Hari Mohan Bangur, Kolkata V. Additional CIT, Range - 27, Kolkata

ITSSA 12/KOL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2048 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2009
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT SUBHRA BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVIN VERMA ACA
• Keywords: Block assessment
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI WASE EM AHMED, AM] I.T(SS).A NO. 12/KOL/ 2009 BLOCK A.YR.1991-92 TO 2000-01 & BROKEN PERIOD FROM 1.4.2000 TO 26.9.2000 HARI MOHAN BANGUR -VS.- ADDITIONAL C.I.T .RANGE-27, KOLKATA KOLKATA [PAN : ADJPB0982E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI VIJAY SHAH & SHRI NAVIN VERMA, ACA FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI RAJAT SUBHRA BISWA S, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 12.04.2016. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.05.2016. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2008 OF CIT(A)- XIV, KOLKATA, RELATING TO BLOCK PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2 000-2000-01 AND BROKEN PERIOD FROM 01.04.2000 TO 26.09.2000. 2. THE APPELLANT IS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF SHREE CEMENT LIMITED, A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (HERE-IN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ' COMPANY'). IN ORDER TO MEET THE IMMEDIATE REQUIREMENT OF FUND FOR DAUGHTER'S MARRIA GE, THE ASSESSEE HAD APPROACHED THE COMPANY FOR TEMPORARY ADVANCE. THE COMPANY HAD ACCEPTED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROVIDED TEMPORARY ADVANCE OF RS. 12,0 0,000/- ON 11-09-2000 WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN BY CASH FROM STATE BANK OF BIKANCR & JAIP UR, KOLKATA ON 09-09-2000. 3. ON 20-09-2000, SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT), AT THE OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ONE MS. RANI MUKHERJEE AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS. DURING THE SEARCH, CASH WAS SEIZED. WHILE EXPLAINING THE 2 IT(SS)A.NO.12/KOL/2009 HARI MOHAN BANGUR BLOCK A.Y.1991-92 TO 2000-01 & BROKEN PERI OD FROM 01.04.2000 TO 26.09.2000 2 CASH FOUND AT THE PREMISES, MS.. RANI MUKHRJEE & HE R FATHER IN THEIR STATEMENT THEY HAD STATED THAT OUT OF THE CASH FOUND, RS. 12 LAKHS WAS CASH RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF SHOW ORGANIZED AT THE OCCASION O F MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER. HOWEVER, IN THE BLOCK RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO N OTICE U/S 158BC, MS. RANI MUKHERJEE'S FATHER HAD DECLARED THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 12 LAKHS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND PAID TAXES THEREON. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE PROCE EDINGS AND EXPLANATION OF CASH FOUND IN THE PREMISES AND OF MS.RANI MUKHERJEE AND HER FA THER, THE AO ON THE REASONING THAT THE SUM OF RS.12 LAKHS WAS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF AS SESSEE, INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BD OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 4. ORDER U/S 158BC/BD OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 29-0 9-2004 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ASSESSMENT YEARS 1991-92 TO 2000-01 AND BROKEN PERI OD FROM 01.04.2000 TO 26.09.2000 WHEREIN RS. 12 LACS WAS ADDED TO THE TOT AL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE AO., THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(APPEALS) WHO VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 03-01-2005 D ELETED THE SAID ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUM DOES NOT REPRESENT UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS THE SAID WAS ADVANCE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE COMPANY WHICH WAS DULY REPAID OUT OF FUTURE MONTHLY SALARY AND THE SUM WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR. KOLKATA THROUGH A SELF CHEQUE. HENCE, THERE WAS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE SOURCE OF RS. 12 LACS BEING THE EXPLAINED SOURCE. 6. SUBSEQUENT TO THE ABOVE PROCEEDINGS AND. AFTER A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF PASSING THE ORDER U/S 158BC/BD NOTICE U/S 271 D W AS ISSUED ON THE ASSESSEE ON THE CONTENTION THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSES SMENT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED CASH ADVANCE O F RS. 12 LACS IN VIOLATION OF 3 IT(SS)A.NO.12/KOL/2009 HARI MOHAN BANGUR BLOCK A.Y.1991-92 TO 2000-01 & BROKEN PERI OD FROM 01.04.2000 TO 26.09.2000 3 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT AND THEREFOR E PROCEEDINGS U/S 271D HAS BEEN INITIATED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS. 7. THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY U/S.271-D OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). BEFORE CIT(A) IT W AS CONTENDED THE AMOUNT OF 12 LACS REPRESENTED ADVANCE RECEIVED AND DID NOT REPRESENT LOAN OR DEPOSIT ACCEPTED FROM THE COMPANY AND HENCE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS HAD N O APPLICABILITY IN THE PRESENT CASE. IT WAS ARGUED THAT TEMPORARY ADVANCES DO NO T COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE TERM 'LOAN' AND 'DEPOSIT' AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 2 69SS OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PRE-REQUISITE CONDITION FOR ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS IS THAT THE TRANSACTION IN CASH MUST RESULT IN LOAN OR DEPOSIT. THUS IF THE RECEIPT OF CASH DOES NOT RESULT IN LOAN OR DEPOSIT, THEN THE PROVISION OF SE CTION 269SS DOES NOT COMES INTO PLAY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE QUESTION OF LEVYING PENALTY U/S 2 71D DOES NOT ARISE AT ALL. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE T ERM 'LOAN' AND 'ADVANCE'. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN ALREADY D ECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 31-01-200 5 IN RESPECT OF THE SAME BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SUM RECEIVED FROM SHREE CEMENT LIMITED REPRESENTS TEMPORARY ADVA NCE. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT LOAN AS DEFINED IN THE LAW LEXICON - CUM - DIGEST MEANS AND INCLUDES THAT 'THERE MUST BE A LENDER, A BORROWER, A THING LOANED FOR USE AS WELL AS A MUTUAL CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES FOR RETURN OF THE THING LOANED'. ADVANCE ME ANS 'SUM OF MONEY PAID BEFORE IT IS DUE.' ADVANCEMENT IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A LOAN, AS ONE MAKING ADVANCEMENT CANNOT REQUIRE ITS RETURN, THE ADVANCE SO GRANTED IS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST SUBSEQUENT AMOUNT BECOMING DUE OR PAYABLE. 8. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE FACTS WERE THAT IN ORDER TO MEET IMMEDIATE FUND REQUIREMENT, THE ASSES SEE HAD APPROACHED THE PRESENT EMPLOYER M/S SHREE CEMENT LIMITED. THE SAME HAS BEE N PROVIDED BY THE LATER IN FORM 4 IT(SS)A.NO.12/KOL/2009 HARI MOHAN BANGUR BLOCK A.Y.1991-92 TO 2000-01 & BROKEN PERI OD FROM 01.04.2000 TO 26.09.2000 4 OF TEMPORARY ADVANCE AGAINST THE SALARY. IT IS A GE NERAL PRACTICE IN THE COMPANY TO PROVIDE ADVANCES TO ITS EMPLOYEES, IN THE PRESENT C ASE THE COMPANY HAS PROVIDED THE APPELLANT AN ADVANCE OF RS. 12,00,000/- AGAINST HIS SALARY WHICH HAS BEEN RECOVERED PARTLY @ RS. 50,000/- P.M. FROM HIS SUBSEQUENT MONT HS SALARY. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIY -VS.- INDORE PLASTICS (P.) LTD. (2002) 124 TAXMAN 729 (MP). IN T HE SAID CASE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED FROM ITS PROMOTER AND MANAGING DIRECTOR PA YMENT IN CASH TOWARDS REPAYMENT OF ADVANCES FAR ABOVE THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED U/S 269 55. THE STAND OF THE DEPARTMENT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26955 AND HENCE WAS LIABLE TO PENALTY U/S 2710 OF THE ACT. IN APPEAL, THE HON' BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE PAYMENTS WAS NOT BY WAY OF DEPOSIT OR LOAN BUT TOWARDS ADJUS TMENTS OF THE AMOUNT DRAWN BY THE PROMOTER AND HENCE THERE WAS NO CONTRAVENTION OF SE CTION 26955 RESULTING IN PENALTY U/S 271D. REFERENCE WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE DECISION O F HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT -VS.- KHARAITI LA L & CO. (2004) 270 TTR 445 (P. & H.) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT AD VANCES RECEIVED DOES NOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF LOANS AND DEPOSIT; HENCE SECTION 2 6955 IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. 50 THE QUESTION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 2710 OF THE ACT DOES NOT ARISE. FURTHER, RELIANCE IS ALSO BE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE H ON'BLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KARNATAKA GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY -VS.- JCLT (20 01) 77 ITD 478 (MUM.) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ADVANCES RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE UI ITHOUT ANY STIPULATION AS TO PERIOD OR INTEREST COULD NOT BE TERMED AS LOANS OR DEPOSITS A S DEFINED IN SECTION 26955 OF THE ACT. THEY COULD BE MORE APPROPRIATELY REFERRED TO AS TEM PORARY ADVANCES WHICH ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 26955. 50 THE QUESTION OF LEVY ING PENALTY U/E 271D DOES NOT ARISE. 9. THE CIT(A) ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS GIVEN BY THE ADDNL . CIT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APP ELLANT. THE IMPORTANT ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION HERE IS WHETHER AN ADVANCE GIVE N BY AN EMPLOYER TO AN 5 IT(SS)A.NO.12/KOL/2009 HARI MOHAN BANGUR BLOCK A.Y.1991-92 TO 2000-01 & BROKEN PERI OD FROM 01.04.2000 TO 26.09.2000 5 EMPLOYEE FOR SOME PURPOSES IS A LOAN AS PROVIDED U/ S 269SS OR NOT. IN CASE OF AN ADVANCE BY AN EMPLOYER TO AN EMPLOYEE WE FIND THAT AT THE TIME OF GIVING OF THE ADVANCE THE EMPLOYEE GETS SOME AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT DUE TO HIM. THIS AMOUNT IS TO BE RETURNED BY THE EMPLOYEE TO THE EMPLOYER. WHE THER THE EMPLOYEE RETURNS IT BY SEPARATELY PAYING INSTALLMENTS OR BY GETTING A P ORTION OF HIS SALARY DEDUCTED TOWARDS REPAYMENT OF THIS AMOUNT, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE AMOUNT GIVEN TO HIM WAS LENT TO HIM BY' THE EMPLOYER. SUCH AMOUNT CANNO T BE CALLED ANYTHING BUT LOAN. IF SUCH LOAN IS TO BE REPAID BY DEDUCTION FRO M THE SALARY OF THE EMPLOYEE IT IS CALLED ADVANCE. THE FACT REMAINS THAT SUCH AMOUN T GIVEN BY AN EMPLOYER TO AN EMPLOYEE WHEN IT WAS NOT DUE TO HIM HAS THE BASIC C HARACTER OF A LOAN. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 12,00,0001- GIVEN BY M/S SHREE CEMENT LTD. TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS THE MANAG ING DIRECTOR OF THIS COMPANY, IS NOTHING BUT A LOAN FROM THE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT THAT THIS LOAN WAS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE FUTURE SAL ARY OF THE ASSESSEE OR IT WAS GIVEN FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD IT IS NOT TAKE AWAY TH E BASIC CHARACTER OF THIS TRANSACTION WHICH IS A LOAN TRANSACTION WHEREIN ONE PARTY HAS LENT SOME AMOUNT TO THE OTHER PARTY. SECONDLY, IF WE LOOK INTO THE REPAYMENT OF THIS AMO UNT BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS EMPLOYER COMPANY (SHOWN IN A TABLE GIVEN AT THE END OF PARA 3 ABOVE) WE FIND THAT THE REPAYMENT BY WAY OF DEDUCTION FROM SALARY HAS ACTUALLY BEEN DONE ONLY FOR 5 MONTHS WHEREIN RS.44,800/- HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED OTHER MONTH FROM MONTHS OF OCTOBER, 2000 TO FEBRUARY, 2001 IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2001 AND THE DEDUCTION SHOWN IS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,69,191/-. AFTER THESE DEDUCTIONS THE REMAINING AMOUNTS HAS NOT BEEN REPAID THROUGH DEDUC TION OF SALARY BUT HAS BEEN RETURNED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BY M/S SHREE RAM CEMENT COMPANY, KOLKATA THROUGH CHEQUE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY HIM FROM HIS EMPLOYER COMPANY WAS AN ADVANCE TO BE REPAID BY ADJUSTMENT AGAINST HIS FUTURE SALARY IS NOT FULLY CORRECT. THE MONEY RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RETURNED BY HIM IN LUMP-SUM BY A CHEQUE AMOUNTING T O RS. 6,76,400/-. THIS LUMP-SUM REPAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT ITSELF SUGGESTED T HAT THE MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS EMPLOYER COMPANY WAS NOTHING BUT LOAN. I AM, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THOUGH THIS RS . 12 LAKH HAS BEEN CALLED AS AN ADVANCE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS EMPLOYER COMPANY HO WEVER, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 269SS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IT IS VERY MUCH A LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS EMPLOYER. SINCE THE LOAN HAS BEEN TAKEN IN CASH IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS, T HEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR LEVYING OF PENALTY U/S 271 D OF THE L. T. ACT. 6 IT(SS)A.NO.12/KOL/2009 HARI MOHAN BANGUR BLOCK A.Y.1991-92 TO 2000-01 & BROKEN PERI OD FROM 01.04.2000 TO 26.09.2000 6 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS IDHAYAM PUBLICATIONS LTD 285 ITR 221. IT WA S POINTED OUT THAT U NDER SIMILAR SITUATION, IN THE CASE OF CIT-VS.- IDHAYAM PUBLICAT IONS LTD. (2006) 285 ITR 221 (MAD.) THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT WHER E THE TRANSACTION WAS BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTOR-CUM-SHAREHOLDER, THE SAID TRANSACT ION WAS MERELY IN THE NATURE OF CURRENT ACCOUNT AND NOT ONE OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT, HENCE NO PE NALTY CAN BE LEVIED U/ S 271D FOR VIOLATION OF SEC 269SS. ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE TRIB UNAL ITAT KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF MAHMOOD ASSOCIATES (P) LTD. -VS.- JCLT (ITA NO. 1112/KOI/2 012) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PENALTY U/S 2711) IS NOT ATTRACTED ON UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN IN CASH FROM ITS DIRECTOR. SIMILAR VIEW IS ALSO TAKEN IN ANANT HIMATSINGKA -VS.- ACTT (ITA NO. 331/KOL/2010). THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE R IVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS IDHAYAM PUBLICATIONS LTD. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT WAS DEALING WITH THE CASE OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS :- CASH TRANSACTION IN CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH DIRECTOR- ASSESSEE HAVING RUNNING CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH ITS DIRECTOR M-M USED TO PAY MONEY IN THE CURRENT ACCOUNT AND ALSO WITHDRAW FROM THAT ACCOUNT-DEPOSIT AND THE WITHDRAW AL OF MONEY FROM THE CURRENT ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A LOAN OR ADVANC E-FURTHER, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM M WAS SHOWN AS 'UNSECURED LOAN FROM DIRECTORS' IN T HE BALANCE SHEET-UNDER R. 2(B)(IX) OF COMPANIES (ACCEPTANCE OF DEPOSITS) RULES, 1975, DEP OSIT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM A DIRECTOR OR A SHAREHOLDER OF A PRIV ATE LIMITED COMPANY- THEREFORE, THE CASH TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DIREC TOR-CUM- SHAREHOLDER WAS NOT A LOAN OR DEPOSIT AND THE WAS NO VIOLATION OF S. 269SS- HE NCE, PENALTY UNDER S. 2710 WAS NOT LEVIABLE. 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE WA S A MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. SHREE CEMENT LTD AND HAS DRAWN ADVANCE SALARY FROM HIS CU RRENT ACCOUNT. THE AFORESAID DRAWING OF THE MONEY FROM THE CURRENT ACCOUNT CANNO T BE SAID TO BE A LOAN OR DEPOSIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TERM 7 IT(SS)A.NO.12/KOL/2009 HARI MOHAN BANGUR BLOCK A.Y.1991-92 TO 2000-01 & BROKEN PERI OD FROM 01.04.2000 TO 26.09.2000 7 LOANAND ADVANCE HAS BEEN NOTICED BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS IDHAYAM PUBLICATIONS LTD AND THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT TRANSACTIONS IN THE CURRENT ACC OUNT OF THE DIRECTOR OF A COMPANY CANNOT BE REGARDED AS LOAN OR DEPOSIT WITHIN THE ME ANING OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. THE AFORESAID DECISION CLEARLY SUPPORTS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. THE OTHER DECISIONS REFERRED TO BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE ALSO SUPPORT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN IMPOSED. THEREFORE WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSITION IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE C ANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS HEREBY CANCELLED. 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11.05.2016. SD/- SD/- [WASEEM AHMED] [ N.V.VASUDEVAN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 11.05.2016. [RG PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.HARI MOHAN BANGUR, 21, STRAND ROAD, KOLAKTA-70000 1. 2. ADDL.C.I.T., RANGE-27, KOLKATA. 3. CIT(A)-XIV KOLKATA 4. CIT-IX KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES 8 IT(SS)A.NO.12/KOL/2009 HARI MOHAN BANGUR BLOCK A.Y.1991-92 TO 2000-01 & BROKEN PERI OD FROM 01.04.2000 TO 26.09.2000 8