ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL, Hindaun City V. ITO, Dausa

ITA 111/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2023 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY MALIK CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: G C JAIN
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Tangible material
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 234B; 37(1); 68; 148; 6

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 111/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL PROP. M/S GAURAV ENTERPRISES, KHEDLA, DAUSA. JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAUSA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACMPA 2655 H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.C.JAIN JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY MALIK (ADDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 27/12/2017 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/03/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 02.09.2013 OF CIT(A), ALWAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEALS AS UNDER:- 1. THAT LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN FACTS & LAW, CONFIRMING THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147, AND COMPLETI NG THE ASSESSMENT WHICH MAY BE QUASHED ALSO FOR THE FOLLOW ING REASONS:- (I) NO REASONS WERE RECORDED BEFORE THE ISSUE OF NO TICE U/S 148. ITA 111/JP/14_ ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. ITO 2 (II) NO SPEAKING ORDER UPON THE OBJECTIONS OF THE A PPELLANT WAS PASSED, AND IF SO IT WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE APPELL ANT. 2. THAT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNE D CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 210158 U/S 69C OF THE ACT, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT(A), WAS NOT JUSITIFIED ON FACTS AND EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE HIM, IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION U/S 6 8 ON A/C OF CASH- CREDITS AT RS. 300000/-, WHICH MAY KINDLY BE DELETE D, 4. THAT LEARNED CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN ARBITRARY C ONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS MADE BY LEARNED A.O.:- (I) RS. 50000/- IN TRADING A/C, MERELY ON ESTIMATES . (II) RS. 22466/- OUT OF CAR EXP. (INCLUDING DEP.) (III) RS. 3637/- ON ESTIMATE OUT OF TELEPHONE EXP. (IV) RS. 10000/- ON ESTIMATE OUT OF SHOP EXPENSES, (V) RS. 7176/- OUT OF DALALI EXPENSES ON ESTIMATE. 5. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT(A), WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND NOT CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FILED, IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 20000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LOW EXP. OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 6. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NO T PROPERLY BY NOT CONSIDERING THE PLEAS OF THE APPELLANT, CONFIRMING THE INTT. CHARGES U/S 234B & 234C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF REOPENING. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.10.2004 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,49,009/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THEREAFT ER, THE AO NOTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE EN TERED INTO TRANSACTIONS ITA 111/JP/14_ ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. ITO 3 OF PURCHASES AND PAYMENTS THEREOF WITH M/S AMBICA T RADERS, GANESH NAGAR (BHUSAWAR). IT WAS FOUND THAT M/S AMBICA TRAD ERS WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BOGUS BILL LEDING AND HAD ENTERED I NTO SUCH TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE ALSO DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONS IDERATION. ACCORDINGLY THE AO PROPOSED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 31.03.2006. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE TH E ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON EARLIER MAY BE TREATE D AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE AO S UPPLIED THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT TO THE ASS ESSEE. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WHICH WERE DISPOSED OFF BY THE AO VIDE SEPARATE ORDER DATED 29 .11.2006 THEREAFTER, REASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2 006. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 3. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED THAT REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO BE LIEVE THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 14 8 OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR HAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IT CAN BE TAKEN AS REASON TO BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE PRE REQUISITE CO NDITION OF INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND AS SUCH THE ACTION ITA 111/JP/14_ ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. ITO 4 OF THE AO IS ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL, VOID AND BAD IN LA W AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION B EING BAD IN LAW. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DE CISION OF HONBLE GUJART HIGH COURT IN CASE OF VARSHABEN SANATBHAI PATEL VS. ITO 282 CTR 75 . THE LD. AR HAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL FROM WHICH IT COULD BE HELD THA T THERE HAS BEEN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE ON THE P ART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSING THE INCOME IN HIS RETUR N OF INCOME. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CA SE OF ITO VS. OM EXIM P. LTD. 26ITR 697 . THUS, THE AO ACTED ON SUCH SUSPICION AND ASSUMPTION THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ES CAPED ASSESSMENT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT ON AN IDENTICA L ISSUE THE AO HAS ALREADY HELD FOR A.Y. 2003-04 THAT THE PURCHASES MA DE FROM M/S AMBICA TRADERS ARE BOGUS IN NATURE. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACT ON RECORD IS THAT TH E ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT ON 31.03.2006 WHEREIN THE AO HELD THAT THE PURCHASES C LAIMED FROM M/S AMBICA TRADERS ARE BOGUS TRANSACTION BEING ACCOMMOD ATION BILLS PROVIDED ITA 111/JP/14_ ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. ITO 5 BY THE SAID PARTIES. THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ISSUED ON 31.03.2006 TO ASSESSEE THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT TO T HE EXTENT OF PURCHASES CLAIMED FROM M/S AMBICA TRADERS. THEREFOR E, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT IN LIGHT OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAME D FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AFTER MAKING THE VERIFICATION AND INVE STIGATION OF FACTS BY THE AO CANNOT BE SAID WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR MATERIAL TO FORM THE BELIEF BECAUSE THE AO DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S AMBICA TRADERS ARE BOGUS TRANSACTION AND IT WOULD CONSTITUTE A TANGIBLE MATE RIAL TO FORM THE BELIEF THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX IN RESPECT OF TH E TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE FROM THE SAME PARTIES HAS ESCAPED ASSESSME NT. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE REOPENING IS WITHIN 4 YE ARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THEREFORE, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 IS NOT ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE. THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 WOULD NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAID DECISION IS BASED ON A TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS OF VALIDITY OF NOTI CE U/S 148 WHEN THE TIME TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS STILL AVAILABLE WIT H THE AO. THERE IS NO SUCH ISSUE OF SUFFICIENCY OF REASON EITHER RAISED OR CON SIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF MULTISCREEN MEDIA P. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA 324TTJ 48 AS WELL AS ITA 111/JP/14_ ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. ITO 6 324 ITR 54 HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REOPENING SEPARATELY BASED ON THE REOPENING ASSESSMENTS WITHIN AND BEYON D 4 YEARS. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THE REOPENING FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEARS WHICH WAS BEYOND 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR WAS INVALID WHEREAS THE REOPENING IN CASE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR WHERE IT WAS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE AS SESSMENT YEAR WAS HELD TO BE VALID. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE HONBLE HI GH COURT IN CASE OF MULTISCREEN MEDIA P. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA ) IS IN PARA 10 AS UNDER:- 10. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE W OULD HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, A QUERY WAS ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 INTER ALIA REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A DISCLOSURE OF THE NATURE OF ITS BUSINESS AND DETAIL S OF THE EXPENSES TOWARDS MARKET RESEARCH. ON NOVEMBER 15, 2006; THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO FURNISH A JUSTIFICATION AND DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE TOWARDS ADVERTISEMENTS AND SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES. THE AS SESSEE FURNISHED THE BREAK-UP OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED TOW ARDS ADVERTISEMENTS AND SALES PROMOTION AND AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3). WHEN THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WERE TA KEN UP, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HIS LETTER DATED AUGUST 21, 20 07 CALLED UP THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE LEDGER EXTRACTS OF ADVERTIS EMENTS AND SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES/MARKET RESEARCH EXPENSES. ON NOV EMBER 26, 2008 A NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECT ION 142(1). THE ANNEXURE TO THE NOTICE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED ADVERTISEMENTS AND SA LES PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS. 39.99 CRORES ; DEALER'S INCENTIVES OF RS. 50.89 CRORES AND MARKET RESEARCH EXPENSES OF RS. 2.73 CRORES. TH E ASSESSING ITA 111/JP/14_ ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. ITO 7 OFFICER NOTED THAT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PR OGRAMMES ARE AIRED BY THE CHANNEL, ANY 'UPSIDE' IN THE REVENUES SHALL ACCRUE TO THE CHANNEL COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPL AIN WHY THIS AMOUNT SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABSENC E OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO FILE A DETAILED EXPLANATION ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A DETAILED EXPLANATION BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ON DECEMBER 11, 2008. THE ASSESSEE SET OUT ITS CASE IN REGARD TO THE ALLOWABILITY OF ITS ADVERTISEMENTS AN D SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES AND DEALER'S INCENTIVES EXPENSES TOGETHER WITH MARKET RESEARCH EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 37(1). THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY A ND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS AND IT WAS ESSENTIA L FOR THE ASSESSEE TO INCUR THE EXPENSES SO AS TO INCREASE ITS OWN INC OME BY WAY OF SALE OF CONTENT, DISTRIBUTION INCOME, ADVERTISEMENT S AS WELL AS AGENCY FEES. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, W AS THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U NDER SECTION 37(1) EVEN THOUGH A THIRD PARTY, NAMELY A CHANNEL C OMPANY MAY HAVE BENEFITED FROM THE SAME TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 CAME TO THE CONCLUSION AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT OF THE TOTAL EXPEN SES THAT WERE INCURRED, 18.75 PER CENT, WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE H ANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE THE BALANCE SHALL BE HELD AS EXPENDI TURE INCURRED ON THE BEHALF OF THE FOREIGN PRINCIPAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE THAT WAS INCURRED WAS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. WHAT IS MATERIAL IS THAT ON THE BASIS OF A DETAILED INQUIRY WHICH TOOK PLACE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF DEDUCTION OF THE ENTIRE EXPENSES WAS NO T ACCEPTED AND DISALLOWANCE, WAS MADE TO THE EXTENT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED OVER AND ABOVE 18.75 PER CENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID SO ON THE BASIS OF FRESH MATERIAL WHICH CAME BEFORE HIM IN VIEW OF THE NOTICE DATED ITA 111/JP/14_ ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. ITO 8 NOVEMBER 26, 2008 IN PURSUANCE OF WHICH THE ASSESSE E FILED A DETAILED REPRESENTATION ELUCIDATING THE RELEVANT PA RTICULARS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REASONS FOR THE EX PENDITURE. WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE DECISION WHICH HE TOOK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IS AGAIN NOT A MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THE PO INT IS THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL WHICH WAS AVAILABL E ON RECORD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID HAVE TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO REOPEN THE AS SESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND TO FORM A REASON TO BELI EVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. CLAUSE (C)(IV ) OF EXPLANAT ION 2 TO SECTION 147 CREATES A DEEMING FICTION WHERE THOUGH THE ASSE SSMENT HAS BEEN MADE, INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IS UNDERASSESSE D. IN SUCH A CASE, LAW DEEMS THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS E SCAPED ASSESSMENT. FOR THESE REASONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT RECOURSE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 CANNOT BE FAULTED. THUS, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WHILE PASSING A SEPARA TE DECISION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WHERE THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSME NT WITHIN 4 YEARS HELD THAT REOPENING BASED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER O F SUBSEQUENT YEAR IS VALID. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY THE AO DURING TH E SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND CONSEQUENTLY THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING FOR THE REASSESSMENT FOR T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS INITIATED BY THE AO AND IN VIEW O F THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF MULTISCREEN ME DIA P. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA) I DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGAL ITY IN THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE DECISIONS RELIE D UPON BY THE LD. AR ITA 111/JP/14_ ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. ITO 9 ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE AT THE TIME OF ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT THE AO HAD ALREAD Y CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRY ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S AMBICA TRADERS. 6. GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE REGARDING THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE AO U/S 69C OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPOR T OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. THEREFORE, THE AO MAY BE DIRECTED TO CONSIDER AND VERIFY THE EVIDENC E FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAD HAND, LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. I HAVE HEARD LD. AR AS WELL AS LD. DR AND CONSI DERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING THE DIRECTIONS TO THE AO FOR PROPER EXAMINATION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THERE FORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JU STICE THE MATTER ON MERITS IS REMANDED TO THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION AFTER CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. GROUND NOS. 4 AND 5 ARE REGARDING ADDITION/DISAL LOWANCE MADE ON ESTIMATED BASIS. SINCE, THE MATTER ON MERITS HAS BE EN SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, THE ENTI RE ISSUE HAS TO BE ITA 111/JP/14_ ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. ITO 10 RECONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/03/2018. SD/- FOT; IKY JKO (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;KF;D LNL; @ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 08/03/2018 *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL, DAUSA 2. IZR;FKH @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, DAUSA. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 111/JP/14) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR