TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per its appeal are as under:- "1. The Ld. CIT(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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....six more brothers and sisters. They are also the co owner of the property but the assessee was not able to 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/ pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen an Affidavit is filed, the averment therein are assumed to be correct unless the same is proved otherwise as held by the Honorable Supreme Court in case of M/s Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. 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 V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the business activity of processions of Bio-degradable waste and producing & selling Bio-fertilizers and accordingly allow the appeal in this regard & direct the assessing officer to allow the deductions U/s 80JJA on such 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 ....