Central Arya Road Transport, Kolkata V. ACIT, CIR-56, KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 546/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8555 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences; Set aside
• Section: 40A(3)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 546/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 CENTRAL ARYA ROAD TRANSPORT 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 546/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 CENTRAL ARYA ROAD TRANSPORT,....................... ................................ APPELLANT TIVOLI COURT, BLOCK-B, FLAT-93, 1C, BALLYGUNGE CIRCULAR ROAD, KOLKATA-700 019 [PAN: AACFC 2568 F] -VS.- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,............ ......................RESPONDENT CIRCLE-56, KOLKATA, 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE (WEST), 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO. 26, KOLKATA-700 001 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI SAURABH KUMAR, ADDITIONAL CIT (D.R.), FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JANUARY 23, 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : APRIL 10, 2019 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KOLKATA ZONE) :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-12, KOLKATA DA TED 27.01.2016. 2. GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.23,49 ,968/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE WITH TATA GROUP OF COMPANIES. I.T.A. NO. 546/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 CENTRAL ARYA ROAD TRANSPORT 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A PARTNERSHI P FIRM, WHICH IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS AS A TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE ON 30.09.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.37,89,531/-. AS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.23,49,968/- PAID BY TATA GROUP OF COMPANIES AS R EFLECTED IN FORM NO. 26A WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WHEN THIS POSITION WAS CONFRONTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE, THE LATER DENIED OF HAVING RECEIVED ANY SUCH AMOUNT FROM THE TATA GROUP OF COMPANIES. NOT SATISFIED WITH THIS EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESESE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.23,49,96 8/- AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION TO THAT EX TENT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT A SIMILAR INCIDENT WAS HAPPENED IN T HE EARLIER YEAR AND THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESESE THAT IT HAD NOT DONE ANY BUSINESS WITH THE TATA GROUP OF COMPANIES WAS ACCEPTED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND THIS ADDITION IS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT MAKING ANY FURTHER INQUIRY. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THIS ISSUE M AY, THEREFORE, BE SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER MAKING THE NECESSARY ENQUIRY AND AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE. WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEPT TH IS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE LD. D.R. HAS ALSO NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION FOR SENDING THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH ON MERIT IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW AFTER GIVING THE I.T.A. NO. 546/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 CENTRAL ARYA ROAD TRANSPORT 3 ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MA KING THE NECESSARY ENQUIRY/ VERIFICATION. GROUND NO. 1 IS ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANC E OF RS.3,25,594/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF EDUCATION EXPENSES INCURRED IN RESPECT O F MS. SHREYA ARYA. 6. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE EDUCATION OF MS. SHREYA ARYA, A DAUGHTER OF THE PAR TNER OF THE ASSESESE- FIRM WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE. IN S UPPORT OF THIS CLAIM, IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESESE THAT THE SA ID EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR THE EDUCATION OF DAUGHTER OF THE PARTN ER IN ORDER TO LEARN THE BUSINESS ETHICS AND MANNER TO IMPROVE IN THE OPERAT IONAL AREA OF THE LOGISTICS DIMENSION. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD JOINED THE BUSINESS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF EDUCATION AS KEY P ERSON IN AVIATION SECTOR. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FO UND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M. SUBRAMANIAM BROS. & SONS V S.- CIT (250 ITR 769), HE HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION INCU RRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EDUCATION OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE PARTNER WAS PE RSONAL IN NATURE AND IT WAS NOT RELATED TO THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. HE ACCO RDINGLY DISALLOWED THE SAID EXPENDITURE, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CI T(APPEALS). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD. ALTHOUGH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CITED CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ON THIS ISSUE, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE OF THE NATURE IN Q UESTION DEPENDS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ALTHOUGH THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DAUGHTER OF THE PAR TNER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM, IT IS OBSERVED THAT SHE WAS A PPOINTED AS EMPLOYEE I.T.A. NO. 546/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 CENTRAL ARYA ROAD TRANSPORT 4 ONLY FROM 01.04.2010 I.E. JUST BEFORE SENDING HER F OR EDUCATION IN AUGUST, 2010. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THERE WERE MORE THAN 10 0 EMPLOYEES WORKING WITH THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AND THE DAUGHTER OF THE PART NER ALONE WAS SENT FOR EDUCATION BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH SCHEME FRAMED OR IMPLEMENTED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM F OR GIVING EDUCATION TO THE OTHER EMPLOYEES. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT EVEN THOUGH ED UCATION EXPENSES WERE PARTLY BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHE HAD ALSO JOINED THE BUSINESS OF TH E ASSESSEE-FIRM AFTER THE COMPLETION OF EDUCATION, THE EXPENDITURE IN QUE STION REMAINS TO BE PERSONAL IN NATURE OF WHICH BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY CAN NOT BE SAID TO BE ESTABLISHED. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN GROUN D NO. 2 AND DISMISS THE SAME. 8. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2 ,89,220/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE A CT AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 9. ON EXAMINATION OF THE DETAILS OF RAKE EXPENSES A ND DEMURRAGE CHARGES, IT WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A SUM OF RS.2,89,220/- WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH ON 31.03.2011. HE, THEREFORE, INVOKED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(3) AND MADE A DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.2,89,220/-. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES O N THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE D ETAILS OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,89,220/- PAID IN CASH AS ON 31.03.2011 AS PLAC ED ON PAGE NO. 35 TO 38 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO POINT OUT THAT THE SAID AMO UNT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS AND NONE OF THE P AYMENTS SO MADE IN INDIVIDUAL CASE EXCEEDED RS.20,000/-. HE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT SINCE THE CONSOLIDATED AMOUNT WAS DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASH BOOK, THE I.T.A. NO. 546/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 CENTRAL ARYA ROAD TRANSPORT 5 ASSESSING OFFICER UNDERSTOOD IT AS A ONE PAYMENT MA DE IN CASH AND WRONGLY INVOKED SECTION 40A(3). THE LD. D.R., ON TH E OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THIS STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE REQ UIRES VERIFICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND MERIT IN THIS CONTEN TION OF THE LD. D.R. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSU E IS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION PAID IN CASH REPRESENTED DIFFERE NT PAYMENTS MADE TO THE LABOUR WHICH DID NOT EXCEED RS.20,000/- IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. GROUND NO. 3 IS ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.15,38,100/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF DEMURRAGE CHARGES. THE EXPLANATION OFFER ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS THAT THE SAID CHARGES WERE RELATED TO VARIOUS WORKS DONE FOR SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAYS AND MADRAS CEMENTS IN RA ILWAY SLIDING. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, COULD PRODUCE ONLY ONE MONEY REC EIPT OF RS.1,82,900/- BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUPPO RT OF ITS CASE ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ALLOWED TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEMURRAGE CHARGES ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,82 ,900/- AND MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.15,38,100/ -. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES O N THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANC E OF RS.15,38,100/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEMURRAGE CHARGES WAS MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR WANT OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND ALTHOUGH THIS ISSUE WAS SPECIFICALLY RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS), HE DID NOT DECIDE THE SAME ON MERIT. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND URGED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PR ODUCE THE SAME FOR I.T.A. NO. 546/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 CENTRAL ARYA ROAD TRANSPORT 6 VERIFICATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE TH E LD. D.R. HAS ALSO NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION FOR SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING ONE MORE OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BY P RODUCING THE RELEVANT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. GROUND NO. 4 IS ACCORDINGLY TR EATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. GROUND NO. 5 RELATES TO THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.2,87,314/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES. 14. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS REQU IRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING ITS CLAIM FOR BUSINESS PROMOT ION EXPENSES OF RS.2,87,314/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, DI SALLOWED THE SAID EXPENSES, WHICH THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES O N THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FROM THE YEAR-WISE DETAILS GIVEN ON PAGE NO. 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE BUSINESS PROMOTION EX PENSES WERE REGULARLY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN IN THE EARLIER YEARS A ND THE QUANTUM OF SUCH EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WA S QUITE COMPARABLE WITH THAT OF THE EARLIER YEARS. KEEPING IN VIEW THI S POSITION, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF BUSI NESS PROMOTION EXPENSES CANNOT BE DISALLOWED AND AN ESTIMATED DISA LLOWANCE CAN BE MADE OUT OF SUCH EXPENSES FOR THE UNVERIFIABLE ELEM ENT INVOLVED THEREIN. IN OUR OPINION, IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO DISALLOW 25% OUT OF THE BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIA BLE ELEMENT. WE I.T.A. NO. 546/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 CENTRAL ARYA ROAD TRANSPORT 7 ACCORDINGLY RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF BUSINE SS PROMOTION EXPENSES TO 25% AND ALLOW PARTLY GROUND NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSE ES APPEAL. 16. GROUND NO. 6 RELATES TO THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.5,25,359/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES O N THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE RELEVANT FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE ARE SIMIL AR TO THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPEN SES AS INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL INASMUCH AS E NTIRE TRAVELLING EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WANT OF THE SUPPORTING DETAILS AND DOCU MENTS. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, TRAVELLING EXP ENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS WERE DULY ALLOWED AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE SAME, THE ENTIRE TRAVELLING EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CANNOT BE DISALLOWED FOR WANT O F THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS. IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO DISAL LOW 25% OF SUCH EXPENSES FOR THE UNVERIFIABLE ELEMENT. WE ACCORDING LY RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES TO 2 5% AND ALLOW PARTLY GROUND NO. 6 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 18. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE IN GROUNDS NO. 7 & 8 RELAT ING TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONF IRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUT OF LORRY MAINTENANCE EXPENSES AND CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE RELEV ANT DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM FOR THE SAID EXPENSES WERE NOT FULLY F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID EXPENSES WERE MAINLY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH SELF-MADE VO UCHERS. HE, THEREFORE, MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF 1% OUT OF LORRY M AINTENANCE EXPENSES I.T.A. NO. 546/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 CENTRAL ARYA ROAD TRANSPORT 8 AND CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES, WHICH THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED. 19. HAVING CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE F IND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF 1% OF THE LORRY MAINTENANCE EXPENSE S AND CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES IS QUITE FAIR AND REASONABLE AND THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS FULLY JUSTIFIED TO CONFIRM THE SAME . GROUNDS NO. 7 & 8 ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 20. AS REGARD THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 9 RE LATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,75,229/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF IN TEREST EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA), THE LIMITED CONTENTION RAI SED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ALL THE FIVE PARTIES TO W HOM THE SAID INTEREST WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE DECLARED THE AMOUNT OF IN TEREST IN THEIR RETURNS AND HAVE ALSO PAID TAX THEREON. RELYING ON THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTHAN COKA COLA L IMITED, HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTE D TO VERIFY THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE RELIEF ON SUC H VERIFICATION. WE ACCORDINGLY RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WI TH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTHAN COK A COLA LIMITED. 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TR EATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON APRIL 10, 201 9. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE -PRESIDENT (KZ) KOLKATA, THE 10 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 COPIES TO : (1) CENTRAL ARYA ROAD TRANSPORT, I.T.A. NO. 546/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 CENTRAL ARYA ROAD TRANSPORT 9 TIVOLI COURT, BLOCK-B, FLAT-93, 1C, BALLYGUNGE CIRCULAR ROAD, KOLKATA-700 019 (2) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-56, KOLKATA, 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE (WEST), 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO. 26, KOLKATA-700 001 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-12, KOLKA TA, (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.