IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH SMC KOLKATA Before Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.2179/Kol/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10 Arup Kumar Khanra Income Tax Officer, Vill. Paschimpara, P.O. Ward-2(4), Pursurah, Hooghly- V/s Khadinamaore, 712419 Chinsurah, Hooghly- [PAN No.AKTPK 1317 R] 712101 Appellant Respondent /By Appellant Shri Debanuj Basu Thakur, Advocate By Respondent Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl CIT-DR /Date of Hearing 28-08-2019 Date of Pronouncement 30-08-2019 ORDER This assessee s appeal for assessment year 2009-10, arises against Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata s order dated 12.07.2018 passed in case No.1122/ITO,W-24(4)/CIT(A)-21/KOL/2014-15, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961; in short Act . Heard both parties. Case file perused. 2. For reason stated in assessee s condonation petition citing communication gap between his auditor and arguing counsel and on account of Revenue s no objection to said averments during course of hearing, I ITA No.2179/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 Arup Kr. Khanra Vs. ItO Wd-2(4), Hgy. Page 2 condone impugned twenty three days delay in filing of instant appeal. case is now taken up for hearing on merits. 3. assessee s former substantive ground challenges correctness of both lower authorities action applying gross profit rate of 1.93% on gross sales of 7,46,56,860/- in trading of HSD, MS & Lubricant oil. After vehemently arguing for sometimes in favour of correctness of assessee s books, learned counsel does not wish to press for instant former limb of issue provided same is not treated as precedent. I therefore affirm both lower authorities action rejecting assessee s books in above terms. 4. Next comes correctness of impugned profit rate of 1.93% of gross sales (supra) culminating in addition of 14,14,877/-. I find from perusal of case file that neither of lower authority has referred to any material for applying impugned gross profit rate of 1.93%. Nor corresponding figure(s) in preceding and succeeding assessment year are available on record. I therefore deem it appropriate in these factual backdrop that lump sum addition of 9 lac out of 14,40,877/- would meet ends of justice with rider that same shall not be treated as precedent in any other case or assessment year; if any. This former substantive grievance is partly accepted therefore. 5. Coming to latter issue of interest disallowance on loan of 1,55,409/- and interest disallowance of 65,000/- learned departmental representative fails to dispute that former head forms part of assessee s trading result. I reiterate that corresponding books of account already stand rejected culminating in gross profit estimation in preceding paragraph. I conclude in this backdrop that instant interest issue of unsecured loan would amount to double addition. I accordingly delete interest on unsecured loans/disallowance of 1,55,490/-. Coming to latter limb of assessee s grievance involving addition of 65,000/- on fixed deposit interest and RI certificate received from ITA No.2179/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 Arup Kr. Khanra Vs. ItO Wd-2(4), Hgy. Page 3 M/s Hooghly District Co-operative Bank Ltd. tTere is no rebuttal coming that same had not been accounted for in impugned assessment year. I therefore confirm this latter interest income addition of 65,000/-. Necessary consequential computation to follow. 6. This assessee s appeal is partly allowed in foregoing terms. Order pronounced in open court on 30/08/2019 Sd/- (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Kolkata, Dkp/Sr.PS - 30/08/2019 / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Appellant-Arup Kr. Khanra Vill. Paschimpara, P.O. Pursurah, Dist. Hooghly-712419 2. Respondent-ITO, Wd-2(4), Khadinaamore, Chisurah, Hooghly-712101 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. Guard file. By order True Copy/ " Arup Kumar Khanra v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Hooghly