Calcutta Urology Research Centre Pvt Ltd, Kolkata V. A.C.I.T CC - VII,kolkata, Kolkata

ITSSA 35/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9997 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDER MEHT A P
• Assessee Lawyers: V N PUROHIT
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Business income; Depreciation; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 142(1); 153A; 32; 37; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI P.K.BANSAL, A.M. & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, J.M. ] I.T.(SS)A. NOS.35 TO 39/KOL/2013 : ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 TO 2008-09 CALCUTTA UROLOGY RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD. -VS- AC IT, CC-VII, KOLKATA ( APPELLANT ) PAN :AABCC 5906B ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 09.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 17.01.2014 APPEARANCES : FOR THE ASSESSEE : SHRI V.N.PUROHIT, CA : FOR THE DEPARTMENT : SHRI VARINDER ME HTA, CIT(DR) O R D E R PER SHRI P.K.BANSAL, A.M. : ALL THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), KOLKATA ALL DATED 28.02.2013 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2008- 09. ALL THESE APPEALS SINCE INVOLVE THE COMMON ISSU E, THEREFORE, THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. IN ALL THE ASSESS MENT YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL EXCEPT CHANGE IN THE FIGURES IN GROUND NOS. 1(A) AND GROUND NO.2. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE ARE R EPRODUCING THE GROUNDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, WHICH READ AS UNDER: (1)(A) THAT THE CIT(A), C-I HAS ERRED, BOTH ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, IN CON FIRMING THE A.OS ACTION IN ESTIMATING APPELLANTS PROFIT ONCE HE HAS MADE ADDITION AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND NO EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT FO UND HAVING BEEN FOUND IN SEARCH SUGGESTING THAT APPELLANT HAS ERRED MORE INCOME THAN DISCOVERED IN COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZ ED DOCUMENTS AND THEREBY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.23,56,877/- AS PRO FIT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN EARNED @35% OF TURNOVER DISCLOSED WHICH R ATE IS BASED ON SUBSEQUENT YEARS RATE OF PROFIT EARNED BY ASSESSEE. (B) THAT THE CIT(A), C-I HAS, LIKEWISE FURTHER ERRE D IN NOT CONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES MADE TO EARN INCOME ON THE GR OUND THAT ACCOUNT ARE NOT AUDITED WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE FA CTS. 2 I.T.(SS)A. NO. 35TO39/KOL/2013 CALCUTTA UROLOGY RESEARCH CENTRE PVT.LTD. A.YRS. 2004-05 TO 2008-09 (C) THAT C.I.T.(A),C-I HAS LIKEWISE FURTHER ERRED I N CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.28,930/- VIDE GROUND NO.3 BEFORE HIM . IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 A ND 2008-09, IN GROUND NO. 1(A), THE FIGURES OF RS.31,09,550/-, 29,32,967/-, R S.27,11,014 AND RS.27,30,191/- BE READ IN PLACE OF RS.26,53,877/- RESPECTIVELY. SI MILARLY, IN GROUND NO.2, IN PLACE OF RS.28,930/-, RS.50,937/-, 30,256/-, RS.39,566/- AND RS.18,018/- BE READ RESPECTIVELY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006 -07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN THE FOLLOWING COMMON ADDITIONAL GROUND IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR OF THE APPEALS. THAT IN CASE THE GROUND NO. ONE(1) OF THE APPEAL IS REJECTED, DIRECTIONS BE GIVEN TO A.O. TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION O N FIXED ASSETS AS DEDUCTION FROM ESTIMATED PROFIT VIDE GROUND NO.1. 3. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE ADDITION AL GROUND IS A LEGAL GROUND AND THEREFORE THIS GROUND BE ADMITTED. NO ADDITIONA L FACTS HAVE TO BE INVESTIGATED. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND BEING A LEGAL GROUND HAS TO B E ADMITTED. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDED THAT THE QUANTUM OF THE DEPRE CIATION AND THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESCRIBED PARTICULARS, HAVE TO BE LOOKED INTO AND THEREFORE THIS GROUND CANNOT BE ADMITTED. 4. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CON SIDERED THE SAME. IN OUR OPINION, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPREC IATION ON THE FIXED ASSETS OR NOT IS A LEGAL GROUND. THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE DEPREC IATION HAS TO BE VERIFIED BY THE AO. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES THE D IRECTION TO THE AO TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC 229 ITR 383, ADMIT THE ADDITION AL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, BEING COMMON IN ALL THE APPEALS, ARE THAT THERE HAD BEEN A SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC TION 132 ON 02.12.2009. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN RUNNING A NURSING HO ME. IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE 3 I.T.(SS)A. NO. 35TO39/KOL/2013 CALCUTTA UROLOGY RESEARCH CENTRE PVT.LTD. A.YRS. 2004-05 TO 2008-09 SEARCH, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY INCOME-TAX RETURN. EV EN PRIOR TO THE SEARCH, NO RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY. THE AO ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 142(1) AND 143(2) AND DURING THE COUR SE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE YEAR-WISE B REAK-UP OF UNRECORDED INCOME TOTALING TO RS.92,85,985/-, DETAILED AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR (S) SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS (RS.) 2004-05 6,791/- 2005-06 6,12,920/- 2006-07 13,34,655/- 2007-08 11,44,288/- 2008-09 24,57,024/- 2009-10 37,30,307/- TOTAL 92,85,985/- DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED PROFIT & LOSS A/C., BALANCE-SHEET, EVEN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT, WHICH WAS NOT SIGNED BY THE AUDITOR. THE AO WORKED OUT, AS PER PAGE 4 OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDE R, SUPPRESSED RECEIPT FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AS UNDER: A.Y. AMOUNT AS PER ASSESSEES FURTHER AMOUNT TOTA L OWN CALCULATION AS CALCULATED ABOVE SUPPRESSIONS 2004-05 6,791/- ------ RS. 6,791/- 2005-06 6,12,920/- ------ RS. 6,12,920/- 2006-07 13,34,655/- ------ RS. 13,34,655/- 2007-08 11,44,288/- RS. 3,72,823/- RS. 15,1 7,111/- 2008-09 24,57,024/- RS. 5,36,383/- RS. 29,9 3,407/- 2009-10 37,30,307/- RS.43,51,693/- RS. 80,82,000/- TOTAL 92,85,985/- RS.52,60,899/- RS.1,45,46,884/- THE AO NOTED THAT IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, T HE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN, AS PER THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C. AND COMPUTATION OF THE INCOM E, THE FOLLOWING TURNOVER AND LOSS ASSESSMENT YEAR (S) TURNOVER (RS.) LOSS (RS.) 2004-05 67,33,935/- 9,05,251/- 2005-06 88,84,429/- 1,86,732/- 2006-07 83,79,905/- 1,58,228/- 2007-08 77,45,754/- 6,63,006/- 2008-09 78,00,546/- 2,10,546/- 4 I.T.(SS)A. NO. 35TO39/KOL/2013 CALCUTTA UROLOGY RESEARCH CENTRE PVT.LTD. A.YRS. 2004-05 TO 2008-09 IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE AO NOTED THAT T HE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDS RS.40 LAKHS AND THEREFORE, TAX AUDIT WAS CO MPULSORY. EVEN AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT P RODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE AO, THEREFORE, INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 145(3) AND COMPUTED THE INCOME IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 144. T HE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DERIVED NET PROFIT @37.84% AND 34.85% AFTER INCLUDING THE MISCELLANEOUS INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-1 0 AND 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, THE AO ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT @35% AND COMPUTED THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT PROFIT SUPPRESSED TOTAL INCOME OTHER YEAR INCOME FROM BUSINESS INCOME 2004-05 23,56,877 6,791 23,63,668 28,930 2005-06 31,09,550 6,12,920 37,22,470 50,957 2006-07 29,32,967 14,58,643 43,91,610 30,256 2007-08 27,11,014 15,17,711 42,28,125 39,565 2008-09 27,30,191 29,93,407 57,23,598 18,018 THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR E ACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AGAINST THE ESTIMATION OF THE PROFIT @35% AND ALSO AGAINST THE ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE CIT(A) DISMIS SED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS SUFFERED LOSS DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2008-09 AND THEREFO RE, HE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN UNDER SECTION 139. THERE HAD BEEN SEARCH IN THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE ON 02.12.2009. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED UNDISCLOSED INCOM E AT RS.1 CRORE FOR THE SEARCHED YEAR ON ROUGH ESTIMATE BASIS. ULTIMATELY, THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE SEARCHED YEAR WAS ARRIVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE ASSES SEE AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND E STIMATED THE PROFIT FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR @35% BEING THE AVERAGE OF NE T PROFIT AS PER THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010-1 1. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME HAS TO BE ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF THE MATE RIALS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THERE WAS NO MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COUR SE OF THE SEARCH THAT THE 5 I.T.(SS)A. NO. 35TO39/KOL/2013 CALCUTTA UROLOGY RESEARCH CENTRE PVT.LTD. A.YRS. 2004-05 TO 2008-09 ASSESSEE HAS EARNED THE INCOME WHAT HAS BEEN ESTIMA TED BY THE AO. IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-VS- DR.RATAN KUMAR SINGH 357 ITR 35 (AL L.) AND THAT OF CIT-VS- R,M.MEHROTRA 320 ITR 403 (ALL.). IT WAS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT NONE OF THE DISCLOSED ASSETS OR INVESTMENTS WAS FOUND DURING TH E COURSE OF THE SEARCH AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. IN THE INITIAL YEAR, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE ENTERPRISE MAY EARN THE INCOME. THE AO ESTIMATED TH E INCOME ON THE BASIS OF THE PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEA R. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES B ELOW. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CON SIDERED THE SAME. WE NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, A SEARCH HA D TAKEN PLACE ON 02.12.2009. THEREFORE, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSM ENT HAS TO BE MADE AS PER THE PROVISIONS GIVEN UNDER SECTION 153A. THE DECISION A S HAS BEEN RELIED ON BY THE LD. A.R. IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH BOTH THE DECISIONS I.E. CIT-VS- DR.RATAN KUMAR SINGH ( SUPRA ) AND THAT OF CIT-VS- R.N.MEHROTRA ( SUPRA ). BOTH THESE DECISIONS RELATE TO THE BLOCK ASSESSM ENT I.E. IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT TO BE MADE UNDER CHAPTER XIVB . THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIVB WERE APPLICABLE WHERE THE SEARCH IS INITIATED AFTER 30.06.95 BUT BEFORE 31 ST DAY OF MAY, 2003. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BI A RE APPARENTLY CLEAR. IT STATES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER SHALL NOT APPLY WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR A NY ASSETS ARE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A AFTER THE 31 ST DAY OF MAY, 2003. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. A.R., IN OUR OPINION, WILL NOT ASSIST THE ASSESSEE. THE AO COMPUTED THE SUPPRESSED TURNOVER, WHICH IS NOT DISP UTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT F ILED ANY RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, NEITHER ANY RETURN WAS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A. THE ASSESSEE EVEN DID NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE AO. UNDER THESE PROVISIONS, THE AO, IN OUR OPINION, DOES NOT HAVE ANY ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO REJECT THE BOOKS UND ER SECTION 145(3) AND COMPUTE 6 I.T.(SS)A. NO. 35TO39/KOL/2013 CALCUTTA UROLOGY RESEARCH CENTRE PVT.LTD. A.YRS. 2004-05 TO 2008-09 THE INCOME IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 14 4. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT, AFTER DEDUCTING ALL T HE EXPENDITURE INCLUDING THE DEPRECIATION AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF THE PROFIT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010-11 AT 35%. WE ALSO FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR THAT IN THE INITIAL YEAR, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PROFIT CANNOT BE HIGHER AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY THUMB RULE THAT A PARTICULAR ENTERPRI SE WILL EARN THE PROFIT AT A PARTICULAR RATE. IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THE ASSESS EE MIGHT HAVE EARNED MORE PROFIT BUT IN THE INITIAL YEAR, THERE ARE NUMBER OF TEETHI NG PROBLEMS. THE ASSESSEE TAKES TIME TO ESTABLISH AND WITH A NAME IN THE MARKET. TH EREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THESE FACTORS, THE PROFIT HAS TO BE ESTIMATED. IN V IEW OF THIS FACT, IN OUR OPINION, THIS WILL MEET THE CANONS OF JUSTICE TO BOTH THE PARTIES , IF PROFIT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ESTIMATED @10%, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 @12.5%, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 @15%, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 @20% AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 @25%. 8. SO FAR THE ADDITION OF THE OTHER INCOME IS CONCE RNED WHICH HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.2, WE NOTED THAT SINCE THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF THE PROFIT PER CENTAGE AND BASED ON THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010-11. WHILE WORKING OUT THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PROFIT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010- 11, WE NOTED THAT THE AO HAS INCLUDED THE MISCELLANEOUS INCOME IN THE PROFIT EAR NED. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THIS, IN OUR OPINION, NO SEPARATE ADDITION IS REQUIRED IN RESPECT OF OTHER INCOME. THUS, GROUND NO.1 IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS PARTL Y ALLOWED WHILE GROUND NO.2 IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS FULLY ALLOWED. 9. NOW COMING TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. AR BEFORE US CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ALL OWED DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSETS. IN THIS REGARD, ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWARDS THE CIRCULAR OF THE DEPARTMENT DATED 31.08.1965, PARA 2 OF WHICH STIPULATES AS UND ER: 2. THE BOARD CONSIDER THAT WHERE IT IS PROPOSED TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT AND THE PRESCRIBED PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN FUR NISHED BY THE 7 I.T.(SS)A. NO. 35TO39/KOL/2013 CALCUTTA UROLOGY RESEARCH CENTRE PVT.LTD. A.YRS. 2004-05 TO 2008-09 ASSESSEE, THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE SHOULD BE SEPA RATELY WORKED OUT. IN ALL SUCH CASES, THE GROSS PROFIT SHOULD BE ESTIMATED AND THE DEDUCTIONS AND ALLOWANCES INCLUDING THE DEPRECIATIO N ALLOWANCE SHOULD BE SEPARATELY DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS PROFIT . IF IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THE NET PROFIT SHOULD BE ESTIMATED IT SHOULD B E ESTIMATED SUBJECT TO THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPRECIATION AND THE DEPRECIAT ION ALLOWANCE SHOULD BE DEDUCTED THEREFROM. THUS, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO A LLOW DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE ESTIMATING THE INCOME. 10. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE OR DERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CO NSIDERED THE SAME. WE NOTED THAT THE AO, AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS UNDER SECTION 145, ESTIMATED THE PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF THE AVERAGE NET PROFITS EARNED BY T HE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2010-11, WHILE WORKING OUT THE NE T PROFIT RATIO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2010-11. THE NET PROFI T RATIO HAS BEEN COMPUTED BY THE AO, AFTER ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSE SSEE IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. DEPRECIATION IS A CHARGE AGAINST THE PROFIT A ND NET PROFIT IS ALWAYS COMPUTED AFTER DEBITING THE DEPRECIATION. IT MAY BE A DIFFER ENT THING THAT UNDER THE INCOME- TAX ACT, DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 32 WHILE OTHER EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. I N THE INITIAL YEAR, DEPRECIATION IS ALWAYS HIGHER WHICH REDUCES THE NET PROFIT RATIO WHILE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, DEPRECIATION GETS REDUCED AND WITH THE REDUCTION OF THE DEPRECIATION, THE NET PROFIT ALSO GET INCREASED PROVIDED THERE IS NO PROPORTIONA TE INCREASE IN THE OTHER EXPENSES. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, SINCE THE DEPRECIAT ION HAS ALSO BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT, IN OUR OP INION, IF AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE SEPARATELY IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, THIS WILL TANTAMOUNT TO BE THE DOUBLE DEDUCTION, WHILE ESTIMA TING THE PROFIT AND ALLOWING THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR. WE HAVE ALREADY KEPT THIS ISSUE IN MIND ESPECIALLY THE FACT THAT THE NET PROF IT RATIO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 8 I.T.(SS)A. NO. 35TO39/KOL/2013 CALCUTTA UROLOGY RESEARCH CENTRE PVT.LTD. A.YRS. 2004-05 TO 2008-09 2009-10 AND 2010-11 HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT BY THE AO @ 37.84% AND 34.85% RESPECTIVELY, AFTER ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION AND I NCLUDING THE MISCELLANEOUS INCOME. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, WE CANNOT GIVE DIRECT ION TO THE AO TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE FIXED ASSETS SE PARATELY OUT OF THE PROFIT HAS TO BE ESTIMATED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR FINDINGS GIVEN , WHILE DISPOSING OF GROUND NO.1. THUS, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSE SSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 TH JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (P. K. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 17 TH JANUARY, 2014 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. 2. 3. THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. CIT, KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA TALUKDAR(SR.P.S.) 9 I.T.(SS)A. NO. 35TO39/KOL/2013 CALCUTTA UROLOGY RESEARCH CENTRE PVT.LTD. A.YRS. 2004-05 TO 2008-09