Vishwamitra Golash, Kolkata V. The ITO, Wd-36(4), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 973/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99973 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S JHAJHARIA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 973/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 973/KOL/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-2007 VISHWAMITRA GOLASH,................................ ...............................APPELLANT C/O. M/S. R. KUMAR & CO., 30, BRABOURNE ROAD, KOLKATA-700 001 [PAN : ADQPG 0940 G] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ .........................RESPONDENT WARD-36(4), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLY, KOLKATA-700 107 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI S. JHAJHARIA, A.R., FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI DEBASISH LAHIRI, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : SEPTEMBER 17, 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 4 TH , 2015 O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XX, KOLKATA DA TED 04.03.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, WHEREBY HE CONFIRMED T HE VARIOUS ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L, WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADING OF ALU MINIUM EXTRUSIONS, SHEET, COIL, ETC. UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF HIS P ROPRIETOR CONCERN M/S. R. KUMAR & CO. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY HIM ON 31.10.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.1,12,700/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE I.T.A. NO. 973/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 2 OF 8 ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DUE TO ABNORMAL INCREASE OF PRICE IN ALUMINIUM, THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED SUPER-NATURAL PROFIT, BUT THE S AME WAS REDUCED BY UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. IN THIS REGARD, H E NOTED THAT THE AVERAGE COST OF ALUMINIUM PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS RS.152.76 PER KG., WHEREAS THE CL OSING STOCK OF ALUMINIUM WAS VALUED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE RATE OF RS.99.65 PER KG. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O FURNISH THE ITEM- WISE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE BEING WIDE VARIETY OF ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS DEAL T WITH BY HIM, PRODUCE-WISE DETAILS WERE NOT MAINTAINED AND THE EN TIRE STOCK OF ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS WAS MAINTAINED UNDER ONE CATEGOR Y IN KILOGRAM. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS TURNOVE R BEING LESS THAN RS.40,00,000/- AND THE NET PROFIT OFFERED BY HIM BE ING MORE THAN 5%, I.E. 5.15% OF THE TURNOVER, THE SAME WAS LIABLE TO BE AC CEPTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AF OF THE ACT. THIS STAND O F THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS ACCOR DING TO HIM, THE GROSS TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.40.12 LAKHS AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AF, THEREFORE, WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CLOSING STOCK OF ALUMINIUM VALUED AT RS.99.65 PER KG., WAS AT MARKET VALUE BEI NG THE SCRAP VALUE. IN THIS REGARD, HE NOTED THAT THE LAST PURCHASE OF ALU MINIUM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON 27.02.2006 IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION AT THE RATE OF RS.181/- PER KG. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, REJECTED THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PROCEEDED TO DETERMINE THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF THE ASS ESSEE ON HIS OWN. IN THIS REGARD, HE NOTED THAT THE AVERAGE COST OF OPEN ING STOCK OF ALUMINIUM WAS RS.83.82 PER KG., WHILE THE AVERAGE COST OF ALU MINIUM PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.152.76 PER KG. ACCORDINGLY, FOL LOWING THE FIFO METHOD, THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK OF ALUMINIUM LYI NG WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.50,02 ,894/- AS AGAINST THE VALUE OF RS.39,61,500/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HE DIFFERENCE OF RS.10,41,394/- WAS ADDED BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO. 973/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 3 OF 8 3. IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, A SUM OF RS.45,529 /- WAS DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS BUILDING RECONSTRUCTION COST U NDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS EX PLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AND AGREEMENT BETWEEN BUILDING OWNERS AND TENANTS, THE RECONSTRUC TION COST OF THE BUILDING WAS TO BE PAID BY THE TENANTS INCLUDING TH E ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CONST RUCTION COST AMOUNTING TO RS.4,59,529/- WAS TO BE PAID IN EQUAL INSTALMEN TS AND ONE OF THE INSTALMENTS SO PAID AMOUNTING TO RS.45,529/- WAS CL AIMED AS DEDUCTION IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS CONTENDED T HAT THIS EXPENDITURE WAS NOT A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AS THE BUILDING (GODO WN) WAS NOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE RECONSTRUCTION COST WAS INCURR ED BY HIM AS TENANT AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT . THIS STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE ADVANTAGE OF ENDURING NATURE OCCURRING IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, HE DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.45,52 9/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. HE ALSO DISALLOWED RENT OF RS.10,320/- CLAIMED TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAID GODOWN ON THE GROUND THAT DUE TO THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, THE GODOWN BUILDING WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASS ESSEES BUSINESS. SIMILARLY EXPENDITURE OF RS.17,632/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS MAINTENANCE OF ELEVATOR OF HIS RESIDENCE AT 23B/8A, D.H. ROAD, NEW ALIPORE, WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS AS FOUND BY HIM ON THE BASIS OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY HIS INSPECT OR. THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF MAINTENANCE O F MOTOR CARS WERE ALSO DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXT ENT OF 20% FOR THE PERSONAL USE OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF LOG BO OK, ETC. TO SHOW THAT THE SAME WERE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR T HE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS DETERMINED BY I.T.A. NO. 973/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 4 OF 8 THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.12,66,330/- IN THE ASSE SSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 18.12.2008 . 4. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 143(3), AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED ALL THE ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT THE DISALLOWANCE OF 20% MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER OUT OF CAR EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION, WHICH WAS RESTRICTED BY HIM TO 10%. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FOLLOWING GR OUNDS:- ( 1) FOR THAT HONBLE CIT(A) NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALL OWING THE ASSESSEE TO CALCULATE THE PROFIT OF HIS BUSINESS AS PER SECTION 44AF OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. (2) FOR THAT HONBLE CIT(A) NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLD ING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO EVEN WHEN THE PROVISIO NS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND DECIDED CASE LAWS ARE IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. (3) FOR THAT HONBLE CIT(A) NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLD ING THE DECISION OF LD. AO ON THE GROUND THAT LD. AO WAS EL ABORATED THE REASONS FOR ARRIVING AT THE VALUE OF CLOSING ST OCK AND NO INFIRMITY FOUND IN AOS ORDER IN REGARD WITH ADDITI ON FOR CLOSING STOCK OF RS.10,41,394/-. (4) FOR THAT HONBLE CIT(A) NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLD ING THE DECISION OF LD. AO THAT EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE AS SESSEE ON RECONSTRUCTION OF SHOP/GODOWN ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE AND THE LD.AO RIGHTLY TREATED RECONSTRUCTION OF SHOP/GO DOWN AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.45,529/-. (5) FOR THAT HONBLE CIT(A) NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALL OWING RENT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.10,320/- AND ADDITION OF SAME IN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREBY, CONFIRMING ADDITIO N MADE BY THE LD. AO. (6) FOR THAT HONBLE CIT(A) NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALL OWING CLAIM OF MAINTENANCE OF ELEVATOR BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.17,632/- AND ADDITION OF SAME IN INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE, THEREBY, CONFIRMING ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO. I.T.A. NO. 973/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 5 OF 8 (7) FOR THAT HONBLE CIT(A) NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING 10% DISALLOWANCES OF CAR EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION ON A D HOC BASIS. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS REGARDS T HE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 RELATING TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AF, IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE TRADING AND PROFIT & LOSS A/C. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT OF RS.39.82 LAKHS IS CREDITED ON ACCOUNT OF SALES, THE SAME IS A NET AMO UNT AFTER DEDUCTING EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESESE ON TURNOVER TA X AND VAT. SINCE WHAT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR APPLICA BILITY OF SECTION 44AF IS GROSS TURNOVER AND THE SAME IS MORE THAN RS.40 L AKHS, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C., I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AF ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE , AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN G ROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND DISMISS THE SAME. 6. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 3 RE LATING TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRME D BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER-VALUATION OF STOCK , LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIST ENTLY FOLLOWING THE METHOD OF VALUING THE STOCK AT COST OR MARKET PRICE , WHICHEVER IS LOWER AND SINCE THE MARKET VALUE OF THE ALUMINIUM LYING I N STOCK WAS LESS, THE SAME WAS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, H E HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE MEX LIST OF ALUMINIUM PRICE PUBLIS HED SHOWING THE MARKET VALUE OF ALUMINIUM AT RS.111.1 PER KG, AND S UBMITTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ADOPTED TO VALUE THE CLOSING STOCK OF A LUMINIUM. I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LAST PURCHASE OF ALUMINIUM, AS PO INTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON 27.0 2.2006 @ RS.181/- PER KG. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE BY HIS OWN ADMISSION WAS DEALING WITH WIDE VARIETY OF ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS AND IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY PRODUCT- WISE DETAILS MAINTAINED BY HIM, IT IS DIFFICULT TO APPLY THE RATE OF ONE I.T.A. NO. 973/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 6 OF 8 PRODUCT TO VALUE THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO WORTHWHILE TO NOTE HERE THAT THE RATE OF RS.99.65 PER KG. WAS IND ICATED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AS THE SCRAP VALUE OF PRODUCTS AND IT IS, T HEREFORE, DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MARKET VA LUE OF THE ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS DEALT WITH BY HIM WAS ONLY RS.111/- PER KG . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VA LUATION OF CLOSING STOCK, IN MY OPINION, IS MORE SCIENTIFIC AS HE HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE AVERAGE COST OF OPENING STOCK AS WELL AS THE AV ERAGE COST OF PRODUCTS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION AND BY FOLLOWING FIFO METHOD, HE HAS DETERMINED THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE CANNOT BE FOUND WITH ANY FAULT. I, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE GROUND N O. 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 7. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 4 RE LATING TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF EXP ENSES INCURRED ON RECONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE/GODOWN, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SAME IS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED B Y THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BY HOLDING THAT THE RELEVANT EXPENDITURE INCURRED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS OF CAPITAL NATURE. AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, A SIMILAR DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, IS ALLO WED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF IN THE EARLIER YEARS AS WELL AS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS EVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143( 3) AND SINCE THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISPUTE THIS POSITION, I DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE RULE OF CON SISTENCY. GROUND NO. 4 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 8. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 5 RE LATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,320/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF RENT, IT IS O BSERVED THAT THIS DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON T HE GROUND THAT THE BUILDING BEING UNDER CONSTRUCTION, THE SAME COULD N OT HAVE BEEN USED BY I.T.A. NO. 973/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 7 OF 8 THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. HOWEVER, AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE EXPENDITUR E IN QUESTION WAS UNDOUBTEDLY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOS E OF HIS BUSINESS IN ORDER TO RETAIN HIS RIGHT OVER THE BUILDING FOR USE OF THE SAME IN FUTURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, I DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. C IT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND ALLOW GROUND NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSEES APPE AL. 9. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 6 RELA TING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.17,632/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCU RRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MAINTENANCE OF ELEVATORS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT T HE SAID EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF HIS RESIDENT IAL HOUSE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT HIS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSIN ESS, I FIND NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 6 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSE D. 10. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 7 R ELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% MADE OUT OF CAR EXPENSES AND DE PRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RECORD MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE CAR WAS EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 20% OUT OF THE CAR EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR INVOLVEMENT OF PERSONAL ELEMENT. ON APPEAL, LD. CIT (APPEALS) FOUND THE SAME TO BE EXCESSIVE AND RESTRICTED THE SAME TO 10% . HAVING REGARD TO ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF TH E VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO T HE EXTENT OF 10% OF THE CAR EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION IS FAIR AND REASONABL E AND UPHOLDING HIS IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE, I DISMISS GROUND NO. 7 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. I.T.A. NO. 973/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 8 OF 8 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON NOVEMBER 4 TH , 2015. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 4 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015 COPIES TO : (1) VISHWAMITRA GOLASH, C/O. M/S. R. KUMAR & CO., 30, BRABOURNE ROAD, KOLKATA-700 001 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-36(4), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLY, KOLKATA-700 107 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XX, KOLK ATA, (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.