ITO, Ward - 53(1), Kolkata, Kolkata V. Sanjib Bag, South 24 Parganas

ITA 367/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78265 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V N PUROHIT
• Assessee Lawyers: RANU BISWAS
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 144

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , /AND , ! ) [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM] ' / I.T.A NO.367/KOL/2012 #$ %&/ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-53(1), KOLKATA. VS. SANJ IB BAG (PAN: AEGPB6078M) (() /APPELLANT ) (*+()/ RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 01.04.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01.04.2014 FOR THE ASSESSEE: SMT. RANU BISWAS, JCIT, SR. DR FOR THE REVENUE : SHRI V. N. PUROHIT, / ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM : THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF C IT(A)-XXXIII, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 299/CIT(A)-XXXIII/ITO WD.-53(1)/07-08/KOLKATA D ATED 09.12.2011. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO, WARD-53(1), KOL U/S. 143(3) OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 VIDE H IS ORDER DATED 31.12.2007. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,85,783/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION M ADE BY AO AT RS.25,00,731/- AFTER REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED HIS RE TURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT AY 2005-06 ON 24.10.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,85,746/-. A SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 24.09.2004. THE ASSESSEE IS A DEALER OF CEMENT, STEEL RODS, BATHROOM FITTINGS AND OTHER BUI LDING MATERIALS. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE IMPOUNDED AND IDENTIFICATION MARK BAG-20,231 & 61,BCCU- 20,21,22,23&24, BOOKS VIDE IDENTIFICATION NO. 1 TO 19 AND 25 WERE FOUND BUT NOT IMPOUNDED. THE AO FOUND MANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT AND ULTIMATELY COMPUTED THE 2 ITA NO. 367/K/2012 SANJIB BAG, AY 2005-06 UNDISCLOSED SALE OF CEMENT, STEEL RODS AND OTHER MA TERIAL AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.25,00,731/- AND THE RELEVANT FIGURES ARE AS UNDER: 1) CEMENT DISCLOSED SALE RS.54,84,064/- + UNDISCLOSED SALE F IGURE RS.27,87,948/- = RS.82,72,012/- X 5% = DETERMINED GP RS.4,3,600/- - A 2) STEEL RODS = SUPPRESSED SALE TREATED AS UNDISCLO SED INCOME RS.19,42,608/- - B 3 OTHER MATERIALS SUPPRESSED SALE RS.28,90,476/- X 5% = RS.1,44,523/- (A+B+C) RS.25,00,731/-. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO UPHELD THE REJECTION OF BOOK RESULTS BUT SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF APPLICA TION OF GROSS PROFIT RATE ON THE UNDISCLOSED SALES VIDE PARA 5.2 TO 5.7 AS UNDER: 5.2 . I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THIS CONTENTION. AS DISCUSSED EARLIER SERIOUS DEFECTS WERE FOUND IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE Y HAVE BEEN (IMPLIEDLY) REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED REGARDING CORRECTNESS OF ACCOUNTS, HE MAY MAKE ASSESSMENT IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 144. IN TURN, SECTION 144 PROVI DES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL MAKE ASSESSMENT AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE R ELEVANT MATERIAL TO BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT. THUS, NO RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ASSESS INCOME IN SUCH CASE AND THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS FREE TO MAKE ASSESSMENT, BASED ON THE MATERIAL AS PER HIS BEST J UDGMENT WHICH MAY INVOLVE SOME ESTIMATION. IT IS THUS A SETTLED POSITION THAT WHIL E MAKING BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY, WHEREVER NECESSARY, MAKE REA SONABLE ESTIMATE. IF EVIDENCE IS GATHERED FOR PART OF YEAR, IT IS REASONABLE TO PRES UME, IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO CONTRARY, THAT SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS TOOK PLACE THRO UGHOUT THE YEAR. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS. H.M.ESUFALI H.M. ADUA LI 90 ITR 271(SC), THE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT DETECTION OF UNACCOUNTED SALES FOR 19 DAYS CAN FORM BASIS FOR ESTIMATING ESCAPED TURNOVER FOR WHOLE YEAR. IN THE APPELLANTS CASE, EVIDENCE PERTAINS TO THE MONTH OF MAY WHICH IS IN THE INITIAL PART OF YEAR AND THE RE IS NO MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT SUCH TRANSACTIONS STOPPED THEREAFTER. UNDER THESE CIRCUM STANCES, IN MY OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN EXTRAPOLATING FIGURE OF ONE MO NTH TO THE ENTIRE YEAR. WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT VOLUME OF UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTION MAY NOT BE S AME THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, BUT IN ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER BASIS, THE METHOD OF WORKING A DOPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE. 5.3 THE THIRD OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS REGARDING APPLICATION OF GROSS PROFIT RATE 5% ON SALE OF CEMENT AND OTHER MATERIAL. ACCOR DING TO THE APPELLANT, THE RATE IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, TH E APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO PREPARE GROSS PROFIT WORKING FOR PRECEDING YEARS AND SUBSEQ UENT YEAR. IT IS SEEN THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE (AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNTS CREDIT NOTE S) WAS 3.85% IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR (A.Y. 2004-05 ) AND 4.78% IN THE SUB SEQUENT YEAR OF (A.Y. 2006-07). FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION GROSS PROFIT SHOWN IS AT 3.8 %. THUS, THE AVERAGE RATE IS NEARLY 4%. SINCE THE GROSS PROFIT SHOWN BY AN AS SESSEE IS THE BEST INDICATION OF PROFITABILITY OF BUSINESS, IT IS DIRECTED THAT GROS S PROFIT MAY BE APPLIED AT 4% INSTEAD OF 5%. 5.4 THE OTHER OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT IS REGARDI NG TREATMENT OF ENTIRE UNACCOUNTED SALES OF STEEL RODS AS INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. IT HAS BEEN URGED THAT ONLY GROSS PROFIT MAY BE TAXED AS IN THE CASE OF CEMENT AND OT HER MATERIALS. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS, IN HIS ORDER, DISTINGUISHED TRANSACTIONS IN STEEL RODS, FROM THOSE IN CEMENT AN D OTHER MATERIAL. IN CASE OF CEMENT 3 ITA NO. 367/K/2012 SANJIB BAG, AY 2005-06 AND OTHER MATERIAL, AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, IT WAS F OUND THAT OPENING STOCK WAS HIGHER THAN WHAT WAS SHOWN IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE BENEFIT TO THE APPELLANT THAT THE UNACCOUNTED SALES MIGHT BE SOURCED OUT OF SUCH STOCK AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE, H E MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF GROSS PROFIT ON UNACCOUNTED SALES ONLY. HOWEVER, IN CASE OF STEEL RODS NO EVIDENCE REGARDNG ANY EXTRA STOCK WAS FOUND. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT UNACCOUNTED SALES MUST HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF PURCHASES MADE FRO M UNDISCLOSED SOURCE AND THEREFORE, APART FROM GROSS PROFIT, INVESTMENT IN U NDISCLOSED PURCHASES WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE TAXED. HE ACCORDINGLY ADDED THE ENTI RE UNACCOUNTED SALES OF STEEL RODS. WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THIS REASONIN G IN A SHORT MANNER, IN PRINCIPLE, I FIND THE SAME TO BE SOUND. INVESTMENT IN UNACCOUNTE D PURCHASES IN REQUIRED TO BE TAXED APART FROM GROSS PROFIT ON UNACCOUNTED SALE OF STEE L. 5.5 HOWEVER, AN IMPORTANT FACT TO BE KEPT IN MIND N THIS REGARD IS TO THAT ENTIRE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES IS NOT MADE AT ONE GO. NORMAL LY A BUSINESSMAN MAKES A PART OF PURCHASE, SELLS THE SAME AND UTILIZES PART OF THE S ALE RECEIPT IN MAKING SUBSEQUENT PURCHASE AND SO ON. THEREFORE, INVESTMENT IN PURCHA SE IS NEVER EQUAL TO TOTAL PURCHASES MADE IN THE YEAR. ONCE THIS FACTOR IS TAKEN INTO AC COUNT QUESTION ARISES REGARDING QUANTIFICATION OF NVESTMENT IN PURCHASES. I FIND F ROM THE APPELLANTS BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT THAT AGGREGATE OF CLOSING STO CK, ADVANCE TO SUPPLIERS AND SUNDRY DEBTORS, LESS SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR GOODS IS ABOUT 1 5 DAYS OF TURNOVER. THUS, IT CAN BE REASONABLY PRESUMED THAT INVESTMENT IN PURCHASES WO ULD BE ROUGHLY EQUAL TO FIFTEEN DAYS OF UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER. THEREFORE, INVESTMENT FOR UNACCOUNTED SALE (STEEL RODS) OF RS. 19,42,608/- FOR THE YEAR INVESTMENT REQUIRED WO ULD BE AROUND RS. 80.942/-. 5.6 THUS, ADDITION IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES OF CEMENT STEEL AND OTHER MATERIAL IS REWORKED AS UNDER: G.P. ON UNACCOUNTED SALE OF CEMENT RS. 1,11,518/- (@4% ON RS. 27,87,948/-) G.P. ON UNACCOUNTED SALE OF STEEL RODS RS. 77, 704/- (@4% ON RS. 19,42,608/-) INVESTMENT ON UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE OF STEEL RODS RS. 80,942/- G.P. ON UNACCOUNTED SALE OF OTHER MATERIAL RS. 1. 15.619/- (4% ON RS. 28,90,476/-) ___________ RS. 3,85,783/- 5.7 IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS, IN HIS WORKING, APPLED GROSS PROFIT ON SALE OF CEMENT OF RS. 82,72,012/-. BASIS OF THIS FIGURE IS NOT VERY CLEAR, AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO INCLUDED A FIGURE OF RS.54,84,064/- STATED TO BE DISCLOSED SALES (THOUGH CORRECT FIGURE OF DISCLOSED CEMENT SA LES IS OF RS.27,16,820/-). THERE IS NO LOGIC IN ADDING DISCLOSED SALES WHILE COMPUTING PRO FIT FROM UNDISCLOSED SALES. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WANTED TO TAKE TOTAL OF UNDISCLOSED SALES OF BRANDS OTHER THAN AMBUJA CEMENT TO UNDISCLOSED SALE WORKED ON THE BAS IS OF COMPUTER SHEETS, THOUGH THERE APPEARS TO SOME COMPUTATIONAL ERROR IN THAT A S WELL. IN MY OPINION, THIS AGGREGATION IS ALSO NOT REQUIRED AS THE COMPUTER SH EET GIVE CORRECT FIGURE OF TOTAL SALE, WHICH MUST ALREADY INCLUDE UNDISCLOSED SALE OF BRAN DS OTHER THAN AMBUJA CEMENTS. THEREFORE ADDING THE SAME AGAIN WOULD RESULT IN DUP LICATION. THE ADDITION OF RS.25,00,731/- IS ACCORDINGLY REDUCED TO RS.3,83,78 3/-. THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION AT RS.3,83,783/- . AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4 ITA NO. 367/K/2012 SANJIB BAG, AY 2005-06 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DISTURBED THE UNACCOUNTED SALE OF CEMENT, STEEL ROD S AND SALE OF OTHER BUILDING MATERIAL BUT ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE @ 4%. FOR APPLYING G.P. RATE HE NOTED THAT THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YE AR THE GP RATE IS AT 3.85 TO 4.78%. HE BROUGHT OUT THIS IN PARA 5.3 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER (WHICH IS ALREADY REPRODUCED ABOVE). WE FIND THAT THE APPLICATION OF RATE AT 4% IS LITTLE LOWER AND THE APPROPRIATE RATE OF GROSS PROFIT WILL BE 5% FOR THE REASON THAT THERE ARE MORE AVENUES OF HI GHER GROSS PROFIT THAN THE DECLARED GROSS PROFIT IN THE CASE OF UNDISCLOSED SALES. IN SUCH CI RCUMSTANCES, WE DIRECT THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE GROSS PROFIT @ 5% AND MAKE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY . THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS AT RS.3.28 LACS. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.2: 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LD. CIT(A)-XXXIII, KOLKATA, ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMER OF RS.3,28,000/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE SAME IN HIS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOUND THAT AN AMOUNT PARTICULARLY OF RS.3.28 LACS W AS SHOWN TO HAVE RECEIVED AS ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS BUT NO CORRESPONDING ENTRY WAS PASSED IN THE LEDGER. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AGAINST SALE AND ADVANCES EITHER RELATED WITH SUBSEQUENT SALE OR WERE REFUNDED TO THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMPLETE STATEMENT SHOWING ADJUSTMENT AND ADVANCE AGAINST SA LE OR MONEY REFUNDED. THE DETAILS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS FORWARDED BY HIM TO THE AO, W HO VIDE HIS REMAND REPORT VIDE LETTER NO. ITO WD-53(1)/KOL/08-09/AEGPB6078M DATED 28.01.2009 COMMENTED ON THE ISSUE AS UNDER: CASH CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED AS ADVANCE ARE REFLECT ED ON THE CORRESPONDING DATES IN THE CASH BOOK AS PER SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID CASH ADVANCE WAS PARTIALLY REFUNDED BEFORE THE DATE OF SURVEY AND WAS CLAIMED PARTIALLY ADJUSTED AGAINST SALES AFTER THE DATE OF SURVEY. IN COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION CORRESPONDING GENERAL LEDGER VIDE IDENTIFICATION NO. BAAG 21 WAS ALSO IMPOUNDED, BUT THESE TRANSACTIONS EXCEPTIN G TWO VIZ. BABLU BAG & SUBHAS PAL, TILL THE DATE OF SURVEY WAS NOT RECORDED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 7.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE. THE AD DITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELATES TO ADVANCES RECEIVED UPTO SURVEY. AS PER T HE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION ACTUAL 5 ITA NO. 367/K/2012 SANJIB BAG, AY 2005-06 FIGURE OF ADVANCES IN THIS PERIOD WAS OF RS.4,18,00 0/-. OUT OF THIS AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,000/- WAS REFUNDED AND OF RS.41,816/- ADJUSTE D AGAINST SALES IN PRE-SURVEY PERIOD WHEREAS THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS REFUNDED OR ADJUSTED AGAINST SALE AFTER SURVEY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED GENUINENESS OF A DVANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CORRESPONDING ENTRIES WERE NOT FOUND IN THE IMPOUND ED LEDGER. SO FAR AS THIS OBJECTION IS CONCERNED, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE ENTRIES FO R ADVANCE WERE FOUND IN THE IMPOUNDED CASH BOOK THOUGH NOT IN THE LEDGER. IT IS A COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT MANY OF THE BUSINESSMEN DO NOT RECORD THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, ESPECIALLY LEDGER, IN A CONTEMPORANEOUS MANNER. OFTEN ENTRIES ARE MADE IN L EDGER AFTER CONSIDERABLE TIME GAP. THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION, MERELY BECAUSE CERTAIN TR ANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK ARE NOT FOUND IN THE LEDGER DOES NOT NECESSARILY ME AN THAT THEY ARE NOT GENUINE. AT MOST IT COULD BE A BEGINNING POINT FOR FURTHER INVESTIGA TION IN THE MATTER. HOWEVER, WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATION OR FINDING ANY DISCREPANCY, THE A DVANCES SHOWN CANNOT BE SUMMARILY TERMED AS NON-GENUINE. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE A SHORTAGE WAS FOUND IN THE CASH BOOK, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY COVE RED UP BY CLAIM OF HAVING RECEIVED ADVANCES. RATHER THE ENTRIES FOR ADVANCES WERE FOUN D TO BE ALREADY RECORDED IN CASH BOOK AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND WERE IN NAME OF PERS ONS WHO ARE REGULAR CUSTOMERS OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE NATURAL PRESUMPTION, IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY WOULD BE THAT ADVANCES SHOWN ARE CORRECTLY RECORDED. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, THE ADVANCES SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT APP EAR TO BE GENUINE. NO SPECIFIC DISCREPANCY OR DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE A SSESSNG OFFICER AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN REGARDING GENUINENESS OF ADVANCES. THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,28,000/- IS ACCO RDINGLY DELETED. AGGRIEVED, NOW REVENUE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. WE FIND THAT THE TOTAL ADVANCE RECEIVED DURING T HIS PERIOD WAS RS.4.18 LACS. WE FIND THAT THIS ADVANCE EITHER RESULTED IN SUBSEQUENT SAL E OR WAS REFUNDED TO THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AS THE DETAILS FILED BEFORE CIT(A). WHEN THESE DETAIL S WERE CONFRONTED TO THE AO HE HAS COMMENTED ON THE ACTUAL FACTS OF THE ADVANCE. AS T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMPLETE DETAILS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND WE CON FIRM THE SAME. THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AS R EGARDS TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED BANK DEPOSIT OF RS.1585/-. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.3: 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LD. CIT(A)-XXXIII, KOLKATA, ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISC LOSED BANK DEPOSIT OF RS.1585/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THIS ISSUE VID E PARA 9.2 OF ITS APPELLATE ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER: 9.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE. ALTHOUG H SMT. MOLII BAG IS WIFE OF THE APPELLANT, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE CR EDITS IN HER ACCOUNT REPRESENT THE 6 ITA NO. 367/K/2012 SANJIB BAG, AY 2005-06 APPELLANTS INCOME. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THERE ARE CREDITS OF SMALL AMOUNTS AND THEIR SOURCE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREF ORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.1,585/- IS DELETED. THIS TAKES CARE OF ADDITIONAL GROUND FILE D BY THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DT. 31.10.08. 10. IT IS SEEN THAT THIS IS SMALL AMOUNT AND THAT A LSO IN THE NAME OF SMT. MOLI BAAG WHO IS WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. AS THE DEPOSITS ARE NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEES WIFE, WHICH CANNOT BE SUBJECT MATTER OF ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLO WED. 12. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- , ! , (SHAMIM YAHYA ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 ST APRIL, 2014 ./ #01 2 JD.(SR.P.S.) 3 *4 5 4%6- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . () / APPELLANT ITO, WARD-53(1), KOLKATA 2 *+() / RESPONDENT SHRI SANJIB BAG, C/O M/S. BAG AGENCY, NUNGI STATION ROAD, P.O. BATANAGAR, 24 PGS-700140. 3 . # ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. # / CIT KOLKATA 4:; *# / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA +4 */ TRUE COPY, #