Gouranga Modak, Kolkata V. JCIT, RG-49, KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 674/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6512 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S ALLONG YADEN CIT LD
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBHASH AGARWAL LD
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Question of law; Revised return; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 14A

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.674//KOL/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA BEFORE: SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUD ICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO. 674/KO L/2015 A.Y: 201 0-11 GOURANGA MODAK VS. J.C.I.T, RANGE-49, PAN: AEYPM 4957N KOLKATA [APPELLANT] [RESP ONDENT] FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL, ADVO CATE, LD.AR FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI SALLONG YADEN, ADDL.CI T, LD. SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 25-01-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-04-2018 ORDER SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), 15, KOLKATA DT. 25-02-2015 FOR THE A.Y 2010-11. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN REAL ESTATE AND CIVIL CONSTRUCTION BUSIN ESS. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS E-RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.54, 47,604/- ON 28-0- 2010. NOTICES U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WE RE ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO SAID NOTICES, THE AR REPRESENTING THE A SSESSEE FILED DETAILS AND PRODUCED DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO IN SUP PORT OF THE CLAIM. THE AO CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS ALONG WIT H DETAILS FILED DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 2,04,65,720/- BY MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS VIDE AN ORDER DT. 01-03-2013 PA SSED U/SEC 143(3) OF THE ACT: A) RS.5,24,639/- U/S. 14 R.W.R 8D B) RS. 23,48,094/- UNDER DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITU RE C) RS.6,09,193/- DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INCOME AS ITR A ND INCOME AS PER B OOKS 2 ITA NO.674//KOL/2015 3. GROUND NO. 1 IS RELATING TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDI TION OF RS. 5,24,639/- MADE U/S. 14 R.W.R 8D OF THE IT RULES. 4. ON PERUSAL OF RETURN, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSE SSEE MADE SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 13,810/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF CO MPUTING EXPENDITURE U/S. 14A, WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO. THE AO U/S. 14A DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5,25,639/- BY INVOK ING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W.R 8D(2) (I), (II) & ( III) OF THE IT RULES AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE BY ESTIMATING AS UNDER: DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A READ WITH RULE 8D IS AS FOLLO W: (A)=TOTAL INTEREST X AVERAGE TOTAL INVESTMENT/AVERA GE TOTAL ASSETS= (RS.3002781 X RS.4342000) / RS.25924286 = RS. 5,02,929 (B)=.5% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENT = .5% X RS. 4,342000 = RS. 21,710 DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A (A + B)= RS. 5,24,639 5. BEFORE THE CIT-A IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSE E THAT HE EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 64,392/- AND WITHOUT RECORDING ANY SATISFACTION REGARDING THE ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SAID SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS C LAIM PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO LTD VS. DCIT. 6. THE CIT-A BY PLACING HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISIO N OF THE SPECIAL BENCH, ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVESTMENT LT D REPORTED IN 121 ITD 362(DEL)(SB) CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANC E AS MADE BY THE AO. 7. BEFORE US THE LD.AR REITERATED HIS SAME SUBMISSI ONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT-A. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE HONB LE HIGH COURT OF DELHI REVERSED THE FINDING OF HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH , ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVESTMENT LTD REPORTED IN 378 ITR 33 ( DEL). THE HONBLE HIGH COURT SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF SPECIAL B ENCH, ITAT, DELHI AND HELD THAT SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICA BLE IF NO EXEMPT INCOME IS RECEIVED. THE LD.AR REFERRED TO THE ORDER DT. 06-12-2017 OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF D EVELOPMENT 3 ITA NO.674//KOL/2015 CONSULTANT P.LTD, COPY OF THE SAME IS ON RECORD, AN D ARGUED THAT DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES 1962 SH ALL BE MADE BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ONLY THOSE SHARES WHICH H AVE YIELDED THE DIVIDEND INCOME FOR THE A.Y UNDER CONSIDERATION AN D PRAYED TO REMAND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF AO FOR HIS FRESH VERIFICATION. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED ON THE ORDER S OF THE AO & CIT-A. 9. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED DIVIDEND OF RS.64,392/- AN D DISALLOWANCE SHOULD NOT EXCEED THE DIVIDEND INCOME IN TERMS OF D ECISION DT. 06-12- 2017 AS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE MORE THAN THE DIVIDEND INCOME AS EARN ED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER OF THIS CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF T HIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO HELD THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE DISALLO WANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2) OF THE IT RULES, 1962 THE AO HAS TO GIVE COGE NT REASON FOR SUCH DISALLOWANCE. IT IS ALSO HELD DISALLOWANCE MAD E UNDER RULE 8D(2) AND DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE IN RELATION TO DIV IDEND INCOME AS EARNED. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF SUPRA UPHELD THE ABOVE VIEW OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF T HIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DT. 22-12-2013. THEREFORE, TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO LTD, WE DIRECT THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE DISALLO WANCE AFRESH TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE INVESTMENTS, WHICH YI ELDED THE DIVIDEND INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. T HUS, GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSE. 10. GROUND NOS.2 (A) & (B) ARE RELATING TO CONFIRMA TION OF ADDITION OF SHUTTERING EXPENSES. 4 ITA NO.674//KOL/2015 11. ON PERUSAL OF SCHEDULE P OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE FOLLOWING EX PENDITURE IN HIS REVISED RETURN OF INCOME:- (A) SITE DEVELOPMENT & PRELIMINARY EXPENSES RS.3, 87,560/- (B) STEEL SHUTTERING MATERIALS 1/3 WRITTEN OFF RS. 9,46,440/- ( C) WOOD SHUTTERING MATERIALS1/3 WRITTEN OFF RS.1 4,01,654/- 12. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BY TREATING THE SAID EXP ENDITURE AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN HIS ACCOUNTS AS THE BENEFIT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IS AVAILABLE TO ASSESSEE FOR THREE YEA RS. THE AO HELD THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 TO ALLOW SUCH EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD DEFERRED REVENUE EXPEND ITURE AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE 13. BEFORE THE CIT-A, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASS ESSEE INADVERTENTLY TREATED THE SAID EXPENDITURE AS DEFER RED REVENUE EXPENDITURE, WHICH WAS RECTIFIED BY FILING A REVISE D COMPUTATION AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE FU RTHER CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO FRESH CLAIM FOR ANY OTHER DEDUCTI ON AND THEREFORE, PLEADED TO ENTERTAIN THE FRESH CLAIM AND IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, HE PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (I) LTD, REPORTED IN 282 ITR 323(SC) . 14. THE CIT-A CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESS EE GAVE RELIEF ONLY TO THE EXTENT EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS SIT E DEVELOPMENT & PRELIMINARY EXPENSES OF RS.3,87,560/- AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS OF RS.9,46,440/- AND RS.14,01,654/- ON OTHER TWO HEADS STEEL SHUTTERING MATERIALS 1/3 W/O AND WOOD SHUTTERING M ATERIALS 1/3 W/O. 15. THE AR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN FULL DETAILS OF SUCH EXPENDITURE TO AO & CIT-A AND PLACED HIS RELIANCE O F THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE CASE OF RANDOM CON STRUCTORS P.LTD REPORTED IN 186 TAXMAN 303 ( P & H ) AND IN VIEW OF THIS, SUBMITS THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS REVENUE IN NATURE AND AS SU CH THE EXPENDITURE IS FULLY ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION AS HELD BY THE HONBLE CO- 5 ITA NO.674//KOL/2015 ORDINATE BENCH, WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE HONBLE HIG H COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE CASE OF SUPRA. THE LD.AR REFERRED TO QUESTION OF LAW RAISED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AND ARGUED THAT THE HONBLE HIG H COURT DISMISSED THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND CONFIRMED THE FINDING OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN TREAT ING THE SAID EXPENDITURE AS REVENUE IN NATURE. 16. THE LD.DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO & CIT- A. 17. HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN HAND IS IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RANDOM C ONSTRUCTORS P.LTD. SUPRA. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HELD TH AT WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE S HUTTERING MATERIALS HAS VALUE AFTER ITS LIFE TIME ON ACCOUNT OF SCRAP AND THE AO CANNOT COME TO CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SCRAP. THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW RAISED BY TH E REVENUE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AND THE FINDING OF IT IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW:- '1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE HON'BLE ITAT WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN (CONFIRMING ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,84,885 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHUTTERING EXPENSES ESPECIALLY W HEN SHUTTERING MATERIALS BEING A DURABLE ITEM, COULD BE UTILIZED IN THE SUBSEQUENT F INANCIAL YEAR(S) ALSO? 2. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE HON'BLE ITA T WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN CONFIRMING ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO D ELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,000 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SCRAP VALUE OF SHUTTERING MATERIAL DI SREGARDING THE FACT THAT THESE ITEMS HAD SOME SCRAP VALUE?' 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION C LAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF SHUTTERING EXPENSES. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS AND UPHE LD THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE SAID EXPENSES REPRESENTED REVENUE EXPENSES . THE TRIBUNAL AFFIRMED THE SAID VIEW WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 'THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAD BEEN INCURRED DURI NG THE P.Y. AND WAS REVENUE IN NATURE. THE FACT THAT THE MATERIAL COULD BE USED IN THE SUB SEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS NO GROUND TO DENY THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ****** THERE IS NO MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS INCOME OF RS. 50,000 ON ACCOUNT OF SCRAP VALUE OF S HUTTERING MATERIALS. IN FACT THE CERTIFICATE OF THE ENGINEERING ON WHICH ASSESSING O FFICER PLACED RELIANCE CLEARLY STATES THAT THE WOODEN SHUTTERING MATERIAL HAVE NO USE AFTER TH E LIFETIME.' 6 ITA NO.674//KOL/2015 18. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT-A WAS NOT CORRECT IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED AD DITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF STEEL SHUTTERING MATERIALS 1/3 WRITTEN O FF AND WOOD SHUTTERING MATERIALS 1/3 WRITTEN OFF. THE SAME IS D IRECTED TO BE DELETED. GROUND NO.2(A) AND ( B) OF ASSESSEES APP EAL ARE ALLOWED. 19. GROUND NO.3 IS RELATING TO CONFIRMATION IN PART OF ADDITION OF RS.6,09,193/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INCOME AS PER ITR AND AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. 20. ON PERUSAL OF CONSIDERATION STATEMENT, THE AO F OUND DIFFERENCE OF INCOME AS PER ITR AND INCOME AS UNDERTAKEN AS UN DER:- AS PER ITR AS PER INCOME UNDERTAKEN NAME OF THE CO. AMOUNT AMOUNT BALMER LAWRIE & CO.LTD RS.30,49,400/- RS.37,85,829/ - BENGAL CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD RS.194,21,042/- RS.185,59,869/- BENGAL PEERLESS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD. RS.383,38,098/- RS.369,99,209/- BENGAL SHAPOORJI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. 29,54,889/- RS.28,40,213/- BHANGORE-RAJARHAT AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RS.665,39,159/- RS.621,85,121/- 21. ACCORDING TO AO, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AB OVE MENTIONED FIVE PARTIES IS OF RS. 43,54,038/-. SIMILARLY, A DIFFERENCE OF RS. 4,633/- FOUND BETWEEN THE INCOME AS PER ITR AND INC OME AS UNDERTAKEN FROM STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR. TH E AO ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.43,58,671 ( RS.43,54,038 + RS.4633) TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 22. BEFORE THE CIT-A, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT T HE SAID DIFFERENCE OF RS.43,58,671/- WAS OCCURRED DUE TO NO N CONSIDERATION OF TDS SCHEDULE IN THE NAME OF ACTUAL PARTY AND WR ONG INCLUSION OF NAME OF OTHER PARTY, INCLUSION OF SERVICE TAX, INCO ME OFFERED IN EARLIER YEARS AND SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND INCOME OFFERED, BUT N OT SHOWN IN THE TDS SCHEDULE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF SUCH DIF FERENCE. 7 ITA NO.674//KOL/2015 23. THE CIT-A CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESS EE RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 6,09,193 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - (A) M/S. BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED RECEIPTS FR OM THE PARTY AT RS.37,85,829/- WHEREAS THE TDS CERTIFICATE ONLY MENTIONS A PAYMENT OR CREDIT OF RS.30,49,400/-. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED HIGHER RECEIPTS BY RS.7,35,429/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED TDS OF RS.60,988/- IN HIS RETURN OF IN COME AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATE OF M/S. BALMER LAWRIE & CO LTD. THUS MERELY BECAME THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED HIGHER RECEIPTS THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN THE TDS RETURN IT WOULD NOT LEAD TO ANY CONCLUSION OF ESCAPEMENT OF REVENUE WITHOUT THE AO BRINGING ANYTH ING ON RECORD. THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND T HE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S. BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD TOO. FURTHER THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CREDITED TDS OF RS.75,717/- FROM THIS PARTY IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS ONLY CLAIMED TDS OF RS.60,988/- AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATES. THE DISCREPANCY IN TDS, ACTUAL AND DEBITED, COULD BE DUE TO SOME COMMUNICATION ERROR W HICH IS RECTIFIABLE AND IN THIS CASE IT HAS NO REVENUE IMPACT. (B) M/S BENGAL CHEMICAL & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD: IN THE ITR-TDS 2 SCHEDULE. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARE D RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,94,21,042/- FROM M/S. BCPL (AS PER TOS CERTIFICATE) WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED TAXABLE RECEIPTS FROM THE PARTY ONLY AT RS.1 ,85,59,869/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THIS DIFFERENCE AS UNDER - AS PER TDS SCHEDULE RS.1,94,21,042/- ADD: AMOUNT WRONGLY INCLUDED IN THE NAME IN THE NAME OF PHANGORE RAJARHAT AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RS. 27.75,730/- ADD: INCOME OFFERED BUT NOT REFLECTED IN FORM NO. 2 6AS RS. 41,42,745/- RS. 2,63,39,517/- LESS: SERVICE TAX ON WHICH NO TDS DONE RS. 11 ,29,889/- RS.2,51,59,628/- LESS: INCOME ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX IN EARLIER YEAR RS. 65,99,759/- INCOME SHOWN IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT RS. 1,85,59,869 /- THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THERE IS NO DIFF ERENCE. IN THE REJOINDER THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLARIFIED THE CONFUSION ON THE PA RT OF THE AO REGARDING TDS DONE. IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS NO ACTUAL DIFFERENCE. THUS T HERE IS NO REVENUE IMPACT IN THIS CASE ALSO. ( C) M/S. BENGAL PEERLESS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO. L TD IN THIS CASE THERE IS DIFFERENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED RECEIPTS FROM THE PARTY AT RS.3,69,98,209/- BUT THE FORM 26AS AS WELL AS THE T DS CERTIFICATE DULY MENTION THE SUM PAID/CREDITED TO THE ASSESSEE AT RS.3.83.38.098 /- AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FULL CREDIT FOR THE TDS DONE BY THE PARTY ALSO. THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTEMPTED TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERE NCE BY CLAIMING THAT HE HAS OFFERED A SUM OF RS.6,09,193/- IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR A ND A FURTHER SUMS OF RS.7,29,696/- WAS EXPLAINED TO BE THE SERVICE TAX COMPONENT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDER-REPORTED HIS INCOME BY RS.6,09,193/- AND THIS ADDITION IS CO NFIRMED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR JURISDICTION FOR NO T DECLARING THIS SUM AS HIS TAXABLE RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR. (D) M/S. BENGAL SHAPOORJI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT P.L TD. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED BILLS OF RS.29 ,54,889/- ON THE PARTY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED TAXABLE RECEIPTS AT ONLY RS.2 8,40,213/-. THERE IS NO ACTUAL DIFFERENCE AS THE PARTY ALSO HAS MENTIONED THE SERV ICE TAX COMPONENT OF RS.1,14,675/- IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE. THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THESE FACTS IN THE REMAND REPOR T AND HENCE NO ADVERSE VIEW IS TAKEN. (E) M/S. BHANGORE RAJARHAT AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORI TY IN THIS CASE THE TDS SCHEDULE HAD MENTIONED RECEIPT FROM THIS PARTY AT RS.27,75,730/- BUT THE SAME WAS NOT MENTIONED AS TAXABLE INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. 8 ITA NO.674//KOL/2015 THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THIS SUM WAS PAID T O HIM BY BCPL ONLY NOT BY BHANGORE RAJARHAT AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. THE A SSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THIS SUM IS DECLARED AGAINST THE NAME OF BCPL IN FORM NO . 26 AS AND BY MISTAKE, THE ASSESSEE IN THE TDS SCHEDULE HAD MENTIONED THE WRON G NAME. THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THIS FACT IN THE REMAND REPORT AND THUS THERE IS NO REVENUE IMPART. (F) ON THE ISSUE OF DIFFERENCE OF RS.4,633/- IN CAS E OF STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE NO COMMENTS AND THIS ADDITION IS CONFIRMED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ASSESSEES GROUND OF APPEA L NO. 2 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE ADDITION OF RS.43,58,671/- IS RESTRICTED TO 6,09,19 3/- PLUS RS. 4633 I.E. RS.6,13,826/-. THE ASSESSEE GETS A RELIEF OF RS.37,44,845/-. 24. THE LD.AR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6,09,193/- TO TAX IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR . FURTHER, HE ARGUED THAT THE REVENUE IS NOT LOOSING ANYTHING EI THER IN PREVIOUS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR AND PRAYED TO GIVE DIRECTION TO T HE AO TO CONSIDER THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT MAY BE REDUCED FROM THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LD.DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO & CIT-A. 25. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE FIND FROM THE ORDER OF CIT-A THAT THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT T HIS VERY SUM OF RS.6,09,193/- HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX IN THE NEXT A SSESSMENT YEAR BY HIM. THE LD. AR FAIRLY PLEADED LET THIS SUM BE TAXE D IN THE A.Y UNDER APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY, A DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO AO TO REDUCE A SUM OF RS.6,09,193/- FROM THE INCOME OF NEXT ASSESSMEN T YEAR I.E. A.Y 2011-12 IN ORDER TO AVOID DOUBLE TAXATION. WE FIND FORCE IN THIS ARGUMENT OF LD.AR. GROUND NO. 3 IS DISMISSED SUBJEC T TO DIRECTION TO AO THAT A SUM OF RS.6,09,193/- SHALL BE REDUCED FRO M THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE IN NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A.Y 2011-12. 26. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25-0 4-2018 SD/- SD/- M. BALAGANESH S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 25- 04-2018 9 ITA NO.674//KOL/2015 PP(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: SHRI GOURANGA MODAK BA-15/10B DESHBANDHUNAGAR, BAGUIHATI, KOLKATA-59. 2 RESPONDENT /REVENUE :THE JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-40, UTTARAPAN COMPLEX, BLOCK DS-2 & 3, 2 ND FLOOR, MANICKTALA CIVIC CENTRE, KOLKATA-54. 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SR.PS/H.O.O ITAT KOLKATA