Gopal Chandra Manna, Medinipur V. PCIT-9, Kolkata

ITA 442/KOL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6597 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 263; 143(3); 143(2); 20

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 442/KOL/2020 A.Y. 20 15-2016 GOPAL CHANDRA MANNA 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA [VIRTUAL COURT HEARING] BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) & SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 442/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-2016 GOPAL CHANDRA MANNA,............................... ........................................APPELLANT KTPP, MECHEDA, TAMLUK, PURBA MEDINIPUR-721 137, WEST BENGAL [PAN:AFHPM8758B] -VS.- PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9,............ ..........................RESPONDENT KOLKATA, OFFICE OF THE ACIT, CIRCLE-27(1), HALDIA, BASUDEBPUR, TALPUKUR, KHANJAN CHAK, HALDIA, EAST MIDNAPORE-721602 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI S.K. TULSIYAN, ADVOCATE & MS. PUJA SOMANI, C.A ., APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI T.P. SINGH, CIT (D.R.) , APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : AUGUST 16, 2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : SEPTEMBER 08, 2021 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-9, KO LKATA DATED 13.03.2020 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 . 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L, WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXECUTION OF CONTRACT JOBS. THE RET URN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY HIM ON 29.09. 2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.41,55,420/-. THE SAID RETURN WAS SELEC TED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY UNDER CASS TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE RELATING T O THE MISMATCH IN THE FIGURES OF SALES TURNOVER, CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND TA X CREDIT. DURING THE ITA NO. 442/KOL/2020 A.Y. 20 15-2016 GOPAL CHANDRA MANNA 2 COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE TURNOVER DECLARED BY HIM IN THE SERVICE TAX RETURNS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N WAS RS.7,17,79,295/- AS AGAINST THE TURNOVER OF RS.6,38 ,06,619/- DECLARED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WAS CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.79,72,676/- IN THE TUR NOVER. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TURNOVER SHOWN B Y THE CONSULTANT IN THE SERVICE TAX RETURNS WAS WRONG AND SINCE HE WAS BEDRIDDEN AT THE RELEVANT TIME DUE TO SERIOUS ILLNESS, THE MISTAKE C OMMITTED BY THE CONSULTANT IN DECLARING WRONG TURNOVER IN THE SERVI CE TAX RETURNS REMAINED UNDETECTED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, TH ERE COULD NOT BE ANY UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER WITHOUT TDS. IT WAS ACCORDINGL Y CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE TURNOVER/RECEIPTS AS DECLARED IN THE INCOME TAX RET URN COULD NOT BE INCREASED WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY TDS. AS AN ALTERN ATIVE, IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONLY THE P ROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER COULD BE ADDED TO HIS TOTAL INCOME. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ACCEPTED THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED TH E PROFIT @ 8% OF THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER CALCULATED AT RS.6,37,814/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECT ION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE AN ORDER DATED 22.12.2017. 3. THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS SUBSEQUENTLY EXAMINED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT AND ON SUCH EXAMINATION, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT IN BRINGING TO TAX ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT BRING ING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS ANY UNACCOUNTED EXP ENSES THAT WERE ACTUALLY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION WIT H THE UNDISCLOSED ITA NO. 442/KOL/2020 A.Y. 20 15-2016 GOPAL CHANDRA MANNA 3 TURNOVER. HE HELD THAT THE ADDITION OF ONLY NET PRO FIT @ 8% OF THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS HAD RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY HIM UNDER SECTION 143( 3) ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 WAS ISSUED BY HIM REQUIRING THE A SSESSEE TO SHOW- CAUSE AS TO WHY THE SAID ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE R EVISED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. IN REPLY, RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY TH E ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT I N THE CASE OF UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER/RECEIPTS, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER/RECEIPTS CANNOT BE TREATED AS THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE AND ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH UNDISCLOSE D TURNOVER/RECEIPTS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ADDING THE PROFIT ELEME NT EMBEDDED IN THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER/RECEIPTS THUS WAS A POSSIBLE V IEW AND IT WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT UNDER SECTION 263 TO SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN VIEW WITH THE POSSIBLE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) ALLOWING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES AGAINST THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER/RECEIPTS WITHOUT M AKING PROPER ENQUIRY AND WITHOUT BRINING ANY IOTA OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE T HE INCURRING OF SUCH EXPENSES BY THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY WAS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY HE SET ASI DE THE SAID ORDER VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH AF TER LOOKING INTO THIS ISSUE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 263, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT PLACED AT PAGE NO. 1 & 2 OF THE PAPER BO OK, WHEREBY THE ITA NO. 442/KOL/2020 A.Y. 20 15-2016 GOPAL CHANDRA MANNA 4 ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O EXPLAIN THE MISMATCH IN THE TURNOVER/CONTRACT RECEIPTS. HE ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO T HE SAID NOTICE PLACED AT PAGE NO. 3 & 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SHOW THAT THE T URNOVER SHOWN BY THE CONSULTANT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SERVICE TAX RETUR N WAS WRONG AND THE SAME WAS DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REFERE NCE TO THE DETAILS OF CONTRACT WORKS DONE AND TOTAL DEPOSITS REFLECTED IN THE BANK DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE CONTENDED THAT THE CAS E THUS WAS MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHO W THAT THE TURNOVER/RECEIPTS DECLARED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN WAS CORRECT AND THERE WAS NO CASE OF UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER/RECEIPTS AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF WRONG FIGURES SHO WN IN THE SERVICE TAX RETURNS. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, H OWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION O N ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED TURNOVE R/RECEIPTS CALCULATED @ 8%. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE C ONTENDED THAT THIS ISSUE RELATING TO THE MISMATCH IN THE TURNOVER/RECE IPTS THUS WAS DULY EXAMINED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S AND ON SUCH EXAMINATION, PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THE UNDISCL OSED TURNOVER/RECEIPTS WAS ADDED BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. HE C ONTENDED THAT THIS VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SUPPORTED BY VAR IOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 AND IT WAS THUS A CLEAR CASE WHERE A POSSIBLE VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE. HE REITERATED BEFORE US THE PROPOSITION CLEARLY LAID DOWN IN THE SAID JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS HOLDING THAT SINCE THE RE CANNOT BE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER/RECEIPTS WITHOUT EXPENSES, ONL Y THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER/RECEIPTS CAN B E BROUGHT TO TAX AND NOT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER/RECEI PTS. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND CONTENDED T HAT WHEN THE POSSIBLE VIEW OF THE MATTER IS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, THE LD. ITA NO. 442/KOL/2020 A.Y. 20 15-2016 GOPAL CHANDRA MANNA 5 PRINCIPAL CIT CANNOT SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN VIEW WITH T HE POSSIBLE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE A CT. 5. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY SUPPOR TED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. HE CONTENDED THAT NO ENQUIRY WHATSOEVER WAS MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO ASCE RTAIN WHETHER ANY UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE/EXPENSES WERE ACTUALLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER/RECEIPTS BEFOR E ALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR THE SAME WHILE CALCULATING PROFIT @ 8% EMBEDDED IN THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER/RECEIPTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO E VIDENCE WHATSOEVER PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT ANY SUCH EXP ENSES WERE ACTUALLY INCURRED BY HIM AND EVEN NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON REC ORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE SAME BEFORE ALLOWING DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER/RECEIPTS. HE CON TENDED THAT THERE WAS THUS A CLEAR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER WHILE PASSING HIS ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE S AME BEING PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE WAS RIGHTLY SET ASID E BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT BY EXERCISING HIS POWERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF T HE ACT. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALS O PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERV ED THAT IN REPLY TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTIO N 143(2) OF THE ACT POINTING OUT THE MISMATCH IN THE TURNOVER/EXPENDITU RE, A REPLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN WRITING VIDE LETTER DATED 20.11. 2017 OFFERING THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION AS REGARDS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TURNOVER/RECEIPTS AS SHOWN IN THE SERVICE TAX RETURNS FILED FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE TURNOVER/RECEIPTS AS DECLARED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN: THAT THE TURNOVER /BILL VALUE AS PER SERVICE TAX RETURNS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30.09.2014 AND 3L.03. 