Dharam Chand Chaudhry, Kolkata V. DCIT, Circle - 33, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1220/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99918 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR BISHNU SANKAR KUNDU
• Assessee Lawyers: MD GHAYAS UDDIN
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANES H, AM] I.T.A NO.1220/KOL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHURY VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (PAN: ACRPC5236D) CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 03.09.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15.10.2015 FOR THE REVENUE: DR. BISHNU SANKAR KUNDU, FCA FOR THE ASSESSEE: MD. GHAYAS UDDIN, JCIT, SR. DR ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A)-XX, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 265/CIT(A)-XX/CIR-33/09-10/KOL DATED 01.07.2011 . ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY DCIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR AY 2007-08 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 0 9.12.2009. 2. THE FIRST INTER-CONNECTED ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESS EE IN THIS APPEAL BEING DISALLOWANCE OF CLEARING AND FORWARDING CHARGES AT RS.3,28,197/- FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S. 194C OF THE ACT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40 (A)(IA) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3: 2.1 FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MISCONCEIVED THE F ACT, IN AS MUCH AS THE PAYMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES OF RS.L,58,237/- TO DIFFEREN T TRUCK DRIVERS THROUGH AN EMPLOYEE FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS AFTER OFFICE HOURS FROM AIR PORT TO GO-DOWN IS TREATED AS PAYMENT TO CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENT AND THEREBY GROSSLY E RRED IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,58,237/- U/S. 40(A)(IA). 2.2 FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS WRONG IN OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT AN EMPLOYEE HAVING THE SPECIFIC ASSIGNMENT OF ARRANGING TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS IS NOT A CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENT. 2.3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.2.1 AND 2.2. ABO VE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) 'WORK' AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION III TO SECTION 194 C DOES NOT INCLUDE 'CLEARING AND FORWARDING CHARGES' AND AS SUCH THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,58,237/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) FOR NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE ALLEGED PAYMENT OF CLEARING AND FORWARDING CHARGES IS BAD IN LAW. 3. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT TA X WAS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE FROM PAYMENTS OF RS.83,026/- AND RS.86,934/- TO FOREIGN COMPANY F OR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS FROM EUROPE TO KOLKATA BY AIR, MADE THROUGH THE INDIAN AGENTS' OF THE FOREIGN COMPANY, WHEN THE AGENTS IN INDIA HAD NO ROLE IN THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS OTHER THAN COLLECTING PAYMENT AND FORWARDING THE SAME TO THEIR PRINCIPAL, AND THEREBY DISALLOWIN G THE FREIGHT EXPENSES OF RS.83,026/- AND RS.86,934/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) IS GROSSLY ERRONEOUS.' 2 ITA NO.1220/KOL/2011 DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHRY AY 2007-08 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE AO MADE DISALL OWANCE OF FREIGHT AND TRANSPORT CHARGES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,28,197/- FOR NON-DEDU CTION OF TDS U/S. 194A OF THE ACT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS: I) PAYMENT TO SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SING AMOUNTING TO RS.1,58,237/-. II) PAYMENT TO EXCEL INDIA PVT. LTD. AMOUNTING TO R S. 83,026.00, III) PAYMENT TO DHI DONZAS LEMUIR PVT. LTD. AMOUNTI NG TO RS.86,934/- ACCORDING TO AO, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT T DS U/S. 194C OF THE ACT THEREBY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT HE MADE DISALLOWANCE OF THE AFORESAID THREE PAYMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS.3,28,197/- . AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANC E BY FOLLOWING CIRCULAR NO. 715 DATED 08.08.1995 ISSUED BY CBDT BY OBSERVING AS UND ER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLAN T. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT PAYMENTS OF RS.L,58,237/- WERE MADE TO THE CLEARING AND FORW ARDING AGENT WHO IS COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C. IN CIRCULAR NO. 715 DAT ED 08.08.1995, THE CBDT HAS CLARIFIED IN REPLY TO QUESTION 6 THAT 'AS REGARDS PAYMENTS MA DE TO CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENT FOR CARRIAGE OF GOODS, THE SAME SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT'. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENTS OF RS.L, 58,237/-; AND-CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE CLEARLY APPLICA BLE. THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.L,58,237/- IS CONFIRMED. THE ARGUMENT THAT EXCEL INDIA PVT. LTD. AND DHI DANZAS LEMUIR PVT. LTD. ARE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX OR THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE T HROUGH BANKING CHANNEL IS NOT RELEVANT IN SO FAR AS THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS CONCERNED. THE ARGUMENT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOUR CE IS ALSO NOT RELEVANT. THE APPELLANT WAS DUTY BOUND TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C AND THE CONSENT OF THE SAID COMPANIES WAS NOT REQUI RED. AS THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX U/S. 194C, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40( A)(IA) ARE CLEARLY ATTRACTED. THE JUDICIAL DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IS CLEARLY D ISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. FOR, IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENT; BUT , IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT IS AN IMPORTER AND PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENT. SECONDLY, IN THAT CASE, THE HON'BLE ITAT ALLOWED RELIEF ON THE GROUND THAT THE PAYMENTS FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 172. BUT , IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, IT WAS NOT EVEN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE COV ERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 172. THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS.83,026/- AND RS.86,934/- AR E CONFIRMED. GROUND NO. 3 IS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IMPORTED SPARE PARTS FROM ABROAD TO KOLKATA THROUGH AIRPORT/SEAPORT CLEARING AGENT M/S. ASHIM CHATTERJE E & CO., WHO WAS ENGAGED IN CLEARING THE MATERIAL FROM THE AIRPORT/SEAPORT AND DELIVERED THE SAME AT THE PREMISE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, THE PAYMENT OF RS.1,58,237/- WAS MADE TO SHRI M. K. SINGH THROUGH THE CLEARING AGENT TO THE TRUCK DRIVERS HIR ED FOR DELIVERY OF THE MATERIAL FROM 3 ITA NO.1220/KOL/2011 DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHRY AY 2007-08 AIRPORT/SEAPORT TO THE STORES. FURTHER, THE PAYMEN T TO EXCEL INDIA PVT. LTD. AND DHI DANZAS LEMUIR PVT. LTD. REPRESENTS FREIGHT AIR AND SEA FROM EUROPE TO KOLKATA. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, THESE PAYMENTS BEING FREIGHT FROM EUROPE TO KOLKATA. HENCE, TDS IS NOT LIABLE. IN RESPECT TO PAYMENT TO M. K. SINGH, SAME ARE THROUGH CLEARING AGENT ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPLY OF MATERIAL THROUGH AIRPORT/SE APORT. BEFORE US, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THESE FREIGHTS PAID TO AGENTS ON ACTUAL BASIS AND T HAT THE BILLS AND AIR FREIGHT DOCUMENTS HAVE DIRECTLY BEEN ISSUED TO THE FOREIGN AIRLINES. WE FIND THAT THE TWO PARTIES NAMELY, EXCELL INDIA PVT. LTD. AND DHI DANZAS LEMUIR PVT. L TD. AND ALSO SHRI MANOJ KR. SINGH BEING AGENT OF FOREIGN PARTIES AND THEY, WHILE ACC EPTING THE PAYMENT FOR AIR FREIGHT COMPONENT THEY HAVE ACTED MERELY AS AN AGENT OF THE RESPECTIVE AIRLINES AND HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE AIRFREIGHT PAYMENTS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT . LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US RELIED ON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS ITAT IN THE CASE OF TAJ LEATHER WORKS VS. ACIT ITA NO. 1686 AND 1687/K/2011, AY 2007-08 A ND 2008-09 DATED 31.05.2012, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 8. AS FOR THE STAND THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE MOVED THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 195(2) IN CASE OF PAYMENTS TO NON RESIDENTS AND ASS ESSEES FAILURE TO DO SO IS TO BE VISITED WITH CONSEQUENCES FOR NON DEDUCTION AT SOURCE, THE LAW IS NOW SETTLED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE PVT LTD VS CIT (327 ITR 456) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT, WHER E A PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTION IS FAIR LY CERTAIN, THEN HE CAN MAKE HIS OWN DETERMINA TION AS TO WHETHER THE TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE AND, IF SO, WHAT SHOULD BE THE AMOUNT THE REOF. THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO THE EFFECT THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE D OES NOT MOVE AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 195(2) AND MAKES THE REMITTANCE WITHOUT DEDUCTION O F TAX AT SOURCE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE VISITED WITH CONSEQUENCES FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CO LTD ( 320 ITR 209), WAS CATEGORICALLY REJECTED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS , AND THEIR LORDSHIPS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: IN OUR VIEW, SECTION 195(2) IS BASED ON THE PRINC IPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY. THE SAID SUB-SECTION GETS ATTRACTED ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE PAYMENT MADE IS A COMPOSITE PAYMENT IN WHICH A CERTAIN PROPORTION OF PAYMENT HAS AN ELEMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THE SUPREME COURT STATED, IF NO SUCH APPLICATION IS FILED, INCOME -T AX ON SUCH SUM IS TO BE DEDUCTED AND IT IS THE STATUTORY OBLIGATION OF THE PERSON RE SPONSIBLE FOR PAYING SUCH SUM TO DEDUCT TAX THEREON BEFORE MAKING PAYMENT. HE HAS TO DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION TO TDS. IF ONE READS THE OBSERVATION OF THE SUPREME C OURT, THE WORDS SUCH SUM CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE OBSERVATION REFERS TO A C ASE OF COMPOSITE PAYMENT WHERE THE PAYER HAS A DOUBT REGARDING THE INCLUSION OF AN AMOUNT IN SUCH PAYMENT WHICH IS EXIGIBLE TO TAX IN INDIA. IN OUR VIEW, THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THIS COURT IN TRANSMISSION CORPN. OF A.P. LTD.S CASE (SUPRA) WHI CH IS PUT IN ITALICS HAS BEEN COMPLETELY, WITH RESPECT, MISUNDERSTOOD BY THE KARN ATAKA HIGH COURT TO MEAN THAT IT IS NOT OPEN FOR THE PAYER TO CONTEND THAT IF THE AMOUNT PAID BY HIM TO THE NON- RESIDENT IS NOT AT ALL CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA , THEN NO TAS IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM SUCH PAYMENT. THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE HIGH COURT COMPLETELY LOSES SIGHT OF THE PLAIN WORDS OF SECTION 195(1) WH ICH IN CLEAR TERMS LAYS DOWN THAT TAX AT SOURCE IS DEDUCTIBLE ONLY FROM SUMS CHARGEA BLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 4 ITA NO.1220/KOL/2011 DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHRY AY 2007-08 THE INCOME-TAX ACT, I.E., CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTIONS 4, 5 AND 9 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 9. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT IT IS NOT EVEN THE REVEN UES CASE THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID TO FOREIGN AIRLINES, ON ACCOUNT OF AIRFREIGHT PAYMENTS , ARE TAXABLE IN INDIA, AND QUITE RIGHTLY SO, BECAUSE, AS THE PROVISIONS OF ALL THE RESPECTIV E TAX TREATIES CLEARLY PROVIDE , THE PROFITS FROM OPERATIONS OF SHIPS AND AIRCRAFTS IN THE INTER NATIONAL TRAFFIC ARE TAXABLE ONLY IN THE STATE IN WHICH THE RESPECTIVE ENTERPRISE ARE FISCAL LY DOMICILED AND NOT IN THE SOURCE STATE. THIS RULE, HOWSOEVER DEVOID OF PARADIGM JUSTIFICATI ON AS IT MAY APPEAR TO MANY OF US, IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES FOLLOWED IN ALMOST ALL THE TAX TREATIES AND OUR TAX TREATIES WITH UK, UAE, SINGAPORE AND GERMANY ARE NO EXCEPTION TO THIS GENERAL RULE. IT IS ONLY ELEMENTARY THAT A TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 195 IS ONLY A VICARIOUS LIABILITY INASMUCH AS WHEN RECIPIENT S OF INCOME, I.E. THE AIRLINES CONCE RNED, HAVE NO PRIMARY LIABILITY TO PAY TAX, THERE CANNOT BE ANY VICARIOUS LIABILITY TO DEDUCT T AX FROM PAYMENTS IN WHICH SUCH INCOME IS EMBEDDED. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AS ALSO BEARIN G IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY OBLIGATIONS TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE WHETHER UNDER SECTION 194 C OR UNDER SECTION 195 FROM PAYMENTS MADE TO THE FOREIGN AIRLINES FOR AIRFREIGHT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER , THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCES UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE DEVOID OF ANY MERITS, NOR CAN THESE D ISALLOWANCES BE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) EITHER AS ALTERNATIVELY SUGGESTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALL OWANCES. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOW COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE WHEREIN THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY ASSESSEE TO INDIAN AGENTS OF FOREIGN AIRLINES AND IN SUCH SITUATION ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS . HENCE, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) IS DELETED. THIS ISSUE OF ASSES SEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. THE NEXT TWO ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMUNICATION EXPENS ES AND MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AT RS.26,311/- AND RS.38,788/- ON ESTIMATE BASIS. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NOS. 4 AND 5 : 4. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS UNJUSTIFIED IN DISA LLOWING COMMUNICATION EXPENSES OF RS.26,311/- ON ESTIMATE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THA T THE AMOUNT OF EXPENSES DISALLOWED IS FOR PERSONAL PURPOSE WITHOUT IDENTIFYING ANY ITEM O F EXPENDITURE WHICH IS DISALLOWABLE IN NATURE. 5. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS UNJUSTIFIED IN DISALL OWING MOTOR CAR EXPENSES OF RS.38,788/- ON ESTIMATE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE AMOUNT OF EXPENSES DISALLOWED IS FOR PERSONAL USE WITHOUT IDENTIFYING ANY ITEM OF EXPENDITURE WHI CH IS DISALLOWABLE IN NATURE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED COMMU NICATION EXPENSES I.E. TELEPHONE EXPENSES AT RS.5,26,226/- AND MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AT RS.3,87,877/-. THE AO DISALLOWED 10% OF BOTH THE EXPENSES BEING IN THE NATURE OF PER SONAL USE. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE 5 ITA NO.1220/KOL/2011 DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHRY AY 2007-08 PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMUNICATION EXPENSES AT 5% AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.26, 311/- BUT CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AT RS.38,788/- BEING 10%. AG GRIEVED, NOW ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 7. WE FIND THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY MATERIAL TO MAKE THESE DISALLOWANCES AND JUST ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMA TE THESE DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE. WE FIND NO REASON TO SUSTAIN THE DISALLOWANCES AND HEN CE BOTH DISALLOWANCES ARE DELETED. BOTH THE ISSUES OF ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS OF SALE OF CAR AMOUNTING T O RS.72,937/-. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.6: 6. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECALCULATE DEPRECIATION ON THE BLOCK OF ASSET COMPRISING MOTOR CAR, CONSEQUENT TO DISALLOWANCE OF THE LOSS OF RS.72,937/- ON SALE OF MOTOR CAR, SO AS TO ENHANCE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE BY RS.10,940/- AND WRITTEN DOWN VALUE BY RS.61,997/- I N RESPECT OF THE SAID BLOCK OF ASSET. 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT AGGRIE VED FOR DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIM OF LOSS OF SALE OF CAR BUT AGGRIEVED BY NOT ALLOWIN G DEPRECIATION ON THE WDV AND ALSO NOT ALLOWING OF CARRY FORWARD OF WDV IN RESPECT OF SAID BLOCK OF ASSET. ACCORDING TO CIT(A) ALSO, THIS BLOCK EXCEEDS AND HENCE, CONSEQUENTIAL T REATMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO RETAIN THE BLOCK A ND ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON THE BALANCE BLOCK. HENCE, THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.10. 2015 SD/- SD/- (M. BALAGANESH) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 15TH OCTOBER, 2015 JD. SR. P.S 6 ITA NO.1220/KOL/2011 DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHRY AY 2007-08 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT SHRI DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHRY, 2/2A, HO CH I MINH SARANI, KOLKATA-700071. 2 RESPONDENT DCIT, CIRCLE-33, KOLKATA. 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .