Abhishek Kejriwal, Kolkata V. ACIT, Circle-45, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1132/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5292 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C J SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S K TULSIYAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Fair market value; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure; Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM ./ITA NO.1132/KOL/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13) ABHISHEKH KEJRIWAL KARNANI MANSION, 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO. 219, 25A, PARK STREET, KOLKATA-700016 VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-45, KOLKATA ./ ./PAN/GIR NO.: AEUPK 1023 K (ASSESSEE) .. (REVENUE) ASSESSEE BY :SHRI S.K. TULSIYAN, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C.J.SINGH, JCIT, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 08/04/2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/05/2019 / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTA INING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, KOLKATA (IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)], WHICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 28 .03.2015. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1.(A) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON DISALLOWING HOARDING CONSTRUCTION CHARGES OF RS.17, 40,000/- AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INSTEAD OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND ALLO WING THE DEPRECIATION ON IT OF ABHISHEKH KEJRIWAL ITA NO.1132/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 2 22 2 15%. THE EXPENSES CLAIMED OF RS.17,40,000/- BE ALLO WED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. (B) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACTS THAT HOARDINGS ARE TEMPORARY STR UCTURE AND EXPENDITURE ARE INCURRED FOR FACILITATING THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS A ND NOT ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSET. THE SAME BE ALLOWED IN FULL. (C ) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING ON THE INSPECTOR REPORT WITHOUT FURNISHING THE SAME TO ASSESSEE AND FACT THAT THE SAME IS SUPPORTING THE ASSESSEE CASE AND NOT OTHERW ISE AS INTERPRETED BY LD. CIT(A). THE SAME BE ALLOWED IN FULL. (D) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE SETTLED LAW THAT HOARDING CHARGES ARE REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 2.(A) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ADDING/DISALLOWING OF RS.7,76,500/- ON BALAJI CONST RUCTION ON WRONG PRESUMPTION AND APPLYING SAME ANALOGY AS BALAJI ADS . (B) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON DISALLOWING HOARDING CONSTRUCTION CHARGES OF RS.9,1 3,529/- AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INSTEAD OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND ALLO WING THE DEPRECIATION ON IT OF 15%. THE EXPENSES CLAIMED OF RS. 9,13,529/- BE ALLO WED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. (C ) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE SETTLED LAW THAT HOARDING CHARGES ARE REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING RS. 50,000/- U/S 40A(2)(B). THE SAME BE ALLOWED. 4. THAT THE ORDER IS OTHERWISE BAD IN LAW AND ON FA CTS. 5. THAT THE APPELLANTCRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DE LETE, AMEND, INCLUDE ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG. 3. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE I DENTICAL AND COMMON AND RELATE TO THE SAME ISSUE, THAT IS,WHETHER, HOARDING CONSTR UCTION EXPENSES ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE OR REVENUE IN NATURE?SINCE THESE TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE INTERLINKED THEREFORE, WE ADJUDICATE TOGETHER. 4. BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF ADVERTISEMENT IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF BALAJI AD S, BALAJI CONSTRUCTION. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS GONE THROUGH THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND NOTED THAT THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACC OUNT, IN RESPECT OF M/S BALAJI ABHISHEKH KEJRIWAL ITA NO.1132/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 3 33 3 ADS REVEALED THAT A SUM OF RS. 25,24,016/- HAD BEEN DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD HOARDING CONSTRUCTION CHARGE. THE DETAILS OF SUCH CHARGES WERE CALLED FOR AND IT WAS NOTICED THAT THESE CHARGES WERE DEBITED IN THE NAMES OF THIRTEEN PERSON / PARTIES. OUT OF THIS, A SUM OF RS. 17,40,000/- HAD BEEN PAID / PAYABLE TO ONE PARTY, MONARK MARKETING PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUEST ED TO EXPLAIN THAT SINCE SUCH HUGE EXPENSES WERE MADE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOARDIN G, THE SAME SHOULD BE GIVING USEFULNESS / UTILITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR MORE THAN ONE FINANCIAL YEAR AND HENCE WHY THE SAID EXPENSES SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 16.03.2015 STATING THE FOLLOWING: THIS IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASS ESSEE,THATHOARDING CONSTRUCTION CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS. 17,40,000/- HAS BEEN PAID TO MONARK MARKETING PVT. LTD. WITH RESPECT OF 7 SITES. THESE SITES HAVE AN ESTIMATED LIFE OF BARELY ONE YEAR SO INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING IT AS CAP ITAL EXPENDITURE, SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS RE VENUE EXPENDITURE. THE DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTIONS AT SUCH SITES, AS FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE AS FOLLOWS: ABHISHEKH KEJRIWAL ITA NO.1132/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 4 44 4 ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIM ED TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 17,40,000/- AS COST CONSTRUCTION FOR 8700 SQ. FT. T HUS, THE PER SQ. FT. CONSTRUCTION WORKS OUT TO RS. 200/-. THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WAS CAREFULLY PERUSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND OBSERVED THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOARDINGS PER SQ. FT. IS AS HIGH AS RS. 200/-, THAT ITSELF CONTRADICTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT THE HOARDINGS HAVE A LIFE OF BARELY ONE YEAR. THE CLAIM THAT FOR A CONSTRUCTI ON HAVING BARELY ONE YEARS LONGEVITY, THE ASSESSEE WOULD SPEND RS. 200/-, AS C OST OF CONSTRUCTION PER SQ. FT. IS NOT, ACCEPTABLE. THUS, AO CONCLUDED THAT AT THIS RA TE OF CONSTRUCTION, THE ASSESSEE WOULD GET A STRUCTURE WHICH IS FAIRLY DURABLE AND C APABLE OF GIVING BENEFITS / USE VALUE TO THE ASSESSEE FAR BEYOND THE RELEVANT FINAN CIAL YEAR. THE AO OBSERVED THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE HUGE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION WHICH EMERGES IS THAT THE HOARDI NGS HAVE A LIFE OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR, QUITE CONTRARY TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE. WITH THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE HOARDING CONSTRUCTION CHARGES PAID TO M/S MONAR K MARKETING PVT LTD. TO THE TUNE OF RS.17,40,000/-, OUT OF THE TOTAL HOARDING C ONSTRUCTION CHARGES IN RESPECT OF BALAJI ADS, WAS TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND DISALLOWED AS DEDUCTION CLAIMED IN THE ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, HAVING RE GARD TO THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, THESE HOARDINGS WERE TREATED BY AO AS PLANT & MACHINERY FOR THE ASSESSEE AND DEPRECIATION @ 15% WAS ALLOWED THEREON . THUS, THE NET ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT WORKED OUT TO THE TUNE OF RS.14,79,000 /- [17,40,000 - 2,61,000 (DEPRECIATION)]. 5. ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT A SUM OF RS.3, 30,988/- WAS CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE SAID CONCERN UNDER T HE HEAD 'ADVERTISING FEES'. ANOTHERSUM OF RS.3,27,255/- WAS CREDITED ON ACCOUNT OF 'DISPLAY CHARGES'. AGAINST THIS INCOME DEDUCTION OF RS.9,13,529/- WAS CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF HOARDING CONSTRUCTION CHARGES. SINCE THE HOARDING CONSTRUCTI ON CHARGES IN THIS CASE IS FAR MORE THAN THE RECEIPTS UNDER RELEVANT HEADS, THE HO ARDINGS IN THIS CASE ARE SUPPOSED TO GIVE ENDURING BENEFITS OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND BY THE SAME ANALOGY, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE HOARDING CONSTRUCT ION CHARGES OF RS.9,13,529/- WAS TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND HENCE DISALL OWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL ABHISHEKH KEJRIWAL ITA NO.1132/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 5 55 5 INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, HAVING REGARD TO T HE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, THESE HOARDINGS WERE TREATED AS PLANT & M ACHINERY FOR THE ASSESSEE AND DEPRECIATION @ 15% IS ALLOWED THEREON. THUS, THE NE T ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT WORKS OUT TO RS.7,76,500/- [9,13,5291,37,029] (DEP RECIATION)]. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD CIT(A) JUST REITERATED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE B Y ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN A PPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI S.K . TULSIYAN, BEGINS BY POINTING OUT THAT THESE HOARDINGS WERE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTA INED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN ORDER TO AVOID CORROSION OF THE STRUCTURE AND OTHER ADVERSE WEATHERING EFFECTS, APPLICATION OF RED OXIDE AND PAINTING WAS REGULARLY REQUIRED TO BE DONE. SIMILARLY, CEMENTING AND PLASTERING OF FOUNDATION WAS ALSO REQ UIRED TO BE DONE REGULARLY IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE HOARDING STRUCTURES. KEEPING IN VIEW THE NATURE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURES USED OR HOARDINGS IS REVENUE IN NATURE. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS PRIMARILY REIT ERATED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED IN OU R EARLIER PARA AND THE SAME IS NOT BEING REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT LD ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOARDINGS PER SQ. FT. IS AS HIGH AS RS. 200/-, WHICH ITSELF CONTRADICTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE HOAR DINGS HAVE A LIFE OF BARELY ONE YEAR. THE CLAIM THAT FOR A CONSTRUCTION HAVING BARE LY ONE YEARS LONGEVITY, THE ASSESSEE WOULD SPEND RS. 200/- AS COST OF CONSTRUCT ION PER SQ. FT. IS NOT, ACCEPTABLE. AO NOTICED THAT BECAUSE, AT THIS RATE OF CONSTRUCTI ON, THE ASSESSEE WOULD GET A STRUCTURE WHICH IS FAIRLY DURABLE AND CAPABLE OF GI VING BENEFITS / USE VALUE TO THE ABHISHEKH KEJRIWAL ITA NO.1132/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 6 66 6 ASSESSEE FAR BEYOND THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. ON THIS BACKDROP OF FACTS, THE DEPARTMENTAL INSPECTOR WAS DEPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT A FIELD ENQUIRY AND FURNISH A REPORT REGARDING THE CONSTRUC TION OF THE HOARDINGS. AS APPEARS FROM THE INSPECTOR'S REPORT, HE COVERED 2 H OARDINGS OUT OF THE SEVEN LISTED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE INSPECTOR'S REPORT THE HOARDING AT 113, DILKHUSHA STREET NEAR PARK CIRCUS WAS APPROXIMATELY OF 1200 SQ. FT, HUGE STRUCTURE, MADE WITH ANGLES OF STEEL AND THE HOARDING HAD BEEN THERE FOR ALMOST 2 YEARS. THE INSPECTOR ALSO MADE A SITE VISIT TO 258C, RASH BEHARI AVENUE, KOLKATA-19. AT THIS ADDRESS, THE INSPECTOR FOUND THAT THE HOARDING WAS ON A FOUR STOREY BUILDING WITH HUGE STRUCTURE OF STEEL ANGLES COVERING ALMOST THE ENTIR E ROOF. HE TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE TWO HOARDINGS, WHICH ARE MADE PART OF THE ASSES SMENT RECORDS BY AO. THUS, FROM THE ABOVE ANALYSIS AND HAVING REGARD TO THE HU GE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION WH ICH EMERGES IS THAT THE HOARDINGS HAVE A LIFE OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR, QUITE CONTRARY TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE HOARDIN G CONSTRUCTION CHARGES PAID TO M/S MONARK MARKETING PVT LTD. TO THE TUNE OF RS.17, 40,000/-, OUT OF THE TOTAL HOARDING CONSTRUCTION CHARGES IN RESPECT OF BALAJI ADS, WAS TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND DISALLOWED AS DEDUCTION CLAIMED IN THE ACCOUNTS. WE NOTE THAT ON A PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS AC COUNT OF M/S BALAJI ADS, THE LEARNED AO NOTED THAT A SUM OF RS.25,24,016/-, WHIC H HAD BEEN DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD 'HOARDING CONSTRUCTION CHAR GE',OUT OF THIS, A SUM OF RS.17,40,000/- HAD BEEN PAID TO ONE PARTY, M/SMONAR K MARKETING PVT LTD. WITH RESPECT TO CONSTRUCTION OF 7 DIFFERENT SITES IN KOL KATA. AS PER ASSESSEE, THESE SITES HAVE AN ESTIMATED LIFE OF BARELY ONE YEAR SO INSTEA D OF CONSIDERING IT AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, SUCH AMOUNT HAD BEEN DEBITED BY THE AS SESSEE IN HIS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 8. WE NOTE THAT GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE , WHICH RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,76,500/- ON THE GROUND THAT TH E ASSESSEE CARRIED ON ADVERTISING BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF ANOTHER PROPRIE TORSHIP CONCERN, M/S BALAJI CONSTRUCTION. A SUM OF RS. 4,30,988/- WAS CREDITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF ABHISHEKH KEJRIWAL ITA NO.1132/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 7 77 7 THE SAID CONCERN UNDER THE HEAD ADVERTISING FEES. ANOTHER SUM OF RS. 3,27,255/- WAS CREDITED ON ACCOUNT OF DISPLAY CHARGES. AGAIN ST THIS INCOME, DEDUCTION OF RS. 9,13,529/- WAS CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF HOARDING C ONSTRUCTION CHARGES. SINCE THE HOARDING CONSTRUCTION CHARGES IN THIS CASE IS FAR M ORE THAN THE RECEIPTS UNDER RELEVANT HEADS, THE HOARDINGS IN THIS CASE ARE SUPP OSED TO GIVE ENDURING BENEFITS OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND BY THE SAME ANALOGY, AS DISC USSED ABOVE IN PARA SEVEN OF THIS ORDER, THE HOARDING OF CONSTRUCTION CHARGES OF RS. 9,13,529/- WAS TREATED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND HENCE THE DISALLOWANCES WAS MADE. HOWEVER, AO NOTICED THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE NATUR E OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, THESE HOARDINGS ARE TREATED AS PLANT AND MACHINERY FOR THE ASSESSEE AND DEPRECIATION @ 15% WAS ALLOWED BY AO. 9. WE NOTE THAT THE HOARDINGS ARE SUBJECTED TO VAGA RIES OF RAIN, STORM, VANDALISM, WEATHER, THEFT, MISCREANTS, DAMAGES ETC., THUS, THE ACTIVITIES INDULGED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PART OF ITS NORMAL ACTIVITIES OF ADVER TISEMENTS AND PUBLICITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE HOARDING CHARGES FOR FACI LITATING THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND NOT WITH THE OBJECT OF ACQUIRING ANY CAPITAL AS SET. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF ADVERTISING AND THESE EXPENSES WITH REG ARD TO THE HOARDING STRUCTURES IS A PART OF THE NORMAL AND DAY TO DAY BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HOARDINGS ARE TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND ARE MADE WITH ANGLES OF ST EEL AND IRON RODS TO AFFIX THEM TO THE GROUND SINCE THESE ARE VULNERABLE TO RAIN, S TORM, THEFT AND OTHER DAMAGES. AS SUCH, AFFIXATION OF THE SAME USING STEEL ANGLES AND IRON RODS WAS A NECESSITY ELSE THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVERTISIN G ORDERS. TO RECEIVE ADVERTISING ORDERS, THESE HOARDINGS WERE REQUIRED T O BE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN A GOOD QUALITY CONDITION. FURTHER, IN ORDER TO A VOID CORROSION OF THE STRUCTURE AND OTHER ADVERSE WEATHERING EFFECTS, REPLACEMENT O F PARTS AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES IS REGULARLY REQUIRED TO BE DONE. IT IS AL SO RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS A RECURRING EXPENDITURE WHICH IS REQ UIRED TO BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE REGULARLY AND THE SAME THEREFORE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE GIVEN ANY ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE IN CAPITAL FIELD. ABHISHEKH KEJRIWAL ITA NO.1132/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 8 88 8 10. WE NOTE THAT THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR, ON WH ICH THE LEARNED AO HAS RELIED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WAS NEVER FURNISHED TO THE AS SESSEE TO CONTROVERT THE SAME. AS SUCH, THIS IS DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE TO THE A SSESSEE. IT IS A SETTLED POSITION, THAT IF AN AUTHORITY IS RELYING ON THE TESTIMONY OF A WI TNESS/DOCUMENT, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXA MINE THE WITNESS/DOCUMENT FAILING WHICH THE TESTIMONY CANNOT BE UTILIZED AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE. IF THIS PROCEDURE IS NOT FOLLOWED, THEN THERE WOULD BE A CA SE OF DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. TO BUTTRESS THIS VIEW, WE RELY ON THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS C OMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'NOT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WIT NESSES BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THOUGH THE STATEMENTS OF THOSE WITNESSES WERE MADE THE BASIS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS A SERIOUS FLAW WHICH MAKES THE ORDER NULLITY INASMUCH AS IT AMOUNTED TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BECAUSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVERSELY AFFECTED. IT IS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS BASED UPON THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE AFORESAID TWO WITNESSES. EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE STATEMENTS AND WANTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE, THE ADJ UDICATING AUTHORITY DID NOT GRANT THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY HE HAS SPECIFI CALLY MENTIONED THAT SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY WAS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED AND THE AFORESAID PLEA IS NOT EVEN DEALT WITH BY THE AD JUDICATING AUTHORITY. AS FAR AS THE TRIBUNAL IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT REJECTION OF TH IS PLEA IS TOTALLY UNTENABLE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS SIMPLY STATED THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION O F THE SAID DEALERS COULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT OUT ANY MATERIAL WHICH WOULD NOT BE IN POSS ESSION OF THE APPELLANT THEMSELVES TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THEIR EX-FACTORY PRICES REMAIN ST ATIC. IT WAS NOT FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO HAVE GUESS WORK AS TO FOR WHAT PURPOSES THE APPELLANT WA NTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THOSE DEALERS AND WHAT EXTRACTION THE APPELLANT WANTED FROM THEM. WE NOTE THAT THE FINANCIAL YEAR INVOLVED IN THE CUR RENT APPEAL IS FY 2011-12 AND THE INSPECTOR'S REPORT WAS GIVEN IN THE MONTH OF FE B - MARCH 2015 (APPROX.)I.E AFTER ALMOST THREE YEARS. THE INSPECTOR HAS BASED H IS FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED REPORT BY WATCHING A HOARDING AFTER A TIME GAP OF T HREE YEARS. THE SAID HOARDINGS HAD UNDERWENT CHANGES IN THIS LONG TIME SPAN OF THR EE YEARS. REPAIR WORKS AND REPLACEMENT OF PARTS HAD TAKEN PLACE IN THE LAST FE W YEARS AS PER THE DEMAND OF THE ADVERTISING BUSINESS. AS SUCH, THE STRUCTURE EXISTI NG ON THE DATE THE INSPECTOR VISITED THE SITE CAN IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES BE COMPARE D WITH THE STRUCTURE WHICH EXISTING IN THE RELEVANT AY, BEING AY 2012-13. ABHISHEKH KEJRIWAL ITA NO.1132/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 9 99 9 HENCE, THE SAID REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDE RED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 11. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING TH IS PRACTICE OF CLAIMING THE HOARDING EXPENSES AS REVENUE EXPENSES IN ALL THE EA RLIER YEARS ALSO AND THE SAME WAS NOT DISTURBED BY THE LEARNED AO IN ANY OF THE P RECEDING YEARS. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE ACCOUNTING POLICIES OF THE ASSESSEE I N THE CURRENT YEAR VIS A VIS THE EARLIER YEARS, HENCE CONSISTENCY SHOULD BE MAINTAIN ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. APART FROM THIS, ON IDENTICAL FACTS, OUR VIEW IS FO RTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OFM/S E MPRESS ADVERTISING IN IT.A. NO.4184/MUML20L2, ORDER DATED 31.07.2014, WHE REIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED BY THE ID. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 15 HOARDINGS INSTALLED IN THE CITY DURING TH E COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISEMENT AND TOTAL INCOME OF ABOUT RS. 88 LACS WAS GENERATED FROM THIS ACTIVITY GIVING A NET PROFIT OF ABOUT RS. 18 LACS AS SHOWN B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. THESE HOARDINGS WERE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND IN ORDER TO AVOID CORROSION OF THE STRUCTURE AND OTHER ADVERSE WEATHE RING EFFECTS, APPLICATION OF RED OXIDE AND PAINTING WAS REGULARLY REQUIRED TO BE DONE. SIM ILARLY, CEMENTING AND PLASTERING OF FOUNDATION WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE DONE REGULARLY I N ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE HOARDING STRUCTURES. KEEPING IN VIEW THE NATURE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY TH E ASSESSEE TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURES USED (OR HOARDINGS IS REVENUE IN NATURE ESPECIALLY WHEN THE QUANTUM OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT TH AT THERE WERE 15 HOARDINGS WHICH WERE EXPOSED TO CLIMATE. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO NOTE THA T SUCH EXPENDITURE IS A RECURRING EXPENDITURE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE REGULARLY AND THE SAME THEREFORE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE GIVEN ANY ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE IN CAPITAL FIELD. MOREOVER, EVEN IF THE HOARDING EXPENDITURE C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INCLUSIVE OF REPLACEMENT OF M.S. ANGLES ETC., AS NOTED BY THE A. O., THE SAME IS IN THE NATURE OF REPLACEMENT OF PARTS OF THE HOARDING STRUCTURE WHIC H CANNOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. AS SUCH, CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF HOAR DING EXPENDITURE BEING IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE ID. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ' THEREFORE, APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE NOTEDJUD ICIAL PRECEDENTS, TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE`S CASE, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT HO ARDING EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REVENUE IN NATURE AND ARE NOT CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE ASSESSE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF HOARDING EXPENDITURE BEI NG IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY AO OF RS. 14,79,000/-, ABHISHEKH KEJRIWAL ITA NO.1132/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 1 11 10 00 0 AND RS.7,76,500/- RESPECTIVELY, AND ALLOW THE GROUN D NO.1 AND 2 RAISED BY ASSESSEE. 12. GROUNDS NO. 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES T O DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 50,000/- U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. 13. BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE S CRUTINY PROCEEDINGS THE LD AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD EMPLOYED 24 EMPLOYEES IN HIS BUSINESS ORGANIZATION. THE TOTAL PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY AND BONUS WA S RS.11,94,974/-. THE DETAILED BREAK- UP OF SALARIES PAID TO ALL EMPLOYEE S WERE CALLED FOR AND IT WAS NOTICED THAT TOTAL SALARY OF RS.1,92,000/- HAD BEEN MADE TO SMT. NIDHI KEJRIWAL, WHO HAPPENS TO BE THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NEX T HIGHEST SALARY PAID TO ONE EMPLOYEE FOR THE YEAR WAS RS.1,00,932/- ONLY. NONE OF THE OTHER EMPLOYEES HAD RECEIVED SALARY EXCEEDING RS.1 LAKH. THE ASSESSEE W AS REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE DETAILED NATURE OF JOB PERFORMED BY SMT. NIDHI KEJR IWAL, HER PERSONAL QUALIFICATION EXPERTISE/EXPERIENCE IN THE JOB, ETC. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A WRIT TEN SUBMISSION DATED 23.03.2015 STATING THE FOLLOWING: 'THIS IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSE SSEE, HAS PAID TOTAL SALARY AMOUNTING TO RS.11,94,974/- DURING THE A. Y. 2012-1 3, TO THE DIFFERENT EMPLOYEES. OUT OF THE TOTAL SALARY PAID, RS.1,92,000/- HAS BEE N PAID TO HIS WIFE WHICH HAS BEEN PROPERLY DISCLOSED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. SM T. NIDHI KEJRIWAL IS AN EDUCATED LADY AND HANDLING ALL THE DAY TO DAY ADMIN ISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS. AS REGARD OF HER QUALIFICATION, SALARY OF RS.16,000/- P.M. IS INADEQUATE. SO AS PER HER EDUCATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES THE AM OUNT OF SALARY PAID TO HER SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S 40A(2).' THE AO PERUSED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND N OTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY DETAILS REGARDING THE WORK ALLOCATED TO SM T. NIDHI KEJRIWAL. FURTHER, THE DETAILS REGARDING HER EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION, WO RK EXPERIENCE, THE EXPERTISE IN THE ASSESSEE'S LINE OF BUSINESS. ETC. WERE ALSO NOT FURNISHED. HENCE THE COMPARABILITY WITH AND MATERIAL DIFFERENCE FROM OTH ER EMPLOYEES WERE NOT ADEQUATELY ESTABLISHED. THUS, IN ABSENCE OF AFOREME NTIONED SPECIFIC DETAILS REGARDING SMT. NIDHI KEJRIWAL, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE , AND HEAVING REGARD TO THE ABHISHEKH KEJRIWAL ITA NO.1132/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 1 11 11 11 1 BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS HELD BY AO THAT TH E SALARY PAID TO SMT. KEJRIWAL IS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE, THEREFORE, A SUM OF RS . 50,000/- OUT OF TOTAL SALARY OF RS. 1,92,000/- PAID TO SMT. NIDHI KEJRIWAL, WAS DIS ALLOWED U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT ON ESTIMATE AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. 14. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS DISMISSED T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 15. BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERAT ED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WHEREAS,THE LD. DR FOR THE R EVENUE HAS PRIMARILY REITERATED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WE H AVE ALREADY NOTED IN OUR EARLIER PARA AND THE SAME IS NOT BEING REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE WE DELIVER OUR OPINION ON THIS ISSUE, LET US GO THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A (2) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BEL OW FOR READY REFERENCE. '40A EXPENSES OR PAYMENTS NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. (1) .. (2) (A) WHERE THE ASSESSEE INCURS ANY EXPENDITURE I N RESPECT OF WHICH PAYMENT HAS BEEN OR IS TO BE MADE TO ANY PERSON REFERRED TO IN CLAUS E (B) OF THIS SUB-SECTION, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF OPINION THAT SUCH EXPENDITU RE IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS, SERV ICES OR FACILITIES FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE OR THE LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE BENEFIT DERIVED BY OR ACCRUING TO HIM THEREFROM, SO MUCH OF THE EXPENDITURE AS IS SO CONSIDERED BY HIM TO BE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2) OF THE ACT, A S NOTED ABOVE, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THIS SECTION PROVIDES POWER TO THE INCO ME TAX OFFICER THAT IN CASE ANY EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED AND THE PAYMENT HAS B EEN MADE OR IS TO BE MADE TO CERTAIN SPECIFIED PERSONS AND HE IS OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE WITH REGARD TO THE FAIR M ARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS, SERVICES OR FACILITIES PROVIDED, HE MAY DISALLOW SU CH EXPENSE AS HE CONSIDERS TO BE EXCESSIVE. ABHISHEKH KEJRIWAL ITA NO.1132/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 1 11 12 22 2 WE NOTE THAT IN THE ASSESSEE`S CASE UNDER CONSIDERA TION, THE LEARNED AO HAS COMPARED THE SALARY OF SMT NIDHI KEJRIWAL WHO IS A B.SC PRELIMINARY (HOME SCIENCE) GRADUATE WITH AN EMPLOYEE DOING MANUAL WOR KS. SMT NIDHI KEJRIWAL WAS THE ONLY GRADUATED EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AN D ALL THE REST OF THE EMPLOYEES WERE MANUAL WORKERS, WORKING ON THE SITE. A COPY OF HER GRADUATION CERTIFICATE IS FURNISHED BY THE LD COUNSEL. SHE WAS IN-CHARGE OF H ANDLING THE DAY TO DAY ADMINISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS AND COORD INATING WITH THE CLIENTS.LD COUNSEL CLAIMED THAT EVEN THE SALARY OF RS.L,92,000 /- PAID TO HER IS INADEQUATE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE NATURE OF THE ASSESSE E'S BUSINESS VIS--VIS HER EDUCATION & EXPERIENCE. 17. WE NOTE THAT CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 06.07.1968, CL ARIFIES THE DEFINITION OF 'REASONABLE EXPENDITURE' IN THE CONTEXT OF THE AO'S DISCRETION UNDER SECTION 40A OF THE ACT. THE CBDT HAD CLARIFIED THAT WHENEVER AN AO PROPOSES DISALLOWANCE, HE HAS TO EXAMINE THE MATTER IN A FAIR AND REASONAB LE MANNER AND WHAT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND IS THAT THE PROVISION IS INTENDED TO CHECK EVASION OF TAX THROUGH EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE PAYMENTS TO RELATIVES AND ASSOCIATECONCERNS, AND SHOULD NOT BE SO APPLIED AS TO 'CAUSE HARDSHIP IN BONA FID E CASES'. WE NOTE THAT IN ASSESSEE`S CASE, THE LEARNED AO HAS NOT RECORDED ANY FINDING AS TO HOW THE PAYMENT MADE TO SMT NIDHI KEJRIWAL IS EXCES SIVE UNDER SECTION 40A(2) OF THE ACT. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE DETERMINED WHAT CO NSTITUTES THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED AND DISALLOW THE DIF FERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS AND WHAT IS FAIR MARKE T VALUE OF SUCH SERVICES. HOWEVER, AS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, NO SUCH EXERCISE WAS UNDERTAKEN BY THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BASED OF GUESS WORK AND NEEDS TO BE DELETED.FOR THA T WE RELY ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MODI RE VLON PVT. LTD. (2012) 78 DTR 0342 (DEL- HC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PAYMENT IS NOT S USTAINABLE, THE AO HAS TO FIRST RETURN A FINDING THAT THE PAYMENT MADE IS EXCESSIVE, UNDER SECTION 40-A (2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IF IT IS FOUND TO BE SO, THEN THE AO HAS TO DE TERMINE WHAT CONSTITUTES THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED AND DISALLOW THE DIF FERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS CLAIMED AND WHAT IS SUCH VALUE DETERMINED (AS FAIR MARKET VALUE ). APART FROM THE FACT THAT NO SUCH ABHISHEKH KEJRIWAL ITA NO.1132/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 1 11 13 33 3 EXERCISE WAS UNDERTAKEN BY THE AO, THE COURT SEES T HAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WENT OFF INTO A TANGENT, IN FOLLOWING A METHOD THAT WAS CLEARLY I NAPPLICABLE. THE ANNUAL CAP OF 30 LAKH PAYABLE TO MANAGERIAL PERSONNEL APPLIED TO PUBLIC L IMITED COMPANIES, AND NOT THOSE SUCH AS THE ASSESSEE. THIS ASPECT WAS NOTICED BY THE CIT (A) WHO SET ASIDE THE DISALLOWANCE. THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THAT FINDING. SUCH VIEW (OF ADM ISSIBILITY OF SIMILAR CONSULTANCY CHARGES) IS SUPPORTED BY SEVERAL DECISIONS. THIS CO URT FINDS NO VALID GROUNDS TO INTERFERE WITH THOSE FINDINGS, WHICH ARE BOTH SOUND AND REASO NABLE.' 18. WE NOTE THAT NIDHI KEJRIWAL, BEING A BSC. GRADU ATE, HAS BENEFITTED THE COMPANY IN A NUMBER OF WAYS AS ALREADY DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAS AND HENCE, THE SALARY OF RS. 16,000/- PER MONTH WAS COM MENSURATE WITH THE TYPE OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY HER TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND W AS NOT UNREASONABLE. THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION PURELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES WITHOUT BRINGING COMPARABLE PERSONS HAVING SAME EDUCATION A ND EXPERIENCE ON RECORD TO JUDGE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF NIDHI KEJRIWAL SERVICES. NO FINDING WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SUM OF RS. 50,000/- IS UNREASONABLE U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DELETE THE ADDITI ON OF RS.50,000/-. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29.05.2019 SD/- ( A.T.VARKEY ) SD/- (A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATE: 29/05/2019 ( SB, SR.PS ) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. ABHISHEKH KEJRIWAL 2. ACIT, CIRCLE-45, KOLKATA 3. C.I.T(A)- 4. C.I.T.- KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKA TA BENCHES ABHISHEKH KEJRIWAL ITA NO.1132/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 1 11 14 44 4