M/s. Roy Brothers, Burdwan v. ACIT, Circle - 2, Burdwan

ITA 1850/KOL/2008 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 185023514 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AADFR2832C
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 1850/KOL/2008
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 2 month(s)
Appellant M/s. Roy Brothers, Burdwan
Respondent ACIT, Circle - 2, Burdwan
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 25-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 08-06-2011
Next Hearing Date 08-06-2011
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 24-09-2008
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BEN CH A KOLKATA [ () . .. .'# '#'# '#. .. . $% ] ]] ] [BEFORE SRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN JM & SRI C. D. RA O AM] ' / I.T.A NO. 1850(KOL) OF 2008 () *+/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 M/S.ROY BROTHERS - - A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-2 BURDWAN BURDWAN -VERSUS- (PAN:AADFR 2832 C) (-. / APPELLANT ) ( /0-. /RESPONDENT) -. 1 2 $/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI R.SALARPURIA /0-. 1 2 $/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI P.S.DUTTA 3 1 #% /DATE OF HEARING : 11.10.2011. 4* 1 #% /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.11.2011. $5 / ORDER ( (( ( . .. .'# '#'# '#. .. . ) )) ) $% PER SHRI C.D.RAO AM THE ABOVE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T.(A) ASANSOL DATED 17.07.2008 PERTAINING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT WHILE DOI NG THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS :- (I) INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSIT : RS.1 44 000/- (II) CASH CREDIT U/S 68 : RS.33 02 792/- (III) CONTRIBUTION OF FREIGHT RECEIPT RS.8 34 490/- (IV) DELIVER EXPENS4ES : RS.33 34 688/- 2.1. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN CERTAIN RELIEF TO ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER BOTH THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE ITAT. ITAT 2 KOLKATA E BENCH VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 31.03.2006 HAS PASSED A COMMON ORDER AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDIC ATION BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. THE RELEVANT FACTS ON WHICH THE ADDITIONS MADE BY A O IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143 ARE AS UNDER : INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS : SCHEDULE 7 OF THE BALANCE SHEET (OF AUDITED A/CS ) SHOWS FIXED DEPOSIT (WITH SSI FIN.BR. ALLAHABAD BAN K) OF RS.15 08 102/-. THE FIXED DEPOSIT AS ON 31.03.2000 WAS RS.14 40 000/-. THE INCREASE OF RS.68 102/- IS AN ADDITION THIS YEAR. IT IS NOTICED THAT NO INT EREST FROM THESE INTEREST-BEARING FIXED DEPOSITS WAS SHOWN AS INCOME THOUGH THE ACCOU NTS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED ON ACCRUAL SYSTEM. SHRI BANERJEE STATED IN HIS WRIT TEN REPLY DATED 22.03.04 (WHICH IS ON RECORD) THAT THE BANK DID NOT INFORM T HEM OF THE INTEREST AND THEREFORE THEY HAD NOT SHOWN ANY INCOME FROM THIS INVESTMENT. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE DEPOSITORS TO KNOW/OBTAIN THE DETAILS OF THEIR INCOME FROM BANKS. THE BANKS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO ALERT THE CUSTOMERS. IT H AS BEEN STATED IN THE WRITTEN REPLY THAT THE RATE OF INTEREST ON THE FIXED DEPOSI TS IS NOT KNOWN TO THEM. THIS IS A FRIVOLOUS REPLY. ASSESSEE WAS PAYING HUGE INTERES T (RS.34 29 897/- THIS YEAR) ON BANK-BORROWING. THE ASSESSEE HAS CAREFULLY GATHE RED THE DETAILS OF INTEREST ON BORROWING AND CLAIMED IT AS EXPENDITURE BUT THEY DID NOT CARE TO COLLECT THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE INTEREST INCOME ON THE SAID F IXED DEPOSITS. ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS NOT SATISFACTORY. NORMALLY FIXED DE POSITS CARRIED INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% TO 10.5% PER ANNUM. IN ABSENCE OF ANY AS CERTAINED INFORMATION FORM ASSESSEE ABOUT THE RATE OF INTEREST I AM ESTIMATIN G INTEREST INCOME @ 10% ON THE FIXED DEPOSITS OF RS.14 40 000/- WHICH COMES TO RS.1 44 000/-. THIS INCOME IS BEING ADDED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE AND TAXE D ACCORDINGLY. CASH CREDIT : (A) IT IS NOTICED THAT A SUM OF RS.33 02 792/- ( RS.33 48 374/- MINUS ADJUSTED INCOME-TAX OF RS.45 582/-) HAS BEEN SHOWN AS CAPITAL INTRODUCED IN THE ASSESSEE-FIRM BY ITS PARTNERS DUR ING THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. SHRI BANERJEE SOUGHT TO CLARIFY IN HIS WRITTEN REPLY DAT ED 22.03.04 THAT THIS INVESTMENT WAS MADE AS PER ITSCS ORDER NO.1/11/709 3-94/15/178-87 DATED 23.04.98 (PAGE NO.16 REFERRED TO). THE CASH OF RS.3 3 02M791.98 WAS INTRODUCED IN THE FIRM IN THE NAME OF PARTNERS AS UNDER AS APP EARING IN THE COMPUTERIZED LEDGER FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE :- ASSESSEE : M/S. ROY BROTHERS ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 01-02 PARTNER AMOUNT DATE OF INTRODUCTION 1. NARAYAN CH.ROY RS.5 50 464.33 20.06.2000 2. SUNIL KR.ROY RS.5 50 465.33 20.06.2000 3. BIMAL KR.ROY RS.5 50 465.33 20.06.2000 4. NIL KAMAL ROY RS.5 50 465.33 20.06.2000 5. SANTI KUMAR ROY RS.5 50 465.33 20.06.2000 6. SANJAY ROY RS.2 75 232.67 20.06.2000 7. SOMNATH ROY RS.2 75 232.67 20.06.2000 RS.33 02 791.98 (B) I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF HONBLE ITSC D ATED 23.04.98. THERE IS NO DIRECTION IN THE SAID ORDER OF HONBLE ITSC FOR FUT URE CAPITALIZATION OF CASH AMOUNTING 3 TO RS.33 02 791/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE BY EVIDENCE THAT THE SAID CASH WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE OR IN THE POSSESS ION OF ITS PARTNERS. I AM NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGA RDING THE SOURCE OF THE SAID CASH. THE ASSESSEE HAS VIRTUALLY FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SO URCE OF THE CASH OF RS.33 02 791/- CREDITED IN ITS BOOKS. I AM THEREFORE MAKING AN A DDITION OF RS.33 02 791/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTI ON 68 OF THE ACT. TRANSACTIONS WITH GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCA RE LTD. : ASSESSEE HAD A REGULAR TRANSACTIONS WITH GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD. DURING THIS YEAR. THE GCHL HAS SENT A STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS MADE WITH THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE SAID STATEMENT THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS WERE MAD E TO THE ASSESSEE : CONTRACT PAYMENT : RS.54 48 255/- [AGAINST FREIGT] RENT : RS.8 42 047/- RS.62 90 302/- SCHEDULE 11 OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS A/C SHOWS A TOT AL RECEIPT OF RS.62 19 982/- FROM THE GCHL THE BREAK-UP OF WHICH AS SHOWN THEREIN IS AS UNDER : CREDIT NOTE : RS.7 68 170/- RENT : RS.6 94 093/- FREIGHT : RS.46 06 129/- RS.60 68 392/- SHRI BANERJEE HAS POINTED OUT TO ME IN THE COURSE O F HEARING THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN TYPING THE INNER COLUMN FIGURES AND THAT THE TOTAL OF RENT AND FREIGHT SHOULD BE RS.54 51 812 (RENT : RS.8 42 047 PLUS FREIGHT :RS.4 6 09 765). THUS THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.8 38 490/- (RS.54 48 255 MINUS RS.46 09 765) IN RESPECT OF FREIGHT RECEIPT FROM THE GCHL. THIS DIFFERENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CREDITED AS INCOME OF THIS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DONE IT. THEREFORE I AM MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.8 38 490/- ON A/C OF SUPPRESSION OF FREIGHT RECEIPT. DELIVERY EXPENSES : ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN AND JUSTIFY THE HU GE EXPENDITURE TO DIESEL CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID IN THE MONTH OF MA RCH01 AS AFORESAID. HOWEVER THE FOLLOWING FACTS HAVE COME TO THE FORE:- (I) INCREASE IN DELIVERY EXPENDITURE OVER THE PRECEDING YEARS : RS.56 29 086/- PERCENTAGE INCREASE IS 138. (II) DECREASE IN TURNOVER OVER THE PRECEDING YEARS : RS .1 94 80 818/- PERCENTAGE DECREASE IS 11.7 (III) NUMBER OF VEHICLES FOR WHICH FUEL OR DRIVERS SALAR Y WAS PURCHASED/PAID IS MORE THAN THAT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. (IV) PAYMENTS ARE IN CASH; SOME PAYMENTS ARE VERY BIG BU T PAYEES ARE NOT IDENTIFIABLE. (V) NO EVIDENCE FOR PURCHASE OF FUEL AND PAYMENTS HAS B EEN PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. (VI) DECREASE IN FREIGHT RECEIPT OVER THE PRECEDING YEAR S : RS.1 62 558/- PERCENTAGE DECREASE IS 2.9. ON ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE FACTS IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT DELIVERY EXPENSES ARE EXCESSIVE UNREASONABLE AND ERRATIC AND THEREFORE PARTLY BOGUS. WHEN TURNOVER AND OTHER RECEIPT ARE ON THE WANE THE DELIVERY EXPENDI TURE IS ON THE RISE. IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF EXPENDITURE AND PAYMENT THE ENTIRE EXP ENDITURE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS GENUINE. THE CONTRACT PAYMENT ON FREIGHT A/C IS RS. 54 48 255/-. THE DELIVERY EXPENSES AGAINST THIS WORK CAN BE ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF 8 0%. THIS MEANS THE DELIVERY EXPENSE ON FREIGHT A/C IS RS.43 58 604/-. THE HANDL ING CHARGES FROM EUL IS RS.8 55 684/-. DELIVERY EXPENSES AGAINST THIS WORK MAY BE ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT 50%. 4 THIS MEANS TURNOVER OF RS.14 63 46 396/- DELIVERY E XPENSES CAN BE ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF 1(ONE)%. THUS DELIVERY EXPENSES AGAINST S ALE SHOULD BE RS.14 63 463/-. TO SUM UP THE TOTAL DELIVERY EXPENSES SHOULD BE THE S UM OF RS.62 49 909/- (RS.43 58 604/- + RS.4 27 842/- + RS.14 63 463/-). THE DELIVERY EXPENDITURE NEEDS TO BE DISALLOWED IS RS.34 34 688/- (RS.96 84 597/- MIN US RS.62 49 909/-) ONLY. 2.2 ON APPEAL LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLO WANCE ON INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.68 102/- AND ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT RECEIPTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2 21 909/- WHEREAS HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDIT AND ON ACCOUNT OF DELIVERY EXPENSES BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : - 5(VII) IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES THE GIST OF MY ORDER IS GIVEN BELOW : I) THAT THE ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD INTEREST ON FIX ED DEPOSIT IS CONFIRMED BUT THE SAME IS RESTRICTED TO RS.68 102/- II) THAT ADDITION OF RS.33 02 792/- UNDER THE HEAD CASH CREDIT IS CORRECT AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. III) THAT ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD FREIGHT RECEIPTS IN THE ACCOUNT OF M/S. GCHL IS CORRECT BUT THE SAME IS RESTRICTED TO RS.2 21 909/- . IV) THAT ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD DELIVERY EXPENSES OF RS.34 34 688/- IS CORRECT AND CONFIRMED. 2.3. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE WHI CH RELATES TO CASH CREDIT AMOUNTING TO RS.33 02 792/- WHICH COMPRISES OF RS.22 37 138/- WH ICH WAS CAPITALIZED INTO THE BUSINESS AS PER THE ORDERS OF INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION KOLKATA DATED 19.3.1998 AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.10 65 653/-W HICH WAS AT RS.1 52 236/- STATED TO BE THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY ALL THE SEVEN PARTN ERS EQUALLY BY REFERRING TO THE DISCUSSIONS MADE BY LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE R AT PARA NO.3 IN PAGE NOS 4 TO 12 POINTED OUT THAT LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SIM PLY REJECTING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE S OURCE OF DEPOSITS IN PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF RS.1 52 237/- EACH IN ALL THE SEVEN PART NERS BEFORE AO BEFORE MY PREDECESSOR OR EVEN BEFORE ME AND EVEN IGNORING THE ORDERS OF SETTLEMENT COMMISISON WHEREIN THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE AT PAGE 16 OF ITS ORDER WHICH WAS PLACED AT PAGE NO.72 OF THE PAPER B OOK IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES ALLOWED BY AO ONE OF MY PREDECESSOR AND THE UNDERSIGNED TO ASSESSEE. 5 HE FURTHER TREATED THIS FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) BY RE FERRING TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNTS OF ALL THE SEVEN PARTNERS WHICH WERE INCORPORATED BY LD.CI T(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEREIN IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT OUT OF THE EA RNING OF THE FIRM THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNER HAS INTRODUCED THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL CAPIT AL FIRM OUT OF THE ACCRUED INCOME AS WELL AS THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR. WHEN ONCE THIS WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE THEN IT I S NOT FAIR ON THE PART OF LD. CIT(A) TO GIVE A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODU CE THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS IN PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNTS WHICH WAS ALREADY AVAILAB LE IN THE RECORDS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. SIMILARLY HE READ OUT THE RELEVANT POR TION OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AT PAGE NO.16 WHICH WAS APPEARING AT PAGE NO.72 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SETTLEMENT COMMISISON HAS ACCEPTED THE CAPITALIZATI ON OF A SUM OF RS.22 37 138/- AS ON 31.03.1991. THEREFORE HE REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE. 4. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND APPEARING ON BEHAL F OF THE REVENUE RELIED ON ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 5. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREF UL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE ASSESSEE H AS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT ALL THE PARTNERS ARE HAVING SUFFICIENT OPENING BALANCE AS WELL AS INCOME FROM PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED AND OUT O F THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPITAL ACCOUNTS ONLY EACH PARTNER HAS CONTRIBUTED A SUM OF RS.1 52 137/- TOWARDS ADDITIONAL CAPITAL. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SOURCE OF D EPOSITS IN PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNTS. AS REGARDING THE CAPITALISATION OF SUM OF RS.22 37 138/- AS ON 31.03.1991 WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO MAKE ADDITION WHEN ONCE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS APPROVED THE CAPITALIZATION OF THE S AID AMOUNT IN THEIR ORDER. THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. 6 6. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO.1 TAKEN BY ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. 7. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS RELATING TO DE LIVERY EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.34 34 688/- 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. COUNS EL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS DISALLOWED ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 20% ON DELIVERY EXPENSE ON FREIGHT ACCOUNT AND 50% ON WORK S ACCOUNTS AND 1% OF DELIVERY EXPENSES ON THE TOTAL TURN OVER WITHOUT BRINGING AN Y MATERIAL ON RECORD FOR SUCH SORT OF DISALLOWANCES MERELY ON PRODUCTION THAT ASSESSEE HA S NOT PRODUCED THE EVIDENCE OF EXPENDITURE FOR SUCH PAYMENTS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS B Y REFERRING TO PAGE 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE TOTAL SALE FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH ITSELF AMOUNTING TO RS.4 52 76 870/- AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN IGNORED BY AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) WHILE DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF DELIVERY EXPENSES. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHAL F OF THE REVENUE RELIED ON ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 10. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAR EFUL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT AO AND LD. CIT(A) HA S DISALLOWED THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT COMPARING THE ASSESSEES PREVI OUS FIGURES ON SIMILAR EXPENDITURE OR EITHER COMPARING SIMILAR NATURE OF BUSINESS WITH DIFFERENT ASSESSES. ON VERIFICATION OF DELIVERY EXPENSES IT IS OBSERVED FROM PAGE NO.20 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT THE TOTAL DELIVERY EXPENSES INCURRED BY ASSESSEE ON UTILIZATI ON OF LORRY IS RS.66 72 737/- AND ON UTILISATION OF VAN IS RS.30 11 862/- AGAINST THIS A MOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS.46 06 129/- ON ACCOUNT OF REC OVERY OF FREIGHT AS APPEARING AT PAGE 38 OF THE PAPER BOOK AS OTHER INCOME. THUS THE NET FREIGHT EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE IS ONLY RS.50 78 469/-. THE REVENUE HAS DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF 34 34 688/- . THIS COMES TO 68% OF THE NET DELIVER Y EXPENDITURE WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED ON ANY ACCOUNT AND IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE METHOD OF DISALLOWANCE ADOPTED BY 7 THE REVENUE IS NEITHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY PRUDE NTIAL ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES NOR BASED ON ANY LOGICAL CONCLUSION. THEREFORE WE REST RICT THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DELIVERY EXPENSE AT 10% OF NET FREIGHT EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF VOUCHERS. THUS WE RESTRICT THE DISALLOW ANCE TO RS.5 07 846/-. 11. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APP EAL IS ALLOWED IN PART. 12. AS REGARDING GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF FREIGHT RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO RS.2 21 909/- THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION S OF LD. CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER :- 4(IV) I HAVE AGAIN VERIFIED THE ABOVE REFERRED SUB MISSION OF THE APPELLANT THE WORKING OF MY PREDECESSOR AND IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ABOVE WORKED MAY BY THE CIT(A) BURDEAN IS CORRECT. IT IS TO FURTHER CONCLUDE THAT THE SAME IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR OF RS.2 21 909/- (RS.70 139 + RS. 51 590/-) AS DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) BURDWAN. HENCE THE ADDITION IS RESTRICTED TO RS.2 21 909/-. THIS G ROUND IS THEREFORE PARTLY ALLOWED. 13. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSE L APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- THE AO HAS GIVEN HIS DISCUSSION BEFORE MAKING SUCH ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD FREIGHT CHARGES WITH THE ACCOUNT OF M/S.GCHL. THE APPELLANT IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS GIVEN THE DETAIL WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED I N PARA 4(III). THE APPELLANT HAS CLEARLY BROUGHT ON RECORD THE ACTUAL DISCREPANCY WH ICH IS RS.70 319/- AND NOT RS.8 38 490/- AS COMPUTED BY THE A.O. THE A.O. IT APPEARS GOT CONFUSED WITH THE FREIGHT FIGURE AS THE BASIS FOR MAKING SUCH ADDITIO N IS NOT CLEAR FROM HIS ORDER WHEREAS FROM THE RECORD IT ACTUALLY REVEALS. 14. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHA LF OF THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 15. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CARE FUL PERUSAL OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THIS CASE ASS ESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS ACTUAL DISCREPANCY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.70 139/-. THEREFORE WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF LD. CIT(A) TO ADD FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS.1 51 590/ - ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT RECEIPTS. THEREFORE WE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE ON THIS ISSU E TO THE EXTENT OF RS.70 319/- ONLY WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY ASSESSEE. 16. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEES APP EAL IS ALLOWED IN PART. 8 17. GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS IN RESPECT OF INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.68 102/-. 18. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CARE FUL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE CONSIDER IT TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE T O THE FILE OF AO TO CONSIDER WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY ACCOUNTED THE MATURITY PROCEE DINGS ON FIXED DEPOSITS ON THE BASIS OF CASH BASIS AND WHEN THE CREDIT FOR TDS HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ASSESSEE AS SPECIFIED U/S 199 OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. IT IS FURTH ER OBSERVED THAT IN THIS CASE NEITHER AO WHILE TREATING THE ACCRUED INTEREST AT 10% ON FI XED DEPOSIT NOR LD. CIT(A) TO RESTRICT THE INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSIT TO THE DIFFE RENCE BETWEEN OPENING FDR AND CLOSING FDR HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE IMPACT OF TDS ON THE SAID INTEREST. THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AN D RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO TO RE-DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER GIVIN G A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. 19. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO.4 IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. 20. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25.11.2011. SD/- SD/- ( ( ( ( N.VIJAYAKUMARAN JUDICIAL MEMBER . .. .'# '#'# '#. .. . $% $% $% $% C.D.RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( (( (#% #% #% #%) )) ) DATE: 25.11.2011. R.G.(.P.S.) 9 $5 1 /(( 6$*7- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S.ROY BROTHERS SOUTH KALNA ROAD BURDWAN PIN CO DE: 713 101. 2 THEA.C.I.T. CIRCLE-2 BURDWAN 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A)-ASANSOL. 5. DR KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA 0 /(/ TRUE COPY $5/ BY ORDER DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES