M/S. CAMELLIA ENTERPRISES LTD., Kolkata V. I.T.O, Ward -8 (2), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 2135/KOL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2933 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 05-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2009
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L K S DEHIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: S L KOCHAR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 147; 139

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE . . . . . . . . , /AND ! '! , ) [BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, AM & SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] # # # # / I.T.A NOS. 2134 & 2135/KOL/2009 '$% &' '$% &' '$% &' '$% &'/ // / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 200 0- 0 1 & 2001-02 M/S. CAMELLIA ENTERPRISES LTD. VS. INCOME-TAX OF FICER, WD-8(2), KOLKATA (PAN: AABCC3132F) ()* /APPELLANT ) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 20.03.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20.03.2013 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S. L. KOCHAR, ADVOCA TE FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI L. K. S. DEHIYA, CIT (DR) - / ORDER PER BENCH: BOTH THESE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF S EPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A) - XIII, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NOS. 288 & 47/CIT(A)-XIII/8(2)/08 -09 DATED 16.09.2009 RESPECTIVELY. ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED SEPARATELY BY ITO, WARD-8(2 ), KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001-02 VIDE HIS ORDERS DATED 12.12.2007. 2. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENTS U/S. 147 R.W.S. 148 OF THE ACT. FOR TH IS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUND IN BOTH THE YEARS I.E. AY 2000-01 AND 2001-02. THE ID ENTICALLY WORDED GROUNDS RAISED IN AY 2000-01 READ AS UNDER: 2. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT AND OUGHT NOT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE VALIDLY INITIATED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY FILED ITS RETURNS OF INCOME FOR AY 2000-01 AND 2001-02 ON 08.11.2000 AND 22.06.2011 DE CLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.4480/- AND RS.91,382/- RESPECTIVELY. IN BOTH THE YEARS, PROCE SSING OF RETURNS U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT WAS DONE ON 12.03.2004 AND 11.10.2001. SUBSEQUENTLY, T HE AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 148 OF THE ACT 2 ITA NO.2134/K/2009 & ITA NO.2135K/2009 CAMELLIA ENTERPRISES LTD. AY. 00-01 & 01-02 FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ON 06.03.2007. NO RE TURNS IN RESPONSE TO THESE NOTICES WERE FILED AND DESPITE REMINDERS THERE IS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT AND AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORDS FOR BOTH THE YEARS. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE CIT(A) , WHO IN BOTH THE YEARS, CONFIRMED THE REOPENING AND THE RELEVANT PARA 5 OF HIS ORDER FOR AY. 2000-01 READS AS UNDER: 5. THE ARGUMENT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUNDS N O. 1 TO 3 IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S.147 IS BAD IN LAW AND THE AO ERRED IN INITIATIN G PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE VARIOUS ARGUMENTS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD ARE DEALT BELOW ONE BY ONE: (I) IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R THE ORDER IS SHOWN TO BE PASSED U/S. 143(3)/144 AND THERE IS NO MENTION OF SECTION 147. THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT IN POINTING OUT THIS FACT BUT IT APPEARS TO BE A TYPING MISTAKE WHEREIN THE AO OMITTED TO MENTION SECTION 147 IN COLUMN NO. 13 OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDE R ON PAGE NO.1. THE DISCUSSION IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN PURSUANCE OF PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S. 147 AND THE AO HAD TO PASS AN EX-PARTE ORDER AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 144 BECAUSE THERE WAS TOTAL NON-COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT MERE FACT THAT S ECTION 147 IS NOT MENTIONED IN ONE OF THE COLUMNS OF THE FORMAT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT RENDER IT BAD IN LAW AS IT IS A MINOR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. THE EXACT NATURE OF THE ORDER AND THE SECTION UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED IS WELL UNDERSTOO D FROM THE BODY OF THE ORDER. (II) THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO URGED THAT IF IT HAD NOT FIL ED THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 HOW COULD THE AO ISSUE NOTICE U/S.14 3(2). HENCE, I FEEL THAT THE AO MIGHT HAVE ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) AFTER INITIATI NG PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 AND SUCH NOTICE MAY NOT BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BUT THAT D OES NOT RENDER THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 INVALID AS AFTER INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 NOTICE U/S.142(1) HAD ALSO BEEN ISSUED. (III) THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ARGUED THAT AFTER FILING OF I TS ORIGINAL RETURN U/S. 139, THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) AND REFUND WAS ISSUED. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE REFUND WAS ISSUED AFTER THOROUGH SCRUTINY OF THE RETURN AND TH E TDS CERTIFICATES FILED ALONG WITH THEM. THEREFORE, AFTER PROCESSING THE RETURN U/S.14 3(1) AND ISSUING THE REFUND THE AO DID NOT HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 AND ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 148 AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE CANCELL ED. HERE, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT AFTER FILING OF RETURN U /S. 139 THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE HAD MERELY BEEN PROCESSED AND INTIMATION U/S. 143(1) WAS SENT TO HIM ALONG WITH THE DUE REFUND ON THE BASIS OF THE RETURN. SENDING OF INTIMATION U/S.143( 1) IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO COMPLETING ASSESSMENT. AFTER SENDING INTIMATION U/S.143(1) THE AO HAD EVER Y RIGHT AS PER LAW TO EXAMNE THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO ASCERTAIN IF ANY INCOME H AD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. WHEN THE AO EXAMINED THE TDS CERTIFICATES FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME THE FOLLOWING DETAILS WERE OBSERVED BY HIM: SR. NO. NAME OF THE PARTY DEDUCTING TAX AMOUNT PAID/CREDITED TDS DEDUCTED NATURE OF PAYMENT 1. 2. PANBARI TEA CO. LTD. DHUNSERI TEA & IND. LTD. RS. 5,42,262/- RS. 3,60,058/- RS. 1 L ,930/- RS. 7,922/- CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR & SUB- CONTRACTOR 3 ITA NO.2134/K/2009 & ITA NO.2135K/2009 CAMELLIA ENTERPRISES LTD. AY. 00-01 & 01-02 3. GEORGE WILIAMSON (ASSAM) LTD. TOTAL : RS.30,00,000/- RS.15,00,000/- RS.54,02,230/- RS.66,000/- RS.33,000/- CONTRACTOR THESE DETAILS CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS PAID TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.4,02,320/- BY THE ABOVE PARTIES FOR CERTAIN WORK DONE OR SERVICES REN DERED BY IT TO THESE PARTIES AS CONTRACTOR/SUB- CONTRACTOR. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE P&L A/C. OF T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY SALES OF RS.5,53,500/- WAS SHOWN AND OTHER INCOME (NET) OF RS. 5,16,345/- WAS REFLECTED. IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF SALE OF RS.5,53,000/- WAS SHOWN WHICH RE VEALED THAT IT WAS RELATED TO SALE OF CERTAIN ITEMS SUCH AS PENSHI BAO AND PROGIBB. THE FURTHER DETAILS OF THE OTHER INCOME (NET) OF RS.5,16,345/- WAS NOT GIVEN ANYWHERE IN THE P&L A/C. OR THE ENCLOSED SCHE DULES. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE AO PRIMA FACIE BELIEVED THAT THE CONTRACT/SUB-CONTRACT CHARGES OF RS.54,02,320/- WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND INCOME TO THAT EXTENT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED FACTS AVAILABLE WITH THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO WAS JUSTIFED IN HAVI NG A BELIEF THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.YR. : 2000-01. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I HOLD THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 NITIAT ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFCER. SINCE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL IN AY 2001-02, THE CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED EXACTLY BY IDENTICALLY WORDED ORDER. HENCE, WE NE ED NOT TO REPRODUCE THE SAME. AGGRIEVED, NOW ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE REOPENING BEFORE TR IBUNAL IN BOTH THE YEARS. 4. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 13 OF ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUAN CE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT REASONS READ AS UNDER: 21.1.2007: IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED PAYMENT TOWARDS CONTRACT & SUB CONTRACT TO THE TUNE OF RS.2 ,76,66,573.50 AS PER T.D.S CERTIFICATES. BUT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY NEITHER CRE DITED THE SAID INCOME TO THE P&L A/C NOR THE SAME HAD BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR. I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE IN COME WHICH SHOULD HAD BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEAN ING OF SECTION 147. ASSTT. RECORD ALONG WITH REASONS FOR REOPENING IS SENT TO THE ADD . C.I.T., RANGE-8, KOLKATA FOR HIS KIND APPROVAL FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S.148. FURTHER, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTE NTION TO AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR BOTH YEARS AND TOOK US TO P&L ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.200 0 AND 2001, WHEREIN INCOME DISCLOSED IS AS UNDER: INCOME FOR THE YEAR 31.03.2001 FOR THE YEAR 31.03.2000 SALES 16,679,843.80 553,500.00 OTHER INCOME 316,996.79 516,345.80 16,996,840.59 1,069,845.80 4 ITA NO.2134/K/2009 & ITA NO.2135K/2009 CAMELLIA ENTERPRISES LTD. AY. 00-01 & 01-02 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTIO N TO SCHEDULE J FORMING PART OF ACCOUNTS WHEREIN OTHER INCOME IS DISCLOSED AS ON 31.03.2000 AND 2001 AS UNDER: SCHEDULE J OTHER INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2001 31.03.2000 BROKERAGE & SUPERVISION CHARGES (NET) 268,253. 03 25,133.00 LABOUR CHARGES (NET) 34,368.70 289,96 2.80 INTEREST RECEIVED 14,375.00 1,250.00 316,996.79 516,345.80 IN VIEW OF THIS, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATE D THAT HE HAS CATEGORICALLY DISCLOSED THE NET INCOME AND NOT THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS RECORDED IN TH E TDS CERTIFICATES. HE STATED THAT EVEN FROM THE REASONS RECORDED IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AO HAS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE ACT AND IN HIS SUPPORT HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORIENT CRAFT LTD., ITA NO.555/2 012 DATED 12.12.2012, WHEREIN THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 14. CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE DECISION OF RAJESH JHAVER (SUPRA) ARE SOUGHT TO BE RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE TO POINT OUT THE D IFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ASSESSMENT AND AN INTIMATION. THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THOSE OBSERVATI ONS WERE MADE HAS TO BE KEPT IN MIND. THEY WERE MADE TO POINT OUT THAT WHERE AN INT IMATION IS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(1) THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING AUT HORITY TO FORM AN OPINION AND THEREFORE WHEN ITS FINALITY IS SOUGHT TO BE DISTURB ED BY ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, THE PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE CHALLENGED ON THE GR OUND OF CHANGE OF OPINION. IT WAS NOT OPINED BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT THE STRICT REQ UIREMENTS OF SECTION 147 CAN BE COMPROMISED. ON THE CONTRARY, FROM THE OBSERVATIONS (QUOTED BY US EARLIER) IT WOULD APPEAR CLEAR THAT THE COURT REITERATED THAT SO LONG AS THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 147 ARE FULFILLED AN INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143( 1 ) CAN BE SUBJECTED TO PROCEEDINGS FOR REOPENING. THE COURT ALSO EMPHASISED THAT THE ONLY REQUIREMENT FOR DISTURBING THE FINALITY OF AN INTIMATION IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER SHOULD HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN OUR OPINION, THE SAID EXPRESSION SHOULD APPLY TO AN INTIMATION IN THE SAME MANNER AN D SUBJECT TO THE SAME INTERPRETATION AS IT WOULD HAVE APPLIED TO AN ASSES SMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3). THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT AN INTIMATION CANN OT BE EQUATED TO AN ASSESSMENT, RELYNG UPON CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPREME CO URT IN RAJESH JHAVERI (SUPRA) WOULD ALSO APPEAR TO BE SELF-DEFEATING, BECAUSE IF AN INTIMATION IS NOT AN ASSESSMENT THEN IT CAN NEVER BE SUBJECTED TO SECTION 147 PROCE EDINGS, FOR, THAT SECTION COVERS ONLY AN ASSESSMENT AND WE WONDER IF THE REVENUE WOULD BE PREPARED TO CONCEDE THAT POSITION. IT IS NOBODYS CASE THAT AN INTIMATION CA NNOT BE SUBJECTED TO SECTION 147 PROCEEDINGS; ALL THAT IS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND QUITE RIGHTLY, IS THAT IF THE REVENUE WANTS TO INVOKE SECTION 147 IT SHOULD PLAY BY THE RULES OF THAT SECTION AND CANNOT BOG DOWN. IN OTHER WORDS, THE EXPRESSION REA SON TO BELIEVE CANNOT HAVE TWO DIFFERENT STANDARDS OR SETS OF MEANING, ONE APPLICA BLE WHERE THE ASSESSMENT WAS EARLIER MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND ANOTHER APPLI CABLE WHERE AN INTIMATION WAS EARLIER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(1). IT FOLLOWS THA T IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEND THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE ARGUMENT OF CHANGE OF OPINION IS NOT AVAILABLE TO HIM, IT 5 ITA NO.2134/K/2009 & ITA NO.2135K/2009 CAMELLIA ENTERPRISES LTD. AY. 00-01 & 01-02 WOULD STILL BE OPEN TO HIM TO CONTEST THE REOPENING ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS EITHER NO REASON TO BELIEVE OR THAT THE ALLEGED REASON TO BELIEVE IS NOT RELEVANT FOR THE FORMATION OF THE BELEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO T AX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN DOING SO, IT IS FURTHER OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CHALLENGE THE REASONS RECORDED UNDER SECTON 148(2) ON THE GROUND THAT THEY DO NOT MEET THE STAN DARDS SET IN THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. 15. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE REASONS DISCLOSE THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER REACHED THE BELIEF THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON GOIN G THROUGH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER HE ACCEPTED THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 143(1) WITHOUT SCRUTINY, AND NOTHING MORE. THIS IS NOTHING BUT A REVIEW OF THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS AND AN ABUSE OF POWER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BOTH STRON GLY DEPRECATED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. KELVINATOR (SUPRA). THE REASONS R ECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CASE DO CONFIRM OUR APPREHENSION ABOUT THE HARM THAT A LESS STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS REASON TO BELIEVE VIS --VIS AN INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(1) CAN CAUSE TO THE TAX REGIME. THERE IS NO WHISPER IN THE REASONS RECORDED, OF ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL WHICH CAME TO TH E POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUE OF THE INTIMATION. IT REFL ECTS AN ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF THE POWER CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 147. 5. WE FIND FROM THE REASONS RECORDED AND THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT OF THE AO AS WELL AS CIT(A) WHILE ADJUDICATING THE REOPENING ISSUE IN AY 2000-01 HAS GONE INTO THE DETAILS OF TDS ON CONTRACT PAYMENT INCLUDING PAYMEN TS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: SL. NO. NAME OF THE PARTY DEDUCTING TAX AMOUNT PAID/CREDITED TDS DEDUCTED NATURE OF PAYMENT 1. 2. 3. PANBARI TEA CO. LTD. DHUNSERI TEA & INDS. LTD. GEORGE WILLIAMSON (ASSAM) LTD. RS. 5,42,262/- RS. 3,60,058/- RS. 30,00,00/- RS.15,00,000/- RS. 11,930/- RS. 7,922/- RS. 66,000/- RS. 33,000/- CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR & SUB- CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR IN AY 2001-02, THE DETAILS ARE AS UNDER: SL. NO. NAME OF THE PARTY DEDUCTING TAX AMOUNT PAID/CREDITED TDS DEDUCTED NATURE OF PAYMENT 1. 2. 3. AARBEE MACHINERIES PVT. LTD. DHUNSERI TEA & INDS. LTD. GEORGE WILLIAMSON (ASSAM) LTD. RS.1,33,45,818/- RS.1,41,62,941/- RS. 1,57,814/- RS.2,76,66,573/- RS. 1,46,804/- RS. 3,12,743/- RS. 3.567/- RS. 4,63,114/- CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR & SUB-CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR WHEN WE COMPARED THIS WITH, THE DETAILS I.E. DISCLO SED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SCHEDULE J, LABOUR CHARGES NET AND BROKERAGE AND SUPERVISION CHARGES N ET, WHICH IS MINIMAL, AND FROM THIS IT CANNOT BE INFERRED WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOS ED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE CORRECT INCOME OR NOT AND ACCORDING TO US, WHICH IS SUFFICI ENT REASON FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 6 ITA NO.2134/K/2009 & ITA NO.2135K/2009 CAMELLIA ENTERPRISES LTD. AY. 00-01 & 01-02 THE AO HAS REASONABLE BELIEF FOR REOPENING THIS ASS ESSMENT AND WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEALS IS IN BOTH THE YEARS ARE DISMISSED 6. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE IN BOTH THE YEA RS, FROM THE ABOVE DETAILS AS WELL AS THE AMOUNT OF NET RECEIPTS DISCLOSED I.E. BROKERAGE AND SUPERVISION CHARGES NET AND LABOUR CHARGES NET, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CASE. EV EN OTHERWISE, WE, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ALLOWED ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEES COUNS EL TO FILE THE DETAILS OF ACCOUNTS IN ENTIRETY. HE FAIRLY DENIED THAT HE HAS NO DETAILS QUA THIS AN D HE FAILED TO ESTABLISH HOW HE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR THE NET RECEIPTS OUT OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS DISC LOSED IN TDS CERTIFICATE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CI T(A) AND THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES APPEALS IN BOTH THE YEARS IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED . 8. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- . . . . . . . . , ! ! ! ! '! '! '! '! , (P. K. BANSAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . . .) )) ) DATED : 20 TH MARCH, 2013 /0 '$12 '3 JD.(SR.P.S.) 7 ITA NO.2134/K/2009 & ITA NO.2135K/2009 CAMELLIA ENTERPRISES LTD. AY. 00-01 & 01-02 - 4 +''5 65&7- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . )* / APPELLANT M/S. CAMELLIA ENTERPRISES LTD., C/O, S. L. KOCHAR, ADVOCATE, 86, CANNING STREET, KOL-1. 2 +,)* / RESPONDENT ITO, WARD-8(2), KOLKATA. 3 . '-$ ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. '-$ / CIT KOLKATA 5 <'= +'$ / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA ,5 +'/ TRUE COPY, -$>/ BY ORDER, ! 2 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .