IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D , BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM ITA No.761/Kol/2015 (Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/s Bhalotia Wood Vs. ITO-3(1), Parmar Building, Industries, 41, N.S.B.Road, 54 G.T.Road (W est), P.O. Raniganj, Asansol-713304 Dist.Burdwan-713347 PAN/GIR No. : AACFB 7410 M (Appellant) ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri V.N.Purohit, FCA Revenue by : Shri Sital Chandra Das Date of Hearing : 06/10/2016 /Date of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: captioned appeal filed by assessee pertaining to assessment year 2010-2011, is directed against order passed by ld. CIT(A), Asansol, in Appeal No.159/CIT(A)/Asl/W-3(1)/Asl/12-13, dated 16th March, 2015, which in turn arises out order passed by Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ), dated 26-11-2012. 2. facts of case; qua assessee are that return of income for assessment year 2010-11 was filed by assessee on 29-09-2010. Later on case was selected for scrutiny and Assessing Officer made assessment by making various additions. In assessee s case under consideration survey u/s.133A of Income Tax Act was carried out at business premises of assessee firm on 26-3-2010. During 2 ITA No.761/15 course of survey authorized officer (AO) carried out survey proceeding in presence of Sri Bhakti Ram Bhalotia (being 50% share holder), partner of firm. Papers and documents which were found were inventoried and Assessing Officer used material which was taken by survey team during survey proceedings. Assessing officer did small additions; such as addition of Rs. 20000/= received by assessee as advance from party , addition of Rs. 24,255/- presuming unaccounted sale , addition of Rs.500,000/- and adhoc additions based on estimate etc. 3.Aggrieved, from order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before ld CIT(A), who has also confirmed action of AO, by observing followings: 18.A decision in this regard is to be by taking into account aspects discussed above. There are inaccuracies on part of assessee. Further statement given is not validity retracted, instead tax was paid to cement statement. I find that there are some inaccuracies on part of Assessing Officer in manner computation of unaccounted stock. Since unaccounted trade is confirmed (decision on grounds 3 and 4 confirms same) stock disclosed cannot be correct. There is admission of unaccounted stock which subsists on account of lack of retraction. Considering all aspects, I hold that via media approach is to be adopted. After weighing cases from both sides, I hold that addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- will be sufficient to absorb deficiency noted. Assessing 3 ITA No.761/15 Officer is directed to modify assessment replacing addition of Rs. 7,55,254/- by Rs. 5,00,000/-. ground is partly allowed. 19.Ground 4 is against disallowance of 20% of Car expenses including depreciation. Assessing Officer made clear recording that log book is not maintained to prove exclusive use for business. Before me it was stated as under: Regarding car expenses and depreciation on car we would like to mention that expenses on Car averaging Rs.5000/- to 6000/- per month is very meager as our factory is situated around 10 Kms away and also we have to search for markets to sell woods. I think expenses is not much high matter is considered. On facts and circumstances of case, I hold that disallowance of 12.5% will suffice. Hence Assessing Officer is directed to modify assessee restricting disallowance to 12.5% in place of 20%. ground is partly allowed. This way, ld CIT(A) has also disallowed some other small expenses. Not being satisfied with order of CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before us and has taken following grounds of appeal :- (1) That Comm. of Income Tax (Appeal)-Asansol [C.I.T.(A)] has erred, both in law and on facts and under circumstances of case in confirming addition to total income, sum of Rs. 20,000/- received as advance from party. (2) That likewise, C.I.T.(A) has further erred in confirming addition of Rs. 24,255/- as unaccounted sales. (3) That likewise, C.I.T.(A) has further erred in confirming addition to extent of RS.5.00 lacs (Rs.5,00,0001-) out of total addition made by A.O. at Rs.7,55,254/-. 4 ITA No.761/15 (4) That likewise, C.I.T.(A) has further erred in confirming adhoc disallowance of Rs.10,775/- being 12.5% of Rs. 86,203/- against addition of Rs. 17,240/- made by A.O.at rate 20% of car expenses Rs.73.028/- and depreciation on Car Rs. 13,175/- (Rs. 14,605/- plus Rs.2,635/- total Rs. 17,240/-). (5) That assessee, craves leave to add, to amend or withdraw any grounds on or before hearing of appeal. 4. Ld. AR for assessee has submitted before us some additional evidences by way of paper book, in respect of above said grounds of appeal taken by him, these are as follows: S.No.1 of paper book: Receipts, S.No.2 of paper book:Tax invoice S.No.5 of paper book:Stock summary. S. No. 33 to 35 of paper book : Journal Vouchers, Suresh Kumar Bhalotia Account, and ledger account of Chattraj Construction, R.N.Colony Account. All these additional evidences are connected and related to all grounds taken by assessee before us, therefore, we are of view that this entire issue requires fresh examination at end of Assessing Officer. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative has also agreed to remit case back to AO to examine additional evidence submitted by assessee. 6. Having heard rival contentions, perused material available on record, we are of view that this issue requires fresh examination at end of Assessing Officer, therefore, we set aside order of ld CIT(A) and restore this entire issue to file of assessing officer 5 ITA No.761/15 with direction to ascertain addition, if any, by considering additional evidences submitted by assessee. 7. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 19/10/2016. Sd/- Sd/- (NARASIMHA CHARY) (DR. A.L.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /Kolkata; Dated 19/10/2016 Prakash Mishra, . PS Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent. 3. CIT(A), Kolkata. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, M/s Bhalotia Wood Industries v. ITO-3(1), Asansol