DCIT, CIR-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA {VIRTUAL COURT HEARING} (Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’ble Vice-President, KZ & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’ble Judicial Member) ITA No. 2640/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Kolkata........................………..…..........Appellant Vs. M/s. The Jute Corporation of India Ltd...................................................…………...................Respondent 15N, Hudco Building Nellie Sengupta Sarani Kolkata – 700 087 [PAN : AABCT 8820 B] Appearances by: Shri Biswajit Syam, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri T.P. Singh, CIT, D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : August 16th, 2021 Date of pronouncing the order : September 8th, 2021 ORDER Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President, KZ :- This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT(A)’), dt. 26/08/2019, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’).

2 ITA No. 2640/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. The Jute Corporation M/s. The Jute Corporation of India Ltd

“That there no exclusion of stock, That there no exclusion of stock, as pointed out. The data disclosed in the schedule 20 item as pointed out. The data disclosed in the schedule 20 item no. 24 is an disclosure as additional information as per provision of Part II of schedule VI of no. 24 is an disclosure as additional information as per provision of Part II of schedule VI of no. 24 is an disclosure as additional information as per provision of Part II of schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. the real fact may please be dealt in the Trade account of Internal the Companies Act, 1956. the real fact may please be dealt in the Trade account of Internal the Companies Act, 1956. the real fact may please be dealt in the Trade account of Internal Raw Jute-Price support & internal raw jute Price support & internal raw jute- commercial at page 54 & 55 of the accounts for commercial at page 54 & 55 of the accounts for the year 2007-08. there is no question arises of non 08. there is no question arises of non-inclusion of the 4248 bales of Jute in the inclusion of the 4248 bales of Jute in the accounts. The said 4248 bales comprises the weight gain of 3134 bales under i accounts. The said 4248 bales comprises the weight gain of 3134 bales under i accounts. The said 4248 bales comprises the weight gain of 3134 bales under internal raw jute- commercial and weight loss of 1245 bales under internal raw jute commercial and weight loss of 1245 bales under internal raw jute-price support and price support and claim receipt of 2359 bales (3134+2359 of 2359 bales (3134+2359-1245) during the financial year please be informed 1245) during the financial year please be informed that, JCI procures raw jute from growers and process the same into baled form for supplies to procures raw jute from growers and process the same into baled form for supplies to procures raw jute from growers and process the same into baled form for supplies to end users. The inherited normal nature in jute fiber causes hanging gain/loss while making end users. The inherited normal nature in jute fiber causes hanging gain/loss while making end users. The inherited normal nature in jute fiber causes hanging gain/loss while making baled jute. From the raw jute. It is customary not to account for the gain in no baled jute. From the raw jute. It is customary not to account for the gain in no baled jute. From the raw jute. It is customary not to account for the gain in normal situation as the said quantum is included in the end stock, which were sold subsequently and accounted as the said quantum is included in the end stock, which were sold subsequently and accounted as the said quantum is included in the end stock, which were sold subsequently and accounted for as sales. Question of no reflection of undervaluation arises at all the in the case. Trade for as sales. Question of no reflection of undervaluation arises at all the in the case. Trade for as sales. Question of no reflection of undervaluation arises at all the in the case. Trade accounts punted out may please be perused accordingly accounts punted out may please be perused accordingly. Universally accepted rule is not to . Universally accepted rule is not to value normal gain in account as per accepted norms while preparation of accounts, as the value normal gain in account as per accepted norms while preparation of accounts, as the value normal gain in account as per accepted norms while preparation of accounts, as the same is absorbed, please note. As regard the valuation of stock, the company over the years same is absorbed, please note. As regard the valuation of stock, the company over the years same is absorbed, please note. As regard the valuation of stock, the company over the years valuates the stock on consistent basi valuates the stock on consistent basis, there is no comment of the CAG & & Statutory Auditors s, there is no comment of the CAG & & Statutory Auditors and which has been accepte and which has been accepted by, Ministry of Textiles Govt. of India and also by your of India and also by your department. This explanation of the assessee company is not accepted & hence a sum of Rs.86,91,408/ This explanation of the assessee company is not accepted & hence a sum of Rs.86,91,408/ This explanation of the assessee company is not accepted & hence a sum of Rs.86,91,408/- is disallowed and is added back to th d and is added back to the total income of the assessee.”

The explanation offered by the assessee as above was not found acceptable by the The explanation offered by the assessee as above was not found acceptable by the The explanation offered by the assessee as above was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer and he proceeded to make an addition of Rs.86,91,208/ he proceeded to make an addition of Rs.86,91,208/ he proceeded to make an addition of Rs.86,91,208/- to the total income of the assessee on account of undisclosed closing stock. income of the assessee on account of undisclosed closing stock. 4. The addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed closing The addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed closing The addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed closing stock was challenged by the assessee in the ap stock was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A) and the peal filed before the ld. CIT(A) and the following submission was made on behalf of the assessee in support of its case on this submission was made on behalf of the assessee in support of its case on this submission was made on behalf of the assessee in support of its case on this issue:- “That the AO has erroneously made an addition of Rs 86,91,408/ That the AO has erroneously made an addition of Rs 86,91,408/-,considering value of ,considering value of 4248 bales of raw jute stocks, assu 4248 bales of raw jute stocks, assuming that the said 4248 bales were not included in ming that the said 4248 bales were not included in closing stock to accounts . It was explained to AO during regular assessment that there closing stock to accounts . It was explained to AO during regular assessment that there closing stock to accounts . It was explained to AO during regular assessment that there was no such exclusion of the said 4248 bales to end stock as the stocks were taken as per was no such exclusion of the said 4248 bales to end stock as the stocks were taken as per was no such exclusion of the said 4248 bales to end stock as the stocks were taken as per physical verification at the time of annual closing. Raw Jute by nature, in process of baled e time of annual closing. Raw Jute by nature, in process of baled e time of annual closing. Raw Jute by nature, in process of baled form, causes gain/(loss) of weight due to moisture and the corporation following the basic form, causes gain/(loss) of weight due to moisture and the corporation following the basic form, causes gain/(loss) of weight due to moisture and the corporation following the basic principle of accounting over the years duly adjust the same in its annual accounts. The principle of accounting over the years duly adjust the same in its annual accounts. The principle of accounting over the years duly adjust the same in its annual accounts. The said stock of 4248 bales have already considered as excess to the accounts and the value of 4248 bales have already considered as excess to the accounts and the value of 4248 bales have already considered as excess to the accounts and the value taken accordingly. The excess 4248 bales as were shown in schedule taken accordingly. The excess 4248 bales as were shown in schedule-19 , Notes to Accounts 19 , Notes to Accounts in Item no.24, to disclose the quantitative data as required for disclosure under VI in Item no.24, to disclose the quantitative data as required for disclosure under VI in Item no.24, to disclose the quantitative data as required for disclosure under VI schedule of the Co Act 1956 and had already impacted on value as the quantity of closing edule of the Co Act 1956 and had already impacted on value as the quantity of closing edule of the Co Act 1956 and had already impacted on value as the quantity of closing stock. On subsequent sale of the said quantities in following year the income generated stock. On subsequent sale of the said quantities in following year the income generated stock. On subsequent sale of the said quantities in following year the income generated therefrom duly accounted in following years also. therefrom duly accounted in following years also. A reconciliation statement as A reconciliation statement as presented here under will clear the position of said shocks to presented here under will clear the position of said shocks to the accounts and its effect for the year Closing stock reconciliation statement; the accounts and its effect for the year Closing stock reconciliation statement;

3 ITA No. 2640/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. The Jute Corporation M/s. The Jute Corporation of India Ltd

Particular Quantity (In bales) Quantity (In bales) Opening Stock of Raw Jute on 01.04.2007 4,07,691 Opening Stock of Raw Jute on 01.04.2007 4,07,691 Add. Purchases during the year 7,66,076 Purchases during 7,66,076 Sub Total 11,73,767 11,73,767 Less Sales during the year 5,91,835 Sales during the year 5,91,835 Less Stock loss due to damage/claims 2,359 Stock loss due to damage/claims Actual Closing stock as on 31.03.2008 5,79,573 Actual Closing stock as on 31.03.2008 5,79,573 5,83,821 Closing stock as credited in Profit & Loss Closing stock as credited in Profit & Loss 5,83,821 Account So, it is clearly reflected that stocks as per reconciliation stands 579573 bales whereas reflected that stocks as per reconciliation stands 579573 bales whereas reflected that stocks as per reconciliation stands 579573 bales whereas actually taken to accounts for 583821 bales and hence the difference of 4248 bales actually taken to accounts for 583821 bales and hence the difference of 4248 bales actually taken to accounts for 583821 bales and hence the difference of 4248 bales 583821- 579573) have already taken into accounts and there is no under assessment of 579573) have already taken into accounts and there is no under assessment of 579573) have already taken into accounts and there is no under assessment of income for the year.”

“I have considered the su I have considered the submission of the appellant and perused the relevant assessment record. It bmission of the appellant and perused the relevant assessment record. It appears that the addition of 4248 bales of Jute valued at Rs.86,91,408/ appears that the addition of 4248 bales of Jute valued at Rs.86,91,408/- has been made on wrong has been made on wrong appreciation of facts. The A.O. in the assessment order has summarily dismissed the exp appreciation of facts. The A.O. in the assessment order has summarily dismissed the exp appreciation of facts. The A.O. in the assessment order has summarily dismissed the explanation given by the appellant that there was no undervaluation of stock and that the company has been given by the appellant that there was no undervaluation of stock and that the company has been given by the appellant that there was no undervaluation of stock and that the company has been following the same method of accounting uniformly over the years. The A.O. had also confirmed that following the same method of accounting uniformly over the years. The A.O. had also confirmed that following the same method of accounting uniformly over the years. The A.O. had also confirmed that 4248 bales is included in stock as on 31.02.2008. The 4248 bales is included in stock as on 31.02.2008. The A.O. rejected the explanation without assigning A.O. rejected the explanation without assigning any reasons. The same line of reasoning was given by the A.O. in the remand report dated any reasons. The same line of reasoning was given by the A.O. in the remand report dated any reasons. The same line of reasoning was given by the A.O. in the remand report dated 04.08.2014 in which had been given. On perusal of the audited accounts of the appellant, it is found had been given. On perusal of the audited accounts of the appellant, it is found had been given. On perusal of the audited accounts of the appellant, it is found that in Sub-section 3 of Schedule on 3 of Schedule-19, the auditor had remarked that “the value of the stock of raw 19, the auditor had remarked that “the value of the stock of raw jute at the close of the year has been arrived at after providing loss/gain due to prolonged storage jute at the close of the year has been arrived at after providing loss/gain due to prolonged storage jute at the close of the year has been arrived at after providing loss/gain due to prolonged storage and handling as per trade practice.” The A/R of the appellant also furnis and handling as per trade practice.” The A/R of the appellant also furnis and handling as per trade practice.” The A/R of the appellant also furnished reconciliation statement which clearly indicates that the difference of 4248 bales has been reflected in the statement which clearly indicates that the difference of 4248 bales has been reflected in the statement which clearly indicates that the difference of 4248 bales has been reflected in the accounts. I find no grounds, not to accept the above reconciliation statement submitted by the accounts. I find no grounds, not to accept the above reconciliation statement submitted by the accounts. I find no grounds, not to accept the above reconciliation statement submitted by the appellant. Therefore, after consideration of the appellant. Therefore, after consideration of the submission of the appellant, the audited balance submission of the appellant, the audited balance sheet and relevant records, the addition of Rs.86,91,408/ sheet and relevant records, the addition of Rs.86,91,408/- is deleted. This ground of appeal succeeds is deleted. This ground of appeal succeeds and is therefore allowed.” 6. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. the relevant material available on record. The limited contention raised by the ld. D/R is The limited contention raised by the ld. D/R is that, the submission made on behalf of the assessee on this issue before the ld. CIT(A), that, the submission made on behalf of the assessee on this issue before the ld. CIT(A), that, the submission made on behalf of the assessee on this issue before the ld. CIT(A), duly supported by the reconciliation statement was not submitted before the Assessing duly supported by the reconciliation statement was not submitted before the Assessing duly supported by the reconciliation statement was not submitted before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer, therefore, should Officer during the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer, therefore, should Officer during the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer, therefore, should

4 ITA No. 2640/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. The Jute Corporation M/s. The Jute Corporation of India Ltd

be given an opportunity to examine/verify the same. be given an opportunity to examine/verify the same. However, as rightly point r, as rightly pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the submission made on behalf of the assessee on this the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the submission made on behalf of the assessee on this the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the submission made on behalf of the assessee on this issue along with the reconciliation statement was forwarded by the ld. CIT(A) to the issue along with the reconciliation statement was forwarded by the ld. CIT(A) to the issue along with the reconciliation statement was forwarded by the ld. CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer seeking the latter’s comments and after taking into consider Assessing Officer seeking the latter’s comments and after taking into consider Assessing Officer seeking the latter’s comments and after taking into consideration the comments offered by the Assessing Officer in the remand report dt. 04/08/20 comments offered by the Assessing Officer in the remand report dt. 04/08/20 comments offered by the Assessing Officer in the remand report dt. 04/08/2014 submitted to the ld. CIT(A), this issue was decided by the ld. CIT(A) in favour of the submitted to the ld. CIT(A), this issue was decided by the ld. CIT(A) in favour of the submitted to the ld. CIT(A), this issue was decided by the ld. CIT(A) in favour of the assessee. Moreover, the explanation as regards the alleged closing stock as point assessee. Moreover, the explanation as regards the alleged closing stock as point assessee. Moreover, the explanation as regards the alleged closing stock as pointed out by the Assessing Officer was also made on behalf of the assessee even during the course by the Assessing Officer was also made on behalf of the assessee even during the course by the Assessing Officer was also made on behalf of the assessee even during the course of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer and as rightly observed by the as rightly observed by the ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order, the same was summarily rejected by the As ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order, the same was summarily rejected by the As ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order, the same was summarily rejected by the Assessing Officer without assigning any reason. It is noted that the ld. CIT(A), on the other hand, Officer without assigning any reason. It is noted that the ld. CIT(A), on the other hand, Officer without assigning any reason. It is noted that the ld. CIT(A), on the other hand, had duly considered and examined the submission of the assessee in the light of the considered and examined the submission of the assessee in the light of the considered and examined the submission of the assessee in the light of the reconciliation statement prepared and furnished by the assessee and on suc reconciliation statement prepared and furnished by the assessee and on suc reconciliation statement prepared and furnished by the assessee and on such examination, he found that the examination, he found that the undisclosed 4248 bales of raw jute stock as 4248 bales of raw jute stock as allegedly pointed out by the Assessing Officer were already included in the closing stock as on pointed out by the Assessing Officer were already included in the closing stock as on pointed out by the Assessing Officer were already included in the closing stock as on 31/02/2008 as credited by the assessee in the profit and loss account. At the time 31/02/2008 as credited by the assessee in the profit and loss account. At the time 31/02/2008 as credited by the assessee in the profit and loss account. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. D/R has not been able to rebut or controvert this finding hearing before us, the ld. D/R has not been able to rebut or controvert this finding hearing before us, the ld. D/R has not been able to rebut or controvert this finding recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in this impugned order while deleting the addition made by recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in this impugned order while deleting the addition made by recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in this impugned order while deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged closing stock. We, therefore find no the Assessing Officer on account of alleged closing stock. We, therefore find no the Assessing Officer on account of alleged closing stock. We, therefore find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue ustifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue ustifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue giving relief to the assessee and essee and dismiss Ground No. 1 of the revenue’s appeal ’s appeal. 7. In Ground No. 2, the revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(A) in In Ground No. 2, the revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(A) in In Ground No. 2, the revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance of Rs.10,60,90,375/ g the disallowance of Rs.10,60,90,375/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) to Rs.40,25,900/-. . During the course of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer, the During the course of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer, the During the course of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer, the following explanation was offered on behalf of the assessee in support of following explanation was offered on behalf of the assessee in support of following explanation was offered on behalf of the assessee in support of its case that there was no failure to deduct tax at source from the payments made on account of there was no failure to deduct tax at source from the payments made on account of there was no failure to deduct tax at source from the payments made on account of godown and storage charges and freight charges: godown and storage charges and freight charges:- “For conducting MSP operation JCI hired go down to different places in jute growing areas, For conducting MSP operation JCI hired go down to different places in jute growing areas, For conducting MSP operation JCI hired go down to different places in jute growing areas, some are at very nominal rate which are not subject to TDS and some storage points were some are at very nominal rate which are not subject to TDS and some storage points were some are at very nominal rate which are not subject to TDS and some storage points were hired since long and as they are at remote area, the rent is very low and does hired since long and as they are at remote area, the rent is very low and does not come under the purview of TDS. However in case of big storage points, necessary TDS were made and the purview of TDS. However in case of big storage points, necessary TDS were made and the purview of TDS. However in case of big storage points, necessary TDS were made and deposited accordingly. As regard deduction of TDS return, corporation has deducted tax at deposited accordingly. As regard deduction of TDS return, corporation has deducted tax at deposited accordingly. As regard deduction of TDS return, corporation has deducted tax at source as per guidelines of income tax act and deposited the am source as per guidelines of income tax act and deposited the amount so deducted to respective ount so deducted to respective authority and also compiled with the requirement of filing TDS return. In both case for authority and also compiled with the requirement of filing TDS return. In both case for authority and also compiled with the requirement of filing TDS return. In both case for

5 ITA No. 2640/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. The Jute Corporation M/s. The Jute Corporation of India Ltd

payments of storage charges and payment of freight, where the provision applies TDS has payments of storage charges and payment of freight, where the provision applies TDS has payments of storage charges and payment of freight, where the provision applies TDS has been discharged accordingly. It is pertinent to m been discharged accordingly. It is pertinent to mention here that, all the payments as pointed ention here that, all the payments as pointed out of Rs.22,24,24,047/- & 8,28,66,338/ & 8,28,66,338/- are not subject to TDS, as there are some payments are not subject to TDS, as there are some payments which doesn’t attract TDS as per IT rules and please note that the corporation has faithfully t attract TDS as per IT rules and please note that the corporation has faithfully t attract TDS as per IT rules and please note that the corporation has faithfully and rigidly followed the provision of the I.T. Act. provision of the I.T. Act.”

6 ITA No. 2640/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. The Jute Corporation M/s. The Jute Corporation of India Ltd “GODOWN RENT & STORAGE CHARGES GODOWN RENT & STORAGE CHARGES Whether TDS details of Godown claimed payment vis- to rent & a-vis TDS Name of the RO have storage deduction charges deducted filed? Remarks It appears from the details that the details that the Sheoraphully 886379 NIL Yes payment made to landlord is below the payment made to landlord is below the threshold It appears from the details that the It appears from the details that the Barasat 998838 NIL Yes payment made to landlord is below the payment made to landlord is below the threshold No details filed and hence no inference No details filed and hence no inference Krishnagar 1454298 NIL No the submission. can be drawn on the submission. As no landlord wise details are available, details are available, Bethuadahari 607731 NIL Partial details no inference can be drawn on the no inference can be drawn on the submission ; As no landlord wise details are available, details are available, Berhampore 1102981 NIL Partial details no inference can be drawn on the no inference can be drawn on the submission. As no landlord wise details are available, details are available, Malda 1801608 142161 Partial details no ! inference can be drawn on the no ! inference can be drawn on the submission. It appears from the details that It appears from the details that the Siliguri 837817 NIL Yes payment made to landlord is below the payment made to landlord is below the threshold No TDS was made on payment of Rs. No TDS was made on payment of Rs. 122516 made to RMC, Tufanganj and Rs. 122516 made to RMC, Tufanganj and Rs. Yes ' Coochbehar 947344 22535 120750 to Prakash Ch. Patni, though 120750 to Prakash Ch. Patni, though j these payments were liable to TDS these payments were liable to TDS deduction. It appears from the details that the It appears from the details that the Dhubri 529597 NIL Yes payment j made to landlord is below the made to landlord is below the threshold No TDS was made on payment of Rs No TDS was made on payment of Rs puwahati 965293 NIL Yes 687135 and Rs. 72\230 made to ASWC, 230 made to ASWC, though these payments were liable to TDS though these payments were liable to TDS No TDS was made on payment of Rs No TDS was made on payment of Rs 356131 made to Industrial Paper Assam 356131 made to Industrial Paper Assam Nagaon 2438792 188030 Yes Ltd, though this payment was liable to h this payment was liable to TDS No TDS was made on payment of Rs No TDS was made on payment of Rs 356131 made to Industrial Paper Assam 356131 made to Industrial Paper Assam Purnea 1220981 96400 Yes Ltd. though this payment was liable to h this payment was liable to TDS As no landlord wise details are available, As no landlord wise details are available, Saharsa 622236 Nil Partial details no inference can be drawn on the no inference can be drawn on the submission

7 ITA No. 2640/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. The Jute Corporation M/s. The Jute Corporation of India Ltd

it appears from the details that the it appears from the details that the Cuttack 310559 NIL Yes payment made to landlord is below the andlord is below the threshold unit It appears from the detai It appears from the details that the payment below the threshold limit [Agartala 118260 Nil Yes made to landlord below the threshold

No details filed and hence no inference can No details filed and hence no inference can Head Office 6751469 1143712 No e drawn on the submission be drawn on the submission

FREIGHT CHARGES TDS claimed TDS claimed Whether TDS to have Name of the RO Freight to have details filed? Charges Remarks It appears that the assessee had deducted It appears that the assessee had deducted TDS at stipulated rate while paying the TDS at stipulated rate while paying the frieght charges. Sheoraphully 1232708 24960 Yes 24960 In this case the assessee failed to deduct In this case the assessee failed to deduct TDS on Rs. 12406 and 24772 (paid to TDS on Rs. 12406 and 24772 (paid to M/s. Sarkar Enterprise). In rest of the M/s. Sarkar Enterprise). In rest of the transactions, the assessee failed to deduct transactions, the assessee failed to deduct TDS at the specified rate and hence, there Barasat 1965949 36645 Yes TDS at the specified rate and hence, there 36645 As no partywise details are available, no partywise details are available, no inference can be drawn on the submission. Bethuadahari 1897759 52473 Partial details inference can be drawn on the submission. 52473 As no partywise details are available, no As no partywise details are available, no inference can be drawn on the submission Berhampore 4640410 97138 Partial details inference can be drawn on the submission 97138 As no partywise details are available, no partywise details are available, no inference can be drawn on the submission. Malda 5847307.5 115020 Partial details inference can be drawn on the submission. 115020 The assessee failed to deduct tax on The assessee failed to deduct tax on payment of Rs. 1531332 at stipulated rate. payment of Rs. 1531332 at stipulated rate. Ledger of M/s. Sarogi Roadways could Roadways could have thrown some light on actual non have thrown some light on actual non- deduction/short deduction. Siliguri 3588440 46097 Ves deduction/short deduction. 46097 It appears that the assessee had deducted It appears that the assessee had deducted TDS at stipulated rate while paying the TDS at stipulated rate while paying the frieght charges. Coochbehar 3076677 65185 Yes 65185 It appears that the assessee had deducted It appears that the assessee had deducted TDS at stipulated rate while paying the TDS at stipulated rate while paying the frieght charges. Dhubri 3135746 6921-1 Yes 6921 It appears that the assessee had deducted It appears that the assessee had deducted TDS at stipulated rate while paying the TDS at stipulated rate while paying the frieght charges. Guwahati 4754987 105179 Yes 105179 The assessee failed to deduct tax on The assessee failed to deduct tax on payment of Rs. 93497 made to Pranial payment of Rs. 93497 made to Pranial Kakati Nagaon 470861 4423 Yes 4423 The assessee failed to deduct tax on The assessee failed to deduct tax on payment of Rs 363952 and on Rs. 503347 payment of Rs 363952 and on Rs. 503347 made to Saraogi Goods Carrying Com. at made to Saraogi Goods Carrying Com. at Purnea 3331538 52177 Yes 52177

8 ITA No. 2640/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. The Jute Corporation M/s. The Jute Corporation of India Ltd

As no partywise-details are available, no details are available, no nference can be drawn on the submission SAharsa 2890764 60978 Partial details nference can be drawn on the submission 60978 As no party-wise details are available, no wise details are available, no inference can be drawn on the submission inference can be drawn on the submission Cuttack 80188 Partial details It appears that the assessee had deducted assessee had deducted TDS at stipulated rate while paying the TDS at stipulated rate while paying the freight charges Agartala 21131 1053 1053 Yes No details filed and hence no inference can No details filed and hence no inference can be drawn on the submission be drawn on the submission Head Office 45901862.5 284730 284730 No From the above details, it is apparent that in some cases the assessee company failed to From the above details, it is apparent that in some cases the assessee company failed to From the above details, it is apparent that in some cases the assessee company failed to deduct TDS and in some cases it had short DS and in some cases it had short-deducted tax on payments. In some cases, no deducted tax on payments. In some cases, no details were filed by the assessee and hence, no verification could be made. details were filed by the assessee and hence, no verification could be made. On perusal of the remand report, it is clear that the appellant had deducted TDS u/s On perusal of the remand report, it is clear that the appellant had deducted TDS u/s On perusal of the remand report, it is clear that the appellant had deducted TDS u/s 194C and 1941 of the I 194C and 1941 of the I T Act, 1961. However, in some cases, there had been no Act, 1961. However, in some cases, there had been no deduction of TDS. The appellant had not deducted TDS on payments amounting to Rs. deduction of TDS. The appellant had not deducted TDS on payments amounting to Rs. deduction of TDS. The appellant had not deducted TDS on payments amounting to Rs. 16,62,007/- on freight charges u/s 194C and Rs.23,63,893/ on freight charges u/s 194C and Rs.23,63,893/- u/s 1941. Therefore, the u/s 1941. Therefore, the addition of Rs.10,60,90,375/ Rs.10,60,90,375/- is restricted to Rs.40,25,900/-. This ground of appeal . This ground of appeal partly succeeds and is therefore partly allowed." partly succeeds and is therefore partly allowed.

9 ITA No. 2640/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. The Jute Corporation M/s. The Jute Corporation of India Ltd

Assessing Officer giving opportunity to the latter to verify the same. He has submitted Assessing Officer giving opportunity to the latter to verify the same. He has submitted Assessing Officer giving opportunity to the latter to verify the same. He has submitted that the said details and documents were duly verified by the Assessing Officer and on that the said details and documents were duly verified by the Assessing Officer and on that the said details and documents were duly verified by the Assessing Officer and on such verification, a remand report was prepared and submitted by a remand report was prepared and submitted by him to the ld. CIT(A) him to the ld. CIT(A) giving remarks in respect of each and every party to whom the relevant payments were giving remarks in respect of each and every party to whom the relevant payments were giving remarks in respect of each and every party to whom the relevant payments were made. He has invited our attention to the said remarks reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) in made. He has invited our attention to the said remarks reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) in made. He has invited our attention to the said remarks reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order to point out that there was a failure on th his impugned order to point out that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to e part of the assessee to deduct tax at source only from the payments aggregating to Rs. 40,25,900/ from the payments aggregating to Rs. 40,25,900/ from the payments aggregating to Rs. 40,25,900/- on account of freight and godown/storage charges as specifically pointed out by the Assessing of freight and godown/storage charges as specifically pointed out by the Assessing of freight and godown/storage charges as specifically pointed out by the Assessing Officer. The ld. D/R also not been able to dispute this posit Officer. The ld. D/R also not been able to dispute this position which is clearly evident ion which is clearly evident from the remarks made by the Assessing Officer in the remand report submitted to the from the remarks made by the Assessing Officer in the remand report submitted to the from the remarks made by the Assessing Officer in the remand report submitted to the ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) restricting the disallowance of Rs.10,60,90,375/ restricting the disallowance of Rs.10,60,90,375/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act to Rs.40,25,900/ 40(a)(ia) of the Act to Rs.40,25,900/- and upholding the same on this issue, we dismiss and upholding the same on this issue, we dismiss Ground No. 2 of the revenue’s appeal. Ground No. 2 of the revenue’s appeal.

Kolkata, the Kolkata, the 8th day of September, 2021.

Sd/- Sd/- P.M. Jagtap] [Aby T. Varkey] [P.M. Jagtap Judicial Member Judicial Member Vice Vice-President Dated: 08.09.2021 {SC SPS}

10 ITA No. 2640/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. The Jute Corporation M/s. The Jute Corporation of India Ltd

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. M/s. The Jute Corporation of M/s. The Jute Corporation of India Ltd 15N, Hudco Building Nellie Sengupta Sarani Kolkata – 700 087