M/s Safari Fine Clothing Pvt. Ltd., GANDHIDHAM V. The Income Tax Officer, TDS-4, GANDHIDHAM

CO 15/RJT/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3006 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: USHA N SHROTE
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] JKTDKSV U;K;IHB] JKTDKSVA VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] JKTDKSV U;K;IHB] JKTDKSVA VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] JKTDKSV U;K;IHB] JKTDKSVA VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] JKTDKSV U;K;IHB] JKTDKSVA IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD] LOZJH LOZJH LOZJH LOZJH EGKOHJ IZLKN] U;KF;D LNL; EGKOHJ IZLKN] U;KF;D LNL; EGKOHJ IZLKN] U;KF;D LNL; EGKOHJ IZLKN] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA ,OA ,OA ,OA VEJTHR FLAG VEJTHR FLAG VEJTHR FLAG VEJTHR FLAG] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{KA ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{KA ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{KA ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{KA (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) ./ I.T.A. NOS.732, 733, 734, 735 & 736/RJT/2014 & CO NOS.13, 14, 15, 16 & 17/RJT/2015 (IN ITA NOS.732, 733, 734, 735 & 736/RJT/2014 RESPE CTIVELY) ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-1 3 & 2013-14) INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS-4, GANDHIDHAM. / VS. M/S. SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT. LTD., SHED-280/281, A-TYPE, SECTOR-3, KASEZ, GANDHIDHAM. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAJCS 0565 Q ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) & CROSS OBJECTOR ASSESSEE BY : MS. USHA N. SHROTE, SR. D.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI KALPESH DOSHI, A.R. / DATE OF HEARING 04/05/2017 !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26/05/2017 #$ / O R D E R PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE FIVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE A RE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X(APPEALS)-II, RAJKOT (IDENTICALLY DATED 26/09/2014) PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/2014 AND CO NOS. 13 TO 17/RJ T/2015(IN ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/14) SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 2 - (AYS) 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS THEREOF. SINCE THE ISSUES ARE COMMON. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DIS POSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. ALL THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE COMM ON GROUNDS. THEREFORE, WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS ALL APPEALS AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTIONS SIMULTANEOUSLY: I. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ORDER PASSED U/S.206C(6) OF THE IT ACT OF RS.9,04,858/-(FOR A.Y. 2009-10), RS.24,97,271/-(FOR A.Y. 2010- 11), RS.32,97,026/-(FOR A.Y.2011-12), RS.10,20,866/ -(FOR A.Y.2012-13) & RS.9,99,324/-(FOR A.Y. 2013-14). II. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S.206C(7) OF THE IT ACT. THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S.206C(7) IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE IN THE APPEA L UNDER REFERENCE. III. THE CIT(A) HAS VIOLATED THE RULE 46A OF THE IT RULE BY NOT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO AFTER ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EV IDENCES IN THE FORM OF PHOTOGRAPHS, SAMPLES. IV. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON F ACTS OF THE CASE BY IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THE REMAND REPORT HAS TO BE CALLED FOR FROM THE AO FOR THE ADDITIONAL/FRESH EVIDENCES PROD UCE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM FOR VERIFICATION. ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/2014 AND CO NOS. 13 TO 17/RJ T/2015(IN ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/14) SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 3 - 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- 3.1 DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, IT WAS OBSERVED TH AT APPELLANT WAS IMPORTING GARMENTS, CUTTING THEM INTO SMALLER PIECE S AND SELLING THEM IN INDIA. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ALSO SELLING SCRAP LIKE WASTAGE OF PACKING MATERIAL, LOOSE CARTOONS, PLASTI C BAGS ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HELD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS SELLING SCRAP AND THUS SHOULD HAVE COLLECTED TAX AT SOURCE ON THE SALES MA DE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206C. IT WAS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS LI ABLE TO PAY INTEREST U/S.206C(7). THE TCS DEFAULT AND THE INTEREST LIABI LITY HAS BEEN COMPUTED BY THE AO FOR THE VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS AS UNDER:- A.Y. DEMAND U/S. 206C(6A) DEMAND U/S. 206C(7) TOTAL 2009-10 9,06,739 5,84,846 14,91,585 2010-11 25,00,157 13,12,582 38,12,739 2011-12 33,04,512 13,38,327 46,42,839 2012-13 10,23,991 3,00,380 13,24,371 2013-14 10,05,870 1,57,254 11,63,124 2014-15 6,08,700 42,425 6,51,125 TOTAL 93,49,969 37,35,814 1,30,85,783 4. BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS DURING APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/2014 AND CO NOS. 13 TO 17/RJ T/2015(IN ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/14) SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 4 - (I). 'THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS IMPORTED USED FUMIG ATE GARMENTS FROM THE VARIOUS COUNTRIES. (II). THE SAID GOODS IMPORTED ARE SPECIFICALLY COVE RED AS FINISHED GOODS UNDER THE CUSTOM TARIFF ACT. THE GOODS ARE LI ABLE TO CUSTOM DUTY ALSO. (III). THE APPELLANT HAS CARRIED OUT VARIOUS PROCES SES ON-SUCH GARMENTS AS PER THEIR TYPES, QUALITY, AND SYNTHETIC S. THE VARIOUS PROCESSES ARE CARRIED OUT TO MAKE A FINISHED PRODUCT WHICH IS USABLE AS FINISHED, PRODUCT IN THE MARKET. (IV). IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE GOODS A RE BIFURCATED INTO THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES: (A) MUTILATED RAGS (B) INDUSTRIAL WIPERS (C) CHINDI (V) THE GOODS ARE MANUFACTURED AS PER THE ORDER PLA CED BY VARIOUS BUYERS. THE BUYER OF THE PRODUCT USES GOODS FOR DIF FERENT APPLICATION. (A) MUTILATED RAGS ARE USED FOR LADIES OVERCOAT, KN IT WARES, BLANKETS, WINTER WEARS AND VARIOUS PRODUCED LIKE GARMENTS INNER SUPPORTS, SOFA SETS, MATTRESSES, PIL LOWS ETC. (B) CHINDI ARE USED FOR MANUFACTURING OF BIGFOOT BA TH MAT, GRANNY SQUARE RUG, JUMBLED JOLA, KITCHEN SCRUBBERS, COFFEE COASTER, PLASTIC BAG BASKET AND SO MANY SUCH OTHER ITEMS. (C) INDUSTRIAL WIPERS ARE USED TO BY VARIOUS INDUST RIES FOR THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES. (VI). ALL THE ABOVE ITEMS ARE USED AS RAW-MATERIAL BY THE BUYERS. THE BUYERS USE THE PRODUCT FOR VARIOUS MANUFACTURING AC TIVITIES FOR THEIR END USE. (VII). THE PRODUCT MANUFACTURING BY THE APPELLANT I S ALSO HAVING SEPARATE TITLE UNDER EXCISE LAWS UNDER THE HEAD 63. 09 AND 63.10. THE APPELLANT IS ALSO LIABLE TO PAY EXCISE DUTY IF THE SAME HAS BEEN SOLD UNDER DTA AREA. ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/2014 AND CO NOS. 13 TO 17/RJ T/2015(IN ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/14) SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 5 - (VIII). IT IS ALSO RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY THE AS SESSEE THAT THE IMPORTED GARMENTS ARE COMPLETELY CAPABLE TO BE USED AS THEY ARE AND IF THOSE GARMENTS ARE SOLD IN DOMESTIC MARKET, THEN SA LE OF INDIAN MADE READYMADE GARMENTS SUFFERS BADLY. THEREFORE TO PROTECT AND PROMOTE READYMADE GARMENTS INDUSTRIES OF INDIA, THE GOVERNMENT HAS DIRECTED TO SALE THOSE GARMENTS IN D OMESTIC MARKET ONLY AFTER MAKING DIFFERENT PRODUCTS WHICH C AN BE USED AS RAW-MATERIAL. THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AP PELLANT IS NOT ALLOWED TO FURTHER TRADE THE IMPORTED GARMENTS TO B E SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET AS PER THE INSTRUCTION NO. F.NO.450/2/9 9-CUS. IV GIVEN BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS, D TD. 8 TH MAY 2000. (IX). AS PER SECTION 206C (11B) OF THE IT. ACT, 196 1 'SCRAP' MEANS WASTE AND SCRAP FROM THE MANUFACTURE OR MECHANICAL WORKING OF MATERIALS WHICH IS DEFINITELY NOT USABLE AS SUCH BE CAUSE OF BREAKAGE, CUTTING UP, WEAR AND : OTHER REASONS (X). THE HON'BLE ITAT RAJKOT IN THE CASE OF BHARTI AUTO PRODUCTS 157 TTJ 1 (RAJKOT) HAS DEFINED WASTE VIDE PARA NO. 25 M EANS 'WASTE IS SOMETHING UNUSABLE OR UNWANTED MATERIAL, ACCORDI NG TO OXFORD DICTIONARY WASTE IS SOMETHING WHICH HAS BEEN 'ELIMI NATED OR DISCARDED AS NO LONGER USEFUL OR REQUIRED' NOW, IN CASE OF APPELLANT COMPANY THE GOODS SOLD ARE VERY MUCH REGA RDED AS USEFUL AND REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANUFACTURIN G BY THE BUYERS IN THEIR PRODUCTION ITEMS. (XI) THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS FURTHER CONSIDERED THE DE FINITION OF SCRAP MEANS 'SOMETHING WHICH IS LEFT OVER AFTER THE GREAT ER PART HAS BEEN USED OR CONSUMED, 'SCRAP' THUS REFERS TO THE I NCIDENTAL RESIDUE DERIVED FROM CERTAIN TYPES OF MANUFACTURE, WHICH IS RECOVERABLE WITHOUT FURTHER PROCESSING'. (XII). THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS ALSO DEFINED MANUFACTUR ING AND THE PROCESS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY COMPLETELY CHANGES THE USAGE OF PRODUCT BY CHANGING THE SHAPE, PROPERTIES AND ST RUCTURE OF THE ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/2014 AND CO NOS. 13 TO 17/RJ T/2015(IN ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/14) SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 6 - PRODUCT. AND THEREFORE THE APPELLANT IN COMMERCIAL TERMS CARRYING OUT MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES BY PHYSICAL O PERATION ON THE GARMENTS. THE PRODUCT WHICH COMES OUT OF THE WH OLE ACTIVITIES IS NOT A PRODUCT WHICH IS LEFT OVER OR U NUSABLE AND THEREFORE IT WOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS SCRAP AS PER THE DEFINITION GIVEN UNDER THE INCOME TAX LAW. (XIII). IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE RAW MATERIAL AS WELL AS FINISHED GOODS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY ARE NOT REGARDED AS SCRAP UNDER THE INDIRECT TAX LAWS ALSO. (XIV). ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT FROM THE ABOVE IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT APPELLANT COMPANY SELLING THE GOODS IS NOT A S CRAP AND NOT LIABLE FOR COLLECTION OF TAX FROM THE SELLER. (XV). THE LD. AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ACTUAL ACTI VITIES OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND HAS WRONGLY APPLIED THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 206C (6A) OF THE IT ACT AND WRONGLY CONSIDE RED THE 'APPELLANT IN DEFAULT' IN ACCOUNT OF FAILURE TO COL LECT TAX AT SOURCE. (XVI). IT HAS BEEN HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S ADISANKARA SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. ITA NO. 1194 OF 2010 (MADRAS HIGH CO URT) THAT IN THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE OF COTTON YARN, COTTON W ASTE CAME TO BE GENERATED AND THE USE OF THE SAID WASTE BY ANOTH ER MANUFACTURER SHOWS THAT IT WAS USED AS RAW MATERIAL BY PURCHASER. EVEN THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE STATED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE COTTON WASTE DISPOSED OF BY THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, WAS RE-USED AS RAW MATERIAL FO R MANUFACTURE OF LOWER COUNT OF COTTON YARN AND IT DO ES NOT COME UNDER DEFINITION OF SCRAP AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION (B) OF SECTION 206C OF THE ACT. (XVII). THUS, FROM THE ABOVE IT CAN BE CONCLUDED TH AT IF THE GOODS SOLD TO ANOTHER PERSON USED IT AS RAW MATERIAL THAN IT COUL D NOT BE CONSIDERED AS SCRAP FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 206C OF THE I. T. ACT. ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/2014 AND CO NOS. 13 TO 17/RJ T/2015(IN ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/14) SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 7 - 5. LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF T HE AO. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND HEA RD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE RU NNING ITS COMPANY IN SEZ AREA, WHERE GOVERNMENT PROVIDE SOME INCENTIVES TO THE ENTREPRENEUR. 6.1 IT HAS BEEN HELD IN THE CASE OF BHARTI AUTO 37 TAXMANN.COM 37 HAS HELD SCRAP TO MEAN SOMETHING WHICH IS LEFT OVER AFTER THE GREATER PART HAS BEEN USED OR CONSUMED. SCRAP THUS REFERS T O THE INCIDENTAL RESIDUE DERIVED FROM CERTAIN TYPES OF MANUFACTURE, WHICH IS RECOVERABLE WITHOUT FURTHER PROCESSING. 6.2. LEARNED AR HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT O F JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT [2016] 65 TAXMANN.COM 206 (GUJARAT) IN THE CASE OF CIT(TDS) VS. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD. SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 COLLECT ION OF TAX AT SOURCE (SCRAP) WHETHER ANY MATERIAL WHICH IS USAB LE AS SUCH WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN AMBIT OF EXPRESSION SCRAP AS ENVI SAGED UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 206C HELD, YES WHETHE R SINCE PRODUCTS OBTAINED IN COURSE OF SHIP BREAKING ACTIVITY ARE US ABLE AS SUCH, THEY DO NOT FALL WITHIN DEFINITION OF SCRAP AND ASSESSEE EN GAGED IN SHIP BREAKING ACTIVITY WOULD HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO COLLECT TAX AT SOURCE ON SALE OF SCRAP AND IT WAS HELD IN THE FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . 7. IN THIS SAID JUDGMENT, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL (ITAT AHMEDABAD) IN ITA NOS.1213 AND 1214/AHD/2010 DATED 15.02.2011 IN ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/2014 AND CO NOS. 13 TO 17/RJ T/2015(IN ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/14) SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 8 - THE CASE OF NAVINE FLUORINE INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. ACIT, TDS CIRCLE SURAT, FOR A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 INTER ALIA HELD THAT TERM WASTE AND SCRAP ARE ONE ITEM. THE WASTE AND SCRAP MUST BE FROM MANUFACTURE OF MECHANICAL WORKING OF MATERIAL WHICH IS DEFINITELY NOT USABLE AS SUCH BECAUSE OF BREAKAGE, CUTTING UP, WARE AND TO OTHER REASONS. IT WOULD MEAN THAT THESE WASTE AND SCRAP BEING ONE ITEM SHOU LD ARISE FROM MANUFACTURE OR MECHANICAL WORKING OF MATERIAL. THE WORDS WASTE AND SCRAP SHOULD HAVE NEXUS WITH MANUFACTURING OR MECHA NICAL WORKING OF MATERIALS. THEREFORE, THE WORD USED IS WHICH IS D EFINITELY NOT USABLE. THE WORD IS AS USED IN THIS DEFINITION OF THE SCR AP MEANT FOR SINGULAR ITEM I.E. WASTE AND SCRAP. 8. SO FAR AS RULE 46A IS CONCERNED THAT AS PER THE DEPARTMENT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS VIOLATED THE RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES BY NOT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO AFTER ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EV IDENCES IN THE FORM OF PHOTOGRAPHS, SAMPLES ETC IS CONCERNED. SAME IS COVE RED BY THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE MATTER OF ITO VS. INDUSTRIAL ROADWAYS [2008] 112 ITD 293 (MUMBAI): IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHETHER PURPOSE OF RULE 46A I S TO PLACE FETTERS ON RIGHTS OF AN APPELLANT TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND NOT ON RIGHTS OF FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY TO CALL FOR PRODUCTION OF ANY FRESH EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION - HELD, YES - WHETHER WHERE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS OBTAINED BY FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON ITS OWN MOTION, THERE IS NO REQUIREMEN T, IN LAW, THAT HE SHOULD INVARIABLY CONSULT/CONFRONT ASSESSING OFFICE R WITH SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - HELD, YES -WHETHER IF ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY IS IN NATURE OF A ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/2014 AND CO NOS. 13 TO 17/RJ T/2015(IN ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/14) SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 9 - CLINCHING EVIDENCE LEAVING NO FURTHER ROOM FOR ANY DOUBT OR CONTROVERSY, IN SUCH A CASE NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY FORWARDING EVIDENCE/MATERIAL TO ASSESSING OFFICER T O OBTAIN HIS REPORT AND IN SUCH EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, SAID REQUIRE MENT MAY BE DISPENSED WITH AND IT WAS HELD IN THE FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. SO FAR AS THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S. 206C(7) OF IT ACT IS CONCERNED AND SAME IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. 10. ON THE ACCOUNT OF FOREGOING OBSERVATION, WE DIS MISS THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AS WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ENOUGH MATERIAL TO RELY US ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE D ISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 11. AS ITA NO.733/RJT/2014, ITA NO.734/RJT/2014, IT A NO.735/RJT/2014 & ITA NO.736/RJT/2014 ARE FOR THE C ONSEQUENTIAL AND SAME APPEALS INVOLVED COMMON ISSUES, THEREFORE, DO NOT REQUIRE SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL FIVE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTME NT ARE DISMISSED. 13. SO FAR AS CROSS OBJECTIONS NOS. 13/RJT/2015, 14 /RJT/2015, 15/RJT/2015, 16/RJT/2015 & 17/RJT/2015, IN ALL THE CROSS OBJECTIONS, APPELLANT HAS TAKEN COMMON OBJECTIONS FOR ADDITION OF SMALL AMOUNT U/S. 206C(6) OF INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/2014 AND CO NOS. 13 TO 17/RJ T/2015(IN ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/14) SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 10 - 14. IN ALL THE CROSS OBJECTIONS, ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN COMMON GROUNDS, SINCE WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A ) AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER, PASSED BY THE LEARNED C IT(A). THEREFORE, ALL THE CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, ALL FIVE APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 732 /RJT/2014, 733/RJT/2014, 734/RJT/2014, 735/RJT/2014 & 736/RJT/ 2014 ARE DISMISSED AND ALL FIVE CROSS OBJECTIONS NOS. 13/RJT/2015, 14/ RJT/2015, 15/RJT/2015, 16/RJT/2015 & 17/RJT/2015 ARE ALSO DIS MISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26/05/2017 SD/- SD/- VEJTHR FLAG VEJTHR FLAG VEJTHR FLAG VEJTHR FLAG %& # ( # ) (() # ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) ( MAHAVIR PR ASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 26/05/2017 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/2014 AND CO NOS. 13 TO 17/RJ T/2015(IN ITA NOS.732 TO 736/RJT/14) SAFARI FINE CLOTHING PVT. LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 11 - / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. + ,- . / CONCERNED CIT 4. . () / THE CIT(A)-II, RAJKOT. 5. /01 )),- , ,-' , &%#+# / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 134 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ) //TRUE COPY// / !'# ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) #$ %, / ITAT, AHMEDABAD TRUE COPY 