Sri Ajay Kumar Agarwal , Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 34(2), Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 847/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6049 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMKAR H
• Assessee Lawyers: V N PUROHIT
• Keywords: Rule of consistency; Notional interest
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM &DR. A.L.SAIN I, AM ./ITA NO.847/KOL/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) SRI AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL 12, AMARTALLA STREET, ROOM NO.205, 2 ND FLOOR, KOL-1. VS. ITO, WARD-34(2), KOLKATA 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA 700 107. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO.: ACYPA 2081 K (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :SHRI V. N. PUROHIT , FCA RESPONDENT BY :SAMKAR H. ADDL.CIT- DR / DATE OF HEARING : 12/11/2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/01/2019 / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THEASSESSEE,PERTAININ G TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, KOLKATA, IN APPEAL NO.77/CIT(A)-1 0/WD-34(2)/13-14/2016- 17/KOL, DATED 31.01.2018, WHICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) DATED 29.02.2016. 2. THE GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOL LOWS: (1).THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.142,870/- MADE AS INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED FUND NOT ALLOWABLE. (2).THAT LIKEWISE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.806,627/- BEING NOTIONAL INTEREST OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN EARNED/RECEIVED. (3) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVED LEAVE TO ADD TO AMEND AND ON WITHDRAW ANY GROUND STATED ABOVE ON OR BEFORE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO.847/KOL/2018 SRI AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 2 22 2 3. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO AD DITION OF RS.142,870/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTERES T PAID ON BORROWED FUND. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST TO ANJU AGARWAL. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN HOW LOAN TAKEN FROM HER HAD BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE SIMPLY STATED THAT LOAN WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED PROPERL Y THE UTILIZATION OF THE BORROWINGS THEREFORE, INTEREST OF RS.1,42,870/- PAI D TO ANJU AGARWAL WAS TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS NOT RELATED TO HIS BUSI NESS AND THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,42,870/-. 5. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERV ED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS T O HOW LOAN TAKEN FROM ANJU AGARWAL HAD BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINE SS.THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US, THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITE RATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THEAUTHORITIES BELOW, WHEREAS THE LD. DR FOR THE RE VENUE RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. WE HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIV AL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE NOTE THAT ASS ESSEE HAD OPENING BALANCE OF LOAN AS ON 1 ST APRIL 2012 TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,03,874/-. DURING T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE FRESH LOAN WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,08,000/- AND REPAID LOAN TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,5 5,831/-. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCRUED INTEREST TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,4 2,870/- AND SINCE THE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST PERTAINS TO THE OPENING BALANCE OF THE LOA N. THE INTEREST ON THE OPENING ITA NO.847/KOL/2018 SRI AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 3 33 3 BALANCE OF THE LOAN HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE DEPARTM ENT IN THE EARLIER YEARS.THE SUMMARY OF THE LOAN GIVEN AND REPAID ARE AS FOLLOWS : I) OPENING BALANCE ON 01.04.12 RS.12,03,874/- (NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEAR) II) DURING THE YEAR FRESH RECEIPTS - RS.4,08,000 LESS: REPAID- RS.1,55,831 RS.2,52,169/- III) INTEREST CREDITED RS.1,42,870/- IV) CLOSING BALANCE ON 31.03.13 RS.15,98,913/- B) UTILISATION (OUT OF FRESH LOAN) I)GIVEN TO JAYSHREE UDYOG, RS.3,08,000/- (DIRECTLY BY MRS. ANJU AGARWAL) A FIRM IN WHICH A IS A PARTNER AND SHARE PROFIT AND SALARY EARNED RS.81150/-, RS.24000/- RESPECTIVELY II)RS.98,000/- CHEQUE DEPOSITED RS.98,000/- ON 20.03.13 DURING THE YEAR IN ASSESSEES BANK AND INVESTED IN SAME FIRM ON 22.03.13 RS.1,50,000/- THE LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT DURING THE YEAR THE FRESH LOAN WAS ONLY RS.2,52,169/- AND ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED RS.3,08,000 /- AND RS.98,000/- (TOTAL RS.4,06,000/-) IN JAYSHREE UDYOG (FIRM) FROM WHERE SALARY AND SHARE OF PROFIT WAS EARNED, AS EXPLAINED IN THE STATEMENT ABOVE, THEREF ORE, THE ENTIRE LOAN HAS BEEN UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THE AS SESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION. 9. WE NOTE THAT THE DATA MENTIONED IN PARA 8 OF OUR ORDER CLEARLY SPEAKS THAT MOST OF THE INTEREST PERTAINS TO THE OPENING BALANC E AND THE INTEREST ON SAID LOAN HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE PREVI OUS YEAR. THEREFORE, WE NOTE THAT BY FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY AS E NUNCIATED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY IN INCOME TAX PROCEEDIN GS , EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING A UNIT, WHAT IS DECIDED IN ONE YEAR MAY NOT A PPLY IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR BUT WHERE A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT PERMEATING THROUGH THE D IFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND P ARTIES HAVE ALLOWED THAT POSITION TO BE SUSTAINED BY NOT CHALLENGING THE ORD ER, IT WOULD NOT BE AT ALL APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE POSITION TO BE CHANGED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR . ITA NO.847/KOL/2018 SRI AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 4 44 4 THEREFORE, BASED ON THE ENTIRETYOF THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ALLOW THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO A DDITION OF RS.8,06,627/- ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST. 11. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING T HE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13, THE ASSESSEE HAD ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.8,46,166/- REC EIVED TOWARDS MAINTENANCE CHARGES FROM SHARDA PUBLICITY. NOW, IF INTEREST INC OME FROM M/S. HIMADRI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY HAD ALSO BEEN INCLUDED ON ACCR UAL BASIS AS DONE DURING THE F.Y 2011-12 ASSESSEES TAXABLE INCOME WOULD HAVE BE EN MUCH HIGHER AND HE WOULD HAVE REQUIRED TO PAY MORE TAX. IN ORDER TO AV OID PAYMENT OF EXTRA TAX THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DECLARE INTEREST INCOME FROM M/S. HIMADRI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND M/S. HIMADRI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ALSO HELPED THE ASSESSEE BY NOT MAKING ANY PROVISION FOR INTEREST PAYABLE ON CA PITAL INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT M/S. H IMADRI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY COULD NOT PAY INTEREST DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTA NCES WAS FOUND DEVOID OF ANY MERIT BECAUSE THE FIRM ALSO DID NOT PAY ANY INTERES T ON CAPITAL DURING THE F.Y 2011-12 BUT MADE PROVISION FOR INTEREST PAYMENT AS PER THE TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND SINCE THERE W AS NOT BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE F.Y 2011-12 AS WELL AS DURING THE F.Y 2012-13, ALL THE EXPENSES INCURRED WERE ACCOUNTED FOR UNDER THE HEAD PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES . THEREFORE, AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND THE FIRM MUTUALLY DECIDED NOT TO SHOW INTEREST ON CAPITAL IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS AS BY DOING SO THE ASSESSEE COU LD UNDERSTATE HIS INCOME IN THE RETURN TO REDUCE HIS TAX LIABILITY WITHOUT HARMING FIRMS INTEREST AS THERE WAS NO INCOME IN THE FIRM FOR ADJUSTMENT WITH INTEREST PAY ABLE ON CAPITAL. IN THE FIRM, THE ASSESSEE HAD OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE AS ON 01.04.20 12 AT RS.1,11,71,334/- OUT OF WHICH HE WITHDREW RS.8,00,000/- ON 04.04.2012. THER EFORE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DECLARED INTEREST INCOME @15% P.A. (AS PER THE RATE MENTIONED IN THE PARTNERSHIP DEED) I.E. AT RS.15,56,686/- ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF INTEREST OF RS.7,50,059/- PAID TO M/S. JAGANNATH BI JAY KUMAR. IN FINE, RS.8,06,627/- SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED AS INTEREST INCOME ON CAPITAL INVESTED IN ITA NO.847/KOL/2018 SRI AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 5 55 5 HIMADRI CONSTRUCTION CO. THEREFORE, AO NOTED THAT A SSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF REVENUE RECOGNITION WITH THE INTENTION TO REDUCE TAX LIABILITY. HENCE, FOR ALL THE REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE AO MADE AD DITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.8,06,627/-. 12. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING THE FOLLOWING: IF THE INTEREST INCOME FROM M/S HIMADRI CONSTRU CTION COMPANY HAD ALSO BEEN INCLUDED ON ACCRUAL BASIS AS DONE DURING THE F .Y 2011-12, THE ASSESSEES TAXABLE INCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH HIGHER AND HE W OULD HAVE REQUIRED TO PAY MORE TAX. THEREFORE, IN THE RECKONING OF THE LD. AS SESSING OFFICER, SO AS TO AVOID PAYMENT OF EXTRA TAX THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DECLARE I NTEREST INCOME FROM M/S HIMADRI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND M/S HIMADRI CONSTR UCTION COMPANY ALSO HELPED THE ASSESSEE BY NOT MAKING ANY PROVISION FOR INTEREST PAYABLE ON CAPITAL INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER RECKONED THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT M/S. HIMADRI CONSTRUCT ION COMPANY COULD NOT PAY INTEREST DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES WAS FOUND DEVOID OF ANY MERIT BECAUSE THE FIRM ALSO DIDN'T PAY ANY INTEREST ON CAPITAL DU RING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12, BUT MADE PROVISION FOR INTEREST PAYMENT AS PER THE TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND SINCE THERE WAS NO BUSINESS AC TIVITY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 AS WELL AS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2O12-1 3 ALL THE EXPENSES INCURRED WERE ACCOUNTED FOR UNDER THE HEAD PRE-OPERATIVE EXP ENSES. THEREFORE, THE LD AO RECKONED THAT IT WAS QUITE APPARENT THAT THE ASSESS EE AND THE FIRM MUTUALLY DECIDED NOT TO SHOW INTEREST ON CAPITAL IN THEIR RE SPECTIVE ACCOUNTS AS BY DOING SO THE ASSESSEE COULD UNDERSTATE HIS INCOME IN THE RET URN TO REDUCE HIS TAX LIABILITY WITHOUT HARMING FIRM'S INTEREST AS THERE WAS NO INC OME IN THE FIRM FOR ADJUSTMENT WITH INTEREST PAYABLE ON CAPITAL. THE LD AO RECORDE D THE RELEVANT FIGURES IN THE FIRM IN SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEE HAD OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2012 AT RS.1,11,71,334/- OUT OF WHICH HE WITHDREW RS.8,00,0 00/- ON 04.04.2012. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE LD AO HAS RIGHTL Y OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DECLARED INTEREST INCOME @ 15% P.A (AS PER THE RATE MENTIONED IN THE PARTNERSHIP DEED) I.E. AT RS.15,56,686/- ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF INTEREST OF RS.7,50,059/- PAID TO M/S. JAGANNATH BI JAY KUMAR. THEREFORE THE LD AO CONCLUDED THAT RS.8,06,627/- (RS.15,56,686-RS.7, 50,O59) OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DECLARED AS INTEREST ON CAPITAL INVESTED IN THE PAR TNERSHIP FORM M/S HIMADRI CONSTRUCTION CO. 12. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE A SSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ITA NO.847/KOL/2018 SRI AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 6 66 6 LOWER AUTHORITIES WHEREAS THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENU E REITERATED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. WE HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RI VAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE NOTE THAT GRO UND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ADDITION OF NOTIONAL INTEREST OF RS.8,06 ,627/- FROM CAPITAL INVESTED IN M/S. HIMADRI CONSTRUCTION CO. THE LD COUNSEL SUBMIT TED BEFORE US THAT THIS TYPE OF NOTIONAL ADDITION WAS ALSO MADE BY A.O. IN IMM EDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AT RS. 5,86,334/-. THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED IN THE BOOKS AS I NTEREST ON CAPITAL TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5,86,334/-BUT NEVER RECEIVED FROM M/S. HIMADRI CONSTRUCTION CO; THEREFORE, IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESS EE DECIDED NOT TO MAKE PROVISION FOR INTEREST, AS THERE WAS NO CERTAINTY T O RECEIVE THE INTEREST. THE LD COUNSEL ALSO EXPLAINED THE BENCH THAT M/S. HIMADRI CONSTRUCTION CO. WAS ALLOTTED A PLOT OF LAND IN ACTION AREA LLC OF NEW T OWN BY W.B. HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. AGAINST DEPO SIT OF RS.2,00,46,000/- AND SAID ALLOTMENT WAS CANCELLED AND FIRM WAS OFFICIALL Y INFORMED BY LETTER DATED 02- 12-13 THAT ENTIRE DEPOSIT WAS RETURNED BACK WITHOUT ANY INTEREST THEREON. THEREFORE, M/S. HIMADRI CONSTRUCTION CO. DOES NOT H AVE ANY INCOME TO PAY THE INTEREST TO THE PARTNERS AND AS A RESULT, THE ASSES SEE DOES NOT MAKE PROVISION FOR INTEREST, AS THERE IS NO CERTAINTY TO RECEIVE THE I NTEREST INCOME. THAT IS, SUBSTANTIAL CAPITAL OF M/S. HIMADRI CONSTRUCTION CO. WAS GOT IN VESTED IN DEPOSIT OF RS.2,00,46,000/-, AS EXPLAINED ABOVE AND WHEN THE A LLOTMENT WAS CANCELLED WITHOUT INTEREST, M/S. HIMADRI CONSTRUCTION CO. NAT URALLY DOES NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST INCOME OR OTHER INCOME TO PAY INTEREST TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT MAKE ANY PROVISION FOR INTEREST I N HIS BOOKS, AS THERE IS NO CERTAINTY TO RECEIVE THE INTEREST. WE NOTE THAT WHEN THERE IS NO CERTAINTY TO RECEIVE THE INCOME, THE INCOME RECOGNITION IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SHOULD BE POST PONED. IN THE ASSESSEE`S CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THERE IS NO CERTAINTY TO RECEIV E THE INTEREST INCOME THEREFORE HE HAS NOT RECOGNIZED THE INCOME. SO FAR INCOME RECOGN ITION IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWS THE CONSERVATIVE APPROACH, THAT IS , PROVISION FOR LOSSES MAY BE ITA NO.847/KOL/2018 SRI AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 7 77 7 MADE BUT NOT THE PROVISION FOR INCOME. THE PROVISIO N FOR INCOMECAN BE MADE PROVIDED THERE IS ADEQUATE CERTAINTY THAT INCOME WI LL BE RECEIVED. IN THE ASSESSEE`S CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THERE IS NO CERTAINTY TO R ECEIVE INTEREST THEREFORE, PROVISION FOR INTEREST INCOME HAS NOT BEEN MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN MERCANTILE SYSTEM, PROFIT ARISES / ACCRUES ON THE D ATE OF TRANSACTION. THE 'RECEIPT' OF INCOME REFERS TO THE FIRST OCCASION WHEN THE REC IPIENT GETS THE MONEY UNDER HIS OWN CONTROL. [KESHAV MILLS LTD. VS CIT (SC) 23 ITR 230]. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT I F NO INCOME HAS RESULTED, THERE COULD BE NO TAX. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO QUESTION TO PROVIDE FOR ANY INTEREST ON CAPITAL IN HIMADRI CONST. CO; WHEN NO INTEREST ON DEPOSIT WAS EVEN EARNED, THE QU ESTION OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ADDITION CANNOT ARISE, AS THERE IS NO CERTAINTY TO RECEIVE INTEREST INCOME. BASED ON THE FACTUAL POSITION DISCUSSED ABOVE, AND CONSIDERI NG THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST OF RS.8,06,627/- NEEDS TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.01.2019 . SD/- ( S. S.VISWANETHRA RAVI ) SD/- (A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA; / DATE: 23/01/2019 ( RS, SR.PS ) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. /THE APPELLANT- AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL 2. ! / THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-34(2), KOLKATA 3. ' ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. ' / CIT ITA NO.847/KOL/2018 SRI AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 8 88 8 TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA . 5. #$% &&'( , '( , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. %)*+ / GUARD FILE. !# &