A.C.I.T Cir - 30,kolkata, Kolkata V. Pranab Chatterjee, Kolkata

ITA 325/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4918 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD S M S TAUHEED JCIT LD
• Assessee Lawyers: SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY ADVO
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 2

Judgement Text

ITA N O.325/KOL/2013-A-AM PRANAB CHATTERJEE 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, K OLKATA BEFORE : SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 325/KOL/2013 A.Y 2008-09 A.C.I.T CIRCLE-30, KOLKATA VS. PRANAB CH ATTERJEE PAN: ACQPC 3756K (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT/DEPARTMENT: MD. S. M.S TAUHEED, JCIT, LD.SR.DR FOR THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: SHR I SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY, ADVOCATE, LD.AR DATE OF HEARING: 14-03-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16-03 -20 16 ORDER SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF TH E SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-XIV, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 336/CIT(A)-XIV/ 10-11 DATED 30-11-2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORDER OF A SSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE LD.AO U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THE FIRST GROUND TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL O F REVENUE IS AS TO WHETHER, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.15,60,000/- COULD BE MADE TOWAR DS OBLIGATORY EXPENSES U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE DEBITED A SUM OF RS.15,60,000/- IN HIS P & L ACCOUNT TOWARDS OBLIGAT ORY EXPENSES WHICH WERE ADMITTEDLY INCURRED IN CASH. THE LD. AO OBSERVED TH AT NO DETAILS IN THIS REGARD WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED T HE SAME BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS ITA N O.325/KOL/2013-A-AM PRANAB CHATTERJEE 2 OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. ON 1 ST APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED A LEDGER ACCOUNT, WHEREIN IT WAS ARGUED THAT THERE W AS NO VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT AS NO SINGLE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDING RS. 20,000/- ON A PARTICULAR DAY. THE LD. CIT(A) C ALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE LD.AO AS THE SAME WAS ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE IN TERMS OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T RULES 1962. THE LD.AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS IN THE REMAND REPORT, BUT SIMPLY STATED THAT NO EVIDENCES WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THE LD. CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIO NS AND GAVE A FINDING THAT INDIVIDUAL ITEM DID NOT EXCEED RS. 20,000/- AND HEN CE THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING LY, HE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE AS MADE BY THE LD.AO ON THIS ISSUE. AGGRIEVED, THE RE VENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,60,000/- DISALLOWED BY THE AO U/S. 40A(3) AFT ER DUE DILIGENCE. 4. THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT NO ADVERSE COMMENTS WERE GIVE N BY THE LD.AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT AND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CITA. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS, HE FILED THE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF OBLIGAT ORY EXPENSES, WHICH ARE ENCLOSED IN PAGES 300-302 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT MADE ANY PAYMENT IN CASH EXCEEDING RS. 20,000/- IN A SINGLE DAY. HENCE, THER E IS NO VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFI RMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THE GR OUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA N O.325/KOL/2013-A-AM PRANAB CHATTERJEE 3 6. NEXT GROUND TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL OF REV ENUE IS AS TO WHETHER AN ADDITION OF RS.4,23,61,673/- COULD BE MADE TOWARD S UNEXPLAINED INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E. 7. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS AN ARCHITECT BY PROFESSION HAVING TWO PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS, VIZ. M/S. PRA NAB CHATTERJEE & ASSOCIATES ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSULTANTS, ARCHITECTS AND INTERIOR DECORATOR AND ANOTHER CONCERN STYLED AS M/S. MODULE, WHICH IS ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS WITH TAXATION MATTERS AND HAS RELIED UPON HIS LD.CA, WHO HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE QUERIES AS RAISED BY THE LD.AO IN AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE HEARING WAS MOSTLY CONDUCTED IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AO NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED CAPITAL OF RS.3,86,56,500/- IN M/S. MODULE AND RS. 45 LAKHS IN M/S. PRANAB CHATTERJEE & ASSOCIATES. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT H E TRANSFERRED THE ASSETS LIKE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, JEWELLERY AND INVESTMENTS FRO M HIS PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET TO HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERNS AFTER REVALUING THE ASSETS. T HERE WAS NO ELEMENT OF INCOME ARISING OUT OF SUCH REVALUATION AND ARISING OUT OF TRANSFER OF ASSETS FROM HIS PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET TO BUSINESS BALANCE SHEET. THE LD.AO NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REPLIES RESORTED TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS.4,31,56,500/- AS INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE LD .CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED REVISED BALANCE SHEET, WHICH WAS DULY AUDITED ON 2 9-12-2010, WHEREIN IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE SUM OF RS.1,72,61,673/- WAS INTRODUCED AS CAPITAL IN M/S. MODULE AS BELOW:- ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY AFTER REVALUATION RS.18,28 ,164/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT RS. 79,33,504/- AND ON ACCOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING RS.75,00,000/- TOTAL RS.1,72,61,673/ - 7.1 THE EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID TRANS FER FROM PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET TO BUSINESS BALANCE SHEET WAS ALSO PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED ITA N O.325/KOL/2013-A-AM PRANAB CHATTERJEE 4 THAT THE COST OF TWO LANDS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSE E WAS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE PROPRIETARY BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. MODULE FOR RS.78, 00,000/-. THESE LANDS WERE SUBJECTED TO REVALUATION AND VALUE OF LANDS WERE SH OWN AT RS.2,84,00,000/-. THE COPY OF PURCHASE DEED OF SAID TWO LANDS WERE ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE REVALU ATION OF LANDS AND TRANSFER OF CERTAIN ASSETS FROM PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET TO BUSINESS BALA NCE SHEET WAS DONE ONLY IN ORDER TO MAKE BUSINESS BALANCE SHEET HEALTHIER FOR THE PU RPOSE OF OBTAINING BANK LOANS TO BE USED IN THE BUSINESS. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE REVAL UATION OF TWO LANDS BY RS.2,06,00,000/- ( RS.2,84,00,000 RS.78,00,000) H AS NO IMPACT ON THE PROFIT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REGISTERED PURCHASE DEED DATED 27-02-2008 FOR RS.50,00,000/- WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. THUS, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY UNACCOUNTED MONEY BEING PAID IN CASH FOR PURCHA SING THE SAID PROPERTY. 7.2 SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF SECOND PROPERTY PURCHA SED AT RS. 28 LAKHS ON 14-03- 2008 FOR WHICH THE REGISTERED VALUE BY THE REGISTE RING AUTHORITY WAS AT RS. 30,84,000/- . THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY UNACCOUNTE D MONEY BEING PAID IN CASH FOR THE PURCHASE OF SAID PROPERTY. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS ARGU ED BY THE LD.AR THAT NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF REVALUATION OF THE LAN DS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,06,00,000/-. 8. IN RESPECT OF INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS.1,72,61,673/- COMPRISING OF JEWELLERY, INVESTMENTS AND BUILDING TRANSFERRED FROM PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET TO BUSINESS BALANCE SHEET, THE SAME WERE DULY REFLECTE D IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO NEW INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL BY WAY OF ANY UNDISCLOSED OR UNEXPLAINED IN COME AND, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE THEREON. 9. APROPOS THE INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL IN M/S. PRAN AB CHATTERJEE & ASSOCIATES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 45,00,000/-, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE PERSONAL ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE LIKE ITA N O.325/KOL/2013-A-AM PRANAB CHATTERJEE 5 NSC, KVP, SHARES ETC. WERE TRANSFERRED FROM PERSON AL BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE BALANCE SHEET OF PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. PRANAB CHATTERJEE & ASSOCIATES IN ORDER TO MAKE THE BUSINESS BALANCE SHEET HEALTHY. A CCORDINGLY, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO INCOME ELEMENT IN THE SUBJECT MENTIONED TRAN SFER AND NO ADDITION NEEDS TO BE MADE ON THIS COUNT. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS REVISED HIS BALANCE SHEET FOR THE A.Y 2009-10, WHEREIN OPENING AND CLOSING WO RK IN PROGRESS HAS BEEN REDUCED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,06,00,000/-, WHICH WAS THE RE VALUATION OF TWO LANDS. THIS REVISED BALANCE SHEET HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD.AO IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FRAMED FOR THE A.Y 2009-10. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS ARG UED THAT THE LD.AO HIMSELF HAS AGREED THAT THE SAID TWO LANDS WERE ACTUALLY PURCHA SED ONLY FOR RS. 78,00,000/- IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND NOT AT RS.2,84,00,000/-, WHICH WAS VALUED ON THE BASIS OF REVALUATION. BASED ON THIS SUBMISSION, THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY EXPLAINED THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,78,61, 673 ( RS. 2,06,00,000 + R S1,72,61,673) AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,94,827 ( RS.3,86,56,500 RS.3,78 ,61,673). AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND :- 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.4,23,61,673/- OUT OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A O ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL AFTER DUE DI LIGENCE. 10. THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD.AR REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH WAS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE REMAND REPORT AND ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER OBTAINING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE LD.AO AND NO INTERFERENCE NEEDS TO BE MADE. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE DETAILED PAPER BOOK AS FILED B Y THE LD.AR BEFORE US. THE FACTS STATED HEREIN ABOVE REMAIN UNDISPUTED, HENCE THE S AME ARE NOT REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. WE FIND THAT IN RESPECT OF VALUE OF TWO LANDS, WHICH WERE PURCHASED ITA N O.325/KOL/2013-A-AM PRANAB CHATTERJEE 6 FOR RS. 78,00,000/-, THE SAME WERE DULY DISCLOSED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY VALUED T HE SAID LANDS AT RS.80,84,000/- . THUS, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT. TH EREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE REVALUATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY INCREASED THE WORK-IN-PR OGRESS AS WELL AS CAPITAL INTRODUCTION TO GIVE A HEALTHIER POSITION, BUT ACTU ALLY THERE WAS NO CAPITAL INTRODUCTION TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,06,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSE E. WE HOLD THAT THIS ADDITION MADE BY THE LD.AO WAS ONLY ON MERELY SUSPICION AND CONJ ECTURE AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE BONAFIDE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, TH ERE IS NO SCOPE OF TREATING THE SUM OF RS.2,06,00,000/- TOWARDS INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL AS UNEXPLAINED. 12. APROPOS THE TRANSFER OF CERTAIN ASSETS COMPRISI NG OF JEWELLERY (RS.18,28,164): INVESTMENTS (RS.79,33,509) AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (RS.75,00,000/-) FROM PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET TO THE BUSINESS BALANCE SHEET OF M/S . MODULE, WE HOLD THAT THE SAID TRANSFER DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY INCOME ELEMENT. ACCO RDINGLY, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD.AR THAT THE SAME IS DONE ON LY IN ORDER TO PROJECT HEALTHIER BUSINESS BALANCE SHEET FOR OBTAINING BANK LOAN. HEN CE, WE HOLD THAT SUM OF RS.1,72,61,673/- TOWARDS CAPITAL INTRODUCTION IN M/ S. MODULE STANDS EXPLAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR MAKING ANY ADDI TION IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. THE LAST GROUND TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL WI TH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS SITE MAINTENANCE CHARGES OF RS.10,73,795; A DVERTISEMENT CHARGES OF RS.2,08,537; EQUIPMENT HIRE CHARGES OF RS.18,90,64 1; AND BROKERAGE OF RS.11,67,951 BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) OF TH E ACT. 14. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS CLAIMED THE AFORESAID EXPENDITURE AS DEDUCTION AND DETAILS OF THE SAME A RE LISTED IN PAGES 4-5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD.AO FELT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C/194H OF THE ACT. ACCORDI NGLY, HE INVOKED THE PROVISIONS ITA N O.325/KOL/2013-A-AM PRANAB CHATTERJEE 7 OF SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE ACT FOR MAKING THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. ON 1 ST APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) APPLIED THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH O F THE ITAT, VISHAKHAPATNAM IN THE CASE OF M/S. MERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORTS VS . ACIT AND HELD THAT ALL THESE AMOUNTS WERE DULY PAID BEFORE THE END OF THE PREVIO US YEAR AND HENCE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(IA) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE MADE. AGGRIEVE D, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN ALLOW ING THE RELIEF OF RS.43,24,924/- FROM DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO U/ S. 40A(IA) RELYING ON THE RATIO OF JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE IT AT, VISHAKHAPATNAM IN THE CASE OF M/S. MERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORTS VS. ACIT. 15. THE LD.DR STATED BEFORE US THAT THE RELIANCE AS PLACED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH, ITAT VISHAKH APATNAM IN THE CASE OF M/S. MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 136 ITD 23 IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CRESCENT EXPORTS SYNDICATE . IN RESPON SE TO THIS, THE LD.AR PLEADED BEFORE US THAT THIS ISSUE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD.AO TO VERIFY WHETHER THE PAYEE(S) HAVE CONSIDERED THESE RECEIPTS IN THEIR RE SPECTIVE RETURNS IN VIEW OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE ACT BY RE LYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD REPORTED IN 377 ITR 635 (DEL). THE LD. DR HAS FAIRLY CONCEDED F OR SETTING ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO TO VERIFY THE SAME. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE RESTOR ED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO TO VERIFY WHETHER THE PAYEE(S) HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBJECT MENTIONED RECEIPTS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURNS OF INCOME AND IF SO IN TH E LIGHT OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE ACT, WHICH HAS BEEN HELD TO BE RETR OSPECTIVE IN OPERATION BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF M/S. ANSAL LANDMARK ITA N O.325/KOL/2013-A-AM PRANAB CHATTERJEE 8 TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD (SUPRA) AND IF IT IS SO, THE ASSE SSEE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT AND THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(IA) OF THE ACT COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD.AO IN THIS REGARD TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.3 AS RAISED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AS STATED ABOVE. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 16 - 0 3 - 2016 1.. THE APPELLANT/DEPARTMENT: THE ACIT, CIR-30 2 GARIAHAT ROAD (S), KOL-68. 2 THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE- SHRI PRANAB CHATTERJEE P -240 LAKE ROAD, KOL-29. 3 /THE CIT, 4.THE CIT(A ) 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT REGISTRAR **PRADIP SPS SD/- ( MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ) SD/- (M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATE: DATE 16 -03-2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:-