DCIT, Circle - 34, Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Gopal Das Bagree, Kolkata

ITA 883/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7230 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K ROY
• Assessee Lawyers: S M SURANA
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 14A; 131

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEN CH B, KOLKATA () BEFORE , , , , , SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER. /AND . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . , #$ SHRI C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %&' %&' %&' %&' ( ( ( ( / ITA NO . 601/KOL/2010 )* +,/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 (./ / APPELLANT ) M/S.GOPALDAS BAGREE, KOLKATA (PAN: AACFG 4731 G) - ) - - VERSUS - . (12.// RESPONDENT ) D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA ( ( ( ( / ITA NO . 883/KOL/2010 )* +,/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 (./ / APPELLANT ) D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA - ) - - VERSUS - . (12.// RESPONDENT ) M/S.GOPALDAS BAGREE, KOLKATA (PAN: AACFG 4731 G) ./ 3 4 #/ FOR THE DEPARTMENT: SHRI S.K.ROY 12./ 3 4 #/ FOR THE ASSESSEE: SHRI S.M.SURANA 5)6 3 '$ /DATE OF HEARING : 21.09.2011. 7+ 3 '$ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.10.2011 #8 / ORDER ( (( ( . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . ) )) ), , , , #$ PER SHRI C.D.RAO, AM THE ABOVE TWO APPEALS ONE FILED BY ASSESSEE AND TH E OTHER FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 23.02.20 10 OF THE CIT(A)-XX, KOLKATA PERTAINING TO A.YR. 2005-06. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE OF BOTH THE APPEALS ARE THAT WHILE DOING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS : 2 (I) DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,53,928/- U/S 14 A (II) DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.79,63,061/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : FROM THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND FROM THE DETAIL S OF INTEREST PAID, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS RECEIVED EXEMPT INCOME OF RS. 10,15,097/- AND INTEREST PAID IS OF RS.4,41,823/-. AS THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS SHOWN DIVID END INCOME EXEMPT INCOME, THE EXPENDITURE U/S 14A IS APPLICABLE. CONSIDERING THE EXEMPTED DIVIDEND INCOME, INTEREST PAID AND OTHER EXPENDITURES DEBITED, THE D ISALLOWANCE U/S 14A COMES TO RS.5,53,928/- ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS AND ADDED TO T HE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C, IT IS NOTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS DEBITED BAD DEBTS OF RS.79,63,061/-. THE A/R HAS SUBMITTED A COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF DINESH KUMAR SINGHANIA IN THIS RESPECT. FROM THE LEDGER A/C OF D INESH KUMAR SINGHANIA AND THE ASSESEES LEDGER A/C, THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT MENTION ED ARE OF RS.80,16,206/- AND RS.79,63,061/- RESPECTIVELY. FROM THE DETAILS OF LE DGER A/C OF DINESH KUMAR SINGHANIA, THE DEBTOR, IT IS NOTED THAT THERE ARE S OME TRANSACTIONS FOR DELIVERY AND FOR DIFFERENCE OF SHARES. THE A/R HAS STATED THAT THE B AD DEBTS ARE ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THE CONTENTION OF THE A/R IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ON THE GROUNDS OF NON-SUBMISSION OF THE CATEGORIZED AND DETAILED SHARE DEALINGS WITH DINISH KUMAR SINGHANIA FOR DELIVERY AND NON-DELIVERY WITH CONFIRMATION THERE OF. CONSIDERIN G THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, THE BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF OF RS.79,63,061 /- IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE IS HEARD AND DISCUSSED. 2.1. ON APPEAL LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITIO N OF RS.5,53,928/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A THE LD. AR CO NTENDED THAT THE CASE WAS NOT REOPENED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A AND THAT NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE IN RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS; MOREOVER, ALL EXPENSES ARE RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.10,15,097/-, AND THE AO HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D READ WITH SECTION 14A. THE ORDER OF THE AO CALLS FOR NO INTERFERENCE. 2.2. HOWEVER, HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.79,63,0 61/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 5.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT RECOR D. THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN REGARD TO THE TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT WITH THE SAI D DEBTOR. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.79,63,061/- WAS DUE TO THE APP ELLANT FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS. THE APPELLANT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PAYMENT, AGAINST SUCH OUTSTANDING BALANCE, IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS, AND THEREFORE, IN THE RELEVANT YE AR, THE APPELLANT HAS WRITTEN OFF, IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE SAID DEBT AS BAD. THE DEB T AROSE IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES, WHICH WAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE P&L A/C FOR AN EARLIER YEAR, NAMELY, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-0 2, AND, THAT THE AMOUNT WAS DULY WRITTEN OFF IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THESE FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE AO. THE DECISION OF THE AO IS NOT BASED ON PROPER FINDI NGS. THE AO HAS FAILED TO PROPERLY ANALYSE THE FACTS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. HE AL SO SEEMS TO HAVE SUMMARILY 3 REJECTED THE EXPLANATIONS, AND ALSO THE DOCUMENTS A ND EVIDENCES, FILED BEFORE HIM BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE CO NSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT . 2.3. AGGRIEVED BY THIS BOTH THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. DR APPEARING ON B EHALF OF THE REVENUE BY REFERRING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REV ENUE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER THAT FROM THE PR OFIT & LOSS A/C, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED BAD DEBTS OF RS.79,63,061/-. T HE A/R HAS SUBMITTED A COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF DINESH KUMAR SINGHANIA IN THIS RE SPECT. FROM THE LEDGER A/C OF DINESH KUMAR SINGHANIA AND THE ASSESEES LEDGER A/C, THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT MENTIONED ARE OF RS.80,16,206/- AND RS.79,63,061/- RESPECTIVELY. FROM THE DETAILS OF LEDGER A/C OF DINESH KUMAR SINGHANIA, THE DEBTOR, I T IS NOTED THAT THERE ARE SOME TRANSACTIONS FOR DELIVERY AND FOR DIFFERENCE OF SHA RES. THE A/R HAS STATED THAT THE BAD DEBTS ARE ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THE CONTENTION OF THE A/R IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ON THE GROUNDS OF NON-SUBMISSION OF THE CATEGORIZED AND DE TAILED SHARE DEALINGS WITH DINISH KUMAR SINGHANIA FOR DELIVERY AND NON-DELIVERY WITH CONFIRMATION THERE OF. CONSIDERING THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE , THE BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF OF RS.79,63,061/- IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED TH E FACT AND OBSERVATION OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND DELETED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.79,63,061/- MADE BY THE 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE BY REFERRING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT PARA 5.1. WHEREIN LD. CIT( A) HAS ABSTRACTED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE AND FI NALLY CONTENDED THAT THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IS FAIR AND JUST TO THE PRESENT FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO UPHELD THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DISALLOWING THE ADDITION OF RS.79,63,061/-. 5. AS REGARDING ASSESSEES APPEAL HE ARGUED THAT LD . CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,53,928/- MADE B Y AO BY APPLYING THE PROVISO OF 4 RULE 8D WHICH IS NOT EFFECTIVE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GO DREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. VS DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (BOM). THERE FORE HE REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. 6. N THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE. 7. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREF UL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACT TH AT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BY LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT PARA 5.1 WHICH IS AS UNDER : 5.1 THE LD. AR APPEARED FOR THE APPELLANT AND FIL ED WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 30-10-2005 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,81,188/-. THE APPELLANT DERIVES INCOME FROM SHARE DEALINGS IN HIS OWN TRADI NG ACCOUNT, AND ALSO, FROM BROKERAGE IN SHARES. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED BAD DEBT OF RS.79,63,061/- DURING THE YEAR. THE LD. AR EXPLAINED THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE C ASE. IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, THE APPELLANT PURCHASE D AND SOLD SHARES IN HIS OWN TRADING ACCOUNT, AND, DECLARED PROFIT THEREON IN TH E SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR; WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE P&L A/C AND THE TAX AUDIT REPORT OF THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE APPELLANT HAS MAINTAINED DAY-TO-DAY STOCK REGISTER FOR ALL THE YEARS, INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, WHEREIN ALL PURCHASES AND SALES OF SHARES ARE RECORDED. THE APPELLANT HAS HAD SHARE TRADINGS WITH DINESH KUMAR SINGHANIA & CO IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02; AND, DURING THE COURSE OF SUCH SHARE TRADING, THE APPELLANT SOLD CERTAIN SHARES TO DINESH KUMAR SINGHANIA & CO, AND, SOME PAYMENTS WERE ALSO RECEIVED. BUT, A SUM OF RS.79,63,061/- REMAINED OUT STANDING, WHICH WAS WRITTEN OFF DURING YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. DURING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/143(3), COPY OF ACCOUNT OF DINESH KUMAR SINGHAN IA & CO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, WHEREIN ALL THE TRANSACTIONS INCLUDIN G THAT WITH REGARD TO THE SALE OF SHARES WERE DULY CONFIRMED BY THEM, WAS FILED BEFOR E THE AO. THE FULL COPY OF THE STOCK REGISTER WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE AO, WHEREI N THE SAID SALE, AND ALSO THE CORRESPONDING PURCHASE, WAS DULY RECORDED. THE AO D ID NOT FIND ANY IRREGULARITY OR FAULT IN THE SHARE DEALINGS WITH DINESH KUMAR SINGH ANIA & CO. THE TOTAL PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES, IN QUANTITY, AND ALSO IN TERMS OF MONEY, WERE TALLIED FROM THE STOCK REGISTER VIS--VIS AUDITED P&L A/C AND BALANCE SHEE T OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, WHICH WAS DULY FILED BEFOR E THE AO. THE BANK STATEMENT OF DINESH KUMAR SINGHANIA & CO WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO AND THE RECEIPTS WERE DULY VERIFIED. THE DEMAT ACCOUNT, WHEREIN THE PURCHASE A ND SALE OF SHARES IS DULY REFLECTED, WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO, AND, WAS ALSO VERIFIED BY HIM. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE ABOVE FACTS AND EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE AO W ERE AGAIN CONFIRMED BY THE APPELLANTS LETTER DATED 25-11-2009, WHICH IS NOT D ISPUTED BY THE AO. THE LD AR SUMMARIZED THE EVIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE AO AS UNDER - 5 1- THE DULY CONFIRMED COPY OF ACCOUNT FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2001-02 FROM DINESH KUMAR SINGHANIA & CO, SHOWING THAT THE DEBT WAS OUT STANDING ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES TO THEM. 2- THE COPY OF AUDITED TRADING A/C OF THE APPELL ANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, SHOWING THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES IN THE APPE LLANTS OWN ACCOUNT. 3- THE DAY-TO-DAY STOCK REGISTER SHOWING PURCHASES AND SALES OF SHARES, WHEREIN THE SALE OF SHARES TO DINESH KUMAR SINGHANIA & CO IS RE CORDED, AND, THE CORRESPONDING PURCHASE IS ALSO RECORDED. THE STOCK REGISTER ALSO CONTAINS TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES DEALT IN DURING THE YEAR, THE FIGURE FOR THE PURCHASE AND SALE FOR THE WHOLE YEAR, AND ALSO, THE MARKET VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK AT THE END OF THE YEAR. 4- THE EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT MADE TO CALCUTTA STOCK E XCHANGE FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, WHICH WERE SOLD TO DINESH KUMAR SINGHANIA & CO. 5- THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2001-02, SHOWING THE PAYMENT MADE TO CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE FOR PURCHAS E OF SHARES, AND ALSO, THE CHEQUES RECEIVED FROM DINESH KUMR SINGHANIA & CO. 6- THE COPY OF THE DEMAT ACCOUNT SHOWING THE IN-COM ING AND OUT-GOING OF THE SHARES SOLD TO DINESH KUMAR SINGHANIA & CO. 7- THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF DINESH KUMAR SINGH ANIA & CO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2005-06 IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELL ANT TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO RECOVERY FROM DINESH KUMAR SINGHANIA & CO. AND, THA T THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THE ABOVE FACTS ARE NOT DENI ED BY THE AO. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE EVIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM. HOWEVER, THE AO REQUIRED THE APPE LLANT TO PRODUCE CONFIRMATION OF BAD DEBT FROM DINESH KUMAR SINGHANIA & CO, A CERTIF ICATE FROM CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE WITH REGARD TO THE PURCHASES, AND, DAILY S TATEMENT OF CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. IT WAS EXPLAIN ED BEFORE THE AO THAT DINESH KUMAR SINGHANIA & CO WAS ABSCONDING, AND THEREFORE, NO CERTIFICATE COULD BE OBTAINED FROM THEM. THE AO WAS REQUESTED TO ISSUE S UMMONS U/S 131 TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE FROM THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE, BUT, T HE SUMMONS WAS NOT ISSUED. THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE DEBT AROSE IN THE NORM AL COURSE OF BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES, WHICH WAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE P&L A/C FOR AN EARLIER YEAR, NAMELY, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02; AND, THAT THE AMOU NT WAS DULY WRITTEN OFF IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. RELIANCE WA S PLACED. ON CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 551 AND VARIOUS LEGAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, E.G., NAYI DU NIYA 295 ITR 346, GLOBAL CAPITAL 306 ITR 332, OMAN INTERNATIONAL 100 LTD SPE CIAL BENCH 285 AND 61 LTD 183 (KOLKATA). 7.1. FURTHER KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT AO H AS NOT DISPUTED THAT DEBT AROSE IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES, WHICH WAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE P&L ACCOUNT OF ASSESEE FOR THE EARLIER YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND THAT THE AMOUNT WAS DULY WRITTEN OFF I N THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) TO BE INTERFERED WITH. 8. IN THE RESULT THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6 9. AS REGARDING ASSESSEES APPEAL ON ACCOUNT OF DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.5,53,928/- MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF IT RUL ES. 10. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CARE FUL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACT TH AT AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ AND BOYCE M FG. PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, RULE 8D I S NOT APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION.. THEREFORE WE CONSIDER IT TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE B ASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE OF BEING HEARD AS PER LAW. 11. THE LAST ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL IS RELATING TO THE GRANT OF DEDUCTION OF STT PAID BY ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.1 ,12,937/- AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 88E OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 12. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CARE FUL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THIS ISSUE BY OBSERVING THAT THE LD. AR DID NOT ELABORATE THIS GROUND DURIN G THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AS REGARDING E NTITLEMENT OF DEDUCTION U/S 88E OF IT ACT ASSESSEE IS SUPPOSED TO FURNISH EVIDENCES OF PAYMENT OF SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM. SINCE IN THIS CASE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE LD. AR HAD NOT ELABORATED ON THIS GROUND IN THE COURSE OF APPE LLATE PROCEEDINGS HE REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUST ICE WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO ASSESSEE TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS AS STATED U/S 88E OF THE IT ACT IN ORDER TO GET THE EXEMPTION AS PER LAW. TH E AO IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD TO ASSESSEE AND AFTER ACCEPTING THE EVIDENCES WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO GET THE EXEMPTION U/S 88E OF THE IT ACT. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED AND THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14.10.2011. SD/- SD/- , , , , MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . , ,, , #$ #$ #$ #$ , C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( (( ('$ '$ '$ '$) )) ) DATE: 14.10.2011. #8 3 1& 9#&+:- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S.GOPALDAS BAGREE, 7, LYONS RANGE, KOLKATA-700001 . 2 THE DCIT, CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A)-XX, KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA 2& 1/ TRUE COPY, #8)5/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES R.G.(.P.S.)