2015 ARE NOT CORRECT. THE FACT IS THAT THE SERVICE TAX W ORK AND SERVICE TAX RETURNS ARE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY ITA NO. 442/KOL/2020 A.Y. 20 15-2016 GOPAL CHANDRA MANNA 6 A CONSULTANT OTHER THAN THE CONSULTANT ENGAGED FOR THE WORK OF ACCOUNTS AND INCOME TAX AND OTHER RELATED WORKS. DUE TO MY OLD AGE AND SUFFERING FROM DIFFERE NT DISEASE SUCH AS HYPER TENSION, URINARY PROBLEM, NER VOUS SYSTEM PROBLEM, THYROID, HIGH PRESSURE, SPINAL CORD INJURY, I COULD NOT CHECK ALL THE RELATED PAPERS OF SERVICE TAX/RETURNS. IN ADDITION FOR LAST FOUR YEARS, DUE T O MY PHYSICAL INABILITY, I USED TO EXECUTE ALL CONTRACT/ LABOUR SUPPLY WORKS DONE AND SUPERVISED BY MY NEPHEW AND ONLY SON. DUE TO SHIVERING HANDS FOR MY NERVES SYST EM PROBLEM, I CANNOT EVEN SIGN MY NAME FOR LAST FEW MONTHS. ALL THE CONTRACT JOBS HAVE BEEN EXECUTED UNDER W.B. GOVT. ORGANISATION NAMED BY WEST BENGAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AT ITS (A) KOLAGHAT THERMAL POWER STATION AT MECHEDA, PURBA MEDINIPUR, (B) SANTALDIH THERMAL POW ER STATION AT SANTALDIH, PURULIA, (C) BAKRESWAR THERMA L POWER STATION AT JAMBUNI, SURI, BIRBHUM. TOTAL CONTRACT J OB DONE DURING 2014-15 YEAR IS RS.6,63,40,155/- AND TOTAL B ANK DEPOSIT FOR THIS YEAR IS AS FOLLOWS:- (I) UBI, BKTPP BR. (C/A NO. 1489050010044) RS.4,91,55,178/- (II) SBI, MECHEDA BR.(C/A NO. 11111857505) RS. 1,40,88,414/- (III) PNB, MECHEDA BR.(C/A NO. 2521009300003210) RS.26,11,872/- (IV) AXIS BANK, BAGNAN BR. C/A NO. 911020066464443) RS.1,92.096/- 6,60,47,560/- I AM ENCLOSING HEREWITH THE CONSOLIDATED SUNDRY DEB TORS A/C FOR THIS YEAR. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TURNOVER SHOWN IN THE SERVICE TAX RETURNS FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 IS NOT CORRECT AND CORRECT TURNOVER/ BILL VALUE IS RS.6,63,40,155/- AS SHOWN/D ISCLOSED IN THE FINAL ACCOUNTS/AUDIT REPORT. NOW I REQUEST YOU TO ACCEPT THE TURNOVER/ BILL VALU E FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 AS RS.6,63,40,155/- AND CONSIDER THE T URNOVER AS PER SERVICE TAX RETURNS AS NOT CORRECT. 7. AS IS CLEARLY MANIFEST FROM THE EXPLANATION OFFE RED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ABOVE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TURNOVER/RECEIPTS WAS EXAM INED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SAID DIFFERENCE WAS DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITA NO. 442/KOL/2020 A.Y. 20 15-2016 GOPAL CHANDRA MANNA 7 REFERENCE TO THE TOTAL CONTRACT WORKS DONE DURING T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS THE TOTAL DEPOSITS REFLECT ED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE CASE THUS WAS MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO UNDISCLOSED TURN OVER/RECEIPTS AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF WR ONG FIGURES SHOWN IN THE SERVICE TAX RETURNS AND THE TURNOVER AS DECLARE D IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN WAS CORRECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR AND THE ENTIRE TURNOVER/RECEIPTS WERE LIABLE TO DEDUCTION OF TAX A T SOURCE, HE ADDED THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER /RECEIPTS CALCULATED @ 8% TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS RIGHTL Y CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING ON THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, CONSISTENT VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY T HE COURTS THAT UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER CANNOT BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT INC URRING CORRESPONDING PURCHASES/EXPENSES AND, THEREFORE, WH AT CAN BE TREATED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE PROFIT ELEMENT EM BEDDED IN THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER/RECEIPTS AND NOT THE ENTIRE AM OUNT OF UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER/RECEIPTS. THIS VIEW CONSISTENTLY TAKEN IN THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE BRINGING TO TAX THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER /RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND IT WA S NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT UNDER SECTION 263 TO SUBSTITU TE HIS OWN VIEW WITH THE POSSIBLE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. A S HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- HONDA SIE L POWER PRODUCTS LIMITED [2010] 194 TAXMAN 175, IN CASES, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTS ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW, OR WH ERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS, THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT EXERCISE HIS POWERS UNDER S ECTION 263 TO DIFFER WITH THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. KEEPING IN VIEW THIS PROPOSITION AND HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR ITA NO. 442/KOL/2020 A.Y. 20 15-2016 GOPAL CHANDRA MANNA 8 IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) AS ALLEGED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY HIM UNDER SECTION 263 REVISING THE SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE ACCORD INGLY CANCEL THE SAME AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SEPTEMBER 08, 2021. SD/- SD/- (A.T. VARKEY (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT KOLKATA, THE 8 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 COPIES TO : (1) GOPAL CHANDRA MANNA, KTPP, MECHEDA, TAMLUK, PURBA MEDINIPUR-721 137, WEST BENGAL (2) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA, OFFICE OF THE ACIT, CIRCLE-27(1), HALDIA, BASUDEBPUR, TALPUKUR, KHANJAN CHAK, HALDIA, EAST MIDNAPORE-721602 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, KOLKA TA, (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SE CRETARY/DDO, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.