I Lounge, Kolkata V. ACIT, CIR-26, KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 839/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4123 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 17-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD G HYAS UDDIN
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY BHATTACHARJEE FCA LD
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 194C

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.839/KOL/2016 I LOUNGE, AY 2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI S. S. VISWAN ETHRA RAVI, JM] I.T.A NO. 839/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 I. LOUNGE (PAN:AACFI2948H) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-26, KOLKATA. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 17.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02.12.2016 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI SANJAY BHATTACHARJEE, FCA, LD. AR FOR THE RESPONDENT: MD. GHYAS UDDIN, JCIT ORDER PER SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM: THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A)-7, KOLKATA VIDE APPEAL NO. 444/CIT(A)-7/CIR-26/14-15 DATED 02.12.2015. ASSESSM ENT WAS FRAMED BY ACIT, CIRCLE-53, KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HE REINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR AY 2010-11 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 30.03.2013. 2. THE GROUND NOS. 1, 2 & 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD CITA IS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,24,956/- UNDER THE HEAD REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS RUNNING A RESTAURANT CUM BAR IN METROPOLIS MALL. THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSES SEE PAID A SUM OF RS. 96,750/- TO RELAX ART AND A SUM OF RS. 28,206/- PAID TO UNICON INDIA WHICH INCLUDED A PORTION TOWARDS COST OF MATERIALS , WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY INVOKED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, WHICH WA S ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE LD CITA IN FIRST APPEAL. THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MA DE FOR PURCHASE OF LEATHER COATED 2 ITA NO.839/KOL/2016 I LOUNGE, AY 2010-11 CHAIRS AND PRAYED THAT THE BILLS FOR THE SAME WOULD BE PRODUCED IF GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE LD AO AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD CITA AS THE ORDER WAS PASSED EXPARTE. THE PRODUCTION OF THOSE BILLS WOU LD PROVE THAT THE SAME WAS INCURRED TOWARDS COST OF MATERIALS ON WHICH THERE WOULD NO T DS APPLICABILITY AND HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT COULD NO T BE INVOKED. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUT HORITIES. 3.2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE THE LD CITA THAT THE SAID PAYMEN TS WERE INCURRED TOWARDS COST OF MATERIALS , BUT HOWEVER , THE SAME WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO VERIF ICATION BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HENCE WE DEEM IT FIT AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS IS SUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD AO TO VERIFY THE BILLS FOR THE SAME AND DECIDE THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON THE SAME IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND N O. 3(A) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. THE NEXT ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD CITA IS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS RENT IN THE SUM OF RS. 2,32,910/- IN THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 21,01,548/- AS RENT DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IT IN CLUDED A SUM OF RS. 2,32,910/- TOWARDS MUNICIPAL TAXES AND COMMERCIAL SURCHARGES WHICH WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TENANT ON BEHALF OF THE LANDLORD WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. FOR THE REMAINING SUMS, THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY COMPLIED WITH THE TDS PROVISIONS. THE AS SESSEE REPLIED THAT TDS IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF MUNICIPAL TAXES AND C OMMERCIAL SURCHARGES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,32,910/- . BUT THE LD AO DID NOT AGREE TO THE SA ID EXPLANATION AND MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THIS ACTION OF THE LD AO WA S UPHELD BY THE LD CITA. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.2. THE LD AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE QUESTION NO . 4 OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 718 DATED 22.8.1995 WHICH SQUARELY CLARIFIES THAT THERE WOULD BE NO TDS APPLICABILITY ON THE 3 ITA NO.839/KOL/2016 I LOUNGE, AY 2010-11 PAYMENT OF MUNICIPAL TAXES. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTE NTION TO THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF RENT FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2009 TO 31.3.2010 TOGETHER WITH SAMP LE MONTHLY INVOICES OF R.D.DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD DR VEHEMENTL Y RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 718 DATED 22.8.1 995 VIDE QUESTION NO. 4 IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE WHICH I S REPORTED IN (1995) 127 CTR (ST) 81 . FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT QUESTION AND REPLY GIVEN THEREON IS REPRODUCED HEREIN :- 4. ON WHAT AMOUNT THE TAX IS TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOUR CE IF THE RENTALS INCLUDE MUNICIPAL TAX, GROUND RENT, ETC. ? ANS. THE BASIS OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE UNDER SEC TION 194I IS INCOME BY WAY OF RENT . RENT HAS BEEN DEFINED, IN THE EXPLANATION (I) OF SE CTION 194I TO MEAN ANY PAYMENT UNDER ANY LEASE, TENANCY, AGREEMENT, ETC., FOR THE USE OF ANY LAND OR BUILDING. THUS IF THE MUNICIPAL TAXES , GROUND RENT, ETC., ARE BORNE BY THE TENANT, NO TAX WILL BE DEDUCTED ON SUCH SUM. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAD NOT BEEN GIVE N ANY OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE INVOICES OF R.D.DEVELOPERS PVT LTD PROPERLY AND REC ORD PROPER FINDINGS THEREON. HENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIRPLAY, WE DEEM IT FI T AND APPROPRIATE, TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD AO TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN THE L IGHT OF THE CIRCULAR STATED SUPRA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 3(B) R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD CITA IS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DONATION AND SUBSCRIP TION OF RS. 12,900/- IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT A SUM OF RS. 12,900/- INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS DONATION AND SUBSC RIPTION AS NOT INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS 4 ITA NO.839/KOL/2016 I LOUNGE, AY 2010-11 OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE SAME , WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE LD CITA . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5.2. THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THESE PAYMENTS REPRESEN T REGULAR POOJA EXPENSES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS PAID TO VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS WHICH C OULD BE DIRECTED TO BE VERIFIED BY THE LD AO WITH THE RECEIPTS THEREON. IN RESPONSE TO THIS , THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES TO BE EXAMINED BY THE LD AO ON VERIFICATION OF THE RECEIPTS OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCES TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR JUSTIFICATION OF ITS CLAIM AND ACCORDI NGLY THE GROUND 3(C) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. THE LAST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD CITA IS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 30 ,88,970/- BEING 50% OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 61,77,940/- IN THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT GET A VALUE ADDED TAX (VAT) REGISTRATION OF ITS OWN AND WAS OBLIGATED TO USE IT S SISTER CONCERN , ANOTHER PARTNERSHIP FIRM STYLED AS YO FOODIES VAT LICENCE FOR THIS PURPOSE . THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEES TOTAL SALES AS ON 31.3.2010 WERE RS. 89, 43,272/- AS AGAINST THE TOTAL SALES REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 43,33,314/-. A NOTICE WAS I SSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD AO TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE UNREFLECTED SALES SHOULD N OT BE ADDED TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 17.12.2012 THAT M/S YO FOODIES (SISTER CONCERN) HAD STARTED THE FOOD COURT ON 17.8.2004 I.E MUCH BEFORE THE ASSESSE E AND HAD THE REQUIRED VAT REGISTRATION FOR YO FOODIES ONLY. WHEN THE ASSESSEE STARTED IT S BUSINESS ON 1.10.2006 THEY HAD APPLIED FOR VAT AND WBST REGISTRATION WITH THE RESPECTIVE A UTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE PURSUED THE MATTER VIGOROUSLY AND DEPUTED ITS SALES TAX CONSULT ANT MR SANTANU CHOWDHURY FOR THIS , BUT HOWEVER, THE APPLICATION WAS REJECTED BY THE RESPEC TIVE DEPARTMENT DUE TO SOME TECHNICAL GROUNDS. HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS FORCED TO CARRY O N ITS LIQUOR BUSINESS UNDER THE WBST REGISTRATION OF YO FOODIES. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD TO PURCHASE FOOD FOR ITS 5 ITA NO.839/KOL/2016 I LOUNGE, AY 2010-11 CUSTOMERS FROM YO FOODIES AND HENCE VAT ON FOOD AND THE VALUE OF FOOD RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS AGAINST BILLS WAS DEPOSITED WITH VAT ACCO UNT OF YO FOODIES AND VALUE OF FOOD TO YO FOODIES LEDGER ACCOUNT. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, TH E ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED STATEMENT GIVING ITEM WISE BREAK UP OF TOTAL SALES, LIQUOR SA LES, WBST, VAT, TIPS AND SERVICE CHARGES INCLUDING CHALLANS OF VAT FOR FOOD USED, WB ST FOR LIQUOR USED , PHOTOCOPY OF CREDIT CARD SETTLEMENT SLIP MENTIONING TIPS ETC, TI PS AND SERVICE CHARGE VOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF ABOVE STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RECONCILED THE TOTAL SALES AND STATED THAT IT HAD TRANSFERRED RS. 30,79,319/- BEING ITS SALE TO YO FO ODIES LEDGER ACCOUNT TOGETHER WITH VAT ON FOOD @ 12.5% AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,74,190/- , WBST ON LIQUOR SALE OF RS. 8,45,000/- , TIPS PAID TO STAFF UNION OF RS. 32,263/- AND SERVIC E CHARGE PAID TO STAFF OF RS. 3,64,891/- AND ULTIMATELY CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS NO UNREFLECT ED SALE OF RS. 44,29,177/- AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD AO IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. THE LD AO HOWEVER CONCLUDED THAT THE PURCHASE OF R AW MATERIAL FOR FOODS WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE AND BOTH THE SAL E AND SALE PROCEEDS WERE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS BEFORE THEIR TRANSFER TO YO FOODIE S, WHICH IS NOTHING BUT AN ARRANGEMENT SHOWING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS USING ITS OWN LABOUR FOR PREPARING FOOD AND ITS SERVICE FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY IT FRO M YO FOODIES. HE FURTHER STATED THAT YO FOODIES WAS SHOWING BOTH THE PURCHASES AND SALES IN ITS BOOKS, BUT THE EXPENSES ON LABOUR THAT WENT INTO THE PREPARATION OF FOOD AND I TS SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS WERE NOT DEBITED TO THE BOOKS OF YO FOODIES. THE LABOUR WAS IN FACT PR OVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY , HE APPLIED ESTIMATES AND HELD THAT 50% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 61,77,940/- EXCLUDING OPENING STOCK AND PURCHASES DEBITED TO ASSESSEES P ROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUCH FOOD PREPARATION AND ITS SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS WHICH WERE NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 30,88,970/- THEREON IN THE ASSESSMENT. THIS AC TION OF THE LD AO WAS UPHELD BY THE LD CITA . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6.2. THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE BRIEF MODUS OPERAND I OF THE BUSINESS IN ABSENCE OF VAT REGISTRATION WAS THAT THE PURCHASES AND SALES OF FO OD AND VAT THEREON WERE COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ROUTED THROUGH THE BOOKS OF YO FOODIE S AND SEPARATELY ACCOUNTED FOR. THE 6 ITA NO.839/KOL/2016 I LOUNGE, AY 2010-11 ASSESSEE PURCHASES FOOD AND SNACKS FROM YO FOODIES AND SUPPLIES TO THE CUSTOMERS IN BAR WHILE SERVING THE DRINKS TO THEM. THE ASSESSEE SHO WED SALE OF FOOD AND SNACKS MADE ON BEHALF OF YO FOODIES IN METROPOLIS MALL WHICH WAS D ULY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD AO BY FILING THE RECONCILIATION OF TOTAL SALES OF THE ASS ESSEE WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LD AO AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. HE ARGUED TH AT THE ENTIRE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BEFORE THE LD AO. WHEN THE LD AO HAD AGREED TO THE MODUS OPERANDI OF SHIFTING OF SALES TO YO FOODIES WITHOUT MAKING ANY ADDITION, HOW COULD THERE BE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ON ESTIMATE BASIS. HE ARGUED THAT A SUM OF RS. 14,71,100/- WAS REFLECTED IN CONTRACTORS JOB CHARGES IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH IS ENCLOSED IN PAGE 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK , WHICH IS NOTHING BUT SERVERS / BEARERS SALARY PAID THEREON. HE ALSO IMPRESSED UPON THE BENCH THAT THERE WAS NO EXPENDIT URE DEBITED TOWARDS SALARY IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WOULD PROVE THAT THE ENTIRE L ABOUR CHARGES AS STATED BY THE LD AO IS DEBITED IN THE CONTRACTORS JOB CHARGES WHICH IS NOT HING BUT THE SALARY AND WAGES PAID TO THOSE CONTRACT LABOURERS WORKING WITH ASSESSEE ON C ONTRACT BASIS. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT ONCE THIS EXPENDITURE IS IGNORED, WHAT IS LEFT OUT IS ONLY EXPENDITURE TOWARDS AUDIT FEES, RENT, PROFESSIONAL TAX , OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ET C., WHICH CANNOT BE APPORTIONED ON THE BASIS OF SALE OF MATERIALS. THEY ARE ALL FIXED EXP ENSES AND NOT VARIABLE EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY HE QUESTIONED THE BASIS OF DISALLOWANCE OF 50% OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE BY THE LD AO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE BUSINESS MODEL OF THE A SSESSEE TOGETHER WITH ITS ACCOUNTING PATTERN. HE FAIRLY PRAYED FOR SETTING ASIDE OF TH IS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD AO FOR REEXAMINATION OF THE WHOLE ISSUE. IN RESPONSE TO T HIS, THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE AUDITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET BEFORE TH E LD AO TOGETHER WITH THE TAX AUDIT REPORT AND THE LD AO HAD NOT FOUND ANY DISCREPANCIE S IN THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE LD AO HAD ACCEPTED THE SALES REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, FROM THE ELABORATE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY T HE LD AR ABOVE , WE DEEM IT FIT AND APPROPRIATE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIRPLA Y, THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE LD AO IN THE LIGHT OF FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS MA DE BY THE LD AR IN CONSONANCE WITH THE BUSINESS MODEL AND ACCOUNTING PATTERN ADOPTED BY TH E ASSESSEE . NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT 7 ITA NO.839/KOL/2016 I LOUNGE, AY 2010-11 THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE NECESSARY CO-OPERATION TO THE LD AO BY PROV IDING NECESSARY EVIDENCES FOR BETTER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND ALSO GIVEN LIBERTY TO ADDUCE FRESH EVIDENCES, IF NEED ARISES. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND 3(D) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02.12.2016 SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER DATED :2 ND DECEMBER, 2016 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT I. LOUNGE, 21, HEMANTA BASU SARANI, CEN TRE POINT, 4 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 440, KOLKAT-700 001. 2 RESPONDENT ACIT, CIRCLE-26, KOLKATA 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .