SAMANNAWAYA, Burdwan V. CIT,Burdwan, Burdwan

ITA 632/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3085 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MAHAPATRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SARNATH GHOSH
• Keywords: Revision of order; Principle of natural justice; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 194C; 263; 63

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH A , KOLKATA [ () . .. . . .. . , ,, , , !' #! $'# #! $'# #! $'# #! $'#, ,, , ] ]] ] [BEFORE HONBLE SRI K.K.GUPTA, AM & HONBLE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] '& '& '& '& /ITA NO.632/KOL/2012 $'( !)*/ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08 (,- / APPELLANT ) - !' - ( /0,- /RESPONDENT) SAMANAWAYA . C.I.T., BURDWAN BURDWAN -VERSUS- (PAN:ABAFS 5412 P) ,- 1 2 / FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH AND SARNATH GHOSH /0,- 1 2 / FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI A.K.MAHAPATRA, CIT. DR '!3 1 4 /DATE OF HEARING : 17.04.2013 5) 1 4 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 6 / ORDER PER SHRI K.K.GUPTA, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON THE LD. C.I.T. AS SUMING JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT WHEN THE LD. C.I.T. ON THE BASIS OF THE SHO W CAUSE ISSUED FOR ASSUMING THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT DIRECTED TO THE AO FOR CONSEQUENT VERIFICATION ON THE POINT OF INVOKING THE PROVISION OF CHAPTER XVII B T O EFFECT DISALLOWANCE U/S 40 (A)(IA) OF THE I.T.ACT. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WA S PASSED U/S 143(3) ON THE RETURNED LOSS OF RS.51.97 LAKHS BY THE ASSESSEE. TH E LD. AO VERIFIED THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE ON THE BASIS OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)( IA) OF THE ACT AND ALSO ON THE BASIS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHEN THE NATURE OF PERSONAL EXPENSES COULD NOT BE RULED OUT. HE RESTRICTED THE LOSS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT TO RS. 41.04 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE AS FILED A SEPARATE APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y FOR DISALLOWANCES WHEN A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE LD. C.I.T. NOTING TH E FOLLOWING : ITA NO. 632/KOL/2012 2 ON VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD IT IS NOT ICED THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM PAID RS.1,48,618/-, RS.1,20,000/- AND RS.1,00,000/- TO M /S. UMA ENGINEERING, SHRI PRASANTA KUMAR NAYAK AND TO SK.SIRAJUDDIN, RESPECTIVELY DURI NG THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN QUESTION AS HIRE CHARGES, I.E. RS.3,68,618/- IN TOTAL. HOWEVER, THE AO ADDED ONLY 36,862/- ON ESTIMATE BEING 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES FOR NON-PR ODUCTION OF ALL BILLS AND VOUCHERS, WHERE AS, THE ABOVE PAYMENTS ATTRACT PROVISION OF S ECTION 194C. BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TDS WAS MADE AGAINS T THE ABOVE PAYMENTS. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE-FIRM DEBITED RS.5,82,350/- UNDER HEAD CARR IAGE. ON THIS ISSUE THE AO ADDED ONLY RS.29,117/- ON ESTIMATE BEING 5% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES FOR NON-PRODUCTION OF ALL BILLS AND VOUCHERS, WHEREAS THE PAYMENTS UNDER THE HEAD CARRIAGE ALSO ATTRACT PROVISION OF SEC.194C OF THE ACT. ON VERIFICATION OF ASSESSME NT RECORD IT HAS ALSO COME TO MY NOTICE THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR THE ASSESSEE- FIRM MADE PAYMENTS UNDER THE HEAD CARRIAGE TO THE TUNE OF RS.98,254/- AGAINST VEHICLE NO.WB 23A 5877 AND RS.57,286/- AGAINST VEHICLE NO.WB 37A 7865. THESE PAYMENTS ALSO ATTRACT PROVISION OF SECTION 194C, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN RECORD TO ESTABLI SH THAT TDS WAS MADE AGAINST THE ABOVE PAYMENTS. HENCE, RS.3,68,618/- AGAINST HIRE C HARGES AND RS.1,55,540/- AGAINST CARRIAGE ARE NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE PROVISION OF S ECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IN A WORD, BY ALLOWING THE PAYMENTS UNDER THE HEAD OF HIRE CHA RGES AND CARRIAGE AS AFORESAID WITHOUT SEEKING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OR SUBMISSIONS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT EXAMINING TDS LIABILITY UNDER PROVISION OF SEC.194C OF THE ACT, THE AO HAS RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BOTH ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 3. HOWEVER, ON HAVING FOUND NO SPECIFIC DEFECTS OR MATTERS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE THE LD. CIT IN HIS ORDER HAS TRIED TO RECONSIDER THE OPTION TO THE AO, IN SO FAR AS, AFTE R HAVING ESTABLISHED THAT THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE CLEARLY INDICATE INVOKING THE P ROVISION OF CHAPTER XVII B WHETHER COULD PROCEED WITH THE CONSEQUENT DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WAS DELIBERATED UPON BY THE LD. CIT IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER WHEN THE LD. CIT HAS TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE ASSUMING OF THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY HIM BY HOLDING A VIEW THAT THE AO NEVER EVER CONSIDERED TO HAVE COMBINED THE COMMITTING OF ERROR AS WELL AS LOSS TO THE REVENUE. THE LD. CIT QUOTED SEVERAL DIRECTIONS WITHOUT DISTINGUISHING THE FACTS, IN SO FAR AS, THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE INDI CATED THAT HE WAS TO REVISIT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES WHETHER COULD BE CONSIDERE D AS A COMBINED DELIBERATION OF INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT F OR CONSEQUENT DISALLOWANCE US 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INITIATING THE ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED AS UNDER :- IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER H AD ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 22-02-2012 ALLEGING THAT TO TAL PAYMENT TOWARDS HIRE CHARGES IN THE SUM OF RS.3,68,618/- ATTRACTS PROVISIONS OF S.194C OF THE ACT BUT THERE IS NO RECORD ABOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AGAINST THO SE PAYMENTS AND FURTHER, PAYMENTS IN THE TOTAL SUM OF RS.5,82,350/- UNDER THE HEAD CARR IAGE INWARD ALSO ATTRACT PROVISIONS ITA NO. 632/KOL/2012 3 OF S.194C OF THE ACT AND NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOU RCE AGAINST SUCH PAYMENTS; THEREFORE, THESE PAYMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 40( A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE LD. COMMISSIONER, THEREFORE, REQUIRED THE APPEL LANT TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO RE VISION ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEDUCTION ALLOWED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HESE RESPECTS HAS RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY HIM U/S 143(3) OF THE AC T AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE APPELL ANT IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE MADE SUBMISSION, INTER ALIA, EXPLAINING THE REASONS AS TO WHY REVISION CONCEIVED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE IN THE I NSTANT CASE. IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER THAT THE APPELLANT REQUIRED CE RTAIN MACHINERIES IN PURSUANCE OF ITS ACTIVITIES AS A CONTRACTOR WHICH WERE SIMPLY HIRED FROM THE THREE PARTIES, NAMELY M/S. UMA ENGINEERING, SRI PRASANTA KUMAR NAYAK AND SK.SE RAJUDDIN. THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THESE HEADS TO THEM IN THE S UM OF RS.1,48,618/- RS.1,20,000/- AND RS.1,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY AGGREGATING TO AN AM OUNT OF RS.3,68,618/- CONSTITUTED THE COST OF HIRE OF SUCH MACHINES AND WERE NOT ON ACCOU NT OF ANY CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION WITH THE OWNERS. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT TRAN SPORT CARRIAGE CHARGES OF RS. 98,254/- AND RS.57,286/- AGAINST VEHICLE NOS.WB-23A5887 AND WB-37A7865 RESPECTIVELY, AGGREGATING TO A SUM OF RS.1,55,540/- WAS PAID ON A CCOUNT OF COST OF TRANSPORT FOR BRINGING RAW MATERIALS TO THE PLACE OF ITS ACTIVITI ES. THEREFORE, THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF S.40(A)(IA) READ W ITH S.194C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARE TOTALLY MISSING IN THE INSTANT CASE. HOWEVER, T HE LD. COMMISSIONER EXERCISED HIS POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND REMITTED THE MATTER T O THE FILE OF THE LD.ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION AND RE-VERIFICATION OF ALL THE FACTS AND TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT FRESH. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE I MPUGNED PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS CONCEIVED FOR DISALLOWING THE PAYMENTS UNDER TH E HEAD HIRE CHARGES AND CARRIAGE FOR NOT EXAMINING THE SCOPE OF THE PROVI SION OF S.194C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. WHEREAS, THE IMPUGNED CONCLUSIONS REACHE D BY THE LD.COMMISSIONER IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT CLEARLY PORTRAYS TH E FINDINGS WHICH ARE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT THAT THE REASONS FOR WHICH REVISION PROCE EDINGS WERE ORIGINALLY INITIATED. THE LD. COMMISSIONER IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 2 63 OF THE ACT HAS ABANDONED HIS ORIGINAL STAND CONCEIVED DURING THE INITIATION OF T HE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS AND AS SUCH, THE FINDINGS REACHED BY HIM SHOW A PATENTLY ILLEGAL APPROACH IN AS MUCH AS NO PART OF THE ORDER ASSAILED WAS PROVED TO BE ERRONEOUS AND P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. WHERE A PLAIN READING OF THE IMPUGNED REVISION ORDE R CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN IN THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS, ARE MATERIALLY D IFFERENT THAN THE REASONS FOR WHICH REVISION PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED, THE SAME IS IN DEED NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW FOR THE VERY ELEMENTARY REASON THAT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH OR DER WAS SUBJECTED TO REVISION ARE DIFFERENT, VIS--VIS THE GROUNDS ON WHICH REVISION PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTUALLY INITIATED [VESUVIUS INDIA LIMITED VS- C.I.T. (2012) 25 TAXMA NN.COM 425 (KOL). IT IS SETTLED THAT EXERCISE OF REVISION POWERS, ON THE GROUNDS OTHER THAN THE GROUNDS OF REVISION AS SET OUT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW [TATA CHEMICALS LTD. VS- D.C.I.T.(I.T.A.NO.3127/MUM/10 D ATED 30-06-2011)]. IN OTHER WORDS, IN THE IMPUGNED REVISION ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS NOT DECIDED ON THE ISSUES RAISED I N THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, WHICH WAS AN ELEMENTARY REQUIREMENT IN THIS RESPECT. THE PROP ER COURSE OF ACTION FOR THE LD. COMMISSIONER WOULD HAVE BEEN TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE S RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE REJOINDER FILED TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. THE SUBMI SSION OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER NOR HE HAS FAULT ED SUCH EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD.COMMISSIONER DID NOT ARRIVE AT AN Y CONCLUSION OF ERROR ANDPREJUDICE TO REVENUE IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER PAS SED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, ITA NO. 632/KOL/2012 4 1861 ON THE ISSUES RAISED IN HIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE RATHER HE HAS CHOSEN TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FURTHER RE- EXAMINATION AND RE-VERIFICATION OF SUCH ISSUES. THEREFORE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS TAKEN T WO DIVERGENT STANDS, ONE RAISED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND OTHER IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, FROM WHICH IT IS CLEARLY MANIFEST THAT THERE WAS A SHIFT IN THE STAN D OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER AS TO WHETHER IT WAS A CASE FOR REVISION ON THE GROUND OF ALLEGED NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 194C OF THE ACT AND THE PAYMENTS ON CONTRACTUAL OBL IGATION WERE REQUIRED TO BE ADDED TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT U/S 40(A)(IA ) OF THE ACT BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R DID NOT MAKE NECESSARY VERIFICATION RELATING TO THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION. THEREFORE, SU CH AN EXERCISE OF REVISION POWERS ON THE GROUND WHICH WAS EXTRANEOUS TO THE GROUNDS RAIS ED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW AND HENCE, THE CONDITIONS PRECE DENT FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S.263 OF THE ACT NOT HAVING BEEN SATISFIED, THE ACT ION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF ASSUMING JURISDICTION THEREUNDER IS IN CONTRAVENTIO N OF THE SETTLED POSITION IN THIS REGARD. 5. FOR THIS PROPOSITION HE HAS FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT B BENCH REPORTED IN 25 TAXMANN.COM 425 (KOL) IN THE CASE OF VESUVIUS INDIA LIMITED VS CIT WHICH IS DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE THAT A REASONING WH ETHER COULD BE THRUST UPON THE AO WAS TO BE MATERIAL FOR ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 26 3 OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING THE ORDER ERRONEOUS AND SHOULD BE ADJUDICAT ED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE WAS DIFFERENT IN SO FAR AS THE AO HAD A LSO CONSIDERED THE SAME WITHOUT ACTUALLY ADJUDICATING ON IT IN A DETAILED MANNER. H OWEVER THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FILED THE PAPER BOOK ENCLOSING ALL THE DETAILS FILED BEFORE T HE AO WERE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS PERUSED BY THE LD. CIT U/S 263. 6. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT IN SO FAR AS THE LD. CIT IN HIS ORDER HAS JUSTIFIED THE INVOKING THE PROVISION OF C HAPTER XVIIB AND IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE DIRECTED THE AO TO FURTHER RE-EXAMI NE AND RE-VERIFY IN THE LINES OF WHAT HE CONSIDERED WHETHER COULD BE CONSIDERED IF NOT U. /S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT OR 40A(3) OF THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD A VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED REVIS ION ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW FOR THE VERY ELEMENTARY REASON THAT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH ORDER WAS SUBJECTED TO ITA NO. 632/KOL/2012 5 REVISION ARE DIFFERENT VIS--VIS THE GROUNDS ON WHI CH REVISION PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED. A PLAIN READING OF THE REVISION ORDER CL EARLY SHOWS THAT THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE REASONS FOR WHICH REVISIONS PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED. IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E THE LD. CIT HAS CLEARLY NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS INDICATE THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WAS TO BE ON THE BASIS OF INVOKING THE PROVISIO N OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT, IN SO FAR AS THE AO HAD AFTER VERIFICATION DISALLOWED A P ORTION THEREOF NOT IDENTIFIED THAT IN CASE THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WHETHER COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT WAS TO BE DISALLOWED AGAINST WHICH A SEPARATE APPEAL HAS ALSO BEEN FILED BEFORE THE FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN OTHER WORDS, REASONING BY THE LD. CIT FOR RE-EXAMINATION AND RE-VERIFICATION BY THE AO ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS A FACT WHICH THE LD. CIT HIMS ELF IS NOT CLEAR TO THE EXTENT THAT HIS JUSTIFICATION IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT IT WAS NOT THE ISSUE AS PER SHOW CAUSE OF THE LD. CIT THAT ADEQUATE ENQUIRY HAD NOT BEEN CARRIED OUT. IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF EXPLAINING THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITUR E ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO WHEREIN THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM WAS SUSTAINABLE UNDER LAW. THE VIEW AS TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT IN THE IMPUG NED ORDER, THEREFORE IS A VIEW WHICH THE LD. CIT HIMSELF IS NOT CLEAR DEFINITELY I NDICATES THAT THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS DO NOT INDICATE THAT THE VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE AO N OT OTHERWISE BUT WAS THE REASONING ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO, WHICH REASONING THE LD. CIT I N HIS ORDER HAS TRIED TO IMPOSE OTHERWISE. WE ARE INCLINED TO FIND THE CONTENTION O F THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFIED FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT B BENCH KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF VESUVIUS INDIA LIMITED VS CIT (SUPRA) WHERE DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE WHETHER COULD BE CONSIDERED IN ISOLATION BUT WITHOUT IMPORTING N OTH ER PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, IN SO FAR AS, THE CART CANNOT BE PUT BEFORE THE HORSE. THE PROCEEDING SHOULD BEGIN ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS AVAILABLE WHICH ARE THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO ON SUCH ORDER WHEN THE DISALLOWANCE HAVING BEEN MAD E CANNOT BE FURTHER DELIBERATED UPON BY THE LD. CIT TO GIVE A DIRECTION TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM EITHER U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND IF NOT U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AO AFTER HAVING CARRIED OUT ADEQUATE ENQUIRIES AND HAVING VERIFIED THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA ) OF THE ACT HAD PARTLY DISALLOWED ITA NO. 632/KOL/2012 6 WHICH DISALLOWANCE HAVE BEEN APPEALED BEFORE THE FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CANNOT BE THRUST UPON THE AO FOR RE-CONSIDERATION IN THE L INE OF HOLDING A VIEW WHICH VIEW AS PER THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND AS PER THE DELIBERATI ON IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DIFFER. WE ARE INCLINED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AND QUASH THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 19.04.2013. SD/- SD/- [ .#! $'# , ] [ .., ,, , ] [MAHAVIR SINGH ] [K.K.GUPTA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( (( (4 4 4 4) )) ) DATE: 19.04.2013. R.G.(.P.S.) 6 1 /$$7 87)9- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SAMANAWAYA, 8, KALNA ROAD, BADAMTALA, P.O.BURDWAN, DIST. BURDWAN 713 101. 2 C.I.T., BURDWAN 3 . CIT 4. CIT(A)- 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 07 /$/ TRUE COPY, 6'/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES