Shri Chitta Ranjan Basak, Nadia v. JCIT, Range - Nadia, Nadia

1 A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH- A KO LKATA [ . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . !' ] BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI C.D. RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # # # # / ITA NO. 975 (KOL) OF 2010 $%& '( / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 SRI CHITTA RANJAN BASAK NADIA. (PAN-ADLPB4652B) JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX RANGE NADIA. (+ / APPELLANT ) - % - - VERSUS -. (/0+ / RESPONDENT ) + 1 2 !/ FOR THE APPELLANT: / SRI I. BANERJEE /0+ 1 2 ! / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SRI O.P. AGARWAL !3 / ORDER ( . .. . . .. . ) !' (C.D. RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 09.03.2010 OF LD. C.I.T.(A)-XXXVI KOLKATA PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2003-04. THE FIRST GROUND IN THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL READS AS UNDER :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 144 IN PURSUANCE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS U/S. 147 BY THE LD. JCIT NADIA (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE LD.AO) AND UP HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS INVALID AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE NULLIFIED ENTIR ELY IN THE ABSENCE OF NON-ISSUE OF MANDATORY NOTICES U/S. 143(2) AS WELL AS 142(1). 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILE D HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ON 13/10/2003 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5 07 560/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT. DURING SCRUTINY PROCEEDING FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 THE A.O. OBSERV ED THAT THERE WAS DISCREPANCY OF SALE TO THE TUNE OF RS.4 LAKHS. THE A.O. THEREFORE INITIATED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL I.E. A.Y. 2003-04 AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 30/11/2006. A REMINDER TO THE SAID 148 NOTI CE WAS ALSO ISSUED BY THE A.O. BUT ACCORDING TO THE A.O. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM T HE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE ISSUED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 9/10/2007 PLACED ON PAGE-1 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK REQUIRING THE 2 ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY AN ORDER U/S. 144 SHA LL NOT BE PASSED FOR A.Y. 2003-04 RAISING A DEMAND OF RS.1 26 000/- ON THE SUPPRESSIO N OF SALES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4 LAKHS. AS THERE WAS NO REPLY TO THE SAID NOTICE DA TED 9/10/2007 THE A.O. ISSUED ANOTHER LETTER DATED 28/11/2007 CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE T O STATE HIS CASE IN TERMS OF SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE DATED 9/10/2007. IN RESPONSE THE ASSE SSEE THROUGH THE LETTER OF HIS A/R DATED 17/12/2007 REQUESTED THE A.O. TO ASSESS TOTAL INCOME TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT CONSIDERING THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 13/10/2003. ACCORDING TO THE A.O. THE AFORESAID REPLY MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE S PREFERENCE WAS TO BE ASSESSED U/S. 144 OF THE ACT AND THIS LEADS TO HOLD THAT HE SHOUL D BE TREATED TO HAVE NOT FILED ANY RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE AC T AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED BEFORE COMPLE TING THE ASSESSMENT. THE A.O. THEREFORE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.9 07 560/-. 3. BEFORE THE LD. C.I.T.(A) THE ASSESSEE CHALLENG ED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 OF THE ACT AS INVALID IN ABSENCE OF MANDATORY ISSUE OF NOTICES U/S. 142(1) AND 143(2) OF THE ACT AND IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE T HE ASSESSEE RELIED ON SEVERAL DECISIONS WHICH ARE MENTIONED ON PAGES 5 & 6 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HOWEVER FOUND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE DISTINGUISHABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE AND DISMISSED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THIS REGARD BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED ON THE BASIS OF THE IN FORMATION REGARDING SUPPRESSION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SAREES BY THE A PPELLANT. SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE 148 NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED DETAILED LETTERS (TWICE) PROPOSING TO ASSESS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ON THE SUPPRESSED PURCHASE AND PROFIT ON SALE THEREOF. TH EREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES BY ISSUING DETAILED SHOW-CAUSE LETTERS. THOUGH NOTICES U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE NOT ISSUED THE DETAILED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE SIMILA R TO THOSE NOTICES U/S. 142(1)/143(2) OF THE ACT IN SO FAR AS GIVING OPPORT UNITY TO THE APPELLANT IS CONCERNED. THEREFORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD W AS EFFECTIVELY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT CANNO T BE SAID THAT NO OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE NOT ISSUING NOTICES U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT IN MY VIEW DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SI NCE THE EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. 3 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPONSE TO SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 09/10/2007 COM PLIANCE WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON 17/12/2007 CONVEYING TO CARRY OUT A LAW FUL AND WELL MERITED ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE BASIS OF RETURN SUBMITTED ORIGINALLY O N 13/10/2003 ALONG WITH AUDITED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAD NOT ISSUED MANDATORY AND PRESCRIBED NOTICES U/S. 142(1) AND 143(2) OF THE AC T DURING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING U/S. 147 OF THE ACT AND PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT WHICH RENDERED INVALID. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BEST JU DGMENT ASSESSMENT ORDER CAN BE PASSED ONLY WHEN THERE IS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN OR ON THE OCCURRENCE OF OMISSIONS TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE A.O. BUT THERE WAS NO SUCH OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN HE S TATED IN HIS LETTER DATED 17/12/2007 THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN BE ACTED UPON IN RELATION TO THE INSTANT PROCEEDING AS WELL. THE LD. COUNSEL THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT OMISSION TO SERVE MANDATORY NOTICES U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) UPON THE ASSESSEE BEFORE COMPLETING THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT U/S. 144/147 OF THE ACT HAS RENDERED THE ENTIRE REASSESS MENT PROCEEDING INVALID AND THE SAME SHOULD BE ANNULLED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSI ONS THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS REFERRED TO SEVERAL JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS MENTIONED ON PAGES 2 TO 4 OF HIS WRITTEN REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTH ER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT D ESPITE OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY MENTIONED IN THE DETAILED SHOW-CAUS E NOTICES ON TWO OCCASIONS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE FRESH RETURN IN RESPONSE TO N OTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT RATHER HE SUGGESTED THE A.O. TO PROCEED WITH THE BEST JUDGMEN T ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND TO ASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AND DETAILS INCORPORATED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 13/10/2003. THEREFORE TH E A.O. UNDER GENUINE IMPRESSION OF GETTING NO FURTHER INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE FROM TH E ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY POINTED OUT BY HIM FOUND THAT NO PURPOSE WILL BE S ERVED EVEN IF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) IS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. C.I.T.(A) AFTER APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND STAND OF THE A.O. IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE A.O. 4 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE OBJECTION OF THE AS SESSEE IS THAT IN ABSENCE OF MANDATORY NOTICE U/S. 142(1) AND 143(2) THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 144/147 OF THE ACT WAS INVALID AND DESERVED TO BE CANCELLED. FACTS ON THIS ISSUE HAVE BEEN STATED ABOVE. HOWEVER TO REITERATE THE ADMITTED FACTS ARE THAT THE RETURN FILED ON 13/10/2003 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS PROCESSED U /S. 143(1) AND SUBSEQUENTLY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE SUPPRESSED THE OPENING BALANCE OF RS.4 LAKHS BY REDUCING DEBTORS ACCOUNT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER AP PEAL THE A.O. ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT FIRST ON 30/11/2006 AND ANOTHER DETA ILED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ON 09/10/2007 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE D ISCREPANCIES OBSERVED BY THE A.O. IN THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID DETAILED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 09/10/2007 THE AS SESSEE FILED A REPLY WITH THE A.O. VIDE LETTER DATED 17/12/2007 STATING AS UNDER :- UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IF YOU ARE NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE A.Y. 2003-04 YOU MAY ASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE SAID YEAR TO THE BEST OF YOUR JUDGMENT U/S. 144 ON CONSIDERING OF THE ORIGIN AL RETURN SUBMITTED ON 13.10.2003. ON THE ABOVE FACTS WE OBSERVE THAT DESPITE OPPORTU NITIES PROVIDED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE NEITH ER MADE ANY EFFORT TO EXPLAIN THE QUERIES RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH DISCREPANCIES POI NTED OUT BY THE A.O. NOR PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL THEREOF. HE SIMPLY FILED A LETTER DATED 17/12/2007 (SUPRA) CONSENTING THE A.O. TO BE ASSESSED ON THE TOTAL INC OME IN THE PROPOSED BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF ORIGINAL RETURN SUBMITTE D ON 13/10/2003 IF THE A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. BY SUCH AN ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION IT IS A MPLY CLEAR AND ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION/EVIDE NCE OVER AND ABOVE THE INFORMATION FURNISHED WITH THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND OTHER DOCUME NTS FILED ALONG WITH THE SAID RETURN; OTHERWISE HE COULD HAVE COOPERATED WITH THE A.O. DU RING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS MENTIONED IN THE SHOW-CAUS E NOTICES. ON VERIFICATION OF THE RETURN AUDITED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOC UMENTS PLACED ON RECORD THE A.O. FOUND DISCREPANCY AND TO VERIFY SUCH DISCREPANCY IN THE ACCOUNTS THE A.O. HAD NO OTHER 5 OPTION BUT TO ISSUE A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSE SSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SAME AND TO COMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ONE HAND ADMITS THAT HE W AS HAVING NO FURTHER INFORMATION OVER AND ABOVE DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN SUBMITTE D TO THE DEPARTMENT TO PROCEED WITH THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT AND ON THE OTHER HAND AFTER PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 144/147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS ORIGINAL RETUR N AS PER CONSENT OF THE ASSESSEE HE AGITATES ON TECHNICAL GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY BY ISSUING MANDATORY NOTICES U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT . THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ABOVE SITUATION IS CONTRADICTORY TO HIS OWN COURSE OF ACTION AND HENCE NOT UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF. BECAUSE OF THE ASSESSEES SPECIFIC SU BMISSION THAT THE A.O. CAN PROCEED TO DO THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT IN OUR OPINION TH E A.O. IS NOT SUPPOSED TO ISSUE NOTICE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION MORE SO WHEN AS PER ADMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF NO FURTHER INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE FOR FURNISHING BEFORE THE A.O. IN SUCH A SITUATION ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WILL NOT SERVE ANY P URPOSE BECAUSE THE QUERIES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A NOTICE U/S. 143(2) HAVE ALREA DY BEEN CALLED FROM THE ASSESSEE VIDE EARLIER SHOW CAUSE NOTICES. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OB SERVATION THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL BEFORE US ARE ALL DISTINGUIS HABLE ON FACTS AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. WE THEREFORE REJECT GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 7. THE NEXT GROUND IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READS AS UNDER :- 2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.(1) THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.4 00 000/- REPRESENTING U NDISCLOSED SALE ONLY RATHER THAN THE PROFIT ELEMENT COMPRISED THEREIN AFTER JUSTIFYING THE SAME ON ARBITRARY AND SURMISED GROUNDS AND REASONINGS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES L AID DOWN IN VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. 8. THE A.O. DURING SCRUTINY PROCEEDING FOR THE SUB SEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.1 58 442/- AS ON 31/3/2003 IN SUNDRY DEBTORS ACCOUNT AS RECEIVABLE FROM M/S. ADI DAKESHWARI BASTRALAYA BUT SUBSEQUENTLY ON REQUISITION THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ANOTHER LIST OF SUNDRY DEBTORS WHEREIN THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01/4/2003 WAS SHO WN AT RS.5 58 442/- IN THE SAME DEBTOR ACCOUNT RESULTING IN A DISCREPANCY OF SALE TO THE TUNE OF RS.4 00 000/-. THE A.O. THEREFORE ISSUED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE THE FACT S OF WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE WHILE DEALING WITH GROUND NO.1 OF T HE APPEAL. HE THEREFORE TREATED 6 THE SAID DIFFERENCE OF RS. 4 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED I NVESTMENT AND ADDED THE SAME TO HIS INCOME ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER DISPUTED THE SAID DISCREPANCY NOR THERE WAS ANY ATTEMPT ON HIS PART TO RECONCILE THE SAME. 9. BEFORE THE LD. C.I.T.(A) THE ASSESSEES SUBMIT TED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE DISCREPANCY IN DEBTORS ACCOUNT AS UNDI SCLOSED SALE ONLY THE GROSS PROFIT AT APPROPRIATE & REASONABLE RATE ON SUCH SUPPRESSED SA LE SHOULD BE ASSESSED AND NOT UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH SUBMISSION THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON SOME DECISIONS WHICH ARE MENTION ED ON PAGE-8 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE LD. C.I.T.(A) AFTER DISTINGUISHING THE DECISION S RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ON FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.4 LAKHS BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CORRESPONDING PURCHASES WERE ALSO NO T ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE APPELLANT. IN OTHER WORDS THE UNDISCLOSED SALES OF RS.4 LAKHS WERE MADE OUT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE. NOW THE ISSUE IS WHAT WOULD BE THE UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT THAT HAS GONE INTO THESE PURCHASES. EVEN TAKING GROSS PROFIT RAT E AT 3.73% AS WORKED OUT BY THE APPELLANT AND EXTRACTED ABOVE ON PAGE 8 OF THIS ORD ER THE PROFIT ON THE UNACCOUNTED SALE OF RS.4.00 LAKHS WOULD BE RS.14 880/-. THEREF ORE THE PURCHASE COST OF THE UNACCOUNTED SALE WORKS OUT TO RS.3 85 120/-. IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES HAS TO BE TAKEN AT RS.3 85 120/-. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO TREAT UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT OF PURCHASE AT RS.3 85 120/- IN PLACE OF RS.4 LAKHS ADDED BY HIM. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT PROFIT ON UNACCOUNTED SALE OF RS. 4 LAKHS AT RS.14 880/-. ACCORDINGLY THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.4.00 LAKKS IS CONFIRMED. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED THE UNACCOUNTED SALES TO THE TUNE OF RS.4 LAKHS AND HE HAS ALSO ADMITTED UNACCOUNTED CORRESPONDING PURCHAS ES DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THEREFORE THERE REMAINS NO DISPUTE T HAT OUT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES THE ASSESSEE MADE UNACCOUNTED SALES. THE LD. C.I.T .(A) HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE BY TAKING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 3.73% AS C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT EVEN ON THAT COUNT THE G.P. ON UNACCOUNTED SALES CAME TO RS.14 880/- WHICH WAS NOT ADDED TO THE ASSESSEES INCOME. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER ON THE ADMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF THE LD. C .I.T.(A) HAS DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ADD 7 THE PURCHASE COST OF UNACCOUNTED SALES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 3 85 120/- [RS.4 00 000 RS.14 880] IN PLACE OF RS.4 LAKHS AND ALSO TO ADOPT THE UNDISCLOSED G.P. OF RS.14 880/- ON ACCOUNTED SALES WHICH IN AGGREGATE COMES TO RS.4 L AKHS. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEES LEARNED COUNSEL WERE ALTOGETHER ON DIFFE RENT FACTS BECAUSE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THERE WERE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE AS WELL AS UNACCOUNTED SALES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFER E WITH THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T.(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY HIM AT RS.4 00 000/- IS THEREFORE UPHELD. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. 4 !3 '5! 6 5% 7 48 THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25.02.2011. SD/- SD/- ( . . . . . .. . $ $ $ $ ) ( . .. . . .. . ) !' (B.R.MITTAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER (C.D.RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( (( ( ' ' ' ') )) ) DATE: 25-02-2011 !3 1 /$$9 :!9';- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. + / THE APPELLANT : SRI CHITTA RANJAN BASAK 2 NO. NUTUN FULIA FULIA COLONY MATH PARA DIST. NADIA. 2 /0+ / THE RESPONDENT : J.C.I.T. RANGE- NADIA 3. $3% () : THE CIT(A)-XXXVI KOLKATA. 4. $3%/ THE CIT KOL- 5 . ?$7 /$% / DR ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA 6 . GUARD FILE . 09 /$/ TRUE COPY !3%5/ BY ORDER (DKP) @ A / DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR .