ITO, Ward - 1(3), Burdwan, Burdwan V. M/s. Daga Transport Agency, Burdwan

ITA 2295/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4769 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIRAJ KUMAR; DEBASISH BANERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Assessment record
• Section: 133(6); 194C; 147; 148; 263

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 2295-2296/KOL/2010 DAGA TRANSPORT AGENCY, AY 2004-05 & 2005-06 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM] I.T.A NOS. 2295 & 2296/KOL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 & 2005-06 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-1(3), BURDWAN. VS. M/ S. DAGA TRANSPORT AGENCY (PAN: AADED6287F) ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 01.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03.08.2016 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI NIRAJ KUMAR, CIT, DR & SHRI DEBASISH BANERJEE, JCIT, SR. DR FOR THE RESPONDENT: N O N E ORDER PER SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: BOTH THESE APPEALS BY REVENUE ARE ARISING OUT OF SE PARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A), ASANSOL VIDE APPEAL NO. 114/CIT(A)/ASL/W-1(3)/ERST.BWN/09-1 0 & 50/CIT(A)/ASL/W- 1(3)/ERST.BWN/09-10 BOTH DATED 27.10.2010. ASSESSME NTS WERE FRAMED BY ITO, WD-1(3), BURDWAN FOR AY 2004-05 U/S. 263/143(3) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 31.12.2009 AN D FOR AY 2005-06 U/S. 147/144 OF THE ACT VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 17.12.2009. FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE WE DISPOSE OF BOTH THE APPEALS BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO. 2295/KOL/2010, AY 2004-05 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A TRANSPORT AGENCY. IT DID NOT OWN ANY TRUCKS DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. TH E OWNERS OF THE TRUCKS AS WELL AS THE PERSONS INTENDING TO SEND MATERIAL BY TRANSPORT WOU LD CONTACT THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE BY COLLECTING ITS COMMISSION WOULD ARRANGE THE TRA NSPORT AND CONSIGNMENTS FOR THOSE TRUCKS. FOR THE AY 2004-05 THE ASSESSEE FILED RETU RNS OF INCOME ON 28.03.2005 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.58,321/-. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY THE CIT, BURDWAN PASSED AN ORDER DATED 24/27.11.2008 U/S. 263 OF THE ACT DIRECTING T HE AO TO EXAMINE THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE AND TO VERIFY THE FREIGHT PAID TO THE T RUCK OWNERS AND TO PASS FRESH ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 2 ITA NOS. 2295-2296/KOL/2010 DAGA TRANSPORT AGENCY, AY 2004-05 & 2005-06 3. PURSUANT TO THE SAID ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 OF TH E ACT THE AO ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE FIXING THE DATE AFTER DATE FOR THEIR APPEA RANCE BUT ULTIMATELY THE ASSESSEE ENTERED APPEARANCE ON 30.11.2009 4. ACCORDING TO AO, THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE IS COMPR ISED OF TWO COMPONENTS I.E. ONE TO PAY BASIS AND THE OTHER TO BE BILLED BASIS. IN TO PAY BASIS THE ASSESSEE LINKS THE TRUCK OWNERS WITH THE CONSIGNORS AND RECEIVES A SUM OF RS.200/- TOWARDS COMMISSION AND RS.30/- TOWARDS PRINTING AND STATIONERY CHARGES PE R CONSIGNMENT. 5. DURING THE FY 2003-04 RELEVANT TO AY 2004-05, IT WAS FOUND THAT A TOTAL OF 1946 CONSIGNMENTS WERE INVOLVED IN TO PAY BASIS WHEREA S 68 CONSIGNMENTS WERE INVOLVED IN TO BE BILLED BASIS. IT WAS FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENTS DIRECTLY TO THE TRUCK DRIVERS AND SOME OF THE DRIVERS ARE OWNERS OF THE TRUCKS. DURING THAT YEAR THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT OF RS.5,79,57,864/- TO THE TRUCK DRIVE RS AND OUT OF SUCH AMOUNT A SUM OF RS.5,58,42,491/- WAS TOWARDS TO PAY BASIS. TO VE RIFY THE VERACITY OF THESE PAYMENTS, THE AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE TRU CK OWNERS BUT NO REPLY HAS EVER BEEN RECEIVED BUT A FEW WERE RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTH ORITIES AS UNSERVED. THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT THERE MIGHT BE CHANGE OF ADDRESSES OF THE TRUCK OWNERS OR THE ADDRESSES MAY BE INCOMPLETE. THE AO DISBELIEVED THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONCLUDED THAT THE TOTAL FREIGHT CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INFL ATED ONLY TO REDUCE THE GROSS PROFITS, AS SUCH, 10% OF THE FREIGHT CHARGES FOR RS.5,79,57,864 /- WHICH CAME TO RS.57,95,786/- WAS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ESTIMAT ED BASIS AND ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, AC CORDING TO THE AO, ONE M/S. AMBICA STEELS LTD. GAVE A REPLY CONFIRMING THE PAYMENT OF TRANSPORT CHARGES TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE AMOUNT IS AT VARIANCE. ACCORDING TO M/S. AMBICA ST EELS LTD. THE AMOUNT PAID WAS RS.17,46,793/- WHEREAS ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, I T WAS RS.17,15,503/-. BASING ON THIS, THE AO OPINED THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME TO T HE TUNE OF RS.31,290/-, AS SUCH, HE ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE CARR IED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) BY WAY OF IMPUGNED ORDER ALLO WED THE APPEAL DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER TH E REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 3 ITA NOS. 2295-2296/KOL/2010 DAGA TRANSPORT AGENCY, AY 2004-05 & 2005-06 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED TO DELETE THE PART DISALLOWANCE OF RS.57,95,786/- ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGH T CHARGES. 2. THAT LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.57,95,786/- SINCE THE GENUINENESS OF THE FREIGHT CHARGES COULD NOT BE EST ABLISHED THOUGH THE AO ATTEMPTED TO VERIFY THE EXPENDITURE. 7. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH LD. DR. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ENTERED APPEARANC E THOUGH AN AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE RIGHT FROM 13.03.2014 ONWARDS AND IN THIS SCENARIO, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO WAIT FOR PRESENCE OF ASSESSEE/AR AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THESE APP EALS AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND BASED ON MATERIALS AVAILABL4E ON RECORD. IT IS THE ARGUME NTS OF THE LD. DR THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CRYPTIC AND IT DOES NOT SPEAK OF ANY REAS ONS IN REACHING THE CONCLUSION AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. CIT(A), HAVING HELD THAT WHEN 1946 CONSIGNMENTS HAD BEEN SENT ON TO PAY BASIS, THE AO SHOULD HAVE MADE ENQUIRIES WITH THOSE DETAILS BY EXAMINING THE CONSIGNORS AND CONSIGNEES WHO ARE ULTIMATELY THE PA YERS AND RECEIVERS OF THE AMOUNT AND ON VERIFICATION FROM ITS ENDS THE AO SHOULD HAVE REACH ED A RIGHT CONCLUSION, IT IS NOT FAIR ON THE PART OF THE CIT(A) TO ALLOW THE APPEAL IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROCESS OF VERIFICATION IS COMPLETE. ON THIS GROUND, THE LD. DR PRAYED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND TO RESTORE THE ADDITIONS AS MADE BY THE AO. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND HAVE GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT BASING ON THE ABOVE CONTENTION THE POINT THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE CIT(A) IS JUST IFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO? 9. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE RECORDS, THE ORDER OF THE AO CLEARLY SPELLS OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE PARTNERSHIP FIRM CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN RUNNI NG THE TRANSPORT AGENCY. THE AO FOUND OUT THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS COMPRISED OF TWO COMPONENTS VIZ., ONE ON TO PAY BASIS AND THE OTHER ON TO BE BILLED BASIS AND THE MAJORITY IS DERIVED FROM TO PAY BASIS. HOWEVER, THE AO ENTERTAINED A DOUBT AS TO THE CORRE CTNESS OF THE HUGE AMOUNTS PAID ON TO PAY BASIS, AS SUCH HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE TRUCK OWNERS. HOWEVER, EXCEPT ONE, NONE RESPONDED AND THE AO DISBELIEVED T HE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRUCK OWNERS MIGHT HAVE CHANGED THEIR ADDRESSES OR THE ADDRESSES MAY BE INCOMPLETE. ON THIS GROUND HE ADDED 10% OF THE FREIGHT CHARGES OF RS.5,79,57,864/-, WHICH COMES TO RS.57,95,786/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON EST IMATE BASIS. HOWEVER, ON THIS ASPECT IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT AS OPINED BY CIT(A) IN HIS I MPUGNED ORDER, THE AO DID NOT TAKE 4 ITA NOS. 2295-2296/KOL/2010 DAGA TRANSPORT AGENCY, AY 2004-05 & 2005-06 RECOURSE TO THE SERVING OF NOTICES TO EITHER THE CO NSIGNORS OR CONSIGNEES TO VERIFY THE FACT OF PAYMENTS AND THE CORRECTNESS OF AMOUNT. ACCORDING TO CIT(A), THESE TWO SOURCES SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BECAUSE THE FREIGHT MONEY F LOWS FROM CONSIGNORS. 10. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. DR THAT HAVING REACHED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT AO DID NOT DO WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE DONE, IN ALL FAIRNES S, THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF FACTS AT HIS E NDS. HAVING NOT DONE SO, THE CIT(A) DIRECTLY PROCEEDED TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON ESTIMATE BASIS. IT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE CORRECT PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, AGREE WITH THE LD. DR THAT IT IS A FIT CASE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORD ER AND TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS AND DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN REAS ONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE/FURNISH FRESH EVI DENCES TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE AO. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF REV ENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 2296/KOL/2010, AY: 2005-06 11. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING TRANSPORT AGENCY. THEY HAVE FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2005-06 ON 31.10.2005. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED U/S. 147 O F THE ACT AND A NOTICE DATED 11.02.2009 U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS DULY SERVED ON T HE FIRM. HOWEVER, EXCEPT WRITING TWO LETTERS DATED 20.08.2009 AND 06.11.2009 WITH A PRAY ER TO TRANSFER THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS FROM BURDWAN TO KOLKATA THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST TO CIT(A) THAT IT WOULD NOT TRANSFER ITS ASSESSMENT RECORD TO KOLKATA. FINALLY, SINCE NOBOD Y APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD A DETAILED SHOW CAUSE NOTI CE ELABORATELY MENTIONING THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 08.11.2009. TO THIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE VERY BELATEDLY I.E. ON 04.12.2009 AND 17.12.2009 THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED A REPRESENTATION CATEGORICALLY DESCRIBED THEMSELVES AS TRANSPORT BRO KER. HOWEVER, ON VERIFICATION OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT, THE AO FOUND THE NATURE OF BUSINESS A ND PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AS TRANSPORT AGENCY BUT NOT TRANSPORT BROKER. 12. ON VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, THE AO FOUND THAT A SUM OF RS.6,70,94,952/- WAS DEBITED AGAINST FREIGHT CHARGE S BUT WITHOUT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE U/S. 194C OF THE ACT ON SUCH AMOUNT, WHICH SHOULD HAVE B EEN DEDUCTED U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, 5 ITA NOS. 2295-2296/KOL/2010 DAGA TRANSPORT AGENCY, AY 2004-05 & 2005-06 AND AS SUCH, THE AO OPINED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE ENTERTAINED AN IDEA TRANSFERRING ITS ASSESSMENT TO ANOTHER AO AT KOLKATA THERE WAS AN UN MISTAKABLE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTI ON 194C OF THE ACT REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THEY ARE ONLY TRANS PORT BROKERS BUT NOT TRANSPORT AGENTS, THE AO PROCEEDED TO ADD THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF FREIGHT C HARGES OF RS.6,70,94,952/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE INITIATING PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE U/S. 194C OF THE ACT. 13. CHALLENGING THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN ADDING BA CK THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.6,70,94,952/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) BY WAY OF IMPU GNED ORDER ALLOWED THE APPEAL AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 14. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE REVENUE CARRIE D THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) , HAS ERRED TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,70,94,952/- U/S.40(A)(IA) OF T HE I.T. ACT BY HOLDING THAT SECTION 194C DOES NOT APPLY TO FREIGHT CHARGES INCURRED BY THE A SSESSEE. 2. THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY GIVING RECOGNITION TO THE ORAL CONTRACT EXISTING BETWEEN T HE PARTIES I TRUCK-OWNERS AND THE ASSESSEE. 3.THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. A CT OUGHT TO BE CONFIRMED IN VIEW OF ASSESSEE'S OWN DECISION TO TREAT THE FREIGHT CHARGE S AS LIABLE TO TDS U/S.194C IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 4. THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT OUGHT TO BE CONFIRMED IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.9.2010 IN ITA NO.807/KO1L2009 IN THE CASE OF M/S. NAYEK PAPER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS ACIT, CIR-2, BURDWAN. 15. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS VERY CRYPTIC AND DOES NOT SP ELL OUT ANY VALID REASONS OF HIS REACHING THE CONCLUSION AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT( A) CITED SOME IRRELEVANT AND INAPPLICABLE DECISIONS IN HIS ORDER TO REACH THE CONCLUSION WHIC H HE ARRIVED AT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, HAVING OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER THAT AT APPELLATE STAG E SOME MATERIAL WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM WHILE RECORDING THE REASONS FOR REMAND AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, HE PROCE EDED TO SAY THAT THE AO DID NOT ATTEMPT TO ENUNCIATE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSPORT BROKER AN D TRANSPORT AGENT. FOR THESE REASONS THE LD. DR PRAYED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND TO RESTORE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. 6 ITA NOS. 2295-2296/KOL/2010 DAGA TRANSPORT AGENCY, AY 2004-05 & 2005-06 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND HAVE GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT BASING ON THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR, THE POINT THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO? 17. IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THAT ALTHOUGH HIS ORDER THE AO SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS NO COOPERATION FROM THE AS SESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM. THE AO SPECIFICALLY OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERTAINED AN IDEA OF GETTING THE MATTER TRANSFERRED FROM BURDWAN TO A NOTHER AO OF KOLKATA ONLY TO ESCAPE CLUTCHES OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM HAS NOT COMPLIE D WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT AND WITH SUCH INTENTION THE ASSESSEE NEVER ENTERED ANY APPEARANCE BEFORE HIM AND THEREBY COMPELLING HIM TO PROCEED EX PARTE. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THOUGH AT A LATER POINT OF TIME THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED REPRESENTATION S CLAIMING THEMSELVES AS TRANSPORT BROKERS BUT NOT A TRANSPORT AGENT, THERE WAS NO MAT ERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE SUCH A CLAIM. 18. ON A READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE IMPRES SION GATHERED BY US IS THAT THE AO ENTERTAINED A DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE RECE IVED ONLY A COMMISSION, AND PRINTING & STATIONERY CHARGES FOR LINKING THE CONSIGNORS WITH THE TRUCK OWNERS/DRIVERS OR THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF UNDERTOOK THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT AND IN THAT PURSUIT RECEIVED THE FREIGHT CHARGES AND MADE PAYMENTS TO THE TRUCK OWNERS. SINCE ACCOR DING TO THE AO, THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NO MATERIAL TO SUPPORT EITHER OF THE VERSIONS, AO, PERHAPS, FELT COMPELLED, IN THE INTER EST OF THE REVENUE, TO TAKE A VIEW THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 6,70,94,952/- WAS TOWARDS FREI GHT CHARGES AGAINST WHICH TAX SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE U/S. 194C OF THE ACT. BRIEFLY THESE ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 18. NOW COMING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), IT SEEMS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED SOME MATERIAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT IS NOT KNOWN WHAT S ORT OF MATERIAL THAT WAS. THE CIT(A) DID NOT DISCUSS SUCH MATERIAL NOR DID HE GIVE ANY REASO NS SUPPORTING HIS CONCLUSION THAT A REMAND REPORT HAD TO BE CALLED FOR FROM THE AO. TH E CIT(A)S ORDER SIMPLY STATES THAT BASING ON SOME MATERIALS WHICH HE REFERRED TO THE A O THE REMAND REPORT WAS SOUGHT AND THE AO REITERATED HIS EARLIER VERSION. WITHOUT KNOWING THE NATURE AND EFFECT OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE CIT(A) SOUGHT THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND WHETHER THE AO ACTED 7 ITA NOS. 2295-2296/KOL/2010 DAGA TRANSPORT AGENCY, AY 2004-05 & 2005-06 DILIGENTLY IN RESPONDING TO SUCH DEMAND FOR REMAND REPORT. IN ALL FAIRNESS THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DISCUSSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM AND T HE REASONS SUPPORTING HIS CONCLUSION TO SEEK REMAND REPORT. AT LEAST AFTER RECEIVING THE RE MAND REPORT REITERATING THE EARLIER VERSION OF THE AO, THE CIT(A) DID NOT CHOSE TO DISCUSS THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL IN THE LIGHT OF THE REMAND REPORT WHICH SHOULD HAVE GUIDED US TO TEST T HE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A) IN THIS MATTER. 19. THE CIT(A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE PARA 8 RE FERRED TO THE CASE REPORTED IN M/S. RAKSHIT TRANSPORT DECIDED BY A COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT A BENCH, KOLKATA IN ITA NO. 261/KOL/2009 DATED 11.09.2009. THE CIT(A) STATED T HAT IN THIS DECISION THE KOLKATA BENCH RELIED ON A DECISION OF HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT IN C IT VS. UNITED RICE LAND LTD. (2008) 174 TAXMAN 286 AND THE DECISION OF ITAT, KOLKATA A BENCH IN THE CASE OF SAMANWAYA IN ITA NO. 484/KOL/2008 DATED 23.04.2009. AS A MAT TER OF FACT, IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS SUPPORTING THE RELIA NCE ON THESE DECISIONS. WITHOUT REVEALING THE FACTUAL BASIS, THE CIT(A) PROCEEDED T O APPLY THE DECISIONS TO THE CASE. 20. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT HAS BECOME IMPERA TIVE FOR US TO AGREE WITH THE LD. DR AND TO HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CANNOT BE SUST AINED FOR WANT OF REASONS ON THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. SINCE IT IS A MATTER WHICH REQUIRES INVESTIGATION BY THE AO IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL F ORWARDED BY THE CIT(A), WE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTE R TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR PASSING A FRESH ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS AT L IBERTY TO FURNISH FRESH EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 21. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.08.2016 SD/- SD/- (M. BALAGANESH) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R DATED :3 RD AUGUST, 2016 JD.(SR.P.S.) 8 ITA NOS. 2295-2296/KOL/2010 DAGA TRANSPORT AGENCY, AY 2004-05 & 2005-06 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT ITO, WARD-1(3), BURDWAN. 2 RESPONDENT M/S. DAGA TRANSPORT AGENCY, GARHTALIT, G.T. ROAD, P.O. FAGUPUR, BURDWAN-713101. 3 . THE CIT(A), ASANSOL 4. 5. CIT , ASANSOL DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .