Smt Sipra Ghosh, Kolkata V. CIT, (A)- 13, KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 79/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9783 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANKAR HALDER
• Keywords: Business income; Source of fund
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 79/KOL/2016 SMT. SIPRA GHOSH, AY 2011-12 , C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA ( ) BEFORE . . , /AND . , ) [BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANESH , AM] I.T.A. NO. 79/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SMT. SIPRA GHOSH (PAN: AJKPG6384J) VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-42(3), KOLKATA. APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 16.10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.12.2018 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT, SR. D R ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-13, KOLKATA DATED 20.11.2015 FOR AY 2011-12. THE FOLLO WING REVISED GROUNDS HAVE BEEN ASSAILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL: 1. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CO NFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.35,99,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT NO. 01630110010983 AND 01630100575160. 2. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,25,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED C ASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT NO.01630100023996. 3. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,70,451/- MADE BYTHE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CAS H DEPOSITS IN DAILY DEPOSIT SCHEME. 4. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,39,386/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED IN TEREST INCOME. 2. AT THE OUTSET ITSELF THE LD. AR DID NOT PRESS RE VISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 3 AND 4 SO THE SAME STAND DISMISSED. 2 ITA NO. 79/KOL/2016 SMT. SIPRA GHOSH, AY 2011-12 3. COMING TO GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2. BOTH THESE GROUND S RELATE TO CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS I N BANK ACCOUNT NOS. 01630110010983, 01630100575160 AND 01630100023996. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS OBSERVED BY THE AO ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED THREE BANK A/CS. DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. (1) 01630110010983, (2) 01630100575160 AND (3) 01630100023996 - ALL WITH UCO BANK, DUM DUM BRANCH. ALL THREE ARE JOINT ACCOUNTS. THE FIRST ACCOUNT HOLDERS OF A/C. NO.0163 0110010983 IS OF SMT. SIPRA GHOSH (THE ASSESSEE) AND HER SON SHRI RAJA GHOSH. THE JOI NT ACCOUNT HOLDERS OF THE OTHER TWO A/CS. VIZ. 01630100575160 AND 01630100023996 ARE SM T. SIPRA GHOSH (THE ASSESSEE) AND HER HUSBAND SHRI NITYANANDA GHOSH. NOTICES U/S. 13 3(6) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WERE ISSUED TO THE BANK AUTHORITY AND REPLIES WERE RECEIVED. THE AO, THEREFORE, OBSERVED FROM THE BANK A/C. NO 16030100575160 THAT CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.18,99,000/- WERE MADE DURI NG THE PERIOD FROM 16/04/2010 TO 28/03/2011 AND IN A/C. NO.01630110010983, CASH DEPO SITS AMOUNTING TO RS.17,00,000/- (TOTALING TO RS.35,99,000/-) WERE MADE DURING THE P ERIOD FROM 16/04/2010 TO 28/03/2011. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN A/C. NO. 01630100023996, CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 25,000/- AND RS.7,00,000/- WERE DEPOSITED ON 07/08/2010 AND 25/1 0/2010 RESPECTIVELY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE WAS A SKED TO CLARIFY THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.35,99,000/- IN HER BANK ACCOUNT NOS . 01630110010983 AND 01630100575160 WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE LD. A R IN HIS SUBMISSION DATED 05.08.2013 STATED IN PARA 5 OF HIS REPLY THAT THOSE DEPOSITS WERE ABSOLUTELY PERSONAL RECEIPTS BEING SALE CONSIDERATION OF COWS, BUFFALOE S AND NATURAL ACCRETED CALVES IN THE PERSONAL CATTLE SHED OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, T HE ASSESSEE FILED 7 AFFIDAVITS INCLUDING THAT OF HER (THE ASSESSEE), HER HUSBAND, SON AND OTHERS. FROM THE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN ON 10.09.2013 BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN PARA-L0 OF THE AFFIDAVIT THE ASSESSEE HAS AFFIRMED THAT SHE HAD SOLD 9 COWS FOR RS.4,49,5 00/- AND 5 BUFFALOES FOR RS.31,49,000/- AGGREGATING TO RS.35,99,000/-. THE AO NOTED THAT NO DETAILS REGARDING SUCH SALE INCLUDING THE DATE OF SUCH SALE WAS FURNISHED. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT THE AO OBSERVED THAT EACH COWS WERE SOLD AT RS.49,944/- AND EACH BUFFALO S WERE SOLD AT RS.6,29,800/-. THE AO 3 ITA NO. 79/KOL/2016 SMT. SIPRA GHOSH, AY 2011-12 ASKED THE FOLLOWING QUERIES TO THE ASSESSEE, 1) REA SON FOR SALE OF COWS AND BUFFALOS, (2) WHY THE COWS AND BUFFALOS SOLD AT A REMOTE MARKET (AS A FFIRMED IN THE AFFIDAVIT) AND NOT IN THE MARKET NEARER TO HER LOCALITY AND (3) WHETHER SUCH SALE OF COWS AND BUFFALOS WERE EFFECTED IN ANY PREVIOUS YEARS AND SUCCEEDING YEAR. IN REPLY TO THE FIRST QUERY, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE COWS AND BUFFALOES AS STATED IN THE AFFIDA VIT, WERE SOLD SINCE THOSE (COWS AND BUFFALOES) WERE NOT YIELDING MILK. AS TO THE SECON D QUERY AS TO THE PLACE OF SALE AT REMOTE PLACES, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THE MIDDLEME N TOOK THE COWS AND BUFFALOS TO FAR FLUNG AREAS AT THEIR OWN COST AT THE MARKET/STATION S WHERE SUCH SALES ARE HELD AND THE RESIDUAL CONSIDERATIONS WERE HANDED OVER TO THE ASS ESSEE, IN REPLY TO THE QUESTION AS TO SALES OF SUCH COWS AND BUFFALOS IN EARLIER OCCASION OR SU CCEEDING YEAR IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT SUCH QUESTION IS OUT OF PURVIEW OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT. ACCORDING TO AO, THE LD. AR NEVER MENTIONED THE QUANTITY OF MILK EAC H COWS AND BUFFALOS YIELDED DAILY (FOR TWO TIMES MILKING) AND WONDERED AS TO WHAT WAS THE QUANTITY OF MILK THE COWS AND BUFFALOS YIELDED DAILY FOR WHICH THE MILKERS REPORTED TO BE INADEQUATE. ACCORDING TO AO, THE SALE PRICES OF EACH COWS AND BUFFALOS SEEMED TO BE VERY HIGH. SO THE AO IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE SELLING PRICE OF COWS AND BUFFALOS SEARCHED THE WEB-SITE 'OLX.IN'. AFTER THE SEARCH, THE AO OBSERVED THAT MANY ADVERTISERS HAVE GIVEN ADVERT ISEMENT FOR SALE OF THE PRICES AND THEY HAVE OFFERED RANGES FROM RS.6,000/- TO RS.30,000/- DEPENDING UPON THE CLASS OF COWS. ANOTHER SITE (INDIA.COM) WHICH WAS ALSO SEARCHED BY THE AO AND HE OBSERVED THAT THE PRICES OF COWS AND BUFFALOS AT ERODE MARKET, TAMIL NADU, WHERE AT LEAST 750 NUMBERS OF COWS AND BUFFALOS WERE SOLD ON 12TH FEBRUARY, 2010, THE AO NOTED THAT COWS WERE SOLD AT RS.12,500/- TO 27,000/- (PER COW) AND BUFFALOS WERE SOLD AT RS.14,000/- TO 28,000/- (PER BUFFALO). THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THESE SE ARCH INFORMATION VIDE LETTER DATED 14/02/2014 AND THE LD. A/R IN HIS REPLY DATED 14/02 /2014 STATED THAT THE DATA ARE BASELESS AND NOT RELIABLE AND WHICH HAS NO VALIDITY. ACCORD ING TO AO, THE LD. AR, IN COURSE OF PROCEEDING DID NOT FILE THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE MIDDLEMEN WHO TOOK THE COWS AND BUFFALOS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SALE VALUE OF EACH COWS AND BUFFALOS. ACCORDING TO AO, I T IS VERY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT COWS AND BUFFALOES WHICH WERE 'STARTED TO BECOME PERMANE NTLY USELESS SINCE THE SAME WERE GIVING VERY INADEQUATE MILK', WERE SOLD AT RS.49,94 4/- AND RS.6,29,900/- RESPECTIVELY. SO, 4 ITA NO. 79/KOL/2016 SMT. SIPRA GHOSH, AY 2011-12 THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE SALE PRICE OF COWS AND BU FFALOS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH OF RS.35,99,000/- WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. HENC E, THE AO CONSIDERED THE SAID SUM OF 35,99,000/- AS DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS FROM UN DISCLOSED SOURCE AND ADDED IT TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.7,2 5,000 - INTO BANK THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 12/08/2013 THE ASSESSEE WH EREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS NARRATION OF DEPOSITS (MENTIONING SOURCE) I N HER BANK A/C. NO. 01630100023996 MAINTAINED WITH UCO BANK, DUM DUM BRANCH. ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED VIDE NOTICE REFERRED TO ABOVE TO FURNISH MONTH-WISE SALE OF SWE ETS DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. THE AR IN HIS REPLY STATED THAT CASH DEPOSITS IN A/C. N O. 01630100023996 REPRESENTED DEPOSITS ARISING OUT OF BUSINESS CASH SURPLUS. AS TO THE MON THLY SALE OF THE BUSINESS THE LD. A/R FURNISHED THE FOLLOWING FIGURES WHICH ARE REPRODUCE D BELOW:- APRIL, 2010 MAY, 2010 JUNE, 2010 JULY, 2010 AUGUST, 2010 SEPTEMBER, 2010 OCTOBER, 2010 NOVEMBER, 2010 DECEMBER, 2010 JANUARY, 2011 FEBRUARY, 2011 MARCH, 2011 TOTAL: RS.2,22,900/- RS.2,12,600/- RS.2,18,600/- RS.2,13,200/- RS.2,18,800/- RS.2,19,300/- RS.3,24,600/- RS.2,21,800/- RS.2,10,300/- RS.2,16,200/- RS.2,01,100/- RS.1.85,600/- RS.26,75,000/- AND ALSO SINCE THE ASSESS IN HER AFFIDAVIT AFFIRMED THAT SHE LIVES IN A JOINT FAMILY, SHE WAS ASKED BY THE AO TO STATE HER MONTHLY DRAWING INCLUD ING HER CONTRIBUTION TO JOINT FAMILY AND COST OF FODDER FOR COWS AND BUFFALOS. BUT, ACC ORDING TO AO, SHE NEVER STATED HER AMOUNT OF DRAWINGS FROM BUSINESS FOR THE RELEVANT F INANCIAL YEAR. THE AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE IN PARA-25 OF HER AFFIDAVIT DATED 10/09/20 13 AFFIRMED 'THAT THE REQUIRED FAMILY EXPENDITURES WERE/ ARE DRAWN FROM THE EXCESS BALANC E OF CASH IN HAND ARISING OUT OF DAILY BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS.' THE AO NOTED THAT IN PARA- 26 OF THE SAME AFFIDAVIT SHE AFFIRMED 5 ITA NO. 79/KOL/2016 SMT. SIPRA GHOSH, AY 2011-12 'THAT KEEPING IN HAND A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF CASH F OR MAINTAINING DAILY BUSINESS OUTFLOW AS WELL AS DRAWINGS THEREOF, THE EXCESS BALANCE INT ERMITTENTLY DEPOSITED IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNTS HELD IN MY NAME JOINTLY WITH MY HUSBA ND SRI NITYANANDA GHOSH AND MY SON SRI RAJA GHOSH.' THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY AO V IDE LETTER DATED 17/10/2013 TO STATE THE PERIOD OF ACCUMULATION OF CASH BEFORE IT IS DEP OSITED INTERMITTENTLY BANK. IN REPLY TO THIS THE LD. A/R, VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 31/10/2013, SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN A/C. NO. 01630100023996 BEING CASH SURPLUS AROSE OUT OF BUSINESS DURING THE FESTIVE SEASONS (DURGA PUJA & OTHER PUJAS) IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER RS. 7,00,000/- (25/10/2010) AND NORMAL CASH SURPLUS RS.25,000/- (07/08/2010). ACCO RDING TO AO IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11, -MAHALAYA- FELL ON 07/10/2010 AND DURGA PUJA & LAXM I PUJA FELL ON 14/10/2010 AND 22/10/2010 RESPECTIVELY. ACCORDING TO AO, FROM THE MONTH-WISE SALE AS FURNISHED BY THE A/R THAT SALE FOR THE MONTHS OF AUGUST, 2010, SEPTE MBER, 2010 AND OCTOBER, 2010 WERE FOR RS.2,18,800/-, RS.2.19,300/- AND RS.3,24,600/- AND TOTAL SALES OF THESE 3 MONTHS COMES TO RS.7,62,700/- AND CASH DEPOSITS INTO BANK IS ONLY R S.25,000/- ON 07/08/2010 AND RS.7,00,000/- ON 25/10/2010. THE TOTAL COMES TO RS. 7,25,000/- WHEREAS TOTAL SALES DURING THE YEAR IS RS.26,75,000/-. NO OTHER CASH DEPOSIT EXCEPT RS.7,25,000/- IN HER SAVINGS BANK A/C. NO. 01630100023996 IS SEEN FROM THE RELEVANT B ANK STATEMENT. SO, ACCORDING TO AO, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN HER AFFIDAVIT THA T KEEPING IN HAND A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF CASH AND THAT THE EXCESS BALANCE WAS INTERMITTENTLY DEPOSITED TO BANK CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO AO, HAD THE CASH BEEN INTERMI TTENTLY DEPOSITED INTO BANK, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FEW MORE CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BAN K STATEMENT. SO, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.7,25,0 00/- WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND THE SAME WAS, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED AS FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCE AND WAS ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE AFORESAID ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTI ON OF AO. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6 ITA NO. 79/KOL/2016 SMT. SIPRA GHOSH, AY 2011-12 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE FACTS STATED ABOVE ARE NOT REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED THREE BANK ACCOUNT S WITH UCO BANK, DUM DUM BRANCH IN THE JOINT NAMES OF HER HUSBAND AS WELL AS THAT O F HER SON. IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED/WITHDRAWN IS NOT DISPUTED. THE A SSESSEE WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THESE DEPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNT SAID THAT HER INCOME WAS FR OM A SMALL SWEET SHOP AND HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. AND IN RESPECT TO THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT SHE CLAIMED THE AMOUNT TO BE FROM THE SALES OF COWS AND BUFFALOES, WHICH E XPLANATION HAS NOT BEEN BELIEVED BY THE AO/LD. CIT(A) AND HAVE MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION A GAINST THE ASSESSEE WHICH ACTIONS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED BEFOR E US. THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE SPECIFIC FINDING MADE BY THE AO AT PAGE 3 OF AS SESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN AT PARA 6 THE AO RECORDS INSPECTOR WAS DEPUTED FOR AN INQUIRY AND IT WAS REPORTED BY HIM O N 13.08.2013 THAT THERE WERE 70-80 COWS AND BUFFALOES MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE IN THE COW SHED . THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR BEFORE US IS AY 201 1-12 I.E. THE PERIOD BETWEEN 01.04.2010 AND 31.03.2011 AND THE INSPECTOR HAS INS PECTED ASSESSEES COW SHED AND HAS GIVEN HIS REPORT THAT HE HAD SEEN ABOUT 70-80 COWS & BUFFALOES ON 13.08.2013, WHICH IS AFTER ONE & A HALF YEARS. IN THE LIGHT OF AFFIDAVIT S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER RELATIVES THAT THEY HAD 41 COWS & BUFFALOES, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IN RESPECT OF MONEY DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT WAS FROM THE SALE OF COWS AND BUFFALOE S CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE AS SUCH. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO BRING EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD HER COWS AND BUFFALOES IN THE MAR KET, SO SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF MONEY IN BANK CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED. HOWEVER WE NOTE THAT THE INSPECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT ON 13.08.2013 AFTER SITE INSPECTION OF THE COW-SHED M AINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 70-80 COWS AND BUFFALOES GOES ON TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GOOD NUMBER OF COWS AND BUFFALOES MAINTAINED BY HER. WE NOTE THAT AO AFTER PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT OF HER RELATIVES HAS TAKEN NOTE THAT THERE WERE 41 COWS AND BUFFALOES MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS DISCERNED THA T ASSESSEE IS HAVING SOURCE OF HER INCOME FROM (I) COWS, (II) BUFFALOES, (III) MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS AND (IV) SWEET SHOP. THE SWEET SHOP INCOME ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED IN HER REG ULAR RETURN OF INCOME. SO THE SOURCE OF 7 ITA NO. 79/KOL/2016 SMT. SIPRA GHOSH, AY 2011-12 DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS MUST BE INFERRED TO HA VE BEEN FROM THE AFORESAID SOURCES OF INCOME OTHER THAN FROM SWEET SHOP. TAKING INTO CON SIDERATION THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION TH AT IN ORDER TO FIND OUT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO HAS TO TAKE INTO CONS IDERATION THE TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THEREAFTER, REDUCE THE TURNOVER DISCLO SED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SWEET SHOP, WHICH WILL GIVE THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER OF THE ASS ESSEE. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT THE ENTIRE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER CANNOT BE THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE. NECESSARILY THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME THAT SHALL FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME WOU LD BE SO TAKEN AFTER DEFRAYING ALL EXPENSES THAT ARE INCURRED FOR EARNING SUCH INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THIS PECULIAR CASE, GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 10% OF THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER SHOULD BE TAKEN AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT AMOUNT HAS ONLY TO BE TAXED. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE ON TIS ISSUE AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE GROSS P ROFIT AS DIRECTED ABOVE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLO WED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/12/201 8 SD/- SD/- (M. BALAGANESH) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 12TH DECEMBER, 2018 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT SMT. SIPRA GHOSH, 1162, EAST SINTHEE RO AD, DUM DUM, KOLKATA-700 030. 2 RESPONDENT ITO, WD-42(3), KOLKATA. 3 4 5 CIT(A)-13, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SR. PVT. SECRETARY