RAMESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, JANJGIR CHAMPA V. ACIT-2(1), BILASPUR(CG)

ITA 25/BIL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 2524714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUDHIR KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: R MAHESHWARI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 25/BLPR/2011 RAMESH KUMAR AGRAWAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BILASPUR BENCH, BILASPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M. AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, A.M. ITA NO. 25/BLPR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 RAMESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, VILLAGE BANARI NAILA, DIST JANJGIR-CHAMPA. VS ACIT 2(1), MAHIMA COMPLEX, VYAPAR VIHAR, BILASPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. ACGPA8506R APPELLANT BY SHRI R. MAHESHWARI RESPONDENT BY SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR DATE OF HEARING 0 8 .02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.02.2012 ORDER PER R K PANDA, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DTD. 03.02.2009 OF THE LD. CIT(A), BILASPUR RELATING TO A.Y. 2004-05. 2.1 IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENG ED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,47,401/ - MADE BY THE A.O. 2.2 FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSM ENT WAS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 30.12.2005. SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS SET ASIDE BY THE 2 ITA NO. 25/BLPR/2011 RAMESH KUMAR AGRAWAL CIT, BILASPUR VIDE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT DT. 21. 01.2007. IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W. ORDER U/S 263(1) OF THE ACT, THE A.O. NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S 133-A CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED AN AM OUNT OF RS. 1,47,401/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK. HOWEVER, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE SAME WAS NOT OFFERED SEPARATELY AND WAS NEUTRALIZED. THE TR EATMENT OF DISCLOSURE MADE DURING THE SURVEY IS NOT CLEAR IN THE BOOKS. DURING THE FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH FULL DETAILS. HE THEREFORE SEPARATELY ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,47,40 1/-. 2.3 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. COMPLETED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AFTER CONSIDERING THE QUANTITY OF STOCK ENHANCED AND ENTERED IN THE STOCK REGISTER. THE PRESENT ADDITIO N IS A CHANGE OF OPINION WITHOUT GOING INTO THE DETAILS AND WITHOUT APPLYING MIND IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT BY ENHANCING THE STOCK F IGURE AT THE YEAR END. 2.4 HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE PRE AND POST SURVEY COMPARATIVE GP AND NP DETAILS. HE HAS ALSO NOT SHOWN THE TREATMENT GIVEN IN RESPECT OF THE EXCESS STOCK OF P ADDY FOUND DURING SURVEY. ALTHOUGH THE STOCK REGISTER SHOWING ENHANCEMENT OF CLOSING STOCK BY 205 QUINTALS AND QUANTITATIVE DETAILS GIVEN IN ANNEXURE B TO THE AUDIT REPORT 3 ITA NO. 25/BLPR/2011 RAMESH KUMAR AGRAWAL ALSO SHOW THAT THE CLOSING STOCK HAS BEEN ENHANCED BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN THE NATURE OF TREATMENT GIVEN IN THE REGU LAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE IMPACT ON GP DUE TO ENHANCEMENT IN VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN. HE ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE A.O . AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL B EFORE US. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE 263 ORDER, HOWEVER, THE ADDI TION MADE IN THE ORDER SUBSEQUENT TO THE 263 PROCEEDING IS NOT CORRECT. H E SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A SSESSEE VIDE LETTER DT. 23.12.2005 (A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 17) HAS GIVEN THE COMPARTIVE CHART OF A.Y. 2003-04 AND 2004-05 GIVING DETAILS OF SALES & INCOME, VARIOUS EXPENSES, G.P. & N.P. REFERRING TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 63, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED THE DIFFERE NCE IN STOCK WHICH WAS SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. REFERRING TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 18 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DTD. 24.12. 2005 FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS GIVEN MANUFACTURING SALES AND TRADING SALES AND EXPLAINED THE REASON OF LOWER GP. THEREFORE, ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY T HE A.O. DURING THE SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, ALL THE DETA ILS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT WHICH WERE FILED DURING T HE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED TH AT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE DELETED. 4 ITA NO. 25/BLPR/2011 RAMESH KUMAR AGRAWAL 4. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT IN ABSENCE OF FULL DETAILS GIVEN DURING THE COURSE OF SET ASIDE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MA DE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE A.O. WAS SET ASIDE BY THE LD. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALL ENGED THE 263 ORDER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT DESPITE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BY THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF SET ASIDE PR OCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE REQUISITE DETAILS FOR WHICH THE A.O . MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,47,401/- WHICH WAS SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY HAS DULY BEEN ENTERED I NTO IN THE STOCK REGISTER. IT IS ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE COMPARATIVE STATEMENT FOR A.Y. 2003-04 AND 2004-05 WERE ALREADY IN THE RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT WHICH WERE FILED DURING T HE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDING WAS SET ASIDE BY THE LD. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESS EE, IN OUR OPINION, SHOULD HAVE FURNISHED THE REQUISITE DETAILS IN SUCH SET AS IDE PROCEEDING ALTHOUGH ACCORDING TO HIM THESE WERE FURNISHED DURING ORIGIN AL ASSESSMENT 5 ITA NO. 25/BLPR/2011 RAMESH KUMAR AGRAWAL PROCEEDINGS. AT THE SAME TIME SINCE ALL THESE DETA ILS ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY THE A.O. FURTHER IT IS ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS SOME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNTS S URRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND THE AMOUNT ADDED BY THE A.O. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN T HE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CAS E ON THIS ISSUE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSE E IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6. IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALL ENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ALLOW PROPORTIO NATE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. 6.1 FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT IN ABSENCE OF FURNISHING OF BIFURCATION OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING ACTIVITIES THE A.O. REJECTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT ON THE GROUN D THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND IT IS ENGAGED ONLY IN TRADING ACTIVITY . THEREFORE HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA AT RS. 66,422/-. 6 ITA NO. 25/BLPR/2011 RAMESH KUMAR AGRAWAL 6.2 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PADDY PARBOILING AND CLAIMED DEDUCT ION U/S 80IA SINCE A.Y. 1995-96. THE DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR THE DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED ONLY ON THA T PART OF INCOME DERIVED FROM MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND NOT ON TRAD ING ACTIVITY. 6.3 BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT PARBOILING JOB WORK DONE FOR OTHERS AT RS. 1,1 0,294/- QUALIFIES FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF TH E LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O. AND SU BMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT FILED COPY OF AUDIT REPORT WHICH CONTAINS QUANTITAT IVE DETAILS OF RAW MATERIALS, FINISHED GOODS AND CLOSING STOCK IN ANNE XURE-B. PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS SHOW THAT FIGURES AGAINST CONSUMPTI ON OF RAW MATERIALS AND RECEIPTS OF FINISHED GOODS THE REL EVANT COLUMNS ARE LEFT BLANK AND OTHER TOTAL ARE MATCHING. UNDER THE SE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS CLEAR THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT C ONDUCTED ANY MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN RE CEIPTS FROM PARBOILING JOB WORKS DONE FOR OTHERS AT RS. 1,10,29 4/-. THIS ACTIVITY QUALIFIES FOR DEDUCTION. THEREFORE, THE A .O. IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION AFTER EXPENSES AGAINS T THIS ACTIVITY. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6.3 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE LD. CI T(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY MANUFACTURI NG ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE THAT SINCE HUGE ELECTRICITY EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY HAS BEEN CONDUCTED DURING TH E YEAR. FURTHER IT IS 7 ITA NO. 25/BLPR/2011 RAMESH KUMAR AGRAWAL THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY THERE WAS NO FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO T ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES. IT IS ALSO THE SUBMISSIO N OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS FILED FORM 10CC FOR CLAIM OF D EDUCTION U/S 80IA ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME AND SINCE A.Y. 1995-96 THE AS SESSE IS GETTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT AL L THE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD DID NOT FILE ANY DETAILS TO SAT ISFY THE A.O. REGARDING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA ON ITS MANUFACTURING AC TIVITIES. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE TH E ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO HIS SATISFACTION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 7. IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALL ENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,0 00/- MADE BY THE A.O. UNDER THE HEAD ELECTRICITY EXPENSES. SIMILARLY IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,50,000/- OUT OF RS. 4 LACS MADE BY THE A.O . UNDER THE HEAD WAGES EXPENSES. BOTH THESE GROUNDS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 8 ITA NO. 25/BLPR/2011 RAMESH KUMAR AGRAWAL 7.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE ASSESS EE IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING AND TRADING ACTIVITY AND DERIVES INCO ME FROM RICE MILL. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O . NOTED THAT NO BI- FURCATION OF THE FIGURES FOR SUCH MANUFACTURING AND TRADING ACTIVITY WAS GIVEN AND THE NET PROFIT OF RS. 7.5 LACS WAS EARNED ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF BRAN FOR WHICH NEGLIGIBLE PROFIT WERE SHOWN IN THE SALE/PURCHASE OF RICE AND PADDY. THERE IS NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2 LACS UN DER THE HEAD ELECTRICITY EXPENSES AND RS. 4 LACS UNDER THE HEAD WAGES EXPENS ES. 7.2 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DUR ING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DETAILS OF TRADING AND MANUFACTURING WAS GIVEN WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT SAME ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE PAST AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT Y EAR AND THERE WAS NO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. 7.3 BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE , THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE PARTIAL RELIEF OF RS. 50,000/- EACH OUT OF ELECTRIC ITY EXPENSES AND WAGES BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH OBSERVATIONS OF A.O. AND SUBMIS SIONS OF THE APPELLANT. AS DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING GROUND AS PER QUANTITATIVE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT, NO RAW MATERIAL S WERE CONSUMED AND NO FINISHED PRODUCTS WERE DERIVED. AC CORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF MANUFACTURING MADE BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT CORRECT. THE COPY OF STOCK REGISTER FILED BY THE APPELLANT ALSO DID NOT REFLECT TRANSFER OF ANY RAW MATERIALS FOR MILLING PURPOSES. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS PROVED AS PER APPELLANTS RECORDS AND AUDIT REPO RT THAT HE HAS 9 ITA NO. 25/BLPR/2011 RAMESH KUMAR AGRAWAL NOT CONDUCTED ANY MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. THEREFOR E, THE ACTION OF A.O. IS CORRECT. HOWEVER SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD SH OWN RECEIPTS FROM PARBOILING CHARGES OF RS. 1,10,294/- CORRESPON DING EXPENSES UNDER THESE HEADS CANNOT BE DENIED. ACCORDINGLY, TH E DISALLOWANCES MADE OUT OF ELECTRICITY EXPENSES ARE RESTRICTED TO RS. 1,50,000/- AND OUT OF WAGES EXPENSES TO RS. 3,50,00 0/-. THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED ON THIS GROUND. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASS ESEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7.4 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND IN ABSENCE OF FILING OF THE MANUFACTURING ACCOUNT, THE A.O. DISALLOWED AN AMOUN T OF RS. 2 LACS OUT OF ELECTRICITY EXPENSES AND RS. 4 LACS OUT OF WAGES EX PENSES ON THE GROUND THAT NO SUCH MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT BY T HE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSE E ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RECEIPTS FORM PARBOILING CHARGES FOR WHICH SOME EXPENSES UNDER ELECTRICITY & WAGES CANNOT BE DENIED . HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT NO SUCH MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ALTHOUGH NO SUCH DETAILS WERE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF SET ASIDE P ROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE DETAILS OF TRADING AND MANUFA CTURING ACTIVITY WAS GIVEN DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S WHICH ARE ALREADY IN THE RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT. WE FIND THE ORIGINA L ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE SET ASIDE BY THE LD. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT WH ICH WAS NOT CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ALTHOUGH THESE DETAILS WERE NOT GIVEN DURING T HE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, 10 ITA NO. 25/BLPR/2011 RAMESH KUMAR AGRAWAL HOWEVER, SUCH DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND IN THE PRECEEDING AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEA RS NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO G IVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO HIS S ATISFACTION ABOUT THE CLAIM OF WAGES EXPENSES AND ELECTRICITY EXPENSES. THE A.O. SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD T O THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSE E IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 10.02.2012. SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( R K PANDA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: BILASPUR : DATED: 10.02.2012 RK 11 ITA NO. 25/BLPR/2011 RAMESH KUMAR AGRAWAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT , BILASPUR (C.G.) 4 CIT(A), BILASPUR (C.G. 5 DR BENCH BILASPUR 6 MASTER FILE /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BILASPUR BILASPUR.