SHRI SUDHIR GANESHRAO JADHAV, V. A.C.I.T. , AKOLA CIRCLE, Akola

ITA 160/NAG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8903 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 160 /NAG. / 2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 ) SHRI SUDHIR GANESHRAO JADHAV DESHMUKH LANE, RISHOD, DIST. WASHIM PAN ABKPJ 3000 E APPELLANT V/S ASST. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA - 444 001 .... RESPONDENT A S SESSEE BY : SHRI K. P. DEWANI REVENUE BY : SHRI GITESH KUMAR DATE OF HEARING 08.05.2018 DATE OF ORDER 11.06 .2018 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA , A .M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 02.02.2017 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. 2. T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. TH E HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION AT RS.61,63,854/ - IN RESPECT TO LABOUR EXPENSES AND PIECE WORK CHARGES. 2. T HE ADHOC ADDITION AT 5% OF LABOUR EXPENSES AND PIECE WORK CHARGES CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) IS UNJ USTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 3. THE HON'BIE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION AT RS.24,82,241/ - ON ACCOUNT OF VAT REFUND. 4. THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O. AT RS. 24,82,2417 - AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF VAT REFUND IS UNJUSTIFIED, UN WARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID VAT AND REFUND OF THE SAME IS NOT FINAL. 5. THE ASSESSEE DENIES LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED TO INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B & 234C OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE INTEREST LEVIED U/S 234A, 234 B AND 234C IS UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWARRANTED. A PROPOS DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR EXPENSE : ITA NO. 160/NAG./2017 SHRI SUDHIR GANESHRAO JADHAV 2 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED LABOUR EXPENSES AT RS.1,98,05,360/ - AND PIECEWORK CHARGES (SUB - CONTRACT) AT RS. 10,34,71, 127/ - IN HIS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IN ABSENCE OF PROPER ENQUIRY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF SUCH EXPENDITURE AND THUS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT TO LABOUR EXPENSES AND PIECE WORK CHARGES HAVE BEEN REJECT ED. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED AT THAT VARIATION FOUND IN RESPECT TO AMOUNT REFLECTED IN FORM 704 OF VAT AUDIT REPORT AND IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF PIECE WORK CHARGES IS ALSO REASON FOR SUCH ADDITION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE FOLLOWI NG ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE: L OOKING AT THE NATURE OF WORK, HOWEVER LABOUR EXPENSES ARE TO BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND I AM INCLINED TO DISALLOW 15% OF THE LABOUR EXPENSES, I.E., RS.29,70,804/ - . HOWEVER, SINCE THE PIECE WORK PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY CHEQUE WITH DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOU RCE, I DISALLOW 10% OF THE PIECE WORK I.E. AT RS.1,03,47,173/ - . 4. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD OBSERVED THAT PA YMENT TO PIECE WORKERS ARE THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNEL AS SHOWN IN ASSESSEE 'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THAT I T IS SEEN THAT A.O. HIMSELF, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAS OBSERVED THAT PIECE WORK PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY CHEQUE AND PROPER DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IS ALSO MADE. THAT I T IS SEEN FROM VAT REPORT, PLACED IN PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED IN APPELLATE PROCEEDING AND ALSO S UBMITTED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THAT SUM OF RS.8,97,18,318/ - IS SHOWN AS SUB - CONTRACT PIECE WORK AND SUM OF RS. 1,37,53,409 / - UNDER THE HEAD LABOUR CONTRACT. THE TOTAL OF AFORESAID SUMS IS RS. 10,34,71,727 / - . TH AT TH E ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED PIECE WORK CH ARGES AT RS. 10,34,71,727 / - IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. TH AT TH US THERE IS NO VARIANCE AS OBSERVED BY A.O. IN RESPECT TO PIECE WORK CHARGES CLAIMED AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VAT AUDIT REPORT. TH AT TH E OBSERVATION OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING ADDITION O N THIS GROUND IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. TH AT TH E LABOUR CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 160/NAG./2017 SHRI SUDHIR GANESHRAO JADHAV 3 ARE IN CASH. IT IS A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT LABOUR CHARGES ARE PAID IN CASH CONSIDERING THE SITES ARE AT RE PLACES AND ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY BANKING FACILITIES. THE MANNER OF ADDITION MADE CLEA RLY S UGGESTS THAT IT IS ADHOC ESTIMATED ADDITION AND IS NOT BASED ON ANY SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OR RECORD. THAT I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE I N PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF I .T. ACT 1961, ACCEPTING THE TRADING RESULTS AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE . NET PROFIT RATIO AT 5.74% IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED FOR LAST YEAR. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED NET PROFIT RATIO AT 5.86%. A.O, HAS NOT FOUND THE NET PROFIT RATIO FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TO BE LOW SO AS TO MAKE ANY ESTIMATED ADDITION. ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED BETTER TRADING RESULTS AS COMPARED TO ACCEPTED IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE A.O. I N ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE ALSO FOUND DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND INAPPLICABLE IN TERMS OF THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CO - OPERATED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND A.O., AFTER VERIFICATION OF PIECE WO RK CHARGES, HAS ALSO OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT PIECE WORK PAYMENTS ARE BY CHEQUE WITH DEDUCTION AT TAX AT SOURCE. HOWEVER, DESPITE THE OBSERVATION REJECTING THE ADDITION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CON CLUDED AS UNDER: HOWEVER , CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT S UBMITTED VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF THESE EXPENSES, 5% DISALLOWANCE OF TOTAL OF THESE EXPENSES IS FOUND REASONABLE A ND JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS.61,63,854/ - (5% OF RS.1,98,05,360 + RS.10,34,71,727) IS, HEREBY, CONFIRMED OUT OF RS 1,33,17,977/ - MADE BY THE AO. 5 . A GAINST THE ABOVE ORDER , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF EXECUTION OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS OF E X E C U T I N G WORKS FOR PWD DEPARTMENT. THE AREA OF EXECUTION OF WORK IS ITA NO. 160/NAG./2017 SHRI SUDHIR GANESHRAO JADHAV 4 SPREAD OUT AT REMOTE PLACES. P AYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PIECEWORK ARE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THESE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PIECEWORK CHARGES CLAIMED AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND VAT AUDIT REPORT ARE SAME. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT FOUN D ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT RATE SHOWN. HE SUBMITTED THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11 - 12 , THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 5.74% WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN REGULAR ASSESSMENT . THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT YEAR THE PROFIT SHOWN IS BETTER AT 5.86%. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I N HIS APPELLATE ORDER HAS HIMSELF OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED BETTER RESULTS AS COMPARED TO RESULTS ACCEPTED IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR IN SECTION 143(3). THUS , THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE A GENUINE CLAIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REGULARLY MAINTAINED AND AUDITED BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS. THE SE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS ARE NOT REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ON THAT AD HOC BASIS , DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE APPELLATE ORDER UNDER MVAT ACT , 2002, THE DEDUCTION HAS BEEN GRANTED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AT RS. 1, 98 ,05,360 / - TOWARDS L ABOUR CHARGES. HENCE , THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IN THIS REGARD IS UNJUSTIFIED . 7 . PER CONTRA , THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER'S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8 . WE H AVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE LABOUR EXPENDITURE FOR ITA NO. 160/NAG./2017 SHRI SUDHIR GANESHRAO JADHAV 5 ABSENCE OF PROPER VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO REFERRED TO DISCREPANCY BETWEEN FIGUR ES OF ASSESSEE AND THAT AS PER VAT AUDIT REPORT. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN HIS ORDER HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT ASSESSING OFFICER'S OBSERVATION THAT THE FIGURES BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AT VARIANCE WITH VAT AUDIT REPORT , IS NOT CORRECT. FURTHERMORE , THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE'S PROFIT SHOWN THIS YEAR WAS BETTER THAN THAT DECLARED IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. DESPITE FINDING SO MUCH FALLACY AND BY REJECTING THE DISALLOWANCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN THE CONCLUDING PORTION UPHELD A DISALLOWANCE OF 5%. WE FIND THAT FOR THE SAME REASONS AS MENTIONED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR REJECTING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ALSO NOT SUSTAINABLE. FIRSTLY , WE NOTE THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGING / EXECUTING GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, IT'S AREA OF WORK IS SPREAD FAR AND WIDE. HUNDRED PERCENT EX TERNAL WATCHERS IN CASE OF SUCH LABOUR PAYMENTS ARE NOT POSSIBLE TO BE MAINTAINED. THE PIECE RATE PAYMENT ARE DULY DOCUMENTED AND CORROBORATED BY VAT AUDIT REPORT. THE ASSESSEE'S PROFITS HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED. THE PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE C URRENT YEAR IS BETTER THAN THAT DISCLOSED IN EARLIER YEAR . I N THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION , THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY AD HOC DISALLOWANCE IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY , WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS). APROPOS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF VAT REFUND. 9 . BRIEF FACTS ON THIS ISSUE ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR VAT PAID AT RS.41,82,940/ - . HOWEVER, AS PER VAT RETURNS AND VAT AUDIT REPORT FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ITA NO. 160/NAG./2017 SHRI SUDHIR GANESHRAO JADHAV 6 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED VAT REFUND OF RS.24,82,241/ - FOR THE AY 2012 - 13. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO WHY THIS REFUND CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT BEEN REFLECTED PROPERTY IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IN RESPONSE TO THIS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE ACCOUNTS FOR VAT REFUND ON RECEIPT BASIS HENCE THE SAME IS NOT SHOWN IN THE PROFIT &LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT VAT REFUND IS FINALIZED AFTER FINALIZATION OF TAX AUDIT . THIS WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE OBSERVED THAT THIS IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE ASSESSEE IS EXPECTED TO HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF HIS OWN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND TRANSACTIONS FOR THE YEAR , WHICH IS AUDITED AND CLOSED. HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT. 10 . U PON THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL , THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED T HE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 10.2 THE APPELLANT IN TH E VAT RETURN HAS CLAIMED SUM OF RS.24,82,241/ - REFUNDABLE FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31/03/2012. THE APPELLANT IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND THUS ANY SUM CLAIMED BY HIM IN THE VAT RETURN AS RECEIVABLE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME LIABLE TO BE TAXED AS IT PERTAINS TO ITS BUSINESS OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ABOVE SUM IS NOT SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT AS RECEIVABLE FROM VAT DEPARTMENT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND AS REFERRED TO ADDI TION MADE BY THE A.O. THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS ARE FOUND DEVOID OF MERITS AND THUS ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AT RS. 24.82.241/ - IS, ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 1 1 . A GAINST THE ABOVE ORDER , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 12 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS . THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN VAT RETURN AS REFUNDABLE , CANNOT BE TERMED AS DEBT RECEIVABLE B Y THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT CLAIM OF AMOUNT RECEIVABLE DEPENDS UPON DETERMINATION OF LIABILITY BY VAT AUTHORITY UNDER THE RELEVANT STATUTE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ELIGIBILITY OF REFUND WOULD CRYSTALLIZE ONLY AT THE TIME OF FINALIZATION OF S ALES TAX ITA NO. 160/NAG./2017 SHRI SUDHIR GANESHRAO JADHAV 7 ASSESSMENT. HE CLAIMED THAT TILL THA T TIME THE CLAIM IS CONTINGENT. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS: ASSESSEE INVITES ATTENTION TO APPELLATE ORDER U/S 26(5) OF THE MAHARASHTRA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT 2002 DATED 25/04/2017 ATTACHED IN PAPER BOOK. PERUSAL OF ORDER WOULD INDICATE THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IN VAT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20/01/2016 PASSED U/S 23(3) OF MVAT ACT 2002 BY ACST WASHIM DEMAND OF RS.404.62 LACS HAS BEEN RAISED AGAINST ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL A GAINST AFORESAID DEMAND. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND REFUND OF RS.23.52 LACS IS DETERMINED VIDE ORDER DATED 25/04/2017. THUS REAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT TO VAT REFUND ACCRUES IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2017 - 18 AND SAME IS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 2018 - 19. (P - 16 - 19) [VOL. - L]. RELIANCE ON: I) (2017) 184 TTJ 0275 (MUM.) ASIAN PAINTS LTD. VS. DCIT II) (2011) 55 DTR 0014 (PUNJAB & HARYANA) CIT VS. NUCHEM LTD. 1 3 . UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WE NOTE THAT THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF VAT REFUND CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE VAT RETURN CRYSTALLIZES ONLY UPON THE FINALIZATION OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT. IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT TILL THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT IS DONE , THIS CLAIMED AMOUNT IS ONLY CONTINGENT AND HENCE IT HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR. THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING M ERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION , THE APPROACH OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THIS REGARD IS ERRONEOUS. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION , MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING MANDATES THAT CONTINGENT AMOUNTS SHOULD BE ACCOUNTED FOR. T HIS IS MORE APPARENT BY THE INSTANCE MENTIONED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A DEMAND OF RS.4 0 4.6 LAKH WAS RAISED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER ON APPEAL THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REFUND. HENCE , THE ASSESSEE'S PLEA THAT THE ITA NO. 160/NAG./2017 SHRI SUDHIR GANESHRAO JADHAV 8 VAT REFUND ACCRUES IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSMENT ATTAINS FINALITY IS COGENT. 1 4 . THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION GETS SUPPORT FROM THE CASE LAW FROM HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NUCHEM LTD. ( SUPRA ) , WHERE SIMILAR CLAIM OF EXCISE DULY REFUND WAS THERE AND THE ADDITION WAS DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR TILL THE MATTER ATTAINS FINALITY. SUCH PROPOSITION H AS BEEN FOLLOWED BY ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF ASIAN PAINTS LTD. (SUPRA) . 1 5 . IN THE BACKGROUND OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENT , WE HOLD T HAT THE ADDITION IN THIS REGARD IS NOT SUSTAINABLE , ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER S OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE . 1 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 1 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 8 . SD/ - RAM LAL NEGI JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NAGPUR , DATED : 1 1 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 8 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, NAGPUR CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, NAGPUR ; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER ROSHANI , SR. PS ( SR. P.S. / P.S. ) ITAT, NAGPUR