Babu Bhai Patel, Kolkata V. JCIT, R-27, KOLKATA, Purba Medinipur

ITA 623/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4340 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S M SAROZUT TOUHEAD JCIT LD
• Assessee Lawyers: MIRAJ D SHAH LD
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 194C

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 623/KOL/2016 BABU BHAI PATEL 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH D, KOLKATA (BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, J.M. &DR.A.L.SAINI, A.M .) ITA NO. 623/KOL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010-1 1 BABU BHAI PATEL PAN: AETPP 6023R C/O D J SHAH & CO. KALYAN BHAVAN, 2 ELGIN ROAD, KOL-20. VS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-27 P.O KHANJANCHAK, DIST PURBA MEDINIPUR PIN 721602 (WB). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI: MIRAJ D.SHAH, LD.AR DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI S.M SARFOR OZUT TOUHEAD, JCIT, LD.DR DATE OF HEARING : 21-09-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:-19-10- 2016 ORDER PER DR. A.L.SAINI, A.M .: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTAIN ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-7, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 457/CIT(A)-7/RAN GE-27/14-15, DATED 27-01- 2016, WHICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF AN ORDER PASSED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT),DAT ED 19-03-2013. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE STATED IN BRIEF. THE A SSESSEE COMPANY FURNISHED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON 30-09--2010 FOR A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,31,930/-. THE RETURN WAS DULY PROCESSED U/S . 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY U/S. 143(3) OF T HE ACT AND NOTICES U/S. 143(2)/142(1) WERE ISSUED ON 28.09.2011 AND 18.01.2 012 RESPECTIVELY. THE ITA NO. 623/KOL/2016 BABU BHAI PATEL 2 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, BY MAKING TWO ADDITIONS WHICH ARE EXPLAINED BELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,6 1,633/- OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENTS ON A SINGLE DAY BUT HAS SHOWN THE PAYMENTS ON DIFFERENT DATES ONLY TO AVOID THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE AO ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.6,69,560/- STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A GROSS PAYMENT OF RS.6,69,560/- TO M/S KAJAL ROADWAYS FOR CARRYING IN THE GOODS PURCHASED BY HIM FROM GUJRAT. AS PER SECTION 194C, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THESE PAYMENTS AS PRESCRIBE D IN THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THESE PAYMENT S, TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS. 6,69,560/- IS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40 (A) (IA) OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEA LS), KOLKATA, WHO HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OB SERVING THE FOLLOWING:- 2.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS STATED T HAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE DRIVERS IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE BILLS W ERE ISSUED REGULARLY BY KAJAL ROADWAYS, A COMMISSION AGENT. THE TERMS AND C ONDITIONS OF TRANSPORT WERE ALSO CLEARLY PRINTED BEHIND THE RECE IPTS. AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THE DELIVERY OF GOODS SHOULD BE TAKE N FROM THE COMPANY'S GODOWN WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OF ARRIVAL FAILING WHICH G ODOWN RENT 00.05 PAISA FOR 1 KG. OR PART THEREOF WILL BE CHARGED. FR OM THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF TRANSPORT RECEIPTS IT IS CLEARLY EVID ENT THAT THE PAYMENT IS COVERED BY SECTION 194C OF THE I.T. ACT FOR DEDUCTI ON OF TAX AT SOURCE. THOUGH THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT STATED THAT THE PA YMENTS WERE MADE TO THE DRIVERS THE TRANSPORT RECEIPTS FURNISHED BEFORE ME CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO KAJAL ROADWAYS THROUGH TH E DRIVERS OR SIGNATORY WHOEVER HAS RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS. THE AP PELLANT IS LEGALLY BOUND TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C BUT FAIL ED TO DEDUCT THE SAME. HOWEVER THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT OUT OF THE TOT AL AMOUNT OF ITA NO. 623/KOL/2016 BABU BHAI PATEL 3 RS.6,69,560J- AN AMOUNT OF RS.16,218/- WAS RELATED TO LABOUR CHARGES AND THE LOADING AND UNLOADING. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION OF RS.16,218/- IS DELETED AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF R S.6,43,342/-- IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 3.0.CONSIDERING ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE CASE, IT BE COMES CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THESE PAYMENTS ON A SINGLE DAY BU T HAS SHOWN THE PAYMENTS ON DIFFERENT DATES ONLY TO AVOID THE PROVI SIONS OF SEC 40A(3) WHICH CLEARLY STATE THAT ANY PAYMENT MADE TO A PERS ON IN A DAY, OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT, EXCEEDS TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE IS WELL A WARE OF THIS PROVISION IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT BARRING THE ABOVE NOT ED PAYMENTS; HE HAS MADE ALL THE OTHER PAYMENTS THROUGH BANK DRAFTS. WH EN CONFRONTED, THE A/R COULD NOT FURNISH ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TOTAL CASH PAYMENTS OF RS. 3,61,633/- ( RS.2,01,633 + RS. 1,60,000) ATTRACT TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) AND HENCE DISALLOWED THIS WAY, THE LD CIT(A) AFTER ALLOWING A SMALL RELI EF, HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 4. NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. FOR THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED WAS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPALS OF NATURAL JU STICE HENCE IS BAD IN LAW AND BE QUASHED. 2. FOR THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDI NG THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,43,342/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF FREIGHT U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT \1961. THE DISALLOWANCE IS NOT CALLED FOR HENCE THE SAME BE REVERSED. 3. FOR THAT THE INTEREST COMPUTED U/S 234A/B/C/D O F THE IT ACT 1961 IS OVER CHARGED AND WRONGLY CALCULATED AND OR IS NOT A PPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE CASE IT BE DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE INTE REST AS PER LAW. ITA NO. 623/KOL/2016 BABU BHAI PATEL 4 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO PRESS NEW, ADDITI ONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR MODIFY, WITHDRAW ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 5. FROM THE ABOVE CITED GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE, IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS T HAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.6,43,342/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF FREIGHT U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 6. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT, R EGARDING THE ADDITION RELATING TO PAYMENTS MADE TO TRANSPORTERS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 6,69,560/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TOTAL COST OF TRANSP ORTATION OF RS.6,69,560/- INCLUDED UNLOADING CHARGES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 16,218/- PAID TO LOCAL LABOURERS. THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR MAKING ANY TDS FROM THE PAYMENTS RELA TING TO LABOUR CHARGES FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING OF GOODS WHICH IS RS.16,218 IN THE INSTANT CASE SO THIS DISALLOWANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED TO RS.6,43 ,342/-. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT THE CONTENTION OF THE AO THAT ALL THE GOODS WERE BROUGHT IN BY M/S KAJOL ROADWAYS , OF CHIKHODRA ,ANAND, GUJRAT' IS NOT CORRECT. KAJAL ROADWAYS WAS THE AGEN T WHO ARRANGED FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS AND DIRECT PAYMENTS WERE MADE NOT TO KAJAL ROADWAYS BUT TO INDIVIDUAL VEHICLE OWNERS/ DRIVERS ONLY WITH CLEAR DIRECTION : - I) PAYMENT OF FREIGHT SHOULD BE MADE TO THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE AND II) IN CASE OF TDS IT SHOULD-BE MADE IN THE NAME OF TRUCK OWNERS. ASSESSEE RECEIVED MATERIALS TRANSPORTED THROUGH DIF FERENT VEHICLES, DETAILS OF WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ( A O ) IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. PHOTOCOPIES ALONG WITH ORIGINAL BILLS WERE ALSO PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. ON STUDY OF THE DETAILS -AO IN HIS AS SESSMENT ORDER VIDE PAGE 2 LAST PARA STATED :- PHOTO COPIES OF ALL TRANSPORT RECEIPTS WERE PRODUCE D FOR VERIFICATION ALONG WITH CORRESPONDING PURCHASE BILLS. SUBSEQUENTLY A T RUCK WISE SUMMARY OF ITA NO. 623/KOL/2016 BABU BHAI PATEL 5 EXPENSE WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY A/R .FROM THESE DOCUM ENTS IT IS SEEN THAT ALL THE GOODS WERE BROUGHT IN BY M/S. KAJOL ROADWAY S ,OF CHIKHODRA ,ANAND, GUJRAT. ALL THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CAS H . ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT INDIVIDUAL PAYMENTS DID NOT E XCEED RS.20000/- IT WAS FOUND THAT IN THE FOLLOWING FOUR CASES THE PAYM ENTS TO THE TRANSPORTER WAS IN EXCESS OF RS 20 000/- CONSIGNMENT NO. VEHICLE NO BILL DATE AMOUNT 542 OR 11 0 5999 25 .04. 2009 RS. 21 965/- 2219 WB 23 B 3231 18.09.2009 RS.21 804/ - 3304 GJ 12 X9600 18. 12.2009 RS 23 337/- TOTAL RS.67 106/- KIND ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT, THE AO HAS VERIFIED AND FOUND THAT ALL BILLS - RS.6 69 560/- EXCEPT RS 67 106/- , WERE BELOW RS 20 000/- WHICH DOES NOT ATTRACT PROVISION U/S 194C. PAYMENT RELATING TO THE ABOVE THREE BILLS WERE ALS O MADE ON TWO DIFFERENT DATES EACH TO DIFFERENT THREE VEHICLE OWNERS. PART PAYMENT MADE ON REACHING TO THE DRIVERS FOR PETTY EXPENSES ON REACH ING THE PREMISES WITH TRUCK AND FINAL PAYMENT AFTER DELIVERY OF THE GOODS . THAT INDIVIDUAL PAYMENTS DID NOT EXCEED RS.20 000/-. WHICH ALSO DOE S NOT ATTRACT PROVISION U/S 194C. REGARDING PAYMENTS OF TRANSPORT ATION CHARGES OF RS. 67,106/- OF ABOVE 3 NOS BILLS. THESE ARE EVIDENT F ROM THE RECORDING THE RECEIPT BY THE DRIVERS, ON THE BACK OF THE BILLS IT SELF, WHICH ARE PRODUCED FOR KIND PERUSAL. PAYMENT MADE AGAINST THREE BILLS AS ABOVE, WERE BEL OW AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS. 50 000/- SO TDS PROVISION DOES NOT APPLY ON THEM ALSO. IN ALL OF THE CASE BILL AMOUNT WAS BELOW THRESHOLD LIMIT AS P RESCRIBED BY LAW THE QUESTION OF APPLICATION OF TDS PROVISION U/S 194C H AVE HAS NO APPLICATION IN THE INSTANT CASE. SO THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF PROVISION FOR MAKING T DS U/S 194C OF THE ACT, WHICH ATTRACTS APPLICATION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA ) OF THE ACT AGAINST THE COMMENTS OF THE AO THAT ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE P ROVISION OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT WHICH ATTRACTS DISALLOWANCE U/S 40( A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 623/KOL/2016 BABU BHAI PATEL 6 6.1 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT OF THE HON`BLE ITAT KOLKATA:- (1). ITA NO. 2453/KOL/2013 & CO NO. 139/K/2013 IN T HE CASE OF M/S. SAHA AGENCY, ORDER DATED 20-05-2016 , WHEREIN THE ITAT-KOLKATA H AS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 3.7 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND CASE LAWS CITED ABOVE. WE F IND IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO AIR TRANSPORT CORPORATION (ASSA M) LTD., THE LD. CIT(A) HAD RECORDED A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO ORAL OR WRITTEN CONTRACT THE ASSESSEE HAD WITH LORR Y OPERATORS AS VEHICLES WERE HIRED WHENEVER THE NEED AROSE. THIS F INDING HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. IN THIS REGARD, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD.AR ON THE DECISION OF JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. STUMM INDIA, SUPRA, WHERE IN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- 'IT IS URGED BEFORE US THAT THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL O UGHT NOT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE CIT (AP PEAL) WHO HAS QUASHED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS.41,33,7 10/- AND ON ACCOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE. THE LEARNED TRI BUNAL HAS RECORDED THE FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S MADE THE PAYMENT TO THE TRANSPORTERS IN PURSUANCE OF CONTRAC T FOR CARRIAGE OF GOODS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE QUESTION OF DEDUCT ION AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194C DOES NOT AND CANNOT ARISE. IN TH E ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TRA NSPORTERS, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SADDLED WITH THE LIABILITY OF DE DUCTING TAX AT SOURCE. BEFORE US NO OTHER POINT HAS BEEN URGED NOR IT IS SAID THAT THE AFORESAID FACT FINDING IS TRUTHFUL WITHOUT ANY BASIS WHATSOEVER.' (2). ITA NOS. 1725 & 1791/KOL/2009, DATED 20.01.20 12, IN THE CASE OF MOHAN GENERAL TRADING CO.,WHEREIN THE ITAT-KOLKATA HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 623/KOL/2016 BABU BHAI PATEL 7 5. ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION BEFORE US AND BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES WAS THAT AS PER AGREEMENT WITH THE SUPPLIERS THEY HAD TO DELIVER GOODS AT ASSESSEE'S P REMISES EX GODOWN AND THEY HAVE TO ENGAGE TRANSPORTERS AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN DELIVER Y OF GOODS, PAID FREIGHT CHARGES DIRECTLY TO THE TRANSPORTERS, WHICH IN TURN RAISED INVOICE ON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIA METERS LTD. VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10 32-33 OF 2003 DATED 07.09,2010. WE HAVE FULL RESPECT FOR PROPOSIT ION OF LAW LAID BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIA METAL S LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT HAD HELD THAT IF THE OWNERSHIP IN THE GO ODS GETS TRANSFERRED AT THE PREMISES OF THE BUYER AND THE SU PPLIER HAS THE OBLIGATION OF TRANSPORTING THE GOODS TO THE PREMISE S OF THE BUYER, THEN NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE FREIGHT CHAR GES WERE RECOVERED SEPARATELY FROM THE BUYER, THE TRANSPORTA TION CHARGES SHALL FORM PART OF TURNOVER OF THE SUPPLIER, I.E. C OST OF PURCHASES FOR THE BUYER. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, THE F ACTS ARE NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE ASSESSEE'S AGREEMENT WITH THE SUPPLIERS WAS INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION CHARGES FOR DELIVERY OF GOODS TO THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE OR NOT? IN THE ABSENCE OF AGREEMENT, WE CA NNOT DECIDE THIS ISSUE AT THIS STAGE. HENCE, FOR VERIFICATION TO EXA MINE THE AGREEMENT OR INVOICES, IF ANY, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THE LD.DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS PRIMARILY REITERAT ED THE STAND AS TAKEN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), AND ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED IN OUR EARLIER PARAS OF THIS ORDER, A ND IS NOT BEING REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 8. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THERE IS MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, AS THE PROPOSITION S CANVASSED BY THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF HON`BLE ITAT, KOLKATA AND FACTS NARRATED ABOVE. AS HE EXPLAINED THAT M/S KAJAL ROAD WAYS WAS THE AGENT WHO ITA NO. 623/KOL/2016 BABU BHAI PATEL 8 ARRANGED FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS AND DIRECT PAY MENTS WERE MADE NOT TO KAJAL ROADWAYS BUT TO INDIVIDUAL VEHICLE OWNERS/ DRIVERS ONLY WITH CLEAR DIRECTION THAT,I) PAYMENT OF FREIGHT SHOULD BE MADE TO THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE AND II) IN CASE OF TDS IT SHOULD-BE MADE IN THE NAME OF TRUCK OWNERS. BESIDES, THE PAYMENT MADE AGAINST THREE BILLS AS CITED ABOVE, WERE BELOW AGG REGATE AMOUNT OF RS. 50, 000/-. SO TDS PROVISION DOES NOT APPLY ON THEM ALSO. IN ALL OF THE CASE BILL AMOUNT WAS BELOW THRESHOLD LIMIT AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW THE QUESTION O F APPLICATION OF TDS PROVISION U/S 194C HAS NO APPLICATION IN THE INSTANT CASE. BASED ON THE ABOVE CITED FACTUAL POSITION, WE DO NOT HESITATE TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY LD CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 -10-2016 SD/- SD/- (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (DR. A.L.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:19/10/2016 *PRADIP (SR.PS) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE 2 THE RESPONDENT/REVENUE 3. THE CIT-I, 4. THE CIT (A)-I, 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES