Gouranga Modak, Kolkata V. A.C.I.T Cir - 49,kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 763/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4944 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 763/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 763/KOL/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010 GOURANGA MODAK,.................................... .................................APPELLANT BA-15/10B, DESHBANDHUNAGAR, BAGUIATI, KOLKATA-700 059 [PAN : AEYPM 4957 N] -VS.- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,.............. ..................RESPONDENT CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BAMBOO VILLA, 169, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-700 014 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI SALLONG YADEN, ADDL. CIT, FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : APRIL 21, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : APRIL 27, 2016 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXII, KOLKATA DATED 15.03.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, WHEREBY HE CONFIRM ED THE ADDITIONS OF RS.23,60,918/- AND RS.1,10,377/- MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN RESPECT OF BALANCE OF M/S. BENGAL PEERLESS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND SECURIT Y DEPOSIT WITH M/S. BENGAL PEERLESS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIM ITED (IN SHORT BPHDCL) RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L, WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE AND CIVIL CONSTRUCTION UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. R.K. ENTERPRI SE. THE RETURN OF I.T.A. NO. 763/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 2 OF 8 INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED B Y HIM ON 30.12.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,37,16,660/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133( 6) WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO M/S. BPHDCL IN ORDER TO CROSS VERIFY THE BALANCES APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE I N THE NAME OF THE SAID CONCERN. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, A COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. BPHDCL WAS RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SAME WAS HANDED OVER BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECONCILIATION OF DIFFERENCE APPEARING IN THE BALAN CE. IN REPLY, FOLLOWING SUBMISSION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE:- 'WE DO BUSINESS WITH BPHD IN TWO AREA. WE HAVE CONS TRUCTED SO MANY BUILDING' AS A CONTRACTOR APART FROM WORKING AS LAN D DEALER FOR THEM. THE LEDGER A/C WITH BPHD IN CONNECTION WITH LAND AN D CONTRACT WORK ARE ATTACHED HEREWITH. . DEBIT AMOUNT RECEIVABLE IN CONTACT WORK .......... ..............RS. 25,32,750/- AMOUNT PAYABLE ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE ON LAND....... .......RS.2,98,79,888/- _____________________ TOTAL PAYABLE..........................RS.2,73 ,47,138/- _____________________ IT IS USUAL PRACTICE IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS T HAT THE PRINCIPAL MAKE SOME DEDICATION FROM THE BILL DUE TO VARIOUS REASON S LIKE MEASUREMENT OF AREA, DELAY IN EXECUTION, QUALITY ISSUES ETC. IN EACH BILL SOME AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEDUCTED. BUT WE HAVE TAKEN OUR SALES AS B ILL AMOUNT RAISED BY US WITHOUT CONSIDERING DEDUCTION MADE BY BPHD. T HIS FIGURE HAVE BEEN ACCUMULATED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND HAVE RES ULTED INTO PRESENT DIFFERENCE OF RS.23,60,918.71. WE SHOULD HAVE DEDUC TED THIS DIFFERENCE AMOUNT FROM OUR SALE A/C. AND RESULTING LOWER INCOM E AND TAX. WE HAVE WRONGLY TAKEN FULL AMOUNT AS OUR SALE VALUE THEREBY SHOWING MORE INCOME THAN ACCRUED. HOWEVER THIS DIFFERENCE CAN BE RECTIFIED IF THE ACCOUNT OF EARLIER YEARS TALLIED WITH BPHO. THE DIF FERENCE OF RS.23,60,918.71 IS RELATED TO OUR CONTRACT WORK. SINCE WE HAVE SHOWN EXCESS DEBTOR TO THE EXTENT OF RS.23,60,918/-, IN OUR CONTRACT WORK A/C WITH BPHD, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN ROUTED THROUGH THE SALES A/C AND THUS INCOME HAS BEEN DECLARED ON THE SAID AMOUNT AS WELL AS TAX HAS BEEN PAID. THE ASSESSEE THUS CLAIMED THAT THE PRINCIPAL REASON S FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2009 WERE THE DEDUCTIONS MA DE BY M/S. BPHDCL AGAINST BILLS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH THE A SSESSEE HAD NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THIS CLAIM, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME AND ADDED THE ENTIRE UN-RECONCI LED DIFFERENCE IN THE I.T.A. NO. 763/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 3 OF 8 BALANCE AND DEPOSIT ACCOUNT WITH M/S. BPHDCL AMOUNT ING TO RS.24,71,295/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ADDITION OF RS.24,71,295/- MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BALANCE AND DEPOS IT ACCOUNT WITH M/S. BPHDCL WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN WRITING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE:- 'THIS GROUND RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.23,60,91 8/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNT WITH M/S. BENGAL PEER LESS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (BPHDCL). DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. A.O. ASKED THE ASSE SSEE TO RECONCILE THE CLOSING BALANCE OF M/S. BENGAL PEERLESS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (BPHDCL) SINCE THERE WAS DISCRE PANCY BETWEEN BALANCE AS PER THE ASSESSEE'S BOOK AND THE SAID PAR TY'S BOOKS. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT - 'WE DO BUSINESS WITH BDHD (ACTUALLY BPHDCL) IN TWO AREA. WE HAVE CONSTRUCTED SO MANY BUILDING AS A CONTRACTOR APART FROM WORKING AS LAND DEALER FOR THEM. THE LEDGER A/C. WITH BPHD (SI C, ACTUALLY BPHDCL) IN CONNECTION WITH LAND AND CONTRACT WORK A RE ATTACHED HEREWITH. DEBIT AMOUNT RECEIVABLE IN CONTRACT WORK .......... ...................RS. 25,32,750/- AMOUNT PAYABLE ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE ON LAND ...... .............RS.2,98,79,888/- ______________________ TOTAL PAYABLE..........RS.2,73,47,138/- IT IS USUAL PRACTICE IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS T HAT THE PRINCIPAL MAKE SOME DEDUCTION FROM THE BILL DUE TO VARIOUS RE ASONS LIKE MEASUREMENT OF AREA, DELAY IN EXECUTION, QUALITY IS SUES ETC. IN EACH BILL SOME AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEDUCTED. BUT WE HAVE TAK EN OUR SALES AS BILL AMOUNT RAISED BY US WITHOUT CONSIDERING DEDUCT IONS MADE BY BPHD (SIC, ACTUALLY BPHDCL). THIS FIGURE HAVE BEEN ACCUMULATED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND HAVE RESULTED INTO PRESENT DIF FERENCE OF RS.2360,918.71. WE SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED THIS DIFFER ENCE AMOUNT FORM OUR SALE A/C. AND RESULTING LOWER INCOME AND TAX. W E HAVE WRONGLY TAKEN FULL AMOUNT AS OUR SALE VALUE THEREBY SHOWING MORE INCOME THAN ACCRUED HOWEVER THIS DIFFERENCE CAN BE RECTIFI ED IF THE ACCOUNT OF EARLIER YEARS TALLIED WITH BPHD (SIC, ACTUALLY B PHDCL). THE DIFFERENCE OF2360918171 IS RELATED TO OUR CONTRACT WORK. SINCE WE HAVE SHOWN EXCESS DEBTOR TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2360918/-. IN OUR CONTRACT WORK A/C. WITH BPHD (SIC, ACTUALLY BPH DCL), IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN ROUTED THROUGH THE S ALES A/C. AND THUS INCOME HAS BEEN DECLARED ON THE SAID AMOUNT AS WELL AS TAX HAS BEEN PAID. I.T.A. NO. 763/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 4 OF 8 BUT THE LD. A.O. MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.23,60,918/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING THAT 'HAVING SAID THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE ANY SUPPORTING DETAILS/EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE BILLS M-NUMBERS AND AMOUNTS AGAINST WHICH DEDUCTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY M/S. BPH DCL. FURTHER, NO CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. BPHDCL COULD BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION I S NEITHER BACKED UP WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES NOR COULD ANY DETAILS OF THE BILLS AND AMOUNTS PURPORTED DEDUCTED BY M/S. BPHDCL BE FILED. COPY OF THE COMPUTATION OF DISCREPANCY OF RS.23,06, 918/- BETWEEN THE CLOSING LEDGER BALANCES AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O . IS ANNEXED AT PAGE 144 AND THE FORWARDING LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE' S A/R AT PAGE 142. NOW, THE DETAILED RECONCILIATION SHEET WITH CROSS-R EFERENCING OF THE TWO LEDGER ACCOUNTS (I.E. ASSESSEE'S AND THE SAID P ARTY'S) IS ANNEXED IN THE PAPER-BOOK AND MARKED'. 4. WHEN THE ABOVE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE A SSESSEE ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FORWARDED BY THE LD. CI T(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, A REMAND REPORT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OFFERING HIS COMMENTS THEREON AS UNDER:- 'THE ADDITION OF RS..23,60,918/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUN T OF DIFFERENCE IN ASSESSEE'S ACCOUNT WITH BENGAL PEERLESS HOUSING DEV ELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(BPHDCL). AS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER (PARA 2 PAGE 4 OF THE ORDER), THE AIR VIDE WRITTEN EXPLANATION DAT ED 28/12/2011 SUBMITTED RECONCILIATION WHILE ADMITTING THAT THE F INAL DIFFERENCE OF RS.23,60,918/- COULD NOT BE READILY RECONCILED SINC E ACCOUNTS WERE NOT TALLIED WITH BPHDCL FOR A LONG TIME. THE LETTER AND THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. WA,S ENCLOSED VIDE PAGE 142 TO 144 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THUS AS PER ASSE SSEE'S OWN ADMISSION THE ACCOUNTS REQUIRED TO BE TALLIED WITH BPHDCL ONLY THEN THE DIFFERENCE MAY BE RECONCILED HOWEVER, IN THE PA PER BOOK THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE DO NOT HA VE ANY SUPPORT OF RELEVANT BILLS AND CONFIRMATION FROM BPHDCL. THE EN TIRE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS BASED ON HIS OWN ACCOUNT WHICH W AS ALREADY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. FOR EXAMINATION AT THE TI ME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS ALREADY STATED BEFORE HAND, THE REC ONCILIATION STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE BPHDCL AND HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS NEW EVIDENCE AND LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. 5. WHEN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS CONFRONTED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSEE, FOLLOWING COUNTER COMMENTS WERE OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREON:- 'THIS GROUND RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.23,60,918/-. I.T.A. NO. 763/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 5 OF 8 THE MAJOR CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.O. IN REGARD TO T HE ADDITION OF THIS AMOUNT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED CONFIRMAT IONS FROM M/S. BPHDCL. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. A.O. H AD OBTAINED THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS DIRECTLY FROM THE PARTY. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED BY M/S. BPHDCL TO THE A.O FROM T HE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, THE SAME ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER OF THE SAID PARTY DATED 08.11.2011 ARE ANNEXED HERETO AND ARE COLLECTIVELY MARKED AS ANNEXURE: 'X', REF. GROUND NO. 3 THIS GROUND RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.I,10,377/ - MADE BY THE LD. A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED UN-RECONCILED DIFFER ENCE IN RESPECT OF SECURITY DEPOSITS DEDUCTED FROM THE BILLS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON M/S. BPHDCL. EARLIER THE SUBMISSIONS COULD NOT BE MADE BY THE AS SESSEE SINCE A COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF THE SAID PARTY WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. NOW A CERTIFIED CO PY HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE LD. A.O. THE SAME IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE- Y THE RECONCILIATION IS BEING MADE AS UNDER:- CLOSING BALANCE AS PER R.K. ENTERPRISE AS ON 31.03. 2009..........RS.57,14,215/-(DR.) CLOSING BALANCE AS PER R.K. ENTERPRISE AS ON 31.3.2 009 LESS: DIFFERENCE AMOUNT IN OPENING BALANCE AS ON 1. 4.2008 OPENING BALANCE AS PER THE BOOKS OF BPHDCL......RS. 39,53,096 )CR.) LESS: OPENING BALANCE AS PER THE BOOKS OF RKE...RS. 40,63,473/-(DR) ______________________RS.1,10,377/- _____________________ CLOSING BALANCE AS PER M/S. BPHDCL AS ON 31.03.2009 RS.56,03,838/-(CR.) _______________________ IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ENTIRE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,10,377/- IS IN THE OPENING BALANCE FIGURE, NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED IN THE YEAR IN QUESTION. 6. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE RECONCILIATI ON FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND THE COUNTER COMMENTS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. C IT(APPEALS) FOUND NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE TAKEN ON THIS IS SUE AND PROCEEDED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE F OLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- THE APPELLANT SHOWN DIFFERENCE DUE TO M/S. BENGAL PEERLESS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (BPHDCL) HA S MADE DEDUCTIONS AGAINST BILL SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. FROM THIS IT PROV ES THAT THE I.T.A. NO. 763/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 6 OF 8 DEDUCTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY M/S. BENGAL PEERLESS H OUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (BPHDCL) AND THE AP PELLANT DID NOT FILE ANY CONFIRMATION TO M/S. BENGAL PEERLESS HOUSI NG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (BPHDCL). THE APPELLANT FILED THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT DU RING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING. THE A/R COULD NOT FILE ANY SU PPORTING EVIDENCES LIKE RELEVANT BILLS AND CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. BENG AL PEERLESS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (BPHDCL). THE ENTIR E SUBMISSION BASED ON HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLANT FAILE D TO FILE SUBSTANTIAL MATERIAL TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE. CONSIDERING T HE TOTALITY OF THE CASE I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS AS PER LAW BY ADDING RS.23,60,918/- AS INCOME. THEREFORE, I CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.23,60,918/-. THIS GROUND IS RELATED TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS.1,10,377/- IN RESPECT OF SE CURITY DEPOSIT WITH M/S. BENGAL PEERLESS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIO N LIMITED (BPHDCL). THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILED ANY EXPLANATI ON AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE AI R OF THE APPELLANT ONLY FILED SUBMISSION STATING THAT THIS DIFFERENCE IS NOT BELONGING TO THIS YEAR AND THE APPELLANT ALSO NOT FILED ANY SUPP ORTING EVIDENCE REGARDING THIS DIFFERENCE. THEREFORE, I CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.1,10,,377/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. 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 INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE RECONCILIATION STATEME NT FURNISHED AT PAGE NOS. 15 & 16 OF HIS PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT T HE ENTIRE DIFFERENCE IN THE BALANCE AND DEPOSIT ACCOUNT WITH M/S. BPHDCL AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). HE REITERATED THAT THE SAID DIFFERENC E WAS MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN OPENING BALANCE IN THE ACC OUNT OF M/S. BPHDCL, WHICH WAS ACCUMULATED OVER THE YEARS AND THE SAME, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE AR E UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE BA LANCE AND DEPOSIT ACCOUNT WITH M/S. BPHDCL AS ON 31.03.2009, INASMUCH AS THE CREDIT BALANCE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF THE SA ID PARTY WAS MORE I.T.A. NO. 763/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 7 OF 8 THAN THE DEBIT BALANCE APPEARING IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE SAID PARTY. THE ONUS, THERE FORE, WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SAID DIFFERENCE TO THE SATI SFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALTHOUGH THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT W AS PREPARED AND FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THE SAID DIFFE RENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THE DIFFERENCE. WHEN THIS ASPECT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS MADE CLEAR TO HIM THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN FULLY T HE DIFFERENCE IN THE BALANCE AND DEPOSIT ACCOUNT WITH M/S. BPHDCL AS ON 31.03.2009 AND UNLESS AND UNTIL THE SAME IS SATISFACTORILY DISCHAR GED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED AS TO WHAT EXTENT THE DIFFERE NCE PERTAINS TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE DIFFERENCE PERTAIN S TO THE EARLIER YEARS IN ORDER TO COMPUTE THE EXACT ADDITION, IF ANY, TO BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH DIFFERENCE, HE HAS URGED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTU NITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO DO THIS EXERCISE. SINCE THE LD. D.R . HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GI VING THE ASSESSEE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF RECONCILING THE DIFFERENCE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON APRIL 27, 20 16. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 27 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) SHRI GOURANGA MODAK, BA-15/10B, DESHBANDHUNAGAR, BAGUIATI, KOLKATA-700 059 I.T.A. NO. 763/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 8 OF 8 (2) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BAMBOO VILLA, 169, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-700 014 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XXXII, KO LKATA (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.