Balaji Timber Co., Kolkata v. ITO, Ward - 50(4), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 43/KOL/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 4323514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AADFB3342B
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 43/KOL/2011
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant Balaji Timber Co., Kolkata
Respondent ITO, Ward - 50(4), Kolkata, Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 22-07-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 11-01-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE /AND . . !' ) [BEFORE HONBLE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH JM & HONBLE SHR I C. D. RAO AM] # # # # / I.T.A NO. 43/KOL/2011 $% &' $% &' $% &' $% &'/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 BALAJI TIMBER CO. VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WD-50 (4) KOLKATA (PAN AADFB 3342 B) ()* /APPELLANT ) (+ )*/ RESPONDENT ) & # # # # / I.T.A NO. 119/KOL/2011 $% &' $% &' $% &' $% &'/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 INCOME-TAX OFFICER WD-50(4) KOLKATA VS. BALAJI T IMBER CO. ()* /APPELLANT ) (+ )*/ RESPONDENT ) FOR THE ASSESSEE: SHRI S. M. SURANA FOR THE DEPARTMENT: SHRI R. K. SAHA !- / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH JM ( ) THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XXXII KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 100/CIT(A)-XXXII/08-09/WD-50(4)/KOL DATED 27.08 .2010. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO WARD-50(4) KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) READ WITH SEC TION 145(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 31.12.2008. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE BOTH THES E APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF CONSOLIDATED. 2. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE IN THESE CROSS APPEALS IS AS REGARDS TO RESTRICTING THE ADDITION AT RS.55 460/- INSTEAD OF ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.5 54 597/-. FOR THIS REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.1: 1)UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LD. CIT(A)-XVII KOLKATA IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5 54 597/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S. 69C OF THE I. T. ACT 61 ON THE GROUND THAT NO EFFORT WAS MADE BY THE A.O. TO GET COPIES OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FROM THE SALES TAX AUTHORITY TO SHOW THAT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED WERE SAME. ALL THE DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN VE RIFIED AND COUNTERSIGNED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITY AND THE ADDITION WAS MADE RELYI NG ON THE ACTION OF THE GOVT. AGENCY AND ITS REPORTS AND NOTE SHEETS. 2 ITA 43-119/K/2011 BALAJI TIMBER CO.. A.Y.06-07 THE ASSESEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING SOLE GROUND: THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN AD DING RS.55 460/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT @ 10% ON UNRECORDED PURCHASE AND LD. CIT(A) ALSO CO NFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WITHOUT GOING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CAS E. 3. BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH BY COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT IN THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE FROM WHERE CERTAIN PAPERS AND STOCK BOOKS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. ACCORDING TO COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (C TO) THE SEIZED PAPER REVEALED DISCREPANCY OF PURCHASE TO THE TUNE OF RS.5 54 497/ - NOT RECORDED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. CTO ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE SAID PURCHASE AS UNRECORDED AND ASSESSED THE VALUE OF THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF COMMERCIAL TAX. THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF CTO. CTO COMMUNICATED THE ORDER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REQUIRED THE ASSES SEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY UNRECORDED PURCHASES OF RS.5 54 597/- FOUND BY CTO BE NOT ADDE D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE STOCK REGISTERS AND OTHER RELEV ANT PAPERS SEIZED BY COMMERCIAL TAX AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ONE STOCK REGIS TER CLAIMING THAT THE SAME WAS SEIZED BY CTO BUT AO DISBELIEVED ON THE REASON THAT THERE IS NEITHER ANY SEAL NOR SIGNATURE OF CTO ON THE SAID REGISTER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING O N THE CTOS ORDER MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE FOR PURCHASE U/S. 69C OF THE ACT FOR A SUM OF RS.5 54 597/-. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) AND HE DELETED THIS ADDITION BUT RETAINED 10% OF THIS AMOUNT RELATABLE TO PROFIT FOR UNACCOUN TED PURCHASES AS UNDER: IN SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS.5 54 597/- ON ACCO UNT OF PURCHASES FOUND NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE CTO AND THE AD DITION OF NET PROFIT ON SALE THEREOF IS CONCERNED I FIND THAT THE A.O. GAVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SAID UNRECORDED PURCHASES BUT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND UNACCEPTABLE BY HIM. I AM ALSO NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THERE WERE NO UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AT ALL. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO DISPROVE THE FINDING OF THE CTO. THEREFORE THE A.O. WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT SUCH PURCH ASES OF RS.5 54 597/- WERE UNACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE. I HOWEVER FIND FROM THE OR DER OF THE A.O. THAT THE UNRECORDED PURCHASES WERE SOLD FOR WHICH THE A.O. HAS ALSO EST IMATED AND SEPARATELY ADDED PROFIT OF RS.55 460/- THEREON. HOWEVER IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PURCHASING THE GOODS ON CREDIT ALSO. THERE WAS ALSO NO EVIDENCE O F PAYMENT FOR SUCH UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES HAVING BEEN MADE ON A SINGLE DAY. THERE ARE A CATENA OF CASE LAWS INCLUDING THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE A/R WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN CASE OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES THE ENTIRE PURCHASE PRICE CANNOT BE DEEM ED TO BE ASSESSEES INCOME AND ONLY THE AMOUNT PROFIT ON SALE OF SUCH UNACCOUNTED PURC HASES CAN BE ADDED. AGGRIEVED NOW BOTH ARE IN APPEALS BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES HAVING BEEN MADE ON A SINGLE DAY. NEITHE R ASSESSING OFFICER NOR DR NOW BEFORE US 3 ITA 43-119/K/2011 BALAJI TIMBER CO.. A.Y.06-07 HAS BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD THAT THE PURCHASES A RE MADE ON A SINGLE DAY AND NOT SPLIT WISE. THERE CANNOT BE DENIAL THAT THERE IS UNACCOUNTED PU RCHASES. SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES ONLY PROFIT QUA T HE PURCHASES MIGHT HAVE BEEN EARNED ON SALES AND CAN BE ADDED BACK. IN VIEW OF THIS REASO NING WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ADDING ONLY PROFIT OF RS.55 460/- AND DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES OF RS.5 54 597/-. ACCORDINGLY THIS COMMON ISSUE OF BOTH APPEALS IS D ISMISSED. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERSTATEMENT OF SALES FOR A SUM OF RS.4 62 742/-. FOR THIS REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.2: 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD. CIT(A)-XVII KOLKATA IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION RS.4 62 742/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERSTATEMENT OF SALES CITING THE REASON THAT NO EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN BROUGH T ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT RECEIVED HIGHER SALE PRICE THAN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MADE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ITS GOODS AT A PR ICE LOWER THAN THE AVERAGE COST PRICE OF THE GOODS PURCHASED BY HIM DURING THE YEAR. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER NO PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WOULD SELL HIS GOODS AT A PRICE LOWER T HAN THE PREVAILING MARKET PRICE AND THEREOF HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERST ATED THE SALE PRICE AND HE ESTIMATED UNDERSTATED SALES AT RS.4 62 742/-. THE CIT(A) DEL ETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS OBS ERVED THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. MORE ON THE BASIS OF GUES SWORK THEN ON FACTS. THE ASSESSEE HAD REXPLAINED TO THE A.O. THAT ALMOST ALL OF THE SALES MADE BY IT DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR WERE OUT OF THE OPENING STOCK AVAILAB LE WITH IT. FROM THE DETAILS EXTRACTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS OBSERVED THAT OUT OF THE 7917 CUBIC FEET OF TEAK WOOD SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR 7350 CUBIC FEET WERE SOLD OUT OF THE OPENING STOCK. IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER THE A.O. HAS MENTIONED ON PAGE 5 THAT SHE WAS ESTIMATING THE TUR NOVER OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING 12% RATE OF GROSS PROFIT ON THE QUANTITY S OLD BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS IN THE CALCULATIONS SHE HAS APPLIED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 8%. FURTHER IT IS NOTICED THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE OF 7917 CUBIC FEET OF TEAK WOOD SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN BY THE A. 0. AT RS 35 84 048/- WHICH WAS LOADED WITH A GROSS PROFIT OF RS.2 96 284/- CALCULATED AT THE RATE OF 8% WHEREAS 8% OF RS.35 84 048/- COMES TO RS.2 86 724/- ONLY. THE A.O. HAS WORKED OUT UNDERSTATED SALES AT RS.4 62 742/- BUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON PAGE 6 THE A.O. HAS STATED TH AT THE ADDITION ON THAT ACCOUNT SHOULD BE RS.7 50 738/-. NOW FROM WHERE DID THE FI GURE OF RS.7 50 738/- ARISE IS NOWHERE MENTIONED IN THE ORDER. THE ABOVE FACTS CLE ARLY INDICATE THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. WITHOUT ANY APPLICATI ON OF MIND. FURTHER NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE A.O. TO SHOW THAT ANY CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THAT RECORDED IN ITS BOOKS HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS NOT ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD AND EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE SALES OR RATE THEREOF WAS NOT CORRECTLY RECORDED. THE GROSS PROFI T DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS @12.65% ON THE TURNOVER OF RS. 36.66 LAKHS WHICH IS QUITE FAIR AND REASONABLE AS COMPARED TO THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 9.30% OF THE I MMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE FACTS I FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. WHICH 4 ITA 43-119/K/2011 BALAJI TIMBER CO.. A.Y.06-07 IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTIONS AND NOT ON FACT S. THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS. 462742/- IS DELETED. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) FACTUALLY NOTED THAT OUT OF 7917 CFT. OF TEAK WOOD SOLD BY ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR AND 7350 CFT. WAS SOLD OUT OF OPENING STOCK AND THE ASSESSEES GROSS PROFIT IS AT 12.65% ON TURNOVER OF RS.36.06 LACS WH ICH IS QUITE REASONABLE AS COMPARED TO THE G.P. OF IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEARS AT 9.30%. IN VIE W OF THESE REASONS WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THIS ISSUE OF RE VENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF UNACCOUNTED CASH OF RS.8 87 597/-. FOR THIS REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.3: 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD. CIT(A)-XVII KOLKATA IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8 87 597/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH ON THE PLEA THAT THE ADDITION IS EXCESSIVE AS THE LOGI CAL CONCLUSION REGARDING THE ADDITION WAS TAKEN BECAUSE THE MONEY USED FOR PREPARING OF D RAFT AT CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA RAIPUR BRANCH WAS FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.10 62 597/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH AS THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED GOODS FROM ONE SHRI KRISHNA SAW MILLS RAIPUR M.P. AND TOTAL PAYMENT OF THOSE PURCHASES WAS RS.12 82 597/- OUT OF WHICH THE PAYMENT BY CHEQUE WAS MADE OF RS.2 20 000/-. THE BALANCE ASSESSING OFFICER M ADE ADDITION. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADD ITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ENTRY OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK AT KOLKATA ON THE SAME DAY BUT MADE THE ENTRY ONLY WHEN THE DRAFT WAS PURCHASED AT RAIPUR FOR PAY MENT TO THE PARTY. HOWEVER I FIND THE ADDITION OF A SUM OF RS.10 62 597/- TO BE EXCES SIVE. SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT C BENCH KO LKATA IN THE CASE OF ASIT BARUN UTTHASANEE V. ITO IN ITA NO. 1327/KO1/2008. IN THAT CASE WHILE EXAMINING THE SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESS EE THE A.O. FOUND THAT ON VARIOUS DATES CASH DISBURSED EXCEEDED AVAILABLE CAS H IN THE CASH BOOK THEREBY RESULTING IN NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE IN THE CASH BOOK . THE A.O. ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS WHICH WERE MADE OUT OF THE CASH NOT SUP PORTED BY THE BALANCE IN THE CASH BOOK. IN APPEAL THE ITAT HELD AS UNDER: WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND THE ORDERS OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE AS OBSERVED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT T HE ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT OF NEGATIVE BALANCE MADE BY OFFICER AGGREGAT ING RS.11 80 150.52 U/S. 68 OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED . CONSIDERING THE FACTS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT WILL B E JUSTIFIABLE TO TAKE THE PEAK OF THE NEGATIVE BALANCE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CR EDIT. 5 ITA 43-119/K/2011 BALAJI TIMBER CO.. A.Y.06-07 IN THE INSTANT CASE FROM THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHREE KRISHNA SAW MILLS AS GIVEN BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER THE PEAK OF THE PAYMENTS REMAINING UNEXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.1 75 000/-. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE C ASE OF ASIT BARUN UTTHASANEE V. ITO (SUPRA) THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON THIS A CCOUNT IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 1 75 000/-. THE ASSESSEE GETS A RELIEF OF RS.8 87 5 97/-. 9. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A DRAFT ON 9 .6.2005 FOR A SUM OF RS.1.70 LAC OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM SBI KOLKATA ON 26.5.2005 AND FURTHER A DRAFT OF RS.2 17 597/- WAS MADE ON 30.3.2006 OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM SBI KOLKA TA ON 21.3.2006. FURTHER ASSESSEE MADE A DRAFT ON 1.10.2005 OF RS.3 LACS OUT OF CASH WITHD RAWAL MADE ON 10.8.2005 3.9.2005 AND 5.9.2005 FROM SBI KOLKATA. THESE SMALL WITHDRAWAL S FROM CASH BOOK WERE DULY DEBITED TO THE PARTY ACCOUNT ON THOSE DATES AND THIS FACT IS CLEAR LY ESTABLISHED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER (FROM THE ENCLOSURE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER). THE ASSESSEE H AS ALSO FILED DETAILS AND BANK STATEMENT BEFORE THE AO BEFORE CIT(A) AS WELL BEFORE US NOW. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THESE ACCOUNTS IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE AMOUNTS ARE EXPLAINED AND IT IS NO T THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THESE WITHDRAWALS ARE SPENT ELSEWHERE. FURTHER THE ASSE SSEE HAD MADE DRAFT OF RS.1 LAC ON 10.6.2005 ON 10.1.2006 EACH AND A FURTHER DRAFT OF RS.1 75 000/- ON 2.3.2006 OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS FROM SBI KOLKATA AND TRANSFERRED TO RA IPUR ON THE SAID DATE AS CONTENDED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SHRI SURANA. HE ARGUED THAT S HRI S. S. CHOWDHURY PARTNER OF THE FIRM GOT DRAFTS PREPARED FROM BANK AT RAIPUR. THE CASH WITH DRAWALS WERE TRANSFERRED TO HIS OFFICE AT KOLKATA AND AFTER INTIMATING THE SAID FACT AT HIS H OUSE IN RAIPUR HE PREPARED DRAFTS WITH HIS MONEY LYING IN RAIPUR. IN RESPECT TO THESE THREE D RAFTS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THESE THREE DRAFTS OF RS.1 00 000/- 1 00 000/ - AND RS.1 75 000/- WAS PURCHASED ON THE SAME DAY WHEN THE CASH AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM B ANK AND ACCORDINGLY THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ADDED THE PEAK AMOUNT OF RS.1.75 LAC. AS O BSERVED FROM ABOVE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AND THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND NO INFIRMI TY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE SAME. THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF REVENUE AS WELL AS OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 11. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22.7.2011 SD/- SD/- . . !' (C. D. RAO) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ' ' ' ') )) ) DATED 22ND JULY 2011 ./ $01 2 JD.(SR.P.S.) 6 ITA 43-119/K/2011 BALAJI TIMBER CO.. A.Y.06-07 !- 3 +4 5!4&6- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . )* / APPELLANT M/S. BALAJI TIMBER CO. 54 SUKUMAR GHO SH ROAD KOLKATA-700 083.. 2 + )* / RESPONDENT ITO WARD-50(4) KOLKATA. 3 . -$ ( )/ THE CIT(A) KOLKATA 4. -$ / CIT KOLKATA 5 . => +$ / DR KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA 4 +/ TRUE COPY !-$?/ BY ORDER 1 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .