ITO, Ward - 31(1), Kolkata, Kolkata V. Smt. Rajshree Agarwal, Kolkata

ITA 498/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4616 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATYAJIT MONDAL J
• Assessee Lawyers: S JHAJHARIA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Salary income
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.498/KOL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2007-08 ITO WARD-31(1). 10B, MIDDLETON ROW, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 071 / V/S . SMT. RAJESHREE AGARWAL 45, LENIN SARANI, KOLKATA-700 013 [ PAN NO.ACPTA 6612 K ] /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SATYAJIT MONDAL, JCIT-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI S. JHAJHARIA, FCA /DATE OF HEARING 11-08-2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24-08-2016 /O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIX, KOLKATA DATED 10.12.2010. ASSESS MENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO WARD-31(1), KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 14.12.2009 FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DELAYED OF 11 DAYS AND CONDONATION PETITION HAS BEEN FILED EXPLAIN THE REA SONS FOR DELAY ALONG WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT. ON QUERY, FROM THE BENCH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OPPOSED THE CONDONATION RATHER HE CONCEDED THAT DEL AY CAN BE CONDONED. IN VIEW OF ITA NO.498/KOL/2011 A.Y . 2007-08 ITO WD-31(1) KOL. VS. SMT. RAJSHREE AG ARWAL PAGE 2 THE ABOVE, REASONS GIVEN IN THE CONDONATION PETITIO N AND CONCESSION GIVEN BY LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT TH E APPEAL. SHRI S. JHAJHARIA, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AP PEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND SHRI SATYAJIT MONDAL, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE PER ITS APPEA L ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITIONS OF RS.9,99,900/-, RS.89,600/- AND RS.10,19,000/-, MADE U/S. 68 OF THE IT ACT, HOL DING THAT HAITALI & RAJSHREE WERE ONE AND THE SAME PERSON WHEREAS IN FACT, THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.03.2006 HAS SEPARATE, INDEPEN DENT ENTRIES IN THE NAMES OF CHAITALI & RAJSHREE . 2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.3,50,000/- BEING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT BY FAILING APPRECIATE THAT T HE ADVANCE FOR LAND TO THE SAME EXTENT WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE ASSET SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.13,01,631/- BEING UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN VIEW OF THE CATEGORICAL FINDI NG GIVEN BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT, PAID TO M/S RDB & CO. WAS NOT REFLECTED N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.16,22,427/-, BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED PURPORTEDLY FROM M/S BAKLIWAL FINAN CIAL SERVICES, RELYING ON CONTRACT NOTES, DESPITE THE CATEGORICAL FINDING GIV EN BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS SHOWN IN THE CONTRACT NOTE DID NOT MATCH THE SALES REGISTER AND HENCE EITHER THE SALES REGISTER OR THE CONTRACT NOTES WERE FABRICATED. 4. FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.9,99,900/-, RS.89,600 AND RS.10 .19 LAKH MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 5. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAS SHOWN ITS INCOME FROM SALARY, RENT AND INTEREST FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON DATE D 31-07-2007 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1.07 LAKH ONLY. THEREAFTER THE CASE WA S SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICES WERE ISSUED U/S 143(2) R.W.S 14 2(1) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.498/KOL/2011 A.Y . 2007-08 ITO WD-31(1) KOL. VS. SMT. RAJSHREE AG ARWAL PAGE 3 5.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO OBSERVED THAT CERTAIN CASH DEPOSIT ENTRIES WERE MADE IN THE CASH BOOK AND BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ON QUESTION, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS SUF FICIENT CASH BALANCE ON THE LAST DAY OF THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR AND THESE CASH ENTR IES ARE REFLECTING FROM THE OPENING BALANCE OF CASH ONLY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED T HAT THE CASH BALANCE WAS SHOWN IN THE NAME OF CHAITALI FOR THE SAKE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO HAVING THE RESIDENCE IN MUMBAI AS WELL. THE AC COUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY HAS SHOWN THE CASH-IN-HAND IN MUMBAI & KOLKATA. IN FACT CHAITALI AND THE ASSESSEE-RAJSHREE AGARWAL IS ONE AND THE SAME P ERSON AND ACCORDINGLY NO CASH WAS RECEIVED FROM ANY THIRD PARTY. HENCE, THE ADDIT ION FOR THE ABOVE STATED AMOUNT IS NOT AT ALL WARRANTED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER THE AO DISREGARDED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT IF CHAITALI AND THE ASSESSEE ARE THE SAME PERSON THEN WHY THE NAME OF CHAITALI IS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE HERSELF . ACCORDINGLY THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THIS IS ALL UNACCOUNTED MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE GUISE OF ABO VE STATED FACTS. THEREFORE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED TO T HE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LEARN ED CIT(A) WHEREAS ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT THE NICKNAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS CHAITALI . THE ASSESSEE SHIFTED TO MUMBAI AFTER HER MARRIAGE BUT THE ACCOUN TS WERE MAINTAINED IN KOLKATA. THE ACCOUNTANT FOR THE EASY REFERENCE OF THE CASH A VAILABILITY HAS RECORDED THE SAME IN DIFFERENT NAMES WHICH CREATED THIS CONFUSION. NOW T HE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED RECORDING THE CASH BALANCE UNDER THE SINGLE HEAD AS EVIDENT F ROM THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH 2007. THE ASSESSEE, IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM, HAS ALSO SUBMITTED BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY DATED 20/06/1994 WHEREIN THE CORRECTION IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE FROM CHAITALI TO RAJSHREE . THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE CASH FLOW STATEM ENT REFLECTING ALL THE ENTRIES OF CASH DEPOSITS. ACCORDINGLY, LD CIT(A) DE LETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT BY MAKING SUCH OBSERVATIONS, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE APP ELLANT WAS HAVING OPENING CASH BALANCE AS ON 1.4.2006 AT RS.17,10,500/-. IF, THE SAID CASH WAS APPEARING ITA NO.498/KOL/2011 A.Y . 2007-08 ITO WD-31(1) KOL. VS. SMT. RAJSHREE AG ARWAL PAGE 4 IN DIFFERENT HEADS IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AND NOT UND ER ONE HEAD AS CASH IN HAND, DOES IT MEAN THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT HAVI NG THE OPENING CASH BALANCE AS EXPLAINED BY HER. FURTHER, I FIND NO LOGIC IN TH E SUBMISSION OF THE AO THAT IN THE BALANCE-SHEET FOR AY 2005-06, THERE WAS NO SUCH CASH KEPT IN BOMBAY AND CALCUTTA AND DURING AY 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE HAD NO SOURCE TO KEEP RS.16 LAKH AT BOMBAY AND CALCUTTA. I AM OF THE OPINION TH AT THE BALANCE-SHEET FOR AY 2005-06 HAS NO RELEVANCE WITH THE BALANCE-SHEET FOR AY 2006-07 WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME WHERE IN THE CASH AT BOMBAY AND CASH AT CALCUTTA ARE APPEARING. IT IS NOT KNOWN THA T WHEN BOTH THE CASH BALANCES I.E AT BOMBAY AND CALCUTTA ARE APPEARING I N THE BALANCE-SHEETS OF THE APPELLANT, HOW THE AO CAN CONCLUDE OR HAVE SUSPICIO N THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NO SOURCE TO KEEP SUCH CASH IN HAND. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF CASH IS NOT APPEARING IN THE BA LANCE-SHEET AS ON 31.3.2006 AND THE APPELLANT HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE O F DEPOSIT IN THE BANK FROM THAT AMOUNT. FURTHER, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT IF CHAITALI AND RAJSHREE IS THE SAME PERSON, THEN, THE NAME OF CHAITALI WOULD HAVE NOT APPEARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, HAVE NOT RELEVANCE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY COMMENT ON THE CASH FLOW SUMMARY SUBMITTED BY THE A PPELLANT AND THE CONSOLIDATED CASH BOOK FILED DURING THE COURSE OF A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIFICALLY FORWARDED TO HIM FOR HIS COMMENTS. IN THE REMAND REPORT, HE HAS JUST TRIED TO SUPPORT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY MAKING REFERENCE TO VARIOUS OTHER POINTS WHICH IS, IN MY OPINION, ARE NOT VERY RELEVANT TO DECIDE THE FACT AS TO WHETHER APPELLANT WAS HAVING CASH IN HAND OF RS.17,10,500/- AS ON 1.4.2006. ON VERIFICATION OF B ALANCE-SHEET FOR THE AY 2006-07, I AM INCLINED TO BELIEVE THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT AS ON 1.4.2006, SHE WAS HAVING OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS .17,10,500/- WHICH WERE SHOWN UNDER VARIOUS HEADS IN THE BALANCE-SHEET. FURTHER, ON PERUSAL OF ENTRIES OF CASH FLOW STATEME NT, FIND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT CASH TO MAKE THE DEPOSITS IN THE UCO BANK AND HSBC LTD. THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT W AS NOT HAVING CASH IN HAND WHEREAS SHE HAD MADE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, IS NOT CORRECT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADD ITIONS OF RS.9,99,999/-, RS.89,600/- AND RS.10,19,000/- MADE BY HIM. THE GRO UND NOS. 3, 5 AND 7 ARE ALLOWED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IDENTITY OF CHAI TALI IS TO BE VERIFIED AND THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE RESTORED BEFORE AO FOR FURTH ER VERIFICATION AND HE VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. ITA NO.498/KOL/2011 A.Y . 2007-08 ITO WD-31(1) KOL. VS. SMT. RAJSHREE AG ARWAL PAGE 5 ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK WHICH IS RUNNING PAGES FROM 1 TO 65 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE NAME CHAITALI IS A NICK NAME OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, NO CASH WAS RECEIVED FROM THE THIRD PARTY AND THE C ASH SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS BELONGING TO ASSESSEE ONLY. LD. AR FURTHER SUPP ORTED OF THE SAID CLAIM THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF DAUGHTER OF ASSESSEE WHERE THE CORRE CTION IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE WAS CARRIED OUT SAID BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS PLACED ON PAG E 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK. LD. AR VERY MUCH RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE OPENING BAL ANCE OF CASH-IN-HAND FOR RS.16 LAKHS AS REFLECTED IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS BALANCE-SHEET I .E. 31-03-2006 HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. BEFORE US LD. DR HAS NOT BROUGHT OU T ANYTHING CONTRARY ABOUT THE OPENING BALANCE OF THE CASH-IN-HAND. IN OUR CONSIDE RED VIEW, THE OPENING BALANCE, ALONE HAS BEEN CREDITED IN THE CONSOLIDATED CASH BO OK OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE OF MAKING ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CA SH CREDIT DOES NOT ARISE IN THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. LD. AR HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE AMALGAMATED CASH BOOK AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT WHICH ARE PLACED ON PA GE 8 AND 19 RESPECTIVELY OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE FIND NO DEFECT IN THE AFORESAID DOCU MENTS. HENCE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). WE HOLD AC CORDINGLY AND THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IS AS REGARDS THA T LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR THE RS. 3.50 LAKH O N ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ADVANCES FOR LANDS IN TH E NAME OF SEVERAL PERSONS FOR RS.17.75 LAKH AS ON 31.03.2006 AND THE SAME WAS RED UCED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR TO RS. 14.25 LAKH AS ON 31.03.2007 LEAVING THE DIFFERE NCE OF RS. 3.50 LAKH. ON QUESTION BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS LIA BILITY IN THE NAME OF M/S JAI SAI UDHYOG FOR RS. 3.50 LAKH AS ON 31.03.2006 BUT THE S AME WAS INADVERTENTLY ADJUSTED WITH THE AMOUNT OF AFORESAID ADVANCES FOR LAND. ACC ORDINGLY THERE IS ARISING THE SAID ITA NO.498/KOL/2011 A.Y . 2007-08 ITO WD-31(1) KOL. VS. SMT. RAJSHREE AG ARWAL PAGE 6 DIFFERENCE OF RS. 3.50 LAKH IF COMPARED WITH THE PR EVIOUS YEAR FIGURE. HOWEVER THE AO DISREGARDED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVIN G THAT THE NAME OF M/S JAI SAI UDHYOG IS NOT APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NO FINANCIAL TRANSACTION WITH THE ABOVE STATED PARTY O F THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, AO TREATED THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AND ADDE D TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LEAR NED CIT(A) WHEREAS ASSESSEE STATED THAT ADVANCE OF RS.17.75 LAKH WAS APPEARING IN THE NAME OF VARIOUS PERSONS IN THE ASSETS SIDE AS STOOD ON 31.03.2006, WHERE THE N AME OF MANUVIR AGARWAL APPEARED TWICE IN THE LIABILITY SIDE ONCE FOR RS.26000/- AND OTHER FOR RS.3.50 LAKH BECAUSE THE CHARACTER OF FIRST DEPOSIT WAS DIFFERENT BUT IN SUB SEQUENT YEAR, I.E. 31.03.2007 THE AMOUNT OF RS.26,000/- WAS BROUGHT FORWARD AT RS.3.5 0 LAKH AGAINST THE NAME OF MANUVIR AGARWAL WAS SHIFTED FROM THE LIABILITY SIDE AND ADJUSTED WITH RS.17.75 LAKH BROUGHT TO ADVANCE IN THE ASSETS SIDE DOWN TO RS.14 .25 LAKH. ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT THIS BOOK ENTRY HAS NO ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPAC T IN THE ACCOUNTS ON THE REVENUE BUT AO HAS RIGHTLY REITERATED THAT RS.54.41 LAKH WAS SH OWN AS ADVANCE FROM ASSOCIATES IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AT STOOD ON 31.03.2007. IN THE LI ST OF SUCH ADVANCE FROM ASSOCIATES, THE ADVANCE FROM MANUVIR AGARWAL FOR RS.22.50 LAKH WAS A FRESH DEPOSIT WHICH NEVER APPEARED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS STOOD ON 3.103.200 6. FURTHER ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT SAID SUM OF RS.3.50 LAKH COULD EASILY BE VERIFIED F ROM CASH BOOK AND BANK BOOK AS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE AO WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT O RDER WHERE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT SAID SUM OF RS.3.50 LAKH WAS NEITHER REFUNDED NOR ADDED WITH THE FRESH DEPOSIT OF THE YEAR RECEIVED FROM SHRI MA NUVIR AGARWAL. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TOGETH ER WITH THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY AO, LD. CIT(A) OPINED THAT AS PER THE BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31.03.2006 ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED SUM OF RS.17.75 LAKH TO SEVEN DIFFERENT PERSONS AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF LAND BUT IN BALANCE SHEET AS STOOD ON 3 1.03.2007 THE SAID SUM OF ADVANCE WAS REFLECTED AT RS.14.25 LAKH THUS THE REDUCTION O F RS.3.50 LAKH ON THE ASSET SIDE OF THE BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31.03.2007. ACCORDINGLY LD CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- ITA NO.498/KOL/2011 A.Y . 2007-08 ITO WD-31(1) KOL. VS. SMT. RAJSHREE AG ARWAL PAGE 7 .. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACT ALSO THAT IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 311.3.2007 THE LIABILITY OF RS.3,50,000/- IS NOT AP PEARING IN THE NAME OF MANUVIR AGARWAL. THE LIABILITY OF RS.22,50,000/- AP PEARING IN THE NAME OF MANUVIR AGARWAL AS ON 31.3.2007 WAS THE FRESH LIABI LITY CREATED DURING THE YEAR AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,50,000/- WAS NO INCLUDE D IN THE SAID SUM OF RS.22,50,000/- THUS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO REASONS TO DISBELIEVE THAT THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE OF RS.3,50,000/- APPEARI NG IN THE LIABILITY SIDE OF THE PRECEDING YEARS BALANCE-SHEET WAS ADJUSTED AGA INST THE ADVANCES OF RS.17,75,000/- GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AS ON 31.3.20 07, SIMULTANEOUSLY, THE LIABILITY OF RS.3,50,000/- IN THE NAME OF MANUVIR A GARWAL WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO BE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE-SHEET, AND THERE WILL BE NO IMPACT EITHER ON THE BALANCE-SHEET OR THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. MOREO VER, WHEN THERE IS REDUCTION IN THE ASSET SIDE OF THE BALANCE-SHEET AS OBSERVED BY THE AO, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S. 69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AS DONE BY THE AO. IN VIEW O F ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ADDITION OF RS.3,50,000/- M ADE BY THE AO IS NOT CORRECT AND SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THIS GR OUND NO. 2 IS ALLOWED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. BEFORE US LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE NAME OF M/S JAI SAI UDYOG IS NOT REFLECTING IN THE BALANCE-SHEET OF ASSESSEE AND HE RELIED ON T HE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT JAI SAI UDYOG I S A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ITS PARTNER IS MANUVIR AGARWAL. THE NAME OF THE PARTNER IS VERY MUCH REFLECTING IN THE BALANCE- SHEET AS ON 31.03.2006 AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR I .E. 31.03.2007 THE NAME OF THE PARTNER WAS NOT REFLECTING AS IT GOT ADJUSTED WITH THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCES SHOWN IN THE BALANCE-SHEET. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ADVANCE WAS SHOW N NET OF LOAN TAKEN FROM MANUVIR AGARWAL. LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM HAS SUBMITT ED THE CONFIRMATION WHICH IS PLACED ON PAGES 23 AND 24 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE VER Y MUCH RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT ADVANCE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE- SHEET AS ON 31.03.2007 WAS AFTER ADJUSTING THE LOAN LIABILITY FROM SHRI MANUVIR AGARWAL. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IT WAS A CLERICAL ERR OR HAVING NO IMPACT ON THE PROFITABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH, WE FIND THA T THERE IS NO UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ADJUSTMENT OF LIABILITY WITH THE AMOU NT OF ADVANCES. BEFORE US, LD. DR ITA NO.498/KOL/2011 A.Y . 2007-08 ITO WD-31(1) KOL. VS. SMT. RAJSHREE AG ARWAL PAGE 8 FAILED TO BRING ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THE ADVANCE AR GUMENT OF LD. AR IN THIS REGARD. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMIS SED. 14. THIRD ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IS THAT THE LEARN ED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR THE RS. 13,01,631/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS MADE THE PAYMENTS TO M/S RDB & CO. (HUF) THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON DIFFERENT DATES AS DETAI LED UNDER:- (III)(C) PAYMENTS BY TRANSFER OF RS.2,75,000/- VID E CHEQUE NUMBER 104726 OF UCO BANK ON 12.6.2006, RS.8,01,631/- ON 30.8.2006 V IDE CHEQUE NUMBER 104372, RS.50,000/- ON 26.3.2007 VIDE CHEQUE NUMBER 104736 AND RW.1,75,000/- ON 31.3.2007 VIDE CHEQUE NUMBER 10473 9 WERE MADE TO CA- 10288 BEING THE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY RDB & CO.(HUF ) WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE LOAN CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT BETWEEN THE ASSESS EE AND RDB & CO. (HUF) NOR IT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOUND THAT THE SAID PAYMENT HAS NEITHER BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE NOR MATCHING WITH THE LOAN CONFIRMATION RECEIVED FROM M/S RDB & COMPANY (HUF). ON QUESTION BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT RS. 50,000/- WAS PAID TOWAR DS THE RENT TO M/S RDB & CO. (HUF) AND RS.1.75 LAKH WAS ON SEPARATE ACCOUNT AND BOTH THE PAYMENTS WERE ADJUSTED WITH THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE AO DISREGARDED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. 15. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LEAR NED CIT(A) WHEREAS ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM RDB & COMPANY (HUF) IN THE EARLIER YEAR WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3. 2006 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.11,26,631/-. FROM THIS AMOUNT, A SUM OF RS. 10 L AKHS WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW HOUSING LOAN ACCOUNT AND ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER TAKEN HOUSING LOAN OF RS. 7.50 LACS DURING THE YEAR. ON THIS TOTAL LOAN AMOUNT INTEREST OF RS. 1,21,808/- WAS CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NOT PAID DURING THE YEAR. SO THE TOTAL LOAN IS REFLECTING ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSING LOAN FOR RS. 18,71,808/- AS ON 3 1.03.2007 FOR WHICH THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTY WAS FILED. SIMILARLY, T HE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN MONEYS ITA NO.498/KOL/2011 A.Y . 2007-08 ITO WD-31(1) KOL. VS. SMT. RAJSHREE AG ARWAL PAGE 9 THROUGH BANKING TWO TIMES FOR RS. 9.50 LACS AND SAM E WAS REPAID BY THE PAYMENT OF RS. 2.75 LAKH AND RS.8,01,631/- THROUGH BANKING CHA NNEL RESPECTIVELY. ACCORDINGLY, LD CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSER VING AS UNDER:- (8.4) I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPE LLANT AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE REMA ND REPORT, REJOINDER TO REMAND REPORT AND COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S. R.D.B. & CO. HUF. ON PERUSAL OF BALANCE-SHEET OF THE APPELLANT AS ON 31/ 3/2006, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS LOAN OF RS.11,26,631/- FROM M/S R.D.B & C O. HUF. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, A ON 1/4/2006 THERE WAS OPENIN G CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.11,26,631/-. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.5 LAKH ON 14/2/07 AND A SUM OF RS.4,50,000/- ON 23/3/07 FROM R.D.B. &CO. HUF. THUS, THE TOTAL OF CREDIT SIDE OF THE ACCOUNT COMES TO RS .20,76,631/-. OUT OF THE OPENING CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.11,26,631/-, SUM OF RS .10 LAKH WAS TRANSFERRED AS HOUSING LOAN FROM R.D.B. & CO. HUF. THE APPELLANT H AD ALSO GIVEN SUM OF RS.2,75,000/- ON 10/6/06 AND RS.8,01,631/- ON 29/8/ 06 TO R.D.B.& CO. HUF. IN THIS MANNER, THE TOTAL OF DEBIT SIDE ALSO BECAME RS .20,76,631/- AND THE LOAN ACCOUNT WHICH WAS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31/3/06 WAS SQUARED OFF. THE CONFIRMATION OF THIS ACCOUNT WAS FILED BEF ORE THE AO WHICH, ACCORDING TO HIM, WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT AFTER DETECTION OF ENTRIES OF PAYMENT BY THE APPELLANT TO THE R.D.B.& CO. HUF. AS MENTIONED ABOV E, THE OLD LOAN ACCOUNT WAS SQUARE OFF, BUT DURING THE YEAR, A NEW ACCOUNT BY THE NAME R.D.B &CO. HUF (HOUSING LOAN) WAS OPENED WHEREIN THE SUM OF RS .10 LAKH WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE OLD LOAN ACCOUNT AND THE APPEL LANT HAS FURTHER RECEIVED SUM OF RS.2,50,000/- ON 20 TH APRIL, 06 AND SUM OF RS.5 LAKHI ON 6/1/07. FURTHER , THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN OF RS.1,21,8 08/- WAS ALSO ADDED TO THE LOAN AMOUNT AND AS ON 31/3/07, THE AMOUNT OF HOUSIN G LOAN WAS RS.18,71,808/- WHICH IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31/3/07.. THUS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE TW O ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE TWO LOAN CONFIRMATIONS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ON PERUSAL OF LEDGER ACCOUN TS, IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SUM OF RS.1,75,00/- WAS PAID BY THE APPELL ANT TO R.D.B & CO. HUF ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENT ACCOUNT AND SUM OF RS.50,000/- WAS PAID AS RENT WHICH IS DEDUCTED FROM THE CAPITAL AS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE-S HEET AS ON 31/3/07. THUS, IN TOTALITY OF FACTS AND AFTER PERUSAL OF VARIOUS DOCU MENTS AND BALANCE-SHEET, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO UNDISCLOSED INVESTM ENT OF RS.13,01,631/- AS HELD BY THE AO. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, HE IS DIRECTED TO DELE TE THE ADDITION OF RS.13,01,631/-.THE GROUND NO. 6 IS ALLOWED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.498/KOL/2011 A.Y . 2007-08 ITO WD-31(1) KOL. VS. SMT. RAJSHREE AG ARWAL PAGE 10 16. BEFORE US LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CONFIRMATIO N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CROSS-VERIFIED BY AO, THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR VERIFICATION. IN REJOINDER, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD BR OUGHT FORWARD LOAN WHICH WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31.03.2006 AT RS.11,26,631/- AND WHICH WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE HOUSING LOAN WHICH WAS TAKEN ONL Y DURING FY 2006-007 RELEVANT TO AY 2007-08 REFLECTED AT PAGE 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK A ND WAS AT RS.18,71,808/-. LD.AR FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD A CURRENT ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR WITH THE SAID CONCERN AND THE BALANCE STOOD AS ON 31.03.2007 WHICH REFLEC TED AT PAGE 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK. LASTLY, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID REN T WHICH WAS SHOWN PART OF THE DRAWINGS IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT WHICH REFLECTED AT PAGE 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK ON RECONCILIATION OF THE SAID DOCUMENT AND THE BALANCE -SHEET LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AND HE PRAYED BEFORE BENCH TO UPHOLD THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A). 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION FOR RS.13,01,631/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE TO RDB & CO. (HUF) ON THE GROUND THAT THIS PAYMENT WAS NOT REFLECTING IN THE BALANCE-SHEE T OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS A OPENING LOAN LIABILITY FOR RS.11,2 6,631/- WHICH WAS ADJUSTED BY RS.10 LAKH BY TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO A NEW ACCOUNT WITH THE NAME RDB & CO. (HUF) (HOUSING LOAN). WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THI S AMOUNT AS HOUSING LOAN IN THE CURRENT YEAR AND THEREAFTER CERTAIN AMOUNT WAS ALSO RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL WHICH WAS SHOWN AS HOUSING LOAN. THE OLD LOAN AMOUN T WAS REPAID BY ASSESSEE DURING THE CURRENT YEAR THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. WE FURTHE R FIND ALL THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN AND ACCEPTING THE FRESH LOAN HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THERE WAS CERTAIN OTHER MOVEMENT OF CASH THROUGH BANKING CHAN NEL ON PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE ALSO THIS WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE LOAN STATEM ENT OF THE PARTY AS IT WAS ADJUSTED WITH THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM HAS PLACED THE CONFIRMATION FROM RDB & CO. (HUF) WHICH ARE PLACED ON PAGES 25 TO 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK. BEFORE US LD. DR FAILED TO BRING ANYTHING CON TRARY TO THE CONFIRMATION FILED BY ITA NO.498/KOL/2011 A.Y . 2007-08 ITO WD-31(1) KOL. VS. SMT. RAJSHREE AG ARWAL PAGE 11 LD. AR. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. 18. FOURTH ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IS THAT THE LEAR NED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR THE RS. 16,22,427/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 19. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SUM OF RS.16,22,427/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES OF SEVERAL COMPANIES. THE SAID SUM WAS RECEIVED FROM M /S BAKLIWAL FINANCIAL SERVICES WHO IS THE SHARE BROKER OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER TH E AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS USED THE SERVICES OF THE OTHER BROKERS AS WELL FOR THE SALE OF THE SHARES OF SAME COMPANIES. ACCORDINGLY THE AO OPINED THAT THE AFORESAID SUM OF MONEY RS.16,22,427/- RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE DOES NOT REPRESENT THE SALE OF SHARES BUT IT IS SOME OTHER INCOME FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE AO TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM UN DISCLOSED SOURCE AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 20. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD C IT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND ON P ERUSAL OF COPY OF CONTRACT NOTE AND THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF BAKLIWAL FIN ANCIAL SERVICES IN THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT, I FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT CHEQUE OF RS.16,22,427/- WAS RECEIVED BY HER FROM BAKLIWAL FINANCIAL SERVICES AGAINST THE SALE OF SHARES. IN PARA 12 OF ASSESSMEN T ORDER, THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ENCLO SED A COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF BAKLIWAL FINANCIAL SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF HER CL AIM THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,22,427/- WAS RECEIVED BY HER FORM THE SAID PARTY AGAINST THE SALE OF SHARES. IN THE SAME PARA, THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE LEDGER ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT RS.16,22,339/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPEL LANT ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES OF DABUR, GANESH FORTGIN,GUJARAT AMMBUJA, IN DIAN OVERSEAS, MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA, MRF, ORCHID CHEM, RELIANCE IND USTRIES, SATYAM COMPUTERS AND TATA TEA. THUS, ON THE BASIS OF COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S BAKLIWAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, IT WAS CONCLUDED BY TH E AO THAT THE SUM OF RS.16,22,339/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FORM T HE SAID BROKER AGAINST THE SALE OF ABOVE-MENTIONED SHARES. HOWEVER, ON VERIFIC ATION OF SALES REGISTER, IT WAS CONCLUDED BY THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD SHARES WORTH RS.1,00,112/- ONLY THROUGH BAKLIWAL FINANCIAL SERVI CES AND CONCLUDED THAT THE CHEQUE OF RS.16,22,427/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELL ANT FROM SOME OTHER ITA NO.498/KOL/2011 A.Y . 2007-08 ITO WD-31(1) KOL. VS. SMT. RAJSHREE AG ARWAL PAGE 12 SOURCE. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUS TIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE SUM OF RS.16,22,427/- WAS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT F ROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THOUGH, IN THE SALES REGISTER, THE NAME OF VISHANT LEASING AND VIR ALLOY IS WRITTEN, BUT IT NOT CLEAR WHETHER THESE NAMES RELAT ED TO SHARE BROKER OR NOT. BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT AS PER THE CONTRACT NOTE AND THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF BAKLIWAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD SHARES THROUGH SAID BROKER AND RECEIVED THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.16,22,339/-. U NDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS TO BE HELD THAT THE SUM OF RS.16,22,427/- WAS RECEI VED BY THE APPELLANT AS SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SHARES AND IT WAS NOT APPELLANTS I NCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AS HELD BY THE AO. HE IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.16,22,427/-. THE GROUND NO. 8 IS ALLOWED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 21. BEFORE US LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE PROCEE D WAS RECEIVED FROM THE BROKER FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,112/- THEREFORE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE BROKER FOR RS.16,22,427/- DOES NOT REPRESENT THE SALE OF SHARE S. HENCE, THE CHEQUE RECEIVED FOR RS.16,22,427/- FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BY ASSESSEE. LD. DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTOR ED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR VERIFICATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER, AO HAS MENTIONED THAT COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF BAKLIWAL FINANCIAL SERVICES WAS FURNISHED AND OBSERVED BY HIM THAT SALE OF NUMBER OF SHARES WERE MENTIONED WHICH AGGREGATED TO RS.16.22 LAKHS LD. CIT(A) MENTIONED THAT IN THE SA LE REGISTER NAME OF VISHANT LEASING & VIR ALLOYS ALL SUCH FACTS ITSELF CANNOT B E CRITERIA THE ADDITION AND ON CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTRACT NOTE ISSUED BY BAKLIW AL AND THE OBSERVATION OF AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 22. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON SURMISE AND CONJECTURE. HE HAS NOT EXERCISED HIS POWER BY ISSU ING NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE BROKER FOR ASCERTAINING THE NATURE AND SOURCE O F AFORESAID RECEIPTS. BEFORE US LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID RECEIPTS REPRES ENTS THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SAID SHARES AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM HAS SUBMITTED TH E COPY OF THE CONTRACT NOTES WHICH ARE PLACED ON PAGES FROM 41 TO 45 OF THE PAPER BOOK . IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO ITA NO.498/KOL/2011 A.Y . 2007-08 ITO WD-31(1) KOL. VS. SMT. RAJSHREE AG ARWAL PAGE 13 NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) A CCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 23. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24/08/2016 SD/- SD/- (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *DKP ! - 24/08/2016 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-ITO, WARD-31(1), 10B, MIDDLETON ROW, 4 TH FLOOR, KOL-71 2. /RESPONDENT- SMT. RAJSHREE AGARWAL, 45, LENIN SARAN I, KOLKATA-13 3. '# % / CONCERNED CIT 4. % - / CIT (A) 5. &'( ))'# , '# / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. (*+ / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ / '#,