Tapas Paul, North 24 Parganas V. A.C.I.T.-, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 2591/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4529 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SALLONG YADEN CITSR
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TIBREWAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 44AD; 131; 263; 63; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2591/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 TAPAS PAUL 21, KUMARPARA ROAD, BHATPARA BARRACKPORE, 24 PARGANAS (N)- 743 123 [ PAN NO.AJIPP 3882 G ] / V/S . ACIT, CIRCLE-51 ROOM NO 13, 2 ND FLOOR, BLOCK-II, UTTARAPAN BUILDING, MANIKTALA CIVIC CENTRE, KOLKATA- 700 054 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI A.K. TIBREWAL, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SALLONG YADEN, ADDL-CIT-SR- DR /DATE OF HEARING 13-06-2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07-09-2016 /O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXII, KOLKATA DATED 09.10.2013. ASSE SSMENT WAS FRAMED BY JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE-51, KOLKATA U/S 263/144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 30.1 2.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE PER ITS APPEAL A RE AS UNDER:- 1) THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.78,45,882, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263/144 OF THE ACT, WHICH SUM REPRESE NTED BALANCES OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2006 AND WHICH WAS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER O F ITA NO.2591/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 TAPAS PAUL VS. ACIT CIR-51 KOL. PAGE 2 DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WHILE PASSING ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2) THAT THE ULTIMATE DECISIONS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DISMISSING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RELATING TO AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS.78,45,882 IS CONTRARY TO HIS OWN DECISION OF ADM ITTING THE SAME IN FIRST AND SECOND PARA OF (A) AT PAGE 9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3) THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.S 1 AND 2 AB OVE, AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN REJECTING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND CONFIRMING THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS.78,45,882. 4) THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,60,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ESTIMATING 20% OF PROFIT ELEMENT ON ADVANCES AGAINST SALE OF FLATS CONSTRUCT ED BY THE ASSESSEE. SHRI A.K. TIBREWAL, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE A PPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND SHRI SALLONG YADEN, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. 2. FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS THAT LD. CIT(A ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF 78,45,882/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 263/144 O F THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 2 63 OF THE ACT ALTHOUGH NO SUCH DIRECTION WAS EMANATING THEREFROM. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF AS HAVE BEEN CULLED OUT ON RE CORD FROM THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTIONS. THE ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT WAS FRAMED ON DATED 18- 9-2008 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF 10,05,520/-. THEREAFTER THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIA TED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT FOR SEEKING THE CLARIF ICATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET ITEM SHOWN AS BOOKING ADVANCE OF FLATS AND SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,76,46,882/-. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID FIGURE OF RS.1,76,46,882/- CONSI STS OF TWO TRANSACTIONS HEAD I.E. ADVANCE FOR THE BOOKING OF THE FLATS OF RS. 98.01 L ACS AND SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS.78,45,882/-. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLEADED THAT T HE ABOVE FIGURES WITH NECESSARY ITA NO.2591/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 TAPAS PAUL VS. ACIT CIR-51 KOL. PAGE 3 DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. H OWEVER AT THE RELEVANT TIME OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT NO BODY APPEARED FRO M THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE AC T HELD THE ORDER OF THE AO ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E. THE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DIRECTED TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER W ITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS : (A)---- (B) THE ISSUE REGARDING THE TAXABILITY OF ADVANCE A GAINST FLAT SHOULD BE EXAMINED WITH A VIEW TO ASCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER THE SAME WOULD BE TAXABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER REVIEW. THE AO IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 144/263 OF THE ACT H AS DISALLOWED ENTIRE SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR RS.78,45,882/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE POSTAL ADDRESSES OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WITH OTHER NECESSARY DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED, SO NO ENQUIRY WHATSOEVER WAS POSSIBLE. HENCE THE AO DISALLOWED THE SUM OF RS.78, 45,882/- AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD. CI T(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION IN ADDING BACK THE SUM OF RS.78,45,882/- REPRESENTING THE BALANCE OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AS THE SAME WAS NOT DIRECTED BY THE LD. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE DIRECTION WAS LIMITED T O THE EXAMINATION OF THE ADVANCE FOR THE FLATS. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- (A) ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL: THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS ONLY ON THE ISSUE OF SUNDR Y CREDITORS. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WAS ADMITTED AS NO FRESH EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT THAT IN PARA 1(B), THE CI T HAD ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH AN EXPLANATION CONCERNING A SUM OF RS.1,76, 46,882/- DECLARED AS BOOKING ADVANCE FOR FLAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET, WH ICH HAD NOT BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION. IN PARA 3 THE CIT NOTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS MENTIONED THAT THE SUM OF RS.1,76,46,882/- COMPRISES (A) BOOKING ADVAN CE OF RS.98,01,000/- AND (B) SUNDRY CREDITOR OF RS.78,45,882/-. IN PARA 5 TH E CIT DETAILS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED ON 01.11.2010 TO SUBMIT LEDGE R COPIES OF ADVANCE AGAINST FLAT AND OF SUNDRY CREDITOR OF RS.1,00,000/ - AND ABOVE. IN PARA 6 THE CIT DETAILS THE SUBSEQUENT NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE AS SESSEE. IN PARA 7 THE CIT CATEGORICALLY NOTES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMI TTED THE REQUUIRED DETAILS ITA NO.2591/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 TAPAS PAUL VS. ACIT CIR-51 KOL. PAGE 4 AND HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED . THE CIT IS CLEAR TERMS NOTES FURTHER THAT THE AO HAS NOT VERIFIED THE ISSU ES STATED AT CLAUSE (A) TO (C) OF PARAGRAPH (1) OF HIS ORDER DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECT ED THE AO TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER CARRYING OUT INTER-ALIA CERT AIN VERIFICATION. THIS PART OF THE CITS ORDER IS EXTRACTED ABOVE ALSO. A DISPASSIONATE READING OF THE BODY OF THE ORDER U/ S. 263 MAKES IT VERY APPARENT THAT THE CIT HAD NEVER EXCISED THE ISSUE O F SUNDRY CREDITORS FROM HIS ORDER CANCELLING THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO EXAMINED THE BODY OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT AND GATHERED FROM IT THE POINT S UPON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO BE MADE ONCE AGAIN. THE SHOW C AUSE U/S. 263 WAS ALSO FOR THE SUM DECLARED TO BE REPRESENTING THE SUNDRY CRED ITORS AND IN PARA 7 THE CIT HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMI TTED THE REQUIRED DETAILS AND PAPERS AS REQUISITIONED ON 01.11.2010 AND HENCE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED. THE TERM EXPLANATION FURNISHED INCLUDES THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS HELD THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES TO BE REJECTED AS IT IS NO T COVERED BY THE CASE LAWS OF : 1. CIT V. HINDUSTHAN COCONUT OIL MILL (2002) 255 ITR 4 28 (CAL) 2. SMT. SHOBHA GORIA V. ADDL. CIT (2013) 218 TAXMANN 3 0 (ALL. (MAG.) THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMI SSED BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE FACTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED IN THE AFO RESAID PARAGRAPHS THEREFORE THESE ARE NOT REPRODUCED AGAIN. AT THE OUTSET, WE F IND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN BOTH THE FIGURES OF ADVANCE FOR THE FLATS AND SUNDRY CRE DITORS UNDER THE HEAD BOOKING ADVANCE OF FLATS AND SUNDRY CREDITORS . THEREFORE IN OUR CONSIDERED, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO DRAW THE CONCLUSION THAT ONLY THE LD . CIT(A) DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE ADVANCES FOR THE FLATS ONLY AND NOT SUNDRY CREDITOR S. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CO-OPERATIVE AT THE TIME OF IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 AND 144 OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE FACT AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.2591/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 TAPAS PAUL VS. ACIT CIR-51 KOL. PAGE 5 6. THE SECOND INTER-CONNECTED ISSUE RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 2 & 3 IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO BY SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS BALANCE FOR RS. 78 ,45,882/-. 7. THE AO DISALLOWED THE SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR RS.78 ,45,882/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE POSTAL ADDRESSES OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WITH OTHER NECESSARY DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED, SO NO ENQUIRY WHATSOEVER WAS POSSIBLE. H ENCE THE AO DISALLOWED THE SUM OF RS. 78,45,882/- AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD. CI T(A) WHEREAS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE PAID IN THE SUBS EQUENT YEAR THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. THIS FACT OF PAYMENT WITH BANK STATEMENT WA S PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT TWO SUNDRY CREDITORS DIED AND IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM HE FILED DEATH CERTIFICATES OF TWO PARTIES. HOWEVER, THE AO SUBMITTED IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT THE NOTICES U/S 131 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BUT NOBODY TURNED UP IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE. HOWEVER , THE LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS SEEN THAT EVEN AS PER THE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITOR FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO FILE POSTAL ADDRESS OF ONLY TWO CREDITORS OUT OF THE 27 PARTIES . IN THE CASE OF THE REMAINING PARTIES THE ASSESSEE MERELY GAVE THEIR NAME FOLLOWE D BY THE WORDS KHARAGPUR/MIDNAPUR . THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY VERIFICATION FROM THE PARTIES WHOSE ADDRESS WERE SUPPLIED AND IT IS NOT P OSSIBLE TO VERIFY CREDITORS FROM THE BARE NAME AND CITY DETAIL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE. FURTHER, THE PURPOSE OF VERIFYING SUNDRY CREDITOR I S TO EXAMINE NOT ONLY THEIR IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS BUT AL SO THEIR CAPACITY TO SUPPLY THE GOODS. THESE VERIFICATION ARE NOT POSSIBLE TO B E DONE BY ONLY A CURSORY EXAMINATION OF BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT P RODUCED ANY BILL, LEDGER ACCOUNT OR OTHER CHALLAN/RECEIPTS TO PROVE THE GENU INENESS OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT NARRATION IN THE B ANK STATEMENT CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH PROOF OF GENUINENESS OF CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE INCOME TAX PARTICULARS OF THE PARTIES ALSO. THE SAM E SITUATION WAS THERE AT THE TIME OF ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. THE HISTORY OF NON-COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE AO, THE CI T-XVII AND THE LACK OF DETAILS FILED IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH T HE FACTUM OF NON PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, LEDGER, BILLS AT ANY STAGE, DO ES NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE ITA NO.2591/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 TAPAS PAUL VS. ACIT CIR-51 KOL. PAGE 6 ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO IS NOT RELIED UPON AND THE ADDITION OF RS.78,45,882/- IS CONFIRMED FOR THE REA SON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE SAME. AS A RESULT THE REVISE D GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 IS DISMISSED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. BEFORE US LD. AR SUBMITTED PAPER BOOK WHICH IS R UNNING FROM PAGES 1 TO 92 AND HE REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSION AS MADE BEFOR E THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER O F AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN T HE ABSENCE OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS FOR THE VERIFICATION OF THE SUNDRY CREDIT ORS. IT IS BEYOND DOUBT THAT IT IS THE PRIMARY DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE NECESSA RY DETAILS FOR THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE NECESSARY DETAILS INCLUDE THE ADDRESS, PAN, CONFIRMATION, THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS ETC. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SAME IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES. IN OUR CONS IDERED VIEW MERELY PAYING THE AMOUNT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND SUBMITTING THE B ANK STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF IT, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT GET DISCHARGED FROM HIS RESPO NSIBILITY. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME WE CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SHOWN ITS INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEP TED AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT GENERATE THE INCOME WITHOUT INCURRING THE EXPENSES ON THE MATERIAL. THEREFORE, ONCE THE INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED THEN ITS CORRESPONDING EXPENSES SHOULD ALSO BE ACCEPTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. AS THE MATERIAL SUPPLIER ARE NOT RESPONDING IN TERMS OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE SHOU LD NOT BE PUNISHED FOR THE SAME. IN VIEW OF ABOVE AND IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE & FAIR PLAY, WE ARE INCLINED TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE AMO UNT OF CREDITORS. HENCE WE RESTORE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECIDING THE ADDITION AF RESH IN THE LIGHT OF OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THAT ORDER AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE LD. ITA NO.2591/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 TAPAS PAUL VS. ACIT CIR-51 KOL. PAGE 7 DR ON THE OTHER HAND, EXPRESSED HIS AGREEMENT IN SU PPORT OF THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES.. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 11. THE LAST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS A PPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF AO BY SUSTAINING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.4.60 LAKH BEING 20% PROFIT ON THE ADVANCE AGAINST FLATS. 12. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN FLAT ADVANCE OF RS.23.01 LAKH BUT FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, AO HAS TREATED THE ESTIMATED PROFIT @ 20% OF RS.23.01 LAKHS. 13. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHEREAS AS ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED AGAINST THE SALE OF FLAT IS NOT WARRANTED ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION @ 20%. IT IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE 8% SPECIFIED ON CONTRACTUAL WORK U/S. 44AD OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW . 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE F IND THAT ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEAR HAS DECLARED PROFIT @ 2.35% WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE D EPARTMENT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ESTIMATED PROFIT CALCULATED@ 20% IS ON MU CH HIGHER SIDE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY WE RESTRICT THE ESTIMATED PRO FIT @ 5%. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 15. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07/09/2016 SD/- SD/- (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *DKP - 07 /09/2016 / KOLKATA ITA NO.2591/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 TAPAS PAUL VS. ACIT CIR-51 KOL. PAGE 8 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-TAPAS PAUL, 21, KUMAR PARA ROAD, BHATPAR A BARRACKPORE 24-PARGAN AS (N), 743 123 2. /RESPONDENT-ACIT, CIRCLE-51, ROOM NO.13, 2 ND FLOOR, BLOCK-II, UTTARPAN BUILDING, MANIK ATALA CIVIC CENTRE, KOLKATA-54 3. ' % / CONCERNED CIT 4. % - / CIT (A) 5. & ))' , ' / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. + / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ',