M/s. Atreyi Agencies (P) Ltd., , Patna V. ITO, Ward - 9(1), Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 244/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4827 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-05-2019
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN CHOUDHURY SR DR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Rectification of order; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 80G; 250; 68; 263; 154

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.244/KOL/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) M/S. ATREYI AGENCIES (P) LTD....................... APPELLANT [PAN :AACCA1412F] VS. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA.................... ...............................................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI PRATEEK JAIN, FCA, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. SHRI ROBIN CHOUDHURY, SR. DR, ADDL. CIT, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MAY 21 ST , 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MAY 31 ST ,2019 O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY :- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 8, KOLKATA (HEREINAFTER THE LD. CIT (A)), PASSED U/S 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DATED 19.12.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND IS IN THE BUSINESS OF GRANTING LOANS AND ADVANCES, TRADING AND INVESTMENT IN SHARES. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON 30.10.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.11,05,620/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 21.08.2007 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.12,14,680/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80G OF THE ACT OF RS.51,000/- BEING DONATION MADE TO PRIME MINISTERS RELIEF FUND. AS THE REQUIRED EVIDENCE WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS CLAIM WAS REJECTED AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.51,000/- WAS ADDED. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN IT PRODUCED THE REQUIRED EVIDENCE OF HAVING MADE A DONATION TO PRIME MINISTERS RELIEF FUND AND SOUGHT RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) ON 21.08.2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THIS PETITION SEEKING RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT ON 05.01.2008 BY HOLDING THAT, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, WHICH JUSTIFIES THE RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THE 2 I.T.A. NO.244/KOL/2018 M/S. ATREYI AGENCIES (P) LTD. ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) AT PARA 8.4.3 STATES AS FOLLOWS: 8.4.3 IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE 1 ST GROUND IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 147/143(3). THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG. FIRSTLY, THE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE REJECTION OF THE PETITION SEEKING FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 154. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ONLY U/S 143(3); NOT 147/143(3). OBLIVIOUSLY, THE GROUND WAS JUST COPY-PASTE FROM APPEALS OF SIMILAR SUCH CASES OF SHARE- PREMIUM- WHERE THERE HAD BEEN ASSESSMENT INITIATED U/S 147. 3. THUS, IT IS BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS ORDER ON AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 15.01.2008, ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 251(1) OF THE ACT FOR ENHANCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT. THEREAFTER HE MADE AN ADDITION OF SHARE CAPITAL RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR AS WELL AS SHARE PREMIUM AND UNSECURED LOAN RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTORS DURING THE YEAR. AT PARA 8.7 OF HIS ORDER, HE HELD AS FOLLOWS: 8.7 THUS, INVOKING THE POWERS OF ENHANCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT U/S 251(1), THE REJECTION OF THE PETITION SEEKING FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 154 BEING BUT CONNECTED AND ORIGINATING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THUS, BEING IN EFFECT ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THUS THE ASSESSMENT IS ENHANCED BY ADDITION OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: SL ITEM INCREASE DURING THE YEAR () AMOUNT () A SHARE CAPITAL 1,77,12,000(-) [1,34,72,000 + 12,00,000 (SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN PRECEDING YEAR)] = 30,40,000 30,40,000 B SHARE PREMIUM 63,60,000 63,60,000 C UNSECURED LOAN FROM DIRECTORS 17,93,499 (-) 3,43,499 = 14,50,000 14,50,000 I HAD ACCORDED AMPLE ADEQUATE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT FROM AUGUST 2017 TO NOVEMBER 2017. THE NOTICES/REMINDER LETTERS WERE ADDRESSED TO THE APPELLANT, WITH COPY TO THE LD. AR. THERE HAS SIMPLY BEEN NO EXPLANATION OFFERED. EVEN SO, I HAVE ALSO ANALYSED AND DISCUSSED ON MERITS. THUS THE ABOVE AMOUNTS ARE TO BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 68. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 3 I.T.A. NO.244/KOL/2018 M/S. ATREYI AGENCIES (P) LTD. 1. THAT IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING ACTION OF AO OF NOT GIVING DEDUCTION U/S 80G AND REJECTING APPLICATION U/S 154. 2. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) ACTED BEYOND HIS POWERS IN MAKING ENHANCEMENT U/S 251(1) TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3), WHEREAS THE APPEAL WAS AGAINST RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S 154. 3. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING ENHANCEMENT IN COMPLETE DISREGARD OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 251 ON THE ISSUES NOT ARISING OUT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WAS PASSED. 4. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN MAKING ADDITIONS ON THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL, SHARE PREMIUM AND LOAN TO DIRECTORS WHEN THEY WERE NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S 154 AGAINST WHICH APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED, AND WAS THUS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 251 OF THE ACT. 5. THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN MAKING ENHANCEMENT ON A NEW SOURCE OF INCOME WHICH WAS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF ASSESSMENT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT HE CANNOT TOUCH UPON AN ISSUE WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF ASSESSMENT AND IS OUTSIDE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT. 6. THAT LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ORDER U/ S 154 REFUSING TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) ARE DISTINCT AND SEPARATE ORDERS AS SECTION 246A PROVIDES FOR APPEAL AGAINST BOTH THE ORDERS SEPARATELY. 7. THAT IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.30,40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSCRIPTION OF SHARE CAPITAL. 8. THAT IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 63,60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. 9. THAT IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.14,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN FROM DIRECTORS. 10. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, LD. CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN ENHANCING THE INCOME BY MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM FOR AY 2005-06 WHICH IS PRIOR TO AY 2013-14, IN COMPLETE CONTRAST OF DECISION OF APEX COURT IN CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V M/S LOVELY EXPORTS PVT. LTD, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. STELLER INVESTMENT LTD. AND DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 V M/S. GANGANDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. 11. YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS FOR LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND AMEND ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL ORDER, IS AGAINST AN ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT AND THE ISSUE BEFORE THE ITAT WAS WHETHER AN ENHANCEMENT OF ASSESSED INCOME COULD BE MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN AN APPEAL, WHEREIN THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER MADE U/S 154 OF THE ACT WAS IN CHALLENGE. HE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NO SUCH POWER. HE ARGUED THAT THE POWERS U/S 154 OF THE ACT ARE LIMITED TO RECTIFYING A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN AN ORDER AND NOT TO CONDUCT A FRESH ASSESSMENT. HE FURTHER 4 I.T.A. NO.244/KOL/2018 M/S. ATREYI AGENCIES (P) LTD. SUBMITTED THAT AN ADDITION U/S 68 IS A NEW SOURCE OF INCOME NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE BEYOND THE POWERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: (I) HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF R.B.L. BANARSI DASS & CO.(P) LTD. VS. CIT [316 ITR 212(P&H HC) , (II) HONBLE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH IN THE CASE OF MANJIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA IN ITA NO.2667/KOL/2018, FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT HAVE ENHANCED THE ASSESSMENT AS HE HAD CONSIDERED A NEW AND DISTINCT SOURCE OF INCOME WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE SUBJECT OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE GROUNDS AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL. (III) HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF SILVER IMPEX V. ACIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI IN [2008] 170 TAXMAN 550 (DELHI), FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE ACT ARE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE ACT ARE CONTINUATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS POWER TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE IN [1964] 53 ITR 225(SC) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PLENARY POWER IN DISPOSING OFF AN APPEAL AND THE SCOPE OF HIS POWER IS CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE ITO AND HE CAN DO WHAT THE ITO CAN DO AND ALSO DIRECT HIM TO DO WHAT HE FAILED TO DO. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI SANJEEV KEJRIWAL IN ITA NO.59 OF 2013 ORDER DATED 2 ND JULY 2014, FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IN CASE THE LD. CIT(A) PROPOSE TO USE HIS ENHANCEMENT POWER BY BRINGING TO TAX TO A NEW SOURCE OF INCOME WHICH IS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN THE POWER OF REMAND MAY BE EXERCISED AND THE ITO SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO DEAL WITH THE NEW SOURCE OF INCOME. HE ARGUED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 5 I.T.A. NO.244/KOL/2018 M/S. ATREYI AGENCIES (P) LTD. 7. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSING THE PAPERS ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAWS CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 8. THE SUBJECT MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS, AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 15.01.2008, REJECTING AN APPLICATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 154 OF THE ACT, FOR RECTIFICATION OF AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 21.08.2007. 9. IN AN APPLICATION MADE U/S 154 OF THE ACT, THE POWERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE LIMITED TO EXAMINE WHETHER THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH REQUIRES RECTIFICATION. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER EXERCISED THIS POWER AND HELD THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND REJECTED THE PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH A SITUATION, IN OUR OPINION, POWER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE RESTRICTED TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RIGHT IN ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH REQUIRED RECTIFICATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT TO TAX ANY ITEM AS INCOME, IN THESE PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO DOES NOT HAVE POWER TO ENHANCE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE ADJUDICATING THIS APPEAL. HE CANNOT DO WHAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE DONE UNDER THE ACT. 10. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SILVER IMPEX V. ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI (SUPRA) AT PARA 11 HELD AS FOLLOWS: 11. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS ARISEN OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS AMENDED COMPUTATION OF INCOME MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND NOW ONLY WHEN ORDER U/S 154/143 HAS BEEN PASSED, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE SAME WHICH IN OUR OPINION DOES NOT LIE IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS SINCE PROCEEDING UNDER SECTIONS 143(3) AND 154 OF THE ACT ARE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT ARE INDEPENDENT PROCEEDINGS. 6 I.T.A. NO.244/KOL/2018 M/S. ATREYI AGENCIES (P) LTD. 11. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF R.B.L. BANARSI DASS & CO.(P) LTD.(SUPRA) AT PARA 8 HELD AS FOLLOWS: 8. AFTER HEARING LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS IN CONFORMITY WITH LAW. THE ORDER DATED 28-2-1995, PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HAD ATTAINED FINALITY AND IT WAS ONLY ORDER DATED 2-2-1996, PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, SEEKING RECTIFICATION, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF CHALLENGE BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) ILLEGALLY SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28-2-1995, PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 4-10-1996 (A-2), WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50 OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL, ON FURTHER APPEAL, HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT AS NO APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS FILED AND THE APPEAL WAS PREFERRED ONLY AGAINST THE RECTIFICATION ORDER DATED 2-2- 1996 (A-3), THE CIT(A) DID NOT ENJOY ANY JURISDICTION TO SET ASIDE THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER. THE JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECTIFY AN ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT IS LIMITED AS HE COULD MAKE CORRECTION OF ERRORS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. IN THAT REGARD RELIANCE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE THE SUPREME COURT IN T.S. BALARAM'S CASE (SUPRA). SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN REITERATED IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KESHRI METAL (P.) LTD. [1999] 237 ITR 165 (SC) . THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, DATED 28-2-1995, PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, HAS ATTAINED FINALITY AND THERE WAS NO APPEAL FILED AGAINST THAT ORDER. WE FIND NO LEGAL INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FAILS AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 12. THE POWERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS CASE IS CONFINED TO ANSWERING QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH REQUIRES RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE HOLD THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN INVOKING HIS POWER U/S 251 OF THE ACT ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT WHILE DISPOSING OFF AN APPEAL FILED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. COMING TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI SANJEEV KEJRIWAL (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICATIONAL HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THE PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT, THE POWERS OF ENHANCEMENT CONFERRED ON LD. CIT(A) EXTENDS TO ONLY THOSE MATTERS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT FURTHER HELD THAT WHEN A NEW SOURCE OF INCOME HAS TO BE CONSIDERED, THEN THE LD. CIT(A), COULD USE HIS POWER OF REMAND, SO AS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DEAL WITH THE NEW AND DISTINCT SOURCE OF INCOME. THIS POWER OF SET ASIDE GIVEN TO THE LD. CIT(A) WAS REMOVED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2001 W.E.F 01.06.2001. HENCE, WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) WANTS TO BRING TO TAX A NEW AND DISTINCT SOURCE OF INCOME, WHICH IS NOT ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING 7 I.T.A. NO.244/KOL/2018 M/S. ATREYI AGENCIES (P) LTD. OFFICER, BY USING OF POWER OF ENHANCEMENT, HE CANNOT DO SO, AS THE POWER OF SET ASIDE/REMAND HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE STATUTE. THUS THIS JUDGMENT DOES NOT ADVANCE THE CASE OF REVENUE. 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE EXERCISE OF POWER OF ENHANCEMENT BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S 251 OF THE ACT. ALL OTHER GROUNDS ARE HEREBY REJECTED AS NOT ARGUED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. KOLKATA, THE 31 ST MAY, 2019. SD/- SD/- [ S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI ] [J. SUDHAKAR REDDY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 31.05.2019 (RS, SR. PS) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. ATREYI AGENCIES (P) LTD, 51, NALINI SETH ROAD, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA 700007. 2. ITO, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES