D.C.I.T CC - I.kolkata., Kolkata V. M/s Jublee Commercial Co (P) Ltd., Kolkata

ITSSA 29/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2273 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIRAJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TULSIYAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Source of fund
• Section: 133A; 133(6); 68; 132

Judgement Text

I.T.(S.S.)A . NO. 29/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(S.S.)A. NO. 29 /KOL/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,................. ...................APPELLANT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 6 TH FLOOR, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-700 107 -VS.- M/S. JUBLEE COMMERCIAL CO. (P) LIMITED,............ ..................RESPONDENT 11, POLLOCK STREET, KOLKATA-700 001 [PAN : AABCJ 2135 M] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI NIRAJ KUMAR, CIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI A.K. TULSIYAN, A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MAY 02, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JUNE 15, 2016 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP :- THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CENTRAL-III, KOLKATA DATED 30.11.2012, WHEREBY HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.7 5,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A NON-BANKIN G FINANCE COMPANY, WHICH BELONGS TO JUBLEE COMMERCIAL GROUP. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 WAS CONDUCTED IN T HE CASES BELONGING TO THE SAID GROUP INCLUDING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE O N 06.08.2009. IN PURSUANCE OF THE SEARCH, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 A WAS ISSUED BY THE I.T.(S.S.)A . NO. 29/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 2 OF 8 ASSESSING OFFICER, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 04 .11.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.23,23,670/-. DURING THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN FIXED D EPOSIT AND THE SOURCE OF THE SAME WAS CLAIMED TO BE SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED FROM EIGHT PARTIES TOWARDS SALE OF SHARES HELD AS INVESTMENT/S TOCK-IN-TRADE. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE CON CERNED PARTIES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN RESPONSE T O THE SAID NOTICES, ALL THE CONCERNED PARTIES EXCEPT M/S. EVERLITE COMTRADE (P) LIMITED AND M/S. SPRINGFIELD MERCHANDISE (P) LIMITED CONFIRMED THE R ELEVANT SHARE TRANSACTIONS. SINCE THERE WAS NO REPLY RECEIVED FRO M M/S. EVERLITE COMTRADE (P) LIMITED AND M/S. SPRINGFIELD MERCHANDI SE (P) LIMITED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) , THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW-CAUSE AS TO WHY THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.75,00,000/- CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED F ROM THE SAID TWO PARTIES SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED CAS H CREDITS AND ADDED TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO GIVEN OP PORTUNITY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PRODUCE THE SAID PARTIES FOR E XAMINATION. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, DID NOT PRODUCE THE PARTIES BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION BUT FILED A WRITTEN REPLY O FFERING ITS EXPLANATION AS UNDER:- 'IN THIS CONNECTION, WE WISH TO SUBMIT THAT OUR COM PANY PRIMARILY INVESTS & DISINVESTS IN SHARES A: SECURIT IES. DURING THE F. Y. 2008-09, WE HAVE SOLD SHARES OF VARIOUS C OMPANIES TO VARIOUS PERSONS, INCLUDING TO M/S EVERLITE COMMOTRA DE PVT. LTD. (PAN: AACCE3222F) AND MLS SPRINGFIELD MERCHAND ISE PVT. LTD. ( PAN: AANCS8811P) OF 123, B.B. GANGULY STREET , KOLKATA - 700 012. THE PAYMENTS AGAINST THE SALE OF SHARES TO THEM WERE RECEIVED BY US THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNEL AND BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES ONLY, WHICH ARE DULY REFLECTE D IN OUR BANK STATEMENT. THE TOTAL SALE VALUE OF THE SHARES SOLD TO SAID M/S EVERLITE COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD. AND M/S SPRINGFIELD MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. DURING THE F. Y. 2008-09 IS R S.25.00 LACS AND RS.50.00 LACS RESPECTIVELY, THE DETAILS OF THE SAME, ALONG WITH COPY OF THE RELEVANT SALE BILLS AND THE ACCOUNT CONFIRMATION STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN THE COURSE OF I.T.(S.S.)A . NO. 29/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 3 OF 8 THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE ARE ONCE AGAIN ENCLO SING HEREWITH THE DETAILS OF SHARES SOLD TO THE SAID M/S . EVERLITE COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY: BHAWNA COMTRADE PVT . LTD.) AND M/S SPRINGFIELD MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY : CUCKOO MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.) DURING THE F. Y.2008-09, ALO NG WITH THE COPY OF THE RELEVANT SALE BILLS. WE FURTHER WISH TO REITERATE THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED THE ENTIRE PAYMENT AGAINST TH E SAID SALE OF SHARES TO THEM DURING THE F. Y.2008-09 ITSELF. T HE CONSIDERATION AGAINST THE SAID SALES WERE RECEIVED THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNELS. COPY OF OUR BANK STATEMENT IS ONCE AGAIN PRODUCED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND VERIFICATION. COPY OF ACCOUNT CONFIRMATION WITH THE SAID MLS EVERLITE COM MOTRADE PVT. LTD. AND M/S SPRINGFIELD MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. ARE ALSO ONCE AGAIN ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR READY REFEREN CE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE WE HEREBY REQUEST THAT NO ADVERSE VIEW SHOULD BE TAKEN AGAINST US FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF YOUR NOTICE U/S 133(6) BY THE SAID M/S EVERLITE COMMOTRA DE PVT. LTD. AND M/S SPRINGFIELD MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. WE W ISH TO RE- ITERATE HERE THAT M/S EVERLITE COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD. AND M/S SPRINGFIELD MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD WERE ONLY TWO OF T HE VARIOUS PARTIES TO WHOM WE HAD SOLD SHARES DURING THE F. Y. 2008-09. WE HAVE SUBMITTED ALL THE DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF RS.25.00 LACS AND RS.50.00 LACS FROM THEM AGAINST S ALE OF SHARES AND THE RECEIPTS THERE AGAINST WERE THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNELS. THE SALES OF THE SHARES AND THE R ECEIPTS THERE AGAINST HAVE BEEN DULY REFLECTED IN OUR REGUL AR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. YOU WILL APPRECIATE THAT COMPLIANCE OF YO UR NOTICE U/S133(6) TO THE PURCHASERS OF SHARES FROM US, IS B EYOND OUR CONTROL AND REASON FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE IS BEST K NOWN TO THEM ONLY. WE MAY NOTE HERE THAT FROM YOUR ABOVE SA ID NOTICE DATED 21.03.2011, THAT SOME OF THE OTHER PARTIES, W HO HAD PURCHASED SHARES FROM US DURING THE F. Y.2008-09, W ERE ALSO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) AND ALL THE OTHER PARTIES, EXCEPTING THE SAID M/S EVERLITE COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD. AND M/S SPRINGFIELD MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD, HAVE DULY FILED T HEIR REPLIES. IT IS ONLY THEM WHO HAVE TO MAKE THE COMPLIANCE TO YOUR NOTICE U/S 133(6) AND THE NON-COMPLIANCE BY ANY THE M IS NOT AT ALL OUR FAULT. 3. THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FO UND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO HIM, WHEN THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6), THE ONUS T O PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WAS SHIFTED BACK TO THE ASSESSEE. HE HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE THE SAID ONU S. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE CONCERNED TWO PARTIES WERE NOT FOUND TO BE EXIS TED AT THEIR REGISTERED ADDRESSES DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OP ERATION CARRIED OUT I.T.(S.S.)A . NO. 29/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 4 OF 8 UNDER SECTION 133A ON 09.07.2009 BY THE DDIT(INVEST IGATION), KOLKATA. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE P ART OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE CONCERNED TWO CREDITO RS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE RELEVANT TRANSACTION. THE AMOUNT OF RS.75,00 ,000/-, THEREFORE, WAS ADDED BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS UNDER SECTION 68. 4. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS WAS DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). DURING TH E COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN ORDER TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CONCERNED PARTIES AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE RELEVANT TRANSACTIONS, T HE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) COMPANY MASTER DETAILS OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE MINISTRY OF COMPAN Y AFFAIRS REGARDING THE CHANGE IN THE NAME OF THE PARTIES, STATEMENT OF CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS, RELEVANT BANK STATEMENT, RETURN FILING AC KNOWLEDGEMENTS AND AUDITED BALANCE-SHEETS FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR. IT WA S ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CONCERNED TWO PARTIES HAD DULY RE SPONDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) CO NFIRMING THE RELEVANT SALE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED COPIES O F SUCH CONFIRMATIONS DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON 18.03.2011. KEEPING IN VIEW THIS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ADDUCED B Y THE ASSESSEE, REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS ) FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 14.09.2012. SINCE THE RE WAS NO REMAND REPORT RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER TILL THE DATE OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, I.E. 30.11.2012, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) PROCEE DED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.75,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 AFTER RECORD ING HIS OBSERVATIONS/ FINDINGS IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER:- I.T.(S.S.)A . NO. 29/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 5 OF 8 FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE PAPERS FILED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, I FIND THAT THE AO DI D NOT EXAMINE ALL THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS APPAREN T FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF T HE SALE PROCEEDS FOR THE REASONS THAT M/S. EVERLITE COMTRAD E (P) LTD. & M/S. SPRINGFIELD MERCHANDISE (P) LTD. HAD NOT REPLI ED TO THE NOTICES U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT AND THEY WERE NOT FOU ND TO BE EXISTING AT THEIR REGISTERED ADDRESS DURING THE COU RSE OR SURVEY OPERATION CONDUCTED U/S.133A ON 09.07.2009 BY THE D DIT (LNV), KOLKATA. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE COMPANY MASTER DETAILS OBTA INED FROM THE WEB SITE OF THE MINISTRY OF COMPANY AFFAIR S, COMPANY MASTER DETAILS REGARDING THE CHANGE IN THE NAME OF THE PARTIES, STATEMENT OF CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS, RELEVANT BAN K STATEMENT, RETURN FILING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & AUDITED BALANCE SHEETS FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE PARTIES THAT THEY ARE VERY MUCH IN EXISTENCE AND THERE IS N O DOUBT OVER THEIR IDENTITY. FROM PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF REPLY DATED 17.03.11 TO THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) SUBMITTED BY M/S. EVERLITE COMTRA DE (P) LTD. & M/S. SPRINGFIELD MERCHANDISE (P) LTD. TO THE A.O. , IT IS OBSERVED THAT THOSE PARTIES HAD SUBMITTED THE DETAI LS SUCH AS COPIES OF RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS SHOWING THE TRAN SACTION, THE SOURCE OF FUND FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHARES FROM THE APPELLANT, COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WITH THE AP PELLANT FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.08 TO 31.03.09, COPIES OF AUDITED BALANCE SHEETS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.09, PERMANENT ACCOU NT NUMBER DETAILS AND THE COPY OF RETURN FILING ACKNOWLEDGMEN T. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE APPEARS NO JUSTIFICATION T O DISBELIEVE THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT HAD RECEIVE D THE SALE PROCEEDS FROM THE SAID PARTIES SINCE THE IDENTITY & CREDITWORTHINESS OF PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF TRAN SACTION ARE WELL ESTABLISHED FROM THE DOCUMENTS FILED. THEREFOR E, THE ADDITION OF RS.75,00,000/- ADDED U/S. 68 IS DELETED . 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) ERRED BOTH IN FACTS AS WELL AS LAW IN ALLOWING THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE AT APPELLATE STAGE, THAT WAS NEITHER EXAMINED OR VE RIFIED BY THE LD. CIT(A) OR GET IT VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. 1.1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LD. CIT(A) ERRED BOTH IN FACTS AS WELL AS LAW IN ALLOWING THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL BY REQUIRING THE A.O. TO MAKE COMMENTS ONLY ON THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FILED AT APPELLATE STAGE, WITH OUT GIVING I.T.(S.S.)A . NO. 29/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 6 OF 8 OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O. TO EXAMINE THE CONCERNED PA RTY, I.E., M/S. EVERLITE COMMOTRADE (P) LTD. AND M/S. SPRINGFI ELD MERCHANDISE (P) LTD. IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(4) OF THE LT. ACT READ WITH RULE 46A(3) OF THE LT. RULES. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) ERRED BOTH IN FACTS AS WELL AS LAW IN ALLOWING THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL RELYING SOLELY ON THE SUBMISSION OF REPLY AG AINST NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE LT. ACT, WITHOUT GIVING COGNIZAN CE TO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT PA RTIES AS REQUIRED BY THE A.O. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS SPECIFICA LLY PROJECTED IN THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL AND FURTHER REITERATE D BY THE LD. D.R. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF TH E REVENUE IS THAT THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE APPARENTLY FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM IS R ELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO GIVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY DELE TING THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 WITHOUT GIVING PROPER AND SUFFICI ENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAME. IN THIS REGAR D, THE LD. D.R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CALLED FOR BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 1 4.09.2012 BUT HE PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT SUCH REPORT VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.11.2012 ON THE GRO UND THAT NO SUCH REPORT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER TILL THE DATE OF HIS ORDER. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE PERIOD OF LESS THAN ONE A ND HALF MONTHS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBMIT HIS REMAND REPORT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE SUFFICIENT AND IT IS TH US A CLEAR CASE WHERE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE O N THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSING O FFICER A PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE SAME. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT OR CO NTROVERT THIS POSITION CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). HE, HOWEVER, HAS CONTENDED THAT THE FACT THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER DID NOT SEEK ANY FURTHER TIME FROM THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO SUBMIT HIS REMAND REPORT, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D NOTHING TO SAY IN THE I.T.(S.S.)A . NO. 29/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 7 OF 8 MATTER. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, KEEPING IN VIEW THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OF HAVING SUBMITTED THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS BY THE CONCERNED TWO PARTIES IN RESPO NSE TO NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6), WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO VERIFY THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE RELEVA NT RECORD. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO SOUGHT REMAND RE PORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT EFFECTIVELY GAVE HIM A PERIOD OF LESS T HAN ONE AND HALF MONTHS TO SUBMIT SUCH REPORT, WHICH, IN OUR OPINION, CANNO T BE CONSIDERED AS SUFFICIENT OR REASONABLE AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY TH E LD. D.R. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE AS TAKEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT OF HAVING SU BMITTED ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO F ILE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE ON THE ISSUE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL VERIFY AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JUNE 15, 2016 . SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 15 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 6 TH FLOOR, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-700 107 I.T.(S.S.)A . NO. 29/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 8 OF 8 (2) M/S. JUBLEE COMMERCIAL CO. (P) LIMITED, 11, POLLOCK STREET, KOLKATA-700 001 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS, CENTRAL-II I, KOLKATA, (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.