ACIT, Circle - 29, Kolkata, Kolkata v. Shri Amrik Singh, Prop. of M/s. Amrik Enterprises, Kolkata

ITA 987/KOL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 98723514 RSA 2010
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 987/KOL/2010
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Circle - 29, Kolkata, Kolkata
Respondent Shri Amrik Singh, Prop. of M/s. Amrik Enterprises, Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 07-01-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 13-05-2010
Judgment Text
1 B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH- B KO LKATA [ . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . !' ] BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI C.D. RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # # # # / ITA NO. 987 (KOL) OF 2010 $%& '( / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-29 KOLKATA. AMRIK SINGH PROP. AMRIK ENTP. KOLKATA. (PAN-ALAPS0366C) (+ / APPELLANT ) - % - - VERSUS - (/0+ / RESPONDENT ) + 1 2 !/ FOR THE APPELLANT: / SRI P.C. NAYAK /0+ 1 2 ! / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SRI MANISH TIWARI !3 / ORDER ( . . . . . . . . ) (B.R.MITTAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T.(A)-XVI KOLKATA DATED 19/11/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE PERTAIN TO THE DELETION OF AD DITIONS IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING HEADS :- A) UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE ACT RS.1 3 08 900/- B) TRAVELLING & CONVEYANCE EXPENDITURE RS. 24 665/- C) TELEPHONE EXPENDITURE RS. 9 371/- D) FOODING CHARGES RS. 32 459/- E) FUEL CHARGES RS. 1 92 900/- F) REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE RS. 15 080/- 2. IN REGARD TO (A) ABOVE THE FACTS ARE THAT DU RING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVA NCED A SUM OF RS.13 08 900/- TO M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD. AND SHOWED THE SAME IN HIS BALANCE SHEET AS INVESTMENT. CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTY WAS ALSO FURN ISHED TO THE A.O. DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT IN T HE TAX AUDIT REPORT THE AUDITORS 2 HAVE COMMENTED THAT THE SAID LOAN & ADVANCE OF RS.1 3 08 900/- COULD NOT HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY THEM IN ABSENCE OF ANY BALANCE CONFIRMA TION CERTIFICATES FROM THE PARTY. CONSEQUENCE UPON THIS COMMENT IN THE TAX AUDIT REPO RT THE A.O. CONSIDERED THIS INVESTMENT TOWARDS LOAN & ADVANCES AS UNEXPLAINED I NVESTMENT AND ADDED THE SAME U/S. 69 OF THE ACT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.1. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. C.I.T.(A) IT WAS CON TENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THE REQUIRED CERTIFICATE DATED 03/11/2008 FROM M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LT D. CONFIRMING RECEIPT OF RS. 13 08 900/- AND THE A.O. WITHOUT CONSIDERING THIS C ERTIFICATE AS ALSO APPRECIATING THE BALANCE SHEET PROPERLY TREATED THE EXPLAINED INVEST MENT AS UNEXPLAINED AND THEREFORE ADDITION MADE U/S. 69 OF THE ACT WAS ARBITRARY AND UNCALLED FOR. THE LD. C.I.T.(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PER USING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DIRECTED THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UN DER :- 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLA NT AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR THE APPELL ANT HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.13 08 900/- TOWARDS THE LOAN AND ADVANCE TO M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD. THE SAID LOAN AND ADVANCE WAS APPEARING IN THE BALA NCE SHEET OF APPELLANT AS ON 31.03.2006. THE LD. A.O. HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF R S.13 08 900/- U/S. 69 OF THE I. T. ACT OBSERVING THAT IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT THE AUDITOR HAS MENTIONED THAT THE BALANCE OF RS.13 08 900/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN AND ADVANCE TO ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD. COULD NOT BE VERIFIED IN THE A BSENCE OF BALANCE CONFIRMATION FROM THE SAID PARTY. THUS THE SOLE REASON FOR MAKI NG THE ADDITION WAS THE COMMENT OF THE AUDITOR IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. I FIND FORC E IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT AN ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE U/S. 6 9 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF COMMENT OF THE AUDITOR WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FAC T THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE INVESTMENT IN THE FORM OF LOAN AND ADVANCE WHICH WA S DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DECLARED IN THE FINANCIAL STA TEMENTS. ONCE AN INVESTMENT HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE I. T. ACT. THE SECTION 69 OF THE ACT DEALS WITH UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. ACCORDING TO THE PROVISION WHERE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IF ANY MAINTAI NED BY HIM FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOU T THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT IN THE OPINION OF THE AC SATISFACTORY THE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS MAY BE DEEME D TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. THUS TO MAKE AN ADDITION U/S. 69 OF THE ACT IT IS MANDATORY THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE MADE INVEST MENTS WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT HE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF 3 RS.13 08 900/- IN FORM OF LOAN AND ADVANCE TO ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD. AND SAME WAS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE THE VERY BASIC REQUIREMENT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 IS NOT FULFILLED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE AN INVESTMENT WHICH WAS NOT RECORDED IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. CONSEQUENTLY THERE WOULD BE NO APPLICABILITY OF TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT A CERTIFIC ATE DATED 03.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD. WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. HOWEVER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TOTALLY SILENT ABOUT THAT. THE COPY OF SAID CERTIFICATE WAS ALSO PRODUCED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN A SHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD. HAS CONFIRMED THAT IT HAD RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT F OR AN AMOUNT OF RS.13 08 900/- THROUGH UNION BANK OF INDIA KIDDERPORE BRANCH KOL KATA DURING F.Y. 2005-06. THUS EVEN THE PARTY CONCERNED HAS ALSO CONFIRMED T HE AMOUNT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE THE ACTION OF THE A.O. OF MAKING ADDITION OF RS.13 08 900/- U/S. 69 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IT IS A VERY GENERAL PRACTICE ON THE PART OF TAX AUDITORS THAT THEY GIVE GENERAL REMARKS IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT LIKE DEBTO RS AND CREDITORS BALANCES ARE SUBJECTED TO VERIFICATION OR THE CLOSING BALANCE CONFIRMATION NOT PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION ETC. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ENTRIE S MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DECLARED IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE NOT GENUIN E. THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE INVESTMENT W AS NOT MADE BY THE APPELLANT OUT OF HIS DISCLOSED SOURCES OF INCOME. THE A.O. IS DIR ECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.13 08 900/- MADE U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. THE GROUND NO.1 IS ALLOWED. 2.2. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. WHEREAS THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) ON THIS ISSUE. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED O N RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE A.O. WAS I NFLUENCED BY THE COMMENTS OF THE AUDITORS IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT STATING THAT THE L OAN & ADVANCE OF RS.13 08 900/- COULD NOT HAVE BEEN VERIFIED IN ABSENCE OF ANY BALANCE CO NFIRMATION CERTIFICATE FROM THE DEBTOR M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD. AT THE SAM E TIME IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE APPELLATE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T.(A) THAT THE CERTIFICA TE DATED 03/11/2008 WHICH WAS MENTIONED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED BEFORE THE A.O. DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS S ILENT ABOUT THIS FACT. A COPY OF THE SAID CERTIFICATE IS ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE US AT PAGE -6 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FURTHER IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 18/12/2008 PLACED AT PAGE-7 OF THE PAPER BOO K HAS EXPLAINED IN DETAIL THE CLOSING DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.13 08 900/- OF M/S. ASHOK LEYLA ND FINANCE LTD. IN HIS BOOKS AND THE A.O. HAS NOT RECORDED ANY FINDING ON THIS EXPLA NATION AND DETAILS FILED THEREOF. 4 AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE US WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TH ERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.13 08 900/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T BY INVOKING PROVISION OF SEC.69 OF THE ACT. SECTION 69 OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER :- 69. WHERE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE NOT RECORDE D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IF ANY MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS OR T HE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT IN THE OPINION OF THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER SATISFAC TORY THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENTS MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. THEREFORE AS PER SEC. 69 ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IS CALLED FOR WHEN THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REC ORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IF ANY MAINTAINED BY HIM AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO E XPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY BY THE A.O. HERE IN THIS CASE AS ALR EADY STATED ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE INVESTMENT BY WAY OF LOAN & ADVANCE TO M/ S. ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD. IN HIS BALANCE SHEET. BALANCE CONFIRMATION CERTIFICATE FROM THE DEBTOR WAS ALSO PRODUCED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS EX PLAINED THE INVESTMENT WITH ALL THE POSSIBLE EVIDENCES AS MENTIONED ABOVE IN SUPPORT OF HIS ADVANCING LOAN TO M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD. THEREFORE WHEN THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS EXPLANATION REGARDING ADVANCING OF L OAN & ADVANCES IT WAS UNFAIR ON THE PART OF THE A.O. TO TREAT THE VALUE OF THE SAME AS ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONNECTION WE DERIVE SUPPOR T FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. NOORJAHAN (P.K.)(SM T.) REPORTED IN 237 ITR 570 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT MERE REJECTION OF AN EXPLANAT ION WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FOR THAT PURPOSE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 69 SHALL NOT BE WARRANTED. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD WE DEEM IT PROPER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.13 08 900/-. TH E ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS THEREFORE UPHELD AND THE GROUND OF APPEA L OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. 5 3. IN REGARD TO ITEMS (B) (C) & (D) ABOVE WE OBS ERVE THAT THE A.O. HAS MADE ADDITIONS OF RS.24 665/- RS.9 371/- AND RS.32 469/ - DISALLOWING 10% OUT OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED UNDER THE HEADS TRAVELLING & C ONVEYANCE TELEPHONE AND FOODING CHARGES RESPECTIVELY ON THE SOLE GROUND T HAT ALL BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. C.I.T.(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS B Y OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE A.O. HAS MADE DISALLOWANCES UNDER THE H EAD TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND FOODING CHARGES FOR THE REAS ON THAT ALL THE BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED. HOWEVER THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO POINT OU T SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF THE EXPENDITURE UNDER THESE HEADS FOR WHICH THE BILLS W ERE NOT PRODUCED. IT IS A MATTER OF FACT ON RECORD THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WEL L AS BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. AND HENCE HE WAS IN A POSI TION TO SPECIFICALLY POINT OUT THE DISCREPANCY. HOWEVER HE HAS CHOSEN TO MAKE DISALL OWANCES ON ESTIMATED BASIS. I INTEND TO AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT THAT THE DISALLO WANCES FOR THE REASON ALL BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED COULD NOT BE MADE WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND WITHOUT POINTING OUT THE SPECIFIC AMOUNTS FOR W HICH BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE T HE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY HIM ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELING AND CONVEYANCE TELEPHONE EXPE NSES AND FOODING CHARGES. 3.1. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE ONLY REASON GIVEN BY THE A.O. FOR DISALLOWING THE SAID E XPENDITURE WAS THAT ALL BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF THE RESPECTIVE EXPENSES. HE MADE THE ADHOC ADDITION ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND IN OUR OPINION FOR JUSTIFYING SUCH ADDITION THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT ON RECORD THE SPECIFIC ITEM OF EXPENDITURE FOR WHICH IN HIS OPINION SUPPORTING BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED. THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS A RE DULY AUDITED AND HE SUBMITTED EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. T HAT BEING SO WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T.(A) DELETING THE AFORES AID ADDITIONS. HIS ORDER ON THESE THREE ADDITIONS IS THEREFORE UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 4. THE LAST TWO ISSUES REFERRED TO IN ITEMS (E) & (F) ABOVE RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITIONS OF RS.1 92 900/- AND RS.15 780/- MADE IN RESPECT OF FUEL CHARGES AND REPAIR & MAINTENANCE RESPECTIVELY. THESE ADDITIONS WERE ALS O MADE BY THE A.O. ALLEGING THAT SUPPORTING BILLS TO THE ABOVE EXTENT WERE NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HOWEVER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING VIDE ITS LETTERS FURNISHED VARIOUS DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE ALONG WITH SUPPORTING BILLS/VOUCHERS 6 AND THE A.O. DID NOT ALLOW ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE POINTING OUT SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF BILLS & VOUCHERS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUC ED BEFORE HIM. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE HE HELD THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN DISALLOWIN G THE EXPENDITURE UNJUSTIFIED WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION :- 12. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS THE LD. A/R HAS FILED A LETTER DATED NIL BEFORE THE A.O. FURNISHING VARIOUS DETAILS AND CONFIRMATIONS. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED DETAILS OF FUEL CHARGES AND REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE ALONG WITH SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHER S. AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE BILLS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 92 900/- ON ACCOUNT OF FUEL CHARGES AND BILLS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.15 780/- OUT OF THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES. THE A.O. HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCES DIRECT LY IN THE COMPUTATION OF ASSESSED INCOME WITHOUT DISCUSSING ANYTHING. THE A. O. HAS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT THE DATES AND AMOUNTS OF THE BILLS WHICH WERE NOT PRODU CED BEFORE HIM. IT IS A MATTER OF FACT ON RECORD THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. AND HENCE PRIOR TO MAKING ANY DISAL LOWANCE HE SHOULD HAVE ALLOW OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT POINTING OUT THE SPECI FIC INSTANCES OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. HOWEVER THE AS SESSMENT ORDER IS TOTALLY SILENT ABOUT THAT. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE DISALLOWAN CE OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT COULD NOT BE MADE WITHOUT POINTING OUT SPECIFIC DEFECTS/OMISS ION WITHOUT ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS.1 92 90 0/- AND RS.15 780/ UNDER THE ABOVE MENTIONED HEADS. THE DISALLOWANCES SO MADE AR E DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 4.1. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE OBSERVE THAT THE A.O. HA S NOT DISCUSSED THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE AFORESAID TWO HEA DS AND ONLY IN THE COMPUTATION PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE DISALLOWED THE EXPENDIT URE AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME ALLEGING NON-PRODUCTION OF BILLS TO THE EXTENT THE EXPENDITURE WAS DISALLOWED BY HIM. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. C .I.T.(A) THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS OF FUEL CHARGES AND REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE A LONG WITH BILLS AND VOUCHERS DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. COPIES OF THESE DETAILS FILED ALONG WITH THE LETTERS ADDRESSED TO THE A.O. WERE ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE US AND PLACED AT PAGES 7 TO 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO INDICATE THE SPECIFIC DEFECT/OMISSION IN FURNISHING SUPPORTI NG BILLS/VOUCHERS THE LD. C.I.T.(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1 92 900/- AND RS.15 780/- UNDER THE HEADS OF EXPENDITURE FUEL CHARGES AND REPAIRS & MAINTE NANCE RESPECTIVELY. WE THEREFORE 7 UPHOLD HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND THE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. 4 !3 '5! 6 5% 7 48 THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07.01.2011. SD/- SD/- ( . .. . . .. . ) !' ( . . . . . . . . ) (C.D.RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (B.R.MITTAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( (( ( ' ' ' ') )) ) DATE: 7-1-2011 !3 1 /$$9 :!9';- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. + / THE APPELLANT : THE ACIT CIRCLE-29 KOLKATA. 2 /0+ / THE RESPONDENT : SRI AMRIK SINGH PROP. M/S. AMRIK ENTERPRISES 1A BIDHU BA SINI STREET KOLKATA-700 027. 3. $3% () : THE CIT(A)-XVI KOLKATA. 4. $3%/ THE CIT KOL- 5 . ?$7 /$% / DR ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA 5 6 . GUARD FILE . 09 /$/ TRUE COPY !3%5/ BY ORDER (DKP) A B / DEPUTY REGISTRAR .