ACIT, Circle - 40, Kolkata , Kolkata V. Sri Rajendra Sethia, Kolkata

ITA 1748/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0771 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN CHOUDHURY CITSRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: S L KOCHAR
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Business expenditure; Source of fund; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 37(1); 37

Judgement Text

, B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1748 / KOL / 20 17 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 ACIT, CIRCLE-40, 2 ND FLOOR, 3, GOVT. PLACE (W), KOLKATA-700001 V/S . SRI RAJENDRA SETHIA 67/28, STRAND ROAD, POSTA, KOLKATA-700006 [ PAN NO.AIXPS 9803 N ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI ROBIN CHOUDHURY, ADDL. CIT-SR-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI S.L. KOCHAR, ADVOCATE & SHRI ANIL KOCHAR, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING 29-11-2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30-11-2018 / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 A RISE FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-12, KOLKATAS ORDER DATED 21.04.2017, PASSED IN CASE NO.10038/CIT(A)-12/KOL/CIR.40/2015-1 6, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE A CT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE REVENUES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND PLEADED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL SEEKS TO REVIVE THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION DISA LLOWING ASSESSEES VEHICLE MAINTENANCE EXPENSES INVOLVING THE SUM IN ISSUE OF 1,05,69,790/- @ 10% OF THE TOTAL CLAIM OF 10,56,97,905/-. RELEVANT LOWER APPELLATE DISCUSSION QUA THE INSTANT ISSUE READS AS FOLLOWS:- 4. GROUND NO.7 IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE AO IN D ISALLOWING RS.1,05,69,790/-. ITA NO.1748/KOL/2017 A.Y. 20 12-13 ACIT CIR-40 KOL. VS. SH. RA JENDRA SETHIA PAGE 2 ON PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT & ;LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SRS.10,56,97,905/- AS VEHICLE MA INTENANCE UNDER THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN NAMELY M/S WESTERN CARRIERS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12. THE AR WAS ASKED DURING THE COURSE OF HEAR ING TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE AND PRODUCE THE SUPPORTIN G EVIDENCE THEREOF THE AR HAS ONLY PRODUCED THE LIST OF VEHICLE MAINTENANC E PER VEHICLE WISE. AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE AR, I T IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. AFTER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED VIDE LETTER DATED 17.03.20 15. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SHOW CAUSE AS UNDER: ' 3.. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF V EHICLE MAINTENANCE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALONG WITH BILL S AND EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF FUND WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. !F YOU FAI L DO SO, YOU ARE SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY NOT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF VEHICLE M AINTENANCE AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE .... ' IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED REPLY AND THE RELEVANT PORTION THE SAME IS AS UNDER: .............. SO FAR AS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE EXPENS ES ARE CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY SUBMITTED FULL DETAILS RELATIN G TO THE VEHICLE NO. AND THE AMOUNT SPENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS VEHICLES WHI CH ARE ROUND ABOUT 200 AND SINCE THEY ARE RUN THROUGH THE COUNTR Y AND THERE ARE ABOUT 69 BRANCHES AND ALL THE RELEVANT BILLS AND VO UCHERS PERTAINING TO MAINTENANCE EXPENSES ARE BEING KEPT AT THE BRANCHES . SOURCE OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE BRANCHES ON ACCOUNT OF MAI NTENANCE EXPENSES IS THE AVAILABILITY OF THE CASH IN DIFFERE NT BRANCHES REMITTED BY THE HEAD OFFICE ' THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS DULY CONSIDERED. AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE REPLY OF THE AR, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER THE HEA D OF VEHICLE MAINTENANCE. HOWEVER, THE EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD OF VEHICLE MAINTENANCE MIGHT BE VIABLE IN THE NATURE OF TRANSPORT BUSINESS. THEREFO RE CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT, A SUM OF RS. 1,05,69,7901- @ 10% OF THE EXPENSES IS DISALLOWED A ND INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 4.1 APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- GROUND NO. 7 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,05 ,69, 790/- WHICH HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O ON ESTIMATE AT 10% OF THE TOTAL CLA IM MADE BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE HEAD VEHICLE MAINTENANCE. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT IS RUNNING TRANSPORT BUSINES S AND ITS TURNOVER DURING THE YEAR HAS BEEN RS.5,19,71,60,035/-. THE APPELLANT'S TOTAL EXPENDITURE TOWARDS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE COMES TO RS.10,56,78,905/-. THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE A.O FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE ON ESTIMATE WHICH IS RE CORDED IN PARA 3.02 HAS BEEN THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SUPPORTIN G EVIDENCE FOR THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER THE HEAD VEHICLE MAINTEN ANCE. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD OF V EHICLE MAINTENANCE MIGHT BE VIABLE IN THE NATURE OF TRANSPORT BUSINESS CARRI ED ON BY THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.1748/KOL/2017 A.Y. 20 12-13 ACIT CIR-40 KOL. VS. SH. RA JENDRA SETHIA PAGE 3 THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS A ND THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 37 (1) OF THE ACT A SLIM OF RS.I,05,69,7901- ON EST IMATE CALCULATED@ 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES HAS BEEN DISALLOWED. IT IS NECESSARY TO STATE THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE QU ERIES RAISED BY THE A.O AS TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE AND TO PRODUC E THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES THEREOF THE APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED THE LIST OF VEHI CLE MAINTENANCE PER VEHICLE WISE (HIGHLIGHTED). IT IS RECORDED BY THE A.O QUERY RAISED BY THE A.O ON THIS POINT WAS REPLIED BY THE APPELLANT IN WRITING AS UN DER:- SO FAR AS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE EXPENSES ARE CONCERNE D, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY SUBMITTED FULL DETAILS RELATING TO THE VEHICLE NO. AND THE AMOUNT SPENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS VEHICLES WHICH ARE R OUND ABOUT 200 AND SINCE THEY ARE RUN THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AND T HERE ARE ABOUT 69 BRANCHES AND ALL THE RELEVANT BILLS & VOUCHERS PERT AINING TO MAINTENANCE EXPENSES ARE BEING KEPT AT THE BRANCHES . SOURCE OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE BRANCHES ON ACCO UNT OF MAINTENANCE EXPENSES IS THE AVAILABILITY OF THE CAS H IN DIFFERENT BRANCHES REMITTED BY THE HEAD OFFICE. ' NOW, THE A.O HAS MADE OBSERVATION THAT UPON VERIFIC ATION OF THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE AIR (HIGHLIGHTED) IT WAS FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT PRODUCED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. SINCE THE A. O. REQUIRED FURTHER EXPLANATION ON THIS ISSUE THE APPELLANT HAD REPLIED AND THE A. A. HAS SUBTRACTED APPELLANT'S REPLY IN THE ORDER OF ASSESS MENT AS UNDER: - ............ SO FAR AS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE EXPENSES ARE CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAD A/READY SUBMITTED FULL DETAILS RELATIN G TO THE VEHICLE NO. AND THE AMOUNT SPENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS VEHICLES WHI CH ARE ROUND ABOUT 200 AND SINCE THEY ARE RUN THROUGH THE COUNTR Y AND THERE ARE ABOUT 69 BRANCHES AND ALL THE RELEVANT BILLS AND VO UCHERS PERTAINING TO MAINTENANCE EXPENSES ARE BEING KEPT AT THE BRANCHES . SOURCE OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE BRANCHES ON ACCOUNT OF MAI NTENANCE EXPENSES IS THE AVAILABILITY OF THE CASH IN DIFFERE NT BRANCHES REMITTED BY THE HEAD OFFICE ' AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT IS ALSO ON RECORD THAT DURI NG THE YEAR THE APPELLANT PURCHASED 58 VEHICLES OVER AND ABOVE THE OLD VEHICL ES ALREADY OWNED BY THE APPELLANT AND USED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATIO N. A REFERENCE TO SCHEDULE 'D' OF AUDITED ALES WOULD SHOW FRESH ACQUISITION OF TRUCKS/ TRAILERS OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.13,77,43,363/-. THE RESULT IS THAT WHE REAS THERE IS INCREMENT OF RECEIPTS FROM CARRYING FROM RS.510 CRORE TO RS.519 CRORE, THE PAYMENTS MADE TO TRANSPORT OWNERS FOR CARRYING THE GOODS IS REDUC ED FROM RS.464 CRORE TO RS.453 CRORES. THIS IS AS A MATTER OF FACT BECAUSE OF PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION THAT DURING THE YEAR THE APPELLANT ACQUIRED 58 TRAN SPORT TRUCKS/ TRAILORS AT FOR RS.13,77,43,363/-. EXPENSES OF RS.10,56,78,905/- RE LATING TO VEHICLE MAINTENANCE EXPENSES ARE FULLY RECORDED IN THE ACCO UNTS WITH ALL RELEVANT DETAILS AND HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE A.O. IT WAS A LREADY POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT TO THE A.O THAT ALL RELEVANT BILLS & VOUC HERS ARE DULY MAINTAINED AT DIFFERENT BRANCHES SCATTERED ALL OVER INDIA. THIS A SPECT OF THE MATTER AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVER TED AND/OR ASSAILED BY THE ITA NO.1748/KOL/2017 A.Y. 20 12-13 ACIT CIR-40 KOL. VS. SH. RA JENDRA SETHIA PAGE 4 A.O AND ONLY AN ESTIMATE DISALLOWANCE AT 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER THE HEAD VEHICLE MAINTENANCE EXPENSE S HAS BEEN MADE OUT BY THE A.O. THIS ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE AT 10% HAS NO BASIS AT ALL. THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE A.O ON THIS ISSUE IS NO REAS ONING AS IT IS SIMPLY PROCEEDING ON ESTIMATE BASIS WITHOUT GIVING ANY REA SON TO JUST DISALLOW A PORTION OF SUCH EXPENSES WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY D EFECT OR LACUNA IN THE EXPLANATION BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ACCOUNTS EXAMI NED BY HIM. IT IS, THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT T HAT THE A.O HAS WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY VALID GROUND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE AN D THAT ALSO ON ESTIMATION WHICH IS TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR. IT IS TO BE POINTED OUT WITH REFERENCE TO THE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS OF THE PAST YEARS THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O OUT OF VEHICLE EXPENSE S. IT MAY ALSO BE SUBMITTED THAT THESE VEHICLE EXPENSES RELATE TO REP AIRS, COST OF PARTS, TIERS, TUBES ETC. AND ALL THESE EXPENSES ARE FULLY VERIFIA BLE AND RECORDED IN THE ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THESE AD HOC DISALLOWANC E OF BUSINESS EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE DULY RECORDED IN ACCOUNTS AND DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE CANNOT BE MADE. A REFERENCE TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE CA LCUTTA HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.448 OF 2007 REPORTED IN 384 ITR 267 IN THE CASE OF ASHOK SURANA VS. CIT IS INVITED IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O THAT THE A PPELLANT WAS UNABLE TO ADDUCE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCES THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCUR RED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE A.O HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT SUCH EXPENSES ARE VIABLE IN THE TRANSPORT BUSINESS WHICH IS CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT. THE A.O HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EV IDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED ARE NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINES S. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O IS TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR. THE EXPENSES INCURRED ARE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FO R THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE A.O HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY EXPENSE U NDER THIS HEAD THAT MAY BE SAID TO BE UNVERIFIABLE. HENCE, THE A.O HAS PROC EEDED TO MAKE ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE WHICH IS TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR. . TO CONCLUDE, IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE AS MADE OUT BY THE A.O PROCEEDING AS IT DOES ON THE OB SERVATIONS AS MADE IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR. YOUR HONOUR'S KIND ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE ORDE RS OF ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE ASSTT. YEARS 2010-11 & 201 1-12 AND IT WILL BE APPARENT THAT SUCH TYPE OF DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT MADE AT ALL. THE APPELLANT IS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING SAME SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AN D THERE HAS BEEN NO OCCASION TO DISTURB THE ACCOUNTS BY MAKING DISALLOW ANCE AS HAS BEEN MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 4.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED RS.10,56,97,905 /- AS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE UNDER THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN NAMELY M/S. WESTERN CARRIERS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12. THE AR WAS ASKED DU RING THE COURSE OF ITA NO.1748/KOL/2017 A.Y. 20 12-13 ACIT CIR-40 KOL. VS. SH. RA JENDRA SETHIA PAGE 5 ASSESSMENT HEARING TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE EXP ENDITURE AND PRODUCE THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THEREOF. THE AO NOT BEING SATIS FIED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DISALLOWED 10% OF THE EXPENSES AMOU NTING TO RS.1,65,69,790/-. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN PERUSED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS PROCEEDED TO DISALLOW ON ESTIM ATE BASIS WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT OR LACUNA IN THE EXPLANATIO N BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ABOUT 200 VEHICLES WHICH ARE PLYING TH ROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AND THEY MAINTAIN ARE ABOUT 69 BRANCHES AND ALL THE REL EVANT BILLS AND VOUCHERS PERTAINING TO MAINTENANCE EXPENSES ARE BEING KEPT A T THE BRANCHES FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY SUBMITTED FULL DETAILS RELATING TO THE VEHICLE NO. AND THE AMOUNT SPENT ON SUCH VEHICLES, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT NO SPECIFIC DETAILS W ERE ASKED FOR AFTER THE SUBMISSIONS. IT CANNOT BE EXPECTED FROM THE ASSESSE E TO PRODUCE ALL THE DETAILS FOR EVERY VEHICLE. THE AO HAD EVERY RIGHT T O SEEK SPECIFIC DETAILS AS DESIRED BY HIM. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT TH ERE HAS NEVER BEEN SUCH DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. OUT OF VEHICLE EXPENS ES IN THE PAST ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE VEHICLE EXPENSES RELATE TO REPAIRS, COST OF PARTS, TYRES, TUBES ETC. AND ALL THESE EXPENSES ARE FULLY VERIFIABLE AND RECORDED IN THE ACCOUNTS, . TH E APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'HLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.448 OF 2007 REPORTED IN 384 ITR 267 IN THE CASE OF ASHOK SURANA VS. CIT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A,O. THAT THE APPELLANT WAS UNABLE TO ADDUCE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCES THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE P URPOSE OF BUSINESS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE AO HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT SU CH EXPENSES ARE VIABLE IN THE TRANSPORT BUSINESS WHICH IS CARRIED ON BY THE A PPELLANT. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE EXP ENSES CLAIMED ARE NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN ANY S TEP TO VERIFY THE EXPENSES. THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY EXPENSE UN DER THIS HEAD THAT MAY BE SAID TO BE UNVERIFIABLE. THUS I FIND FORCE IN TH E CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND FIND NO BASIS FOR THE DISALLOWANCE AND HENCE TH E ADDITION IS DELETED. 3. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RI VAL CONTENTIONS. MR. CHOUDHURY VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY MADE THE IMPUGNED DIS ALLOWANCE @ 10% OF THE TOTAL CLAIM. MR.KOCHAR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITS TH AT THE ASSESSEE RUNS TRANSPORT SERVICES AT MANY CENTERS REQUIRING THE IM PUGNED EXPENDITURES FOR HIS FLEETS SMOOTH RUNNING. HIS CASE THEREFORE IS T HAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN NOTE OF ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND MORE PARTI CULARLY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN ACCEPTING SIMILAR VEHICLE MAINT ENANCE CLAIMS IN REGULAR ASSESSMENTS PERTAINING TO PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE SOUGHT TO KNOW EXACT NATURE OF THE VEHICLE MAINTENA NCE EXPENSES. WE ARE INFORMED THAT THE SAME ARE INCURRED IN CASH BY THE OPERATIVE STAFF. WE NOTICE IN THIS BACKDROP OF FACTS THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NO T BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE ALL OF ITA NO.1748/KOL/2017 A.Y. 20 12-13 ACIT CIR-40 KOL. VS. SH. RA JENDRA SETHIA PAGE 6 THE RELEVANT DETAILS OF THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE. W E THUS DEEM IT APPROPRIATE IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT A LU MP SUM DISALLOWANCE OF 10 LAC WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. WE ORDER ACC ORDINGLY. THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF 1,05,69,790/- IS RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT OF 10 LAC ONLY. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT OUR INSTANT ESTIMATION SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A PRECEDENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ANY PRECEDING OR SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. 4. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 30/11/2018 SD/- SD/- ( %) (' %) (DR. A.L. SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (- 30 / 11 /201 8 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-ACIT, CIR-40, 2 ND FL, 3, GOVT. PLACE (W), KOKATA-700001 2. /RESPONDENT-SRI RAJENDRA SETHIA, 67/28, STRAND ROAD , POSTA, KOLKATA-006 3. 3 4 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 4- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 7 ''3, 3, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ / 3,