ITO, Ward - 2(2), Kolkata, Kolkata v. M/s. Genesis Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 110/KOL/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 11023514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AACCG4903H
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 110/KOL/2011
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Ward - 2(2), Kolkata, Kolkata
Respondent M/s. Genesis Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 25-11-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 14-01-2011
Judgment Text
1 A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH- A KOL KATA [ . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . '# ] BEFORE SRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI C.D. RAO AC COUNTANT MEMBER $ $ $ $ / ITA NO. 110 (KOL) OF 2011 %& '( / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2) KOLKATA. GENISIS TRADE LINK PVT. LTD. KOLKATA. (PAN-AACCG4903H ) (+ / APPELLANT ) - - - VERSUS - (/0+ / RESPONDENT ) + 1 2 '/ FOR THE APPELLANT: / SRI NIRAJ KUMAR /0+ 1 2 ' / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SRI D.S.DAMLE & SRI M.D.SHAH 3 1 !# / DATE OF HEARING : 14/11/2011 4' 1 !# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 /11/2011 '5 / ORDER ( . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . ) '# (C.D. RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2010 OF LD. C.I.T.(A)- I KOLKATA PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN AS MUCH AS SIX GROUNDS THE ISSUES INVOLVED I N THIS APPEAL ARE ONLY TWO ONE IS RELATING TO THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E AND THE OTHER ONE IS RELATING TO THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD. C.I.T.(A) IN RESPECT OF SEC. 234B OF THE ACT. 2. BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISSUES ARE THAT WHILE DOING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT THE LD. A.O. HAS DISCUSSED THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE AS UN DER :- A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCT ED AT THE DECLARED BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AT 7 SHAMBHU MULLICK LANE KOL-700 007 ON 29/09/2008 TO 30/09/2008 WHERE REQUISITE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND /OR DOCUMENTS SO AS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E COULD NOT BE FOUND. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE TH EIR SAID RETURN CLAIMED SUB CONTRACT EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.70 64 50 000 /- APART FROM PERSONAL EXPENSES OF RS.17 74 986/- AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXP ENSES OF RS.6 16 563/- WHICH INCLUDED IN TOTAL CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE AGAINST THEI R SALES/GROSS RECEIPTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 70 95 58 470/- FOR THE YEAR. AS SUCH THERE WERE AMPLE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BOGUS EXPENDITURE S IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREBY INCOME ESCAPED ASSESSMENT TO THE EXTENT OF CLAIMED SUM OF EXPENDITURES FOR RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. AS SUCH NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 30/09/2008. 2 FURTHER BASED ON THE FACTS EMERGED DURING AND AFTE R SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE ACT HEARINGS CONDUCTED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS W HICH ARE MENTIONED AT PARAS 3 & 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND AFTER TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD. A.O. FINALLY REJECTED THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT 8% ON THE TOTAL SALES TURNOVER OF RS.70 9 5 58 470/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES THE BOOKS OF A/CS AS PRODUCED BY THE AR IN A LEDGER EXTRACT FORM IS RENDERED DEFECTIVE UNRELIAB LE AND NOT SATISFACTORY FOR ITS CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS AS PER PRESCRIBED STAN DARD. HENCE WHATEVER LEDGERS AND PART OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED ARE REJECTED UNDER SE CTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. MORE SO BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE AT ANY S TAGE OF PROCEEDINGS ANY THIRD PARTY DOCUMENT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF T HEIR TRANSACTIONS. 3. ON APPEAL THE LD. C.I.T.(A) AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS AND THE DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE A.O. AS WELL AS BEFORE HIM ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.24 85 493/- IN PLACE OF RS.5 67 64 680/- AS DETERMINED BY THE LD. A.O. BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE A/R PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER & PAPER BOOK. I FIND FROM THE LETTER PLACED AT PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARDED CONTRACT OF DEVELOPMENT OF AGR ICULTURE LAND BEING LEVELING AND SMOOTHERNING OF GROUND BY FILLING EARTH SOIL; F ROM MS ERA INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD. THE AREA INVOLVED WAS APPROXIMATELY 50 08 695 CFT. AND THE RATE FOR THE SAME WAS RS.115 CFT. THE LETTER PLACED AT PAGE 16 OF TH E PAPER BOOK SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SIMILARLY AWARDED CONTRACT OF DEVELOPM ENT OF AGRICULTURE LAND BEING LEVELING AND SMOOTHENING OF GROUND BY FILLING EARTH SOIL FROM MS ERA METAL BUILDING SYSTEM LTD. THE AREA WAS APPROXIMATELY 11 50 000 CFT. AND THE RATE FOR THE SAME WAS RS.115 CFT. BOTH THE CONTRACTS WERE SU B CONTRACTED BACK TO BACK TO ERA CONSTRUCTION INDIA LTD RS.114.50 CFT. AT PAGES 6-15 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE ASSESSEE PLACED INVOICES RAISED ON ERA INFRASTRUCTU RE INDIA LTD. ON PAGES 17-18 ASSESSEE PLACED INVOICES RAISED ON ERA METAL BUILDI NG SYSTEMS LTD. ON PAGES 22- 29 ASSESSEE HAS PLACED INVOICES RAISED BY ERA CONST RUCTION INDIA LTD. ON THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT ERA INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD DEDUCTED TAX OF RS.41 05 631 VIDE TDS CERTIFICATE DATED 30/04/2007 AND COPY OF THE CE RTIFICATE IS PLACED AT PAGE 56 OF THE PAPER BOOK ERA INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD SIMILA RLY DEDUCTED TAX OF RS.81 13 733 VIDE TDS CERTIFICATE DATED 31/05/2007 COPY OF THE C ERTIFICATE IS PLACED AT PAGE 57 OF THE PAPER BOOK ERA METAL BUILDING SYSTEM LTD. DEDU CTED TAX OF RS.14 98 526 VIDE TDS CERTIFICATE DATED 30/04/2007 COPY OF THE CERTIF ICATE IS PLACED AT PAGE 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE SIMILARLY DEDUCTED TAX ON PAYMENTS MADE TO ERA CONSTRUCTION INDIA LTD AMOUNTING TO RS.79 26 369 FO R WHICH IT ISSUED TDS CERTIFICATE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IS PLACED AT P AGE 30 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FROM THESE EVIDENCES IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE TO OK THE CONTRACT FROM ERA INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD AND ERA METAL BUILDING SYS TEMS LTD @ RS.115 PER CFT. AND 3 BACK TO BACK SUB CONTRACTED THE SAME TO ERA CONSTRU CTION INDIA LTD 114.50 PER CFT. IN THESE CIRCULAR TRANSACTIONS WHAT THE ASSESS EE EARNED WAS MERELY RS.0.50 PER CFT. ON THE SAID TRANSACTION AND THE APPELLANT PER SE DID NOT EXECUTE THE CONTRACT ON ITS OWN. THE ROLE OF THE APPELLANT WAS ONLY A FACIL ITATOR. 9. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE AO HAS ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS LEDGER ETC. DESPITE THE SAME THE AO REJEC TED THE BOOKS. COMING TO THE REASONS FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS I FIND THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN UN DUE WEIGHT AGE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE PAST EXPERI ENCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE BLOCK OF ASSET FOR SUCH JOB THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT R EGISTERED WITH KMC AS CONTRACTOR THE ASSESSEES AUDITOR IS BASED IN DELH I THE ASSESSEE HAD STOCK OF SILK OF RS.5 65 168 ETC. I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCE OF THESE FACTORS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REJECTING THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT. THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE MANAGED TO GET CONTRACT AWARDED WITHOUT PAST EXPERIENCE COULD NOT BE A REASON TO REJECT THE BOOKS. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY ASSET C OULD ALSO NOT BE A REASON TO REJECT THE BOOKS. THE AO FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FUNDAMENTA L FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE PER SE NEVER EXECUTED THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION. IT WAS THE REFORE NOT REQUIRED TO OWN MACHINERY. HAD IT BEEN THE ASSESSEES CASE THAT IT ON ITS OWN EXECUTED THE CONTRACT THEN THERE WOULD BE REASON FOR THE AO TO SUSPECT. H OWEVER IN THE PRESENT CASE IT WAS NEVER THE ASSESSEE CASE THAT IT EXECUTED THE WO RK ON ITS OWN. HENCE NOT HAVING MACHINERY WAS NOT OF ANY RELEVANCE. THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD DELHI BASED AUDITOR IS ALSO NOT MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSMENT AND FOR SUCH REASONS BOOK RESULT COULD NOT BE REJECTED. THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AND DEB TORS WERE ONLY IN RESPECT OF ERA GROUP COMPANIES IN RESPECT OF THE CONTRACT AND SUBC ONTRACT. THIS FACT IS ALSO NO REASON TO REJECT BOOKS. THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING ST OCK OF SILK OF RS.5 65 168 AND SUCH SILK WAS NOT FOUND IN SURVEY. THIS FACT COULD HAVE GIVEN THE A.O. REASONS TO ESTIMATE INCOME ON SALE OF SILK OUT OF BOOKS AND NO T IN RESPECT OF CONTRACT WORK. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I FIND THAT THE REASONS FOR WHICH THE AC REJECTED THE BOOKS WERE NOT COGENT TO LEAD TO THE INFERENCE OF REJECTING RE ASONS THE BOOKS AND IN VIEW THEREOF I HOLD THAT ESTIMATION OF INCOME 8% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPT BY RESORTING TO SECTION 145(3) WAS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I HOLD THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ESTABLIS HED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE WAS AWARD CONTRACT OF RS.70 95 58 470 INDIA LTD. AND ER A METAL BUILDING SYSTEMS LTD @ RS.115 PER CFT. AND BACK TO BACK SUB CONTRACTED T HE SAME TO ERA CONSTRUCTION INDIA LTD. @ 114.50 PER CFT. FOR A SUM OF RS.70 64 50 000 THE ASSESSEE EARND ONLY THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT AND NOTHING MORE THAN SUM O F RS.31 08 470. ACCORDINGLY I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED ONLY GROSS PROFIT OF RS.31 08 470 FROM THE CONTRACT WORK WITH THE ERA GROUP COMPANIES. 10. FROM THE PROFIT LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE RELEVANT Y EAR I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED PERSONNEL EXPENSES OF RS.17 74 986 AND ADMI NISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS.6 16 563 AND DECLARED A NET PROFIT OF RS.7 16 92 1. FROM SCHEDULE C & D OF THE PROFIT LOSS ACCOUNT I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIME D EXPENSES ON SALARY STAFF WELFARE ACCOUNTING EXPENSES AUDIT FEE BANK CHARG ES BUSINESS PROMOTION CONVEYANCE ELECTRIC EXPENSES OFFICE EXPENSE POST AND TELEGRAPH PRELIMINARY EXPENSES PRINTING EXPENSES RATES AND TAXES TELEP HONE RENT TRAVELLING EXPENSES PROF. TAX. HOWEVER IN THE SURVEY PROCEEDING AND ALS O IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT PRO DUCED. SAVE AND EXCEPT SALARY STATEMENT SIGNED BY EMPLOYEES NO OTHER DOCUMENTS WE RE PRODUCED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THESE PLACED BEFORE AT PAGES 45-55 OF THE PAPER BOOK. CONSIDERING 4 THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE MERELY ACTED AS A MIDDLE MAN OF FACILITATING AMONGST ERA GROUP OF COMPANIES WITHOUT ACTUALLY UNDERTAKING OR EXECUTING THE CONTRACTS IN QUESTION. I FIND THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED WERE EXC ESSIVE MOREOVER MOST OF THE EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED BEFORE THE AO AND ME. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE BEING A CORPORATE ENTITY IT IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN RECO RDS UNDERTAKE STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS MAINTAIN ACCOUNTS AND FOR THE SAID PUR POSES I ESTIMATE THAT 25% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED WERE ADEQUATE TO MEET THESE OBLIGA TIONS. I THEREFORE DIRECT THAT OUT OF PERSONNEL EXPENSES OF RS.17 74 986 AND ADMIN ISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS.6 16 563 ONLY 25% BE ALLOWED AND BALANCE BE DISA LLOWED FOR WANT OF EVIDENCES AND BEING EXCESSIVE CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THE B USINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM RS.6 22 977 ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND PERSONAL EXPENSES. AGAIN AS REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 234B OF T HE ACT THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS DIRECTED AS UNDER :- 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT AND THE LEGAL POSIT ION AND THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THE SUM OF RS.1 37 17 890 WAS DEDUCTED AS TDS NO I NTEREST WAS CHARGEABLE U/S. 234B & 234C OF THE ACT ON THE ASSESSEE READ WITH SE CTION 209 READ WITH SECTION 208-210. I THEREFORE DIRECT THE AO NOT TO CHARGE A NY INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE IT ACT 1961 UPTO TAX LIABILITY OF RS. 1 37 17 890. T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND AS NO SUBMISSION W AS MADE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST U/S 234C THE GROUND IN RESPECT OF INTEREST U/S 234C IS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER/DIRECTION OF THE LD. C.I.T. (A) THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE HAS CO-RELATED T HE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH THE NOTINGS MADE BY TH E A.O. IN THE ORDER SHEET AND FILED THE COPIES OF THE ORDER SHEET IN SUPPORT OF THE OBS ERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. A.O. HE HAS REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE O F LD. C.I.T.(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS ALONG WITH ANNEXURES AND TAX AUDIT REPORT FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 23/11/2007 AND OTHER R ELEVANT INFORMATION SUCH AS - A) COPY OF INVOICE & ANNEXURE RAISED ON ERA INFR ASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD. DATED 25/10/06 FOR 12 49 017 CFT. OF DEVELOPMENT O F AGRICULTURE LAND @ RS.115 PER CFT. FOR RS.14 36 36 966. B) COPY OF INVOICE & ANNEXURE RAISED ON ERA INFR ASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD. DATED 25/12/06 FOR 3 41 943 CFT. OF DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE LAND @ RS.115 PER CFT. FOR RS.3 93 23 399. C) COPY OF INVOICE & ANNEXURE RAISED ON ERA INFR ASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD. DATED 5 25/12/06 FOR 4 09 383 CFT. OF DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE LAND @ RS.115 PER CFT. FOR RS.4 70 79 060. D) COPY OF INVOICE & ANNEXURE RAISED ON ERA INFR ASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD. DATED 31/03/07 FOR 27 34 743 CFT. OF DEVELOPMENT O F AGRICULTURE LAND @ RS.115 PER CFT. FOR RS.31 44 95 500. E) COPY OF INVOICE & ANNEXURE RAISED ON ERA INFR ASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD. DATED 31/03/07 FOR 2 73 609 CFT. OF DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE LAND @ RS.115 PER CFT. FOR RS.3 14 65 075. F) COPY OF WORK ORDER AS GRANTED BY ERA METAL BU ILDING SYSTEM INDIA LTD. GRANTING WORK FOR RS.13 22 50 00 000 FOR DEV ELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE LAND. G) COPY OF INVOICE & ANNEXURE RAISED ON ERA META L BUILDING SYSTEM INDIA LTD. DATED 31/03/07 FOR 11 61 378 CFT. OF DEVELOP MENT OF AGRICULTURE LAND @ RS.115 PER CFT. FOR RS.13 35 58 470. BASED ON THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS THE LEARNED COUNSEL S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) IN ESTIMATION OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HE THEREFORE REQUESTED TO C ONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A). AS REGARDS THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE L D. C.I.T.(A) IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION OF SEC.234B OF THE ACT HE SUBMITTED THAT DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD. C.I.T.(A) IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEREFORE THERE IS NO INFIRM ITY IN THE SAME. HE THEREFORE REQUESTED TO UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. 6. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE OBSERVE THAT THOUGH IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COOPERATED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED IN T HE LETTER DATED 8/12/2009 THE FOLLOWING WHICH WERE RECORDED BY THE A.O. AT PARA- 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER :- I) THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN CONTRACT WORT H RS.57 60 00 000 FROM M/S ERA INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) LTD. AT DELHI. II) THEY TOOK ANOTHER CONTRACT WORTH RS.13 35 58 470/- FROM M/S. ERA METAL BUILDING SYSTEM LTD. OF DELHI. III) BOTH OF THE ABOVE COMPANIES ARE SITUATED AT 10/1 NEHRU ENCLAVE (EAST) KALKAJI NEW DELHI-110019. IV) THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO GATHE R QUALIFIED MANPOWER AND INFRASTRUCTURE DECIDED TO SUBCONTRACT THE JOB TO ERA CO NSTRUCTION INDIA LTD. FOR RS. 70 64 50 000/- (WHO WAS A BODY CORPORATE OF ERA GROUP). V) THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO TDS OF RS.1 37 17 890 FOR THE CONTRACT RECEIVED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DEDUCTED TDS OF RS.79 26 369/- FROM SAID SUB- CONTRACTOR. 6 VI) THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO REFUND OF RS.1 37 17 89 0/- AS PER RETURN FILED. VII) THE WORK UNDERTAKEN AND SUBCONTRACTED WASS LEVELING LAND AT MEERUT. FURTHER IN SUPPORT OF THIS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY NARRATED AT PARA-5 ABOVE. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE SAID DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF LD. C .I.T.(A) WE FIND THAT THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS PROPERLY COMPUTED THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE BASED ON MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION TH ERE IS NO NEED TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) AGAIN TO RECOMPUTE D THE INCOME. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME AT RS.24 85 493/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. AS REGARDS THE INTEREST U/S. 234B OF THE ACT ON PERUSAL OF THE DIRECTION G IVEN BY THE LD. C.I.T.(A) WHICH IS INCORPORATED AT PARA-3 ABOVE WE FIND THAT DIRECTIO N OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEREFORE WE FIND NO INFIRMI TY IN THE SAID DIRECTION OF LD. C.I.T.(A) WHICH IS UPHELD. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . ) '# (N.VIJAYAKUMARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER (C.D. RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( (( (!# !# !# !#) )) ) DATE: 25 -11-2011 '5 1 /%% 6''7- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. + / THE APPELLANT : I.T.O. WARD 2(2) KOLKATA 2 /0+ / THE RESPONDENT : GENESIS TRADELINK PVT. LTD. 7 SH AMBHU MULLICK ROAD KOLKATA- 700 007 3. %5 () : THE CIT(A)-I KOLKATA. 4. %5/ THE CIT KOL- 5 . ;%< /% / DR ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA 6 . GUARD FILE . 0 /%/ TRUE COPY '5/ BY ORDER (DKP) ASSTT. REGISTRAR .