MD. SHAMSAD ALAM,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-53(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed
ITA 2124/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010
Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2124/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Md. Shamsad Alam, Vs. The Ito, Ward-53(1), (Proprietor Of : M/S 2, Gariahat Road (S) M.S.Drum Suppliers), Kolkata-700068 25/6/F, Am Ghosh Road, Budge Budge, 24 Parganas (S), Kolkata-700137 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpa 5230 L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nirmal Kaushik, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Addl.Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxiii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.49/Cit(A)-Xxxiii/Ito Ward53(1)/Kol/12-13, Dated 17.09.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27/12/2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 30.09.2009 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.1,93,600/-. The Return Of Assessee Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The I.T. Act. Later On, The Assessee’S Case Was Selected Under Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Completed The 2 Md. Shamsad Alam
For Appellant: Shri Nirmal Kaushik, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)
depreciation on Tanker, Rs.1,33,737/-on account of discrepancies in Loan
& Advances, Rs.2,87,105/-on account of interest paid for Tanker
purchase, Rs.1,23,876/-on account of Tanker hire charges, and
Rs.51,650/- on account of car maintenance. While making the
assessment, the AO observed that assessee has claimed Car
maintenance expenses whereas there was no motor