON COMMISSION, FREIGHT AND ACCOUNTING CHARGES RESPECTIVELY. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID COMMISSION OF RS.4,96,561/- BUT NOT DEDUCTED ANY TDS AND AS PER DETAILS THIS WAS SHOWN AS RS.5,17,095/-, THEREFORE, THE AO DISALLOWED FULL EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,17,095/-. THE AO HAS TREATED THE REIMBURSEMENT OF AIR FREIGHT AS PAYMENT WHICH REQUIRES TAX DEDUCTION U/S. 194C OF THE ACT. SINCE NO DEDUCTION U/S. 194C OF THE ACT IS MADE, THE AO DISALLOWED RS.2,81,360/-. THE AO ALSO DISALLOWED RS.65,000/- TOWARDS ACCOUNTING CHARGES PAID SINCE NO TDS HAS BEEN MADE. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE AFORESAID GROUND OF. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 1 CONSISTS OF THREE ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE (A) COMMISSION, (B) FREIGHT AND HANDLING AND FORWARDING (C) ACCOUNTING. FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD AND THE ADMITTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS IN A C&F AGENT, THE ITEMS OF EXPENSES AT (B) WERE INCURRED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENTS WHO LATER ON REIMBURSES THESE EXPENSES ON ACTUAL BASIS. QUA THESE EXPENSES, THE CLIENT IS THE PRINCIPAL AND THE ASSESSEE IS THE AGENT WHO ACTS AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE PRINCIPAL AND INCURS EXPENDITURE ON THEIR BEHALF. THEREFORE, IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS FREIGHT AND HANDLING AND FORWARDING DO NOT REPRESENT HIS EXPENDITURE, BUT IS THE EXPENDITURE OF THE CLIENT, AND THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY A PASS THROUGH ENTITY. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, WE RELY ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. HAR DARSHAN SINGH 350 ITR 427 (DEL.) AND 3 ITA NO. 2032/KOL/2014 SUDHANSU PODDER, AY 2009-10 JAQUAR ENTERPRISES VS. DCIT 151 ITD 376 (TRIB.). COMING TO EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF DISBURSEMENT OF COMMISSION AND ACCOUNTING ARE CONCERNED, THE LD. AR PLEADED BEFORE US THAT WITH EFFECT FROM AY 2015-16 ONLY 30% OF THE EXPENDITURE ARE DISALLOWABLE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN SEVERAL DECISIONS AS RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THOUGH THIS AMENDMENT IS FROM AY 2015-16, IT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE AT 30% OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT TO BE ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE. 5. GROUND NO. 2 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.20,534/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE TOWARDS COMMISSION. ACCORDING TO AO THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXCESS COMMISSION EXPENSES, THEREFORE, HE TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ACCORDING TO AO, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE DEBITED AS COMMISSION EXPENSES RS.4,96,561/- IN HIS P&L ACCOUNT, ON VERIFICATION OF LEDGER ACCOUNT IT WAS NOTED BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN COMMISSION PAID AT RS.5,19,591/-. THEREFORE, THE EXCESS PAYMENT OF RS.20,534/- (RS.5,17,095 RS.4,96,561) WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. ACCORDING TO LD. AR, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET PROPER OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE AO TO EXPLAIN THE MISUNDERSTANDING AND PLEADS FOR AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE AO. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECONCILE BEFORE MAKING SUCH AN ADDITION. SO, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND THIS ISSUE BACK TO AO FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION AND ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WITH PROPER DOCUMENTS TO RECONCILE THE AFORESAID FACTS. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4 ITA NO. 2032/KOL/2014 SUDHANSU PODDER, AY 2009-10 7. GROUND NO. 3 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.9,88,890/- TOWARDS BOGUS HANDLING AND FORWARDING CHARGES. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT ACCORDING TO AO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO JUSTIFY THESE EXPENSES. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE FOR UNLOADING, X-RAY CHARGES, WEIGHT DIFFERENCE CHARGES, DEMURRAGE ETC. PAID AT THE AIRPORT. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, THESE EXPENSES ARE PAID BY IT AND LATER ON BILLED TO THE SHIPPERS FOR REIMBURSEMENT. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT OUT OF THE SUM OF RS.9.88,890/-, A SUM OF RS.7,02,984/- WAS PAID TO AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (AAI) AND THE BALANCE RS.2,85,906/- WAS PAID TO VARIOUS PERSONS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A), THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT VERIFIABLE AS THE VOUCHERS OF AAI ARE COMPUTER GENERATED AND UNSIGNED. HE ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CORRELATED THE PAYMENTS TO ANY BILL RAISED BY IT ON THE SHIPPERS. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DETAILS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. SO, HE DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE NOTE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTS BEFORE HIM TO JUSTIFY THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF HANDLING AND FORWARDING CHARGES, THE AO HELD IT TO BE BOGUS EXPENDITURE AND DISALLOWED THE SAME. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) TOOK THE AID OF RULE 46A(1) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (HEREINAFTER THE RULES) TO DENY THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN BEFORE HIM, THE REASON WHY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DETAILS BEFORE THE AO. ACCORDING TO LD. AR., THE AO ARBITRARILY HAVE DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN DULY SUPPORTED BY BILLS/VOUCHERS ISSUED BY AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, ETC. SO, WE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO, FOR DECIDING THIS ISSUE AFRESH. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE ALL DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY IT AND THE AO TO VERIFY THE VERACITY OF THE EXPENDITURE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE 5 ITA NO. 2032/KOL/2014 SUDHANSU PODDER, AY 2009-10 IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. GROUND NO. 4 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE @ 20% ON TELEPHONE, TRANSPORTATION AND TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE AGGREGATING TO RS.4,84,916/-. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE AO MADE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE, TRANSPORTATION AND TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE @ 20% AGGREGATING TO RS.4,84,916/-. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. AD HOC DISALLOWANCES ARE ANTITHESIS TO RULE OF LAW AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IF THE AO FINDS THE EXPENDITURE NOT SUPPORTED BY PROPER BILLS/VOUCHERS HE IS AT LIBERTY TO DISALLOW ITEM-WISE THE EXPENDITURE. THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE, TRANSPORTATION & TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE CAN BE RESORTED TO ONLY IF IT IS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON THESE COUNTS FOR PERSONAL USE AND NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. HOWEVER, NO AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE IS PERMISSIBLE, AND MOREOVER ESTIMATION CAN BE RESORTED TO ONLY AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, SO, WE DIRECT DELETION OF DISALLOWANCES. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. GROUND NO. 5 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSIT ON ESTIMATE BASIS FOR RS.63,200/-. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ACCORDING TO AO ARE THAT AS PER 26AS DATABASE, IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.22,704/- BUT THE SAID INCOME WAS NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF THE 26AS DATA WAS HANDED OVER TO THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND HE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY RS.22,704/- SHOULD NOT BE ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT ACCORDING TO AO, THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. THEREFORE, RS.22,704/- WAS ADDED BACK AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THEREAFTER ACCORDING TO AO AS PER SUBMISSION OF AR REGARDING FIXED DEPOSIT, THE ASSESSEE HAD FIXED DEPOSIT 6 ITA NO. 2032/KOL/2014 SUDHANSU PODDER, AY 2009-10 AND RECURRING DEPOSIT WITH UNITED BANK OF INDIA AMOUNTING TO RS.5,00,000/- AND RS.2,90,000/- RESPECTIVELY BUT THE INTEREST EARNED WAS NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION. SINCE NO DOCUMENTS OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT HAS BEEN FILED AND IN THE ABSENCE OF KNOWING THE INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO ESTIMATED INTEREST @ 8% WHICH WAS CALCULATED ON RS.7,90,000/- WHICH COMES TO RS.63,200/- AND WAS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. (TOTAL INTEREST ADDED BACK IS RS.85,904). ON APPEAL LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED IT, SO ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 12. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE NOTE THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 22,704/- FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN CORPORATION BANK AND UNITED BANK OF INDIA, BUT HOWEVER, DID NOT DISCLOSE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO TOOK NOTE OF THE 26AS DATA BASE AND CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY RS.22,704/- WHICH THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED AS INTEREST FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT SHOULD NOT BE ADDED AS HIS INCOME FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE ANY EXPLANATION, THEREFORE, RS.22,704/- WAS ADDED BACK AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED BY US ALSO. 13. COMING TO THE ESTIMATED ADDITION OF 8% ON FIXED DEPOSIT, WE NOTE THAT THE AO TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED HIS INVESTMENT IN FIXED DEPOSIT TO THE TUNE OF RS.7,90,000/- IN THE BALANCE SHEET. WHEN CONFRONTED BY THE AO AS TO THE INTEREST EARNED FROM IT, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION, THEREFORE, THE AO ESTIMATED INTEREST @ 8% WHICH CAME TO RS.63,200/-. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE. HOWEVER, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE INTEREST INCOME BECAUSE THOUGH THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON THE FIXED DEPOSIT BUT ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE IT, SO IT WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX. WE NOTE THAT THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE AO/LD. CIT(A). WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED INTEREST ON FIXED/RECURRING DEPOSIT AFTER THE MATURITY (IN FULL) THEN NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED. 7 ITA NO. 2032/KOL/2014 SUDHANSU PODDER, AY 2009-10 HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THE INTEREST EARNED BY VIRTUE OF THE FIXED/RECURRING DEPOSIT AT THE TIME OF MATURITY, THEN THE INTEREST EARNED ON FIXED/RECURRING DEPOSIT OF RS.7,90,000/- HAS TO BE TAXED IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW. SO, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO AO FOR EXAMINATION DE NOVO AND ASSESS IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW. 14. GROUND NO. 6 IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.6,02,932/- TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT, PARTIALLY SUSTAINED AT RS.3,62,438/- BY THE LD. CIT(A). BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ACCORDING TO AO ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED A HONDA CRV VEHICLE PURCHASED FOR RS.21,62,932/- TAKING FINANCE OF RS.15,60,000/- FROM HDFC BANK. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCE OF THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.6,02,932/- (RS.21,62,932/- MINUS RS.15,60,000/-). HENCE, THE AO ADDED THE SAID SUM OF RS.6,02,932/- AS UNEXPLAINED. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILS CLAIMING THAT THE DIFFERENCE IS MADE UP OF AS UNDER: (I) PAID TO M/S. VARUN CAR AGENCY PVT. LTD. RS.1,00,000/- VIDE CHEQUE NO. 48401 DT. 03.04.2008 OF UNITED BANK OF INDIA, KOLEY MARKET BRANCH (II) PAID TO M/S. VARUN CAR AGENCY PVT. LTD. RS.1,40,504/- VIDE CHEQUE NO. 48406 DT. 08.04.2008 FOR RS.1,96,277/- WHICH INCLUDES INSURANCE COMPONENT OF RS.55,773/- OF UNITED BANK OF INDIA, KOLEY MARKET BRANCH __________ RS.2,40,504/- THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION FOR THE SOURCE OF THE REMAINING SUM OF RS.3,62,428/- (RS.6,02,932/- - RS.2,40,504/-) SO, HE RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.3,62,428/-. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 15. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS AFORESTATED ARE NOT REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 8 ITA NO. 2032/KOL/2014 SUDHANSU PODDER, AY 2009-10 ACCORDING TO LD. AR, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.6,02,932/- BEFORE THE AO, SO HE MADE THE ADDITION. ACCORDING TO HIM, IF THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE AO, HE COULD RECONCILE THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,62,428/- SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). SO, WE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS TO ESTABLISH THAT RS.3,62,428/- IS FROM DISCLOSED SOURCES, THEREAFTER, THE AO TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 JUNE, 2019 SD/- SD/- (M. BALAGANESH) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14 JUNE, 2019 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT SHRI SUDHANSU PODDAR, RAJA RAMMOHAN PATH, NABANAGAR, BIRATI, KOLKATA-700 051. 2 RESPONDENT ITO, WARD-49(2), KOLKATA. 3 4 5 CIT(A)-XXXII, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR