SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA, JHUNJHUNU V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

ITA 1030/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8981 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: R S POONIA
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 1030/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012-13 SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA PROP. SHREE SHYAM STEEL EXCHANGE, S/O SHRI SHIV PRASAD GUPTA, NEAR SHANTA PRESS, MODI ROAD, PO- JHUNJHUNU (RAJ) 333001. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD- 7(4), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AECPG 1337 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.S. POONIA (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C. KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 04/09/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/10/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-3, JAIPUR DATED 12.10.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2012-13 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWINGS GROUN D OF APPEAL:- 1. UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ERRED TO CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD . AO BY DISALLOWING OF RS. 4,80,240/- IN RESPECT OF COMMISS ION PAID ON PURCHASES, RESULTANTLY ADDITION OF RS. 4,80,240/- N EED TO BE DELETED. ITA NO. 1030/JP/2017 SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA VS. ITO 2 2. UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) ERRED TO CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD AO BY DISALLOWING OF RS. 4,32,187/- IN RESPECT OF COMMISS ION PAID ON SALES, RESULTANTLY ADDITION OF RS. 4,32,187/- NEED TO BE DELETED. 2. IN GROUND NO. 1, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4,80,240/- IN RESPECT OF COMMIS SION PAID ON PURCHASES DURING THE YEAR AND IN GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMIS SION OF RS 4,32,187 PAID ON SALES AFFECTED DURING THE YEAR. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE BUSINESS OF WHOLESALE TRADI NG OF IRON STEEL AND IS THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S SHRI SHYAM STEEL EXCHA NGE. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 4,80,240/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION ON PURCHASE EXPENSES AND A N AMOUNT OF RS. 4,32,187/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION ON SALES. THE COMMISSION ON PURCHASE HAS BEEN PAID TO SHRI SANJAY GUPTA WHO IS THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMMISSION ON SALES HAS BEEN PAID TO SMT. ANNU GUPTA WHO IS WIFE OF THE SHRI SANJAY GUPTA. THE AO HAS REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) R.W.S. 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT AND A SHOW CAUSE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE GEN UINENESS OF THE SAID COMMISSION PAID AND TO PRODUCE THESE PERSONS FOR NE CESSARY EXAMINATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THESE PERSONS FOR EXAMINATION AND HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE SAID EXAMINATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE STATEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALES W HICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH SUBMISSIONS AR E ONLY ABSTRACT OF ITA NO. 1030/JP/2017 SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA VS. ITO 3 HIS OWN LEDGER HAVING NO EVIDENCE FROM THIRD PARTIE S OR HAVING ANY CO- RELATION FROM THE SUPPLIER OR BUYER TO DETERMINE WH ETHER ANY EFFORTS WERE ACTUALLY MADE BY SHRI SANJAY GUPTA OR SMT. ANN U GUPTA DURING THE PROCUREMENT OR SALE OF GOODS. HENCE, THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO JUSTIFY THESE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER RAISE D DOUBTS REGARDING SHIFTING OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER PERSONS FROM JHUNJHUNU TO BANGALORE AND RELATED LANGUAGE ISSUES. IT WAS ACCOR DINGLY HELD BY THE AO THAT IN ABSENCE OF EXAMINATION OF THESE PERSONS, SUCH TYPE OF QUESTIONS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY NOT PRODUCED THEM FOR EXAMINATION. IT WAS HELD BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SATISFY THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE GENUINE AND REASONABLE FOR ITS BUSINESS. IT WAS FUR THER HELD BY THE AO THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE CREDITED TO THE RECIPIENT ON THE LAST DAY OF ACCOUNTING YEAR I.E. 31.03.2012 AND NOT ACTUALLY PA ID TO THEM. ACCORDINGLY, COMMISSION ON PURCHASE AND COMMISSION ON SALES WERE DISALLOWED TREATING THEM AS UNREASONABLE AND EXCESS IVE AND ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE SAID AD DITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S 5. BEFORE US, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE PAID COMMISSION TO MR. SANJ AY GUPTA OF RS. 4,80,240/- IN CONSIDERATION OF SERVICE RENDERE D BY HIM TO BUSINESS AT AGREED RATE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT MOST OF PURC HASES WERE MADE BY MR. SANJAY GUPTA AS HE WAS HAVING ACTIVE INVOLVEMEN T IN BUSINESS. HE ITA NO. 1030/JP/2017 SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA VS. ITO 4 HAS CONTRIBUTED IN PURCHASE OF 2824.96 MT. OUT OF T OTAL PURCHASES OF 2906.93 MT. AS PER AGREED TERMS, COMMISSION WAS CRE DITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF MR. SANJAY GUPTA AT THE END OF THE YEAR AFTER DEDUCTION OF TDS @ 10%. MR. SANJAY GUPTA IS REGULAR INCOME TAX P AYER AND HE DISCLOSED THE SAME COMMISSION IN HIS INCOME TAX RET URN AND OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INVOKED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) FOR MAKING ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISS ION PAID TO MR. SANJAY GUPTA, BROTHER OF ASSESSEE. A PLAIN REA DING OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT INDICATES THAT THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO DISALLOW ONLY SO MUCH OF THE QUANTUM OF THE EXPENDITURE WHICH HE HOLDS TO BE EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE AND NOT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE IT APPEARS THAT THE SAID DIS ALLOWANCE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. ONCE THE A.O. HAS CROSSED THE SECTION 37(1), IT ASSUMES THE EXPENSE IS GENUINE AND ALLOWABLE. THE A.O. CAN INVOKE SECTION 40A WHEN THE EXPENSE IS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 30 TO 37 AND FOR DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE PORTION T HE SECTION 40(A) CAN BE INVOKED. SIMILAR CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED IN RESP ECT OF COMMISSION TO SMT. ANNU GUPTA AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,32,191. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT MOST OF SALES WERE MADE MRS ANNU GUPTA AS SHE WAS H AVING ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT IN BUSINESS. SHE HAS CONTRIBUTED IN SAL E OF 2788.33 MT. OUT OF TOTAL SALES MADE OF 2860.74 MT. SHE WAS PAID COM MISSION @ RS. 155/- PER MT FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY HER. AS PER A GREED TERMS, COMMISSION WAS CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF MRS. ANNU GUPTA AT THE END OF THE YEAR AFTER DEDUCTION OF TDS @ 10%. MRS. ANN U GUPTA IS REGULAR INCOME TAX PAYER AND SHE DISCLOSED COMMISSION RECEI VED FROM M/S SHRI SHYAM STEEL, IN HER INCOME TAX RETURN AND OFFERED F OR TAXATION. IT WAS ITA NO. 1030/JP/2017 SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA VS. ITO 5 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY IN VOKED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) FOR MAKING ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAID TO MRS ANNU GUPTA, SPOUSE OF BROTHER OF ASSESSEE AS SHE IS NEITHER RELATIVE NOR HAVING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE BUS INESS. 6. THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED TH E MATTER AND RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. H E SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SATISFY THE INITIAL ONUS CAS T ON IT TO JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE COMMISSION EXPENDITURE SO CLAIME D ON THE PURCHASES AND THEN ON SALES. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE BY T HE AO AND HIS FINDINGS ARE AT PARA 5.3 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UND ER SHOULD BE CONFIRMED:- I OBSERVE THE RECORD I FIND THAT THE A/R OF THE AP PELLANT HIMSELF STATED THAT COMMISSION IS A REMUNERATION FOR THEIR FULL TI ME ENGAGEMENT IN THE BUSINESS. IT PROVES THAT COMMISSION IS AN ADJUSTMEN T ENTRY ONLY. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT FAILED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE WH ICH ESTABLISHED THAT THE COMMISSION PAYMENT TO MR. SANJAY GUPTA AND SMT. ANNU GUPTA IS GENUINE. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT NEITHER FILED ANY AGREEMENT NOR FILED ANY EVIDENCE AND TERMS AND CONDITION ON WHICH THE P URCHASES AND SALES MADE. THE ONUS ON THE APPELLANT TO ESTABLISH THE COMMISSION PAYMENT BUT IN THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED. THE APPELLANT ALSO NOT PRODUCED SHRI SANJAY GUPTA AND SMT. ANNU GUPTA BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF COMMISSION. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT TAKEN THE ARGU MENT THAT THE COMMISSION PAID TO SHRI SANJAY GUPTA IN THE A.Y. 20 13-14 ACCEPTED BY ITA NO. 1030/JP/2017 SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA VS. ITO 6 THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS ARGUMENT HAD NO VALUE B ECAUSE THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT FAILED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE WHICH EST ABLISHED THAT WHAT TYPE OF SERVICE RENDERED BY HIM AND HE ALSO NOT SUB MITTED THE DETAILS THAT HOW MR. SANJAY GUPTAS SERVICE BENEFITED TO F IRM. THE FACTS OF THE EACH YEAR ARE DIFFERENT IT IS ALSO WORTHWHILE THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE CREDITED TO THE RECIPIENT ON THE LAST DAY OF ACCOUN T YEAR I.E. 31.03.2012 AND NOT ACTUALLY PAID. THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE ABOVE OBSERVATION I AM O F THE VIEW THAT COMMISSION PAID TO MR. SANJAY GUPTA OF RS. 4,8 0,240/- ON PURCHASES AND RS. 4,32,187/- TO SMT. ANNUA GUPTA ON SALES ARE ADJUSTMENT ENTRY. HENCE I CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 4,80,240/- COMMISSION PAID TO SANJAY GUPTA AND RS. 4,32,187/- COMMISSION PAID TO SMT. ANNU GUPTA. THESE GROUNDS ARE NOT ALLOWED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN HIS TRADING AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 4,80,240/- AS COM MISSION ON PURCHASES AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4,32,187/- AS COMMIS SION ON SALES. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT BOTH SHRI SANJAY GUPTA AND S MT. ANNU GUPTA HAVE BEEN WORKING FULL TIME WITH THE ASSESSEE PROPRIETOR SHIP CONCERN AT BANGALORE. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THEY HAVE N OT BEEN PAID ANY SALARY OR OTHER CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSEE DURIN G THE IMPUNGED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN PAID REMUNERATION IN THE FORM OF COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE PURCHASES AND THE SALES AFFECTED BY SHRI SANJAY GUPTA AND AMT . ANNU GUPTA RESPECTIVELY AND IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF THEIR EFFORT S THAT THE ASSESSEES ITA NO. 1030/JP/2017 SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA VS. ITO 7 PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAS BEEN ABLE TO ALMOST DOUB LE THE TURNOVER TO RS. 12 CRORE FROM 5.90 CRORES IN THE LAST YEAR AND THE COMMISSION IS THEREFORE, COMMENSURATE WITH THE EFFORTS MADE BY TH EM. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE SAID CONTENTION, WE REFER TO THE LED GER ACCOUNT OF SHRI SANJAY GUPTA IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE P ERIOD APRIL, 2011 TO 31 ST MARCH, 2012 AND ON PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER, IT IS NO TED THAT ON 31 ST MARCH, 2012, THE ASSESSEE HAS PASSED A JOURNAL ENTR Y WHERE INTEREST ON BORROWINGS AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,08,033/- AND COMMISSI ON ON PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,80,240/- HAS BEEN CREDITED TO TH E ACCOUNT OF SHRI SANJAY GUPTA. FURTHER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 24,75,021/- AND DEPOSIT OF RS. 1 LACS AND PAYME NT OF RS. 54,746/-. FURTHER, THERE ARE ENTRIES REGARDING TDS DEDUCTED ON INTEREST AND ON THE COMMISSION ON PURCHASES AND THEN, WITH CLOSING BALANCE OF RS. 3,29,721/-. WE, THEREFORE, NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS PROVIDED FOR THE COMMISSION ON PURCHASES ON THE LAST YEAR OF THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR AND THERE ARE NO WITHDRAWALS COMMENSURATE TO THE COMMIS SION SO CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI SANJAY GUPTA . IT APPEARS THAT SPECIALLY GOING BY THE OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCES , THE AMOUNT OF LOW WITHDRAWALS VIS--VIS THE COMMISSION AND THE FACT T HAT INTEREST ON BORROWINGS HAS ALSO BEEN CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI SANJAY GUPTA THAT THE COMMISSION ON PURCHASES WHICH IS CREDITED TO HIS ACCOUNT IS NOT ACTUALLY PAID TO HIM AND THE SAME IS BEING ACCU MULATED AND SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING AT THE YEAR END. THE SAID OUTSTANDIN G AMOUNT IS THEN SHOWN AS BORROWING BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SHRI SANJAY GUPTA AND INTEREST ON SUCH BORROWINGS HAVE ALSO BEEN CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI SANJAY GUPTA. THE SCENARIO, WHICH THEREFORE EM ERGES IS THAT FOR THE INVOLVEMENT OF SHRI SANJAY GUPTA IN THE ASSESSE ES BUSINESS ON FULL ITA NO. 1030/JP/2017 SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA VS. ITO 8 TIME BASIS, HE HAS NOT BEEN ACTUALLY PAID EITHER TH E COMMISSION OR THE INTEREST ON THE BORROWINGS AND THE SAID ACCUMULATED COMMISSION AND EARNINGS THEREON REMAIN INVESTED IN THE ASSESSEES PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN. TOWARDS THE CLOSE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR, A CCOUNTING ENTRIES ARE PASSED SHOWING THE COMMISSION AND INTEREST EXPENDIT URE AND THE SAME ARE CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE IN THE PROFIT/LOSS ACCOU NT AND SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN SUBSTANCE, THE INVOLVE MENT OF SHRI SANJAY GUPTA IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEES CONCERN IS NOT JUST BY WAY OF HIS FULL TIME INVOLVEMENT BUT ALSO FINANCIALLY WHEREBY HIS SO CALLED COMMISSION AND INTEREST INCOME REMAIN INVESTED IN A SSESSEES CONCERN AND NOT WITHDRAWN AT ANY POINT IN TIME. IN EFFECT, IT SEEMS THAT HE IS AN ACTIVE PARTNER IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEES CONCERN. HOWEVER, WE MAY ADD THAT WHAT WE HAVE EXAMINED ARE THE FACT PERTAINING TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 RELEVANT TO IMPUNGED ASSESSM ENT YEAR, HOWEVER, WHETHER THE SAME FACTS ARE FOUND REPEATED YEAR ON Y EAR BASIS, IT WILL CONCLUSIVELY LED TO BELIEF THAT SHRI SANJAY GUPTA I S NOT EMPLOYED WITH THE ASSESSEE CONCERN AS ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE WHO IS B EING PAID REMUNERATION IN THE FORM OF COMMISSION, RATHER HE I S A PARTNER IN THE ASSESSEES CONCERN AND IT IS THEIR MUTUAL UNDERSTAN DING/DECISION AMONG THE PARTNERS NOT TO WITHDRAW THE SHARE OF PROFIT FR OM THE ASSESSEES CONCERN RATHER THE SAME REMAINED INVESTED IN THE AS SESSEES CONCERN. NO DOUBT, SHRI SANJAY GUPTA HAS REPORTED BOTH THE C OMMISSION ON PURCHASES AND THE INTEREST ON BORROWINGS AS PART OF HIS TAXABLE INCOME IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, MERE FACT THAT TH E RECIPIENT HAS OFFERED THE AMOUNT AS HIS INCOME DOESNT NECESSARIL Y LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE SAME WILL BE ALLOWED AS AN ELIG IBLE EXPENSE IN THE HANDS OF THE PAYER. IN OUR VIEW, MERELY CREDITING THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI ITA NO. 1030/JP/2017 SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA VS. ITO 9 SANJAY GUPTA AT THE YEAR END AND IN ABSENCE OF COMM ENSURATE WITHDRAWAL OR THE PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHERE THE SAME FACTS HOLD GOOD EVEN FOR PAST AND THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS, T HE INSTANT TRANSACTION IS IN ESSENCE A TRANSACTION OF SHARE IN PROFITS THOUGH TERMED AND REFLECTED AS COMMISSION FOR SERVICES. SIMILARL Y, WE NOTE THAT SIMILAR FACT PATTERN EMERGES IN RESPECT OF SMT. ANNU GUPTA FOR THE INSTANT YEAR. HOWEVER, WE HAVE SAID ABOVE, WE HAVE NOTED AND EXAMINED THE FACTS ONLY FOR THE INSTANT YEAR AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO EXAMINE WHETHER SIMILAR FACT PATTERN EMERGES FOR THE OTHER YEARS WH ERE THERE IS INVOLVEMENT OF THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS IN ASSESSEES BUSINESS AND IN ABSENCE OF THAT, THE MATTER CANNOT BE DECIDED CONCL USIVELY. IN LIGHT OF THE SAME, THE VARIOUS OTHER CONTENTIONS SO RAISED B Y THE LD AR ARE THEREFORE NOT COMMENTED UPON AND ARE THUS KEPT OPEN . WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THESE TWO MATTERS RELATING TO COMMISSION BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL EXAM INE THE MATTER A FRESH TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTE R GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/10/2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 15/10/2018. ITA NO. 1030/JP/2017 SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA VS. ITO 10 *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA, JHUNJHUNU. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-7(4), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 1030/JP/2017} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR