Sri Sampat Lal Agarwal, Kolkata V. ITO, Wd.36(3), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 81/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99702 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: S M SURANA
• Keywords: Non compliance; Commercial expediency
• Section: 143(3); 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH SMC KOLKATA [BEFORE HON BLE S HRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM ] ITA NO . 81 /KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 ( A PPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) SRI SAMPAT LAL AGARWAL - VERSUS - I.T.O., WARD - 36(3 ) , C/O VIKAS H STEEL CORPORATION KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN: ACJPA 3660 P) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S.M.SURANA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT: SMT.RANU BISWAS, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 21 .07.2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.08.2015. ORDER THIS APPEAL OF ASS ESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) - XIV , KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO . 213/CIT(A) - XX / WD - 36(3)/11 - 12/KOL. DATED 03.09 . 2013 . ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY I.T.O., WARD - 36(3 ) U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS THE ACT ) FOR A.YR . 2009 - 10 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 28.10.2011 . 2. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE NOT ADJUDICATED HEREIN. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MA DE BY THE AO U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF FREIGHT AND DELIVERY CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. T HE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR OF BIKASH STEEL CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE DEALERSHIP OF TOOLS, A LLOYS AND SPECIAL STEELS. IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DURING A.Y. 2009 - 10, THE LD. AO SOUGHT TO DISALLOW A SUM OF RS.2,72,222/ - PAID TOWARDS FREIGHT/CARTAGE/DELIVERY CHARGES U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE SAME TO 3 PERSONS IN EXCESS OF ITA NO. 81/KOL/2014 SRI SAMPAT LAL AGARWAL . A.YR. . 2009 - 10 2 RS.20,000/ - WHEREIN THE TOTAL CONTRACT OF EACH PERSON HAD EXCEEDED RS.50,000/ - PER ANNUM AND HENCE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED. AGGRIEVED , THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO UPHELD THE DI SALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. AO; THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE A FINDING THAT EVEN VERBAL CONTRACT WITH THE ROAD SIDE CART PULLER WOULD CONSTITUTE THE CONTRACT IN TERMS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. HENCE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ARE RIGHTLY INVOKED B Y THE AO FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF TDS PROVISION. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSES S EE PREFERRED AN APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND : 2. FOR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING RS.2,72,222/ - U/S 40( A)(IA) FOR PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS FREIGHT AND DELIVERY CHARGES WHEN THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE, PAID TO LABOURS AND EVE OTHERWISE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS PAID DURING THE YEAR. 5. SHRI S.M.SURANA, ADVOCATE, THE LD. AR, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. RANU BISWAS, JCIT, THE LD. DR, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 6. THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THESE FREIGHT CHARGES WERE PAID BY THE ASSESEE TO THE ROAD SIDE CART PULLERS, WHO CANNOT OBVIOUSLY BE IMPRESSED UPON FOR DEDUCTION OF TA X AT SOURCE AND THE EXPECTA TION OF THE LD. AO TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FOR THESE PERSON S WOULD ONLY RESULT IN IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT FOR WANT OF PAN FOR THESE PERSONS BEING ROAD SIDE CAR T PULLERS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE TO DEDUCT TAX @20% AS PER THE PRESENT LAW OR @2% (AS PER THE THEN PREVAILING LAW) , AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE DECIDES TO ABSORB THE TDS PROVISION AS AN ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE, STILL THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE TDS PROVISION IN FULL BY FILING E - TDS RETURN FOR WANT OF PAN. OBVIOUSLY, THE ROAD SIDE CART PULLERS WOULD FALL BELOW THE TAX ABLE LIMIT AND HENCE DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON THEIR PAYMENT IS NOT GOING TO HELP THEM IN ANY WAY. TO STRENGTHEN HIS ARGUMENT, HE ALSO PLACED LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE DELIVERY CHARGES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL WHEREIN NO PAYMENT IS MADE MORE THAN RS.20,000/ - IN ITA NO. 81/KOL/2014 SRI SAMPAT LAL AGARWAL . A.YR. . 2009 - 10 3 PURSUANT TO A SINGLE CONTRACT. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR WHEREIN IT IS STATED TH AT EACH CONTRACT IS A SEPARATE CONTRACT. ACCORDINGLY, EXPECTING THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IN THIS TYPE OF CASE IS UNWARRANTED AND ACCORDINGLY PLEADED THAT ADDITION MADE IN THE SUM OF RS.2,72,222/ - MAY BE DELETED. 7. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID DELIVERY CHARGES/FREIGHT/CARTAGE CHARGES TO THE ROAD SIDE CART PULLER S IN EXCESS OF RS.50,000/ - PER ANNUM IN RE SPECT OF MR.SUNIL SINGH (RS.1,48,182/ - ) AND MR.THAKUR (RS.99,440/ - ) WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE TO SHRI SURENDRA (RS.24,600/ - ) IT IS SEEN THAT NO PAYMENT EXCEEDING RS.20,000/ - WAS PAID TO HIM PURSUANT TO A SINGLE CONTRACT. TO THIS EXTENT I AGREE WITH THE CBDT CIRCULAR, RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR AND ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE TO SHRI SURENDRA (RS.24,600/ - ) AND HENCE NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT CAN OPERATE ON THE SAME. IT IS SEEN THAT PAYMENT OF FREIGHT/CARTA GE/DELIVERY CHARGES TO THE ROAD SIDE CART PULLERS WOULD DEFINITELY FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF TDS PROVISION OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT AND THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD.AR WITH REGARD TO THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE FOR BRINGING THIS ROAD SIDE CART PULLERS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF TAXATION, IN THE LIGHT OF LEGAL MAXIM LEX NON COGI T AD IMPASSIBLIA - A LAW CANNOT COMPEL A MAN TO PERFORM AN ACT WHAT HE CANNOT POSSIBLY PERFORM, WHICH MAXIM HAS BEEN GIVEN DUE WEIGHTAGE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KRISHNASWAMY S, PD & ANR. VS UNION OF IN DIA & ORS (2006) 281 ITR 305 (SC ), IS DULY APPRECIATED AND COMES TO THE RESCUE O F THE ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. FURTHER THE OTHER RELEVANT LEGAL MAXIM, ACTUS CU RIAE NEMINEM GARVABIT I.E. AN ACT OF COURT SHALL PREJUDICE NO MAN, IS FOUNDED UPON JUSTICE AND GOOD SENSE WHICH SERVES A SAFE AND CERTAIN GUIDE FO R THE ADMINISTRATION OF LAW, ALSO COMES TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE. I HOLD THAT LAW ITSELF AND ITS ADMINISTRATION IS UNDERSTOOD TO DISCLAIM AS IT DOES IN ITS GENERAL APHORISMS, ALL ITA NO. 81/KOL/2014 SRI SAMPAT LAL AGARWAL . A.YR. . 2009 - 10 4 INTENTION OF COMPELLING IMPOSSIBILIT IES , AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF LAW MUST ADOPT THAT GENERAL EXCEPTION IN THE CONSIDERATION OF PARTICULAR CASE S . ACCORDINGLY, I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE NOT TO BE TREATED AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN TERMS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) R.W.S. 194C OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED IS ALLOWED. 9. GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRESSED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BY THE LD.AR AND THE SAME IS TAKEN AS A STATEMENT FROM THE BAR. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 10. THE NEXT ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN CONFIRMING ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO TOWARDS INTEREST INCOME OF RS.2,47,463/ - BEING 10% OF RS.24,74,628/ - ON NOTIONAL BASIS. 11. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS ADVANCED A SUM OF RS.4,06,554/ - TO HIS SON SHRI VIKASH AGARWAL; RS.6,93,265/ - TO HIS SON SRI PRAKASH AGARWAL; RS.2,36,832/ - TO HIS DAUGHTER - IN - LAW SMT.ANJALI AGARWAL; RS.4,92,242/ - TO HIS DAUGHTER - IN - LAW SMT. MENKA AGARWAL AND RS.6,45,735/ - TO HIS WIFE SMT.RESHMI AGARWAL. THE LD. AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ON ONE SIDE PAID INTEREST TO THE BANKS FOR SECURED LOANS BORROWED FROM ABN - AMRO AND UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ON THE OTHER HAND HAS MAGNANIMOUSLY ADVANCED MONIE S TO HIS CLOSE RELATIVE S WITHOUT ANY I NTEREST AND ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ADVANCED SIMILA R MONIE S TO OTHER EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF WELFARE AND ACCORDINGLY ADDED INTEREST INCOME ON NOTIONAL BASIS ESTIMATED AT 10% OF TOTAL MONIE S ADVANCED TO CLOSE RELATIVES WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS.2,47,463/ - . AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. AO. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FURTHER GAVE A FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE ADVANCES MADE AND BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 81/KOL/2014 SRI SAMPAT LAL AGARWAL . A.YR. . 2009 - 10 5 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 12. THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT OUT OF THE ADVANCES MADE FOR 5 PARTIES AND OUT OF 5, 4 PERSONS ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF CHARGING ANY INTERE ST ON THE STAFF ADVANCE. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE FOUR PERSONS, BEING CLOSE RELATIVES , ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY AND ARE PAID SALARIES BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS QUITE NATURAL THAT STAFF ADVANCES ARE REGULARLY MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE IN THE COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS WITHOUT ANY INTEREST , AS A WELFARE MEASURE. THE LD. AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE LD.AO HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INDEED DENIED PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TO OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NOT RELATIVES OF THE ASSESS EE AND HENCE THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE LD. AO TO THAT EFFECT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS UNWARRANTED. THE LD. AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT ADDITION MADE TOWARDS FOUR PERSON S ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESSIVE SALARY BY THE LD. AO U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON THAT GROUND. HENCE THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE LD. AO THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN WITH EVIDENCE REGARDING EXPERTISE OF DAUGHTER - IN - LAWS TO WHOM HIGHER SALARY IS PAID FOR JUSTIFICATION OF HIS ADDITION MADE TOWARDS DEEMED INTEREST INCOME, IS UNWARRANTED. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT IN RESPECT OF AMOUNTS GIVEN TO THE WIFE OF ASSESSEE AND IN RESPECT OF OT HER FOUR EMPLOYEES, BEING CLOSE RELATIVES, THE ASSESSEE INDEED HAD SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS WHICH ARE DULY REFLECTED IN HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND ADMITTED LY MOST OF THE ADVANCES WERE GRANTED IN THE EARLIER YEARS WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE LD.AO TO HAVE ARISEN OUT OF OWN FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID ON LOANS TAK EN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LD. AO ON THE PRETEXT OF BORROWED FUNDS DIVERTED FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES BY WAY OF MONIES ADVANCED TO THE CLOSE RELATIVES BY THE ASSESSEE FREE OF INTEREST. HE FURTHER PLEADED THAT IN ANY CASE THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE STATUTE TO MAKE ANY ADDITION OF INTEREST INCOME ON NOTIONAL BASIS AND ACCORDINGLY PLEADED FOR DELETION OF THIS ADDITION. 13. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA NO. 81/KOL/2014 SRI SAMPAT LAL AGARWAL . A.YR. . 2009 - 10 6 14. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL S UBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ADVANCES TO FOUR PERSON S WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS EMPLOYEES, BEING HIS CLOSE RELATIVES, DURING THE COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS, WITHOUT ANY INTEREST , AS A WELFARE MEASURE. THESE EMPLOYEES WERE ALSO PAID SALARIES BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THAT ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO TOWARDS EXCESSIVE SALARY PAID TO THESE FOUR EMPLOYEES U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN DULY DELETED BY THE LD.CIT(A), AGAINST WHICH THE REVEN UE IS NOT IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THAT ASSESSEE HAS GOT SUFFICIENT OWN CAPITAL WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS APP ARENTLY USED FOR ADVANCING MONIES TO THE CLOSE RELATIVES FREE OF INTEREST. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE LD. AO THA T BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTIL ISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVANCING INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TO THE RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO SIMPLY SAYS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ASSESSEE HAS GOT BORROWINGS IN HIS B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS PAYING INTEREST TO BANKS . THIS ONLY GOES TO PROVE THAT THE LD. AO PROBABLY IS TRYING TO ADVOCATE A PROPOSITION THAT DURING THE EXISTENCE OF INTEREST BEARING LOANS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, NO ASSESSEE SHOULD GIVE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TO ANYBODY, MUCH LESS THE CLOSE RELATIVES. THIS ACTION OF THE AO, WHICH, IN MY OPINION, IS ONLY TRYING TO LEAD TO A SITUATION OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT TRYING TO SERMONIZE HOW THE BUSINESS MAN SHOULD CONDUCT HIS BUSINESS AND HAVE HIS AFFAIRS. BUSINESSMAN KNO WS HIS INTEREST BEST. RELIANCE IS PLACED IN THIS REGARD ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS DHANRAJ GIRJI RAJA NARASINGHERJI (1973) REPORTED IN 91 ITR 544 (SC) . FURTHER RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE APE X COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS WALCHAND AND CO. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IN APPLYING THE TEST OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE WAS EXCESSIVELY LAID DOWN FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, REASONABLENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE IS TO BE JUDGED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A BUSINESS MAN AND NOT THAT OF THE REVENUE. WHEN OWN FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE SUFFICIENTLY THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN ASSESSEE ADVANCING INTEREST F REE FUNDS TO HIS CLOSE RELATIVES. I FIND LOT OF FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF TH E LD. AR THAT THE LD.AO HAS NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID ON LOANS ON THE POINT OF DIVERSION OF BORROWED FUNDS FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES INSTEAD THE AO HAD ONLY NOTIONALLY ADDED THE INTEREST INCOME @10% ON THE TOTA L AMOUNTS ADVANCED TO THE ITA NO. 81/KOL/2014 SRI SAMPAT LAL AGARWAL . A.YR. . 2009 - 10 7 CLO SE RELATIVES AND ADDED THE SAME AS DEEMED INTEREST INCOME. THIS ACTION OF THE LD.AO, IN MY OPINION, IS TOTALLY BASELESS AND DOES NOT FIND SUPPORT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE PRECEDENT RELIED UPON T HEREIN, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE IN THE SUM OF RS.2,47,463/ - TOWARDS DEEMED INTEREST INCOME. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 15. THE NEXT ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF AO IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE HEAD TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND MOTOR CAR EXPENSES TO 10% WHEN THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. 16. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED A SUM OF RS.1,05,614/ - TOWARDS C AR MAINTENANCE AND A SUM OF RS.1,00,947/ - TOWARDS TELEPHONE CHARGES AND CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION. THE LD. AO DISALLOWED 20% OF THE SAME AS EXPENSES INCURRED FOR PERSONAL ELEMENT WHICH WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON FIRST APPEAL TO 10%. AGGRIEVED BY THI S ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND : - 5. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE HEAD TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND MOTOR CAR EXPENSES TO 10% W HEN THE EXPENSES WERE FULLY INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. 17. THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT ADDITION MADE @10% OF THE SUBJECT MENTIONED EXPENDITURE IS MADE ONLY ON AN ESTIMATED BASIS WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND BASELESS AND PRAYED FOR DELETION OF THE SAME. 18. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 19. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ARBITRARILY BY THE LD.AO @20% AND ITA NO. 81/KOL/2014 SRI SAMPAT LAL AGARWAL . A.YR. . 2009 - 10 8 WHICH WAS ALSO BROUGHT DOWN BY 10% BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN ANY WAY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE ADJUDICATED THIS ISSUE ONLY ON AN ESTIMATED BASIS WHICH DOES NOT FIND SUPPORT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. HENCE I HAVE NO HESITATION TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE @10% ON T HE SUBJECT MENTIONED EXPENDITURE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 20. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNC ED IN TH E COURT . SD/ - [MAHAVIR SINGH] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 13.08.2015. R.G.(.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1 . SRI SAMPAT LAL AGARWAL , C/O VIKASH STEEL CORPORATION, 22, STRAND ROAD, KOLKATA - 700001. 2 I.T.O., WARD - 36(3 ), KOLKATA. 3 . THE CIT - XII , KOLKATA . 4. THE CIT(A) - XX , KOLKATA. 5 . DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY , BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES