9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A)-XXXVI, Kolkata erred in his decision that the assessing officer was partly believing the business activity of the assessee, as the Assessing Officer wanted to establish the act in all respect that no business could be run by the manner, the assessee has stated in the records. Discrepancies and contradictions in all respects were occurred in the statements of the assessee regarding land used, quantification and conversion ratio of the raw material and final product, workmen engaged in the business as well as the statements and certificates made by the Sarpanch of that time and his father also. 2. That on the fats and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata was not justified in his decision to dismiss the addition of the AO without verifying the genuineness of the business. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata erred in dismissing the addition of the AO without taking into consideration of the fact that the claim of the assessee of running a business, being a Chartered Accountant in profession, is totally unethical according to the Law & Ethics of the Institute of Chartered Account. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata erred in dismissing the additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o produce any "No objection Certificate" from other co-owners. Further if they all are co-owners then the income should be shared by all of them. 4. The claim of the assessee that he has also used the common area of the village for his business is not tenable. 5. The report of inspector from Bhubaneswar Income Tax office states that 1) there was no factory 2) three small pits near to the village pond were found. 3) at the best the assessee can sell 200-300 bamboo ferries/ basket per annum. 4) the father of the assessee owns 10 acres of land. 6. However the report of the inspector attached to the ward no. 54(1) Kolkata has reported contrary facts to the report of the inspector of income office of Bhubaneswar. The inspector also submits the report of the Sarpanch of the village in writing that there is so such business since last 10 years. 7. The father of the assessee Maguni Sahoo who himself is the teacher also denied existence of any such business in that area. 8. No details with regard to the business were submitted such as sale/ purchase, registration, quantity produced, machinery used etc. 9. There was no neighbour of the assessee with the name of the Shri Behera (n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, 30 ITR 181. 7.4 I have also gone through the fact that the assessing officer in her remand report mentions that the Commission Reports of the investigation Wing, Bhubaneswar found 3 small pits of such Bio-fertilizers, i.e. too after 6-7 months after the closure of the said business. She has also calculated the quantitative details and has thereafter opined that only 300 bamboo ferries of Bio-fertilizer could have been sold against 30000 bamboo ferries claimed by the se, I find such action of assessing officer in partly believing the business activity of the assessee of processing of Bio-degradable waste and producing & selling Bio- fertilizers is bad in Law, since the Assessing Officer has believed though particularly the business activity of the assessee, still has ruled out any existence of business which are two contrary opinions of the assessing officer, wherein the Honorable Supreme Court in its Landmark Judgment in case of Commissioner Income Tax Vs. Vegetables products Limited, 88 ITR 192 has held that if two reasonable views are possible then view favouring to the assessee must be adopted, identical views was taken by Honable Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h income to the assessee." Being aggrieved by this order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. Before us ld. DR submitted that as per the report of the inspectors there was no business. The assessee has closed down its business immediately after the year under consideration. The main reason for the closing down of the business is that the AO has caught him under the scrutiny assessment for converting his unaccounted money into accounting form in the guise of business activity. Whatever profit shown by the assessee was claimed deduction under section 80JJA of the Act. The assessee could not substantiate the sale/ purchase of the business with the supporting evidence. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the AO. 7. On the other hand the ld. AR submitted that the journey from Kolkata to the village of the assessee is of 6 hours. The investigation agency of income tax department based in Bhubneshwar has not denied the business existence of the assessee. The inspector attached to the ward of the AO was influenced by the AO so he has given adverse reports. The assessee was doing the business in the open area because the bio degradable waste business does not requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the last several years. The question of the disallowance of deduction or non- existence of the business has never been raised in the earlier years. The allegation of the AO that the assessee being chartered accountant has not taken permission from the institute of chartered accountant has no connection in the income tax proceedings. Similarly the allegation of the AO that the assessee is doing the business in the land belonging to his father without sharing the profit with his other brother and sisters has no base. The reasons for holding that there was no business were not correct. In view of above we are inclined not to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A). Hence this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Coming to assessee's CO No. 47/Kol/2014
9. At the outset we find that the grounds raised by the assessee in the Cross Objection are supportive to the order of ld. CIT(A). Hence in our considered view these grounds of cross objections do not require any adjudication. Therefore we dismiss the same as infructous.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court on 09 /09/2016. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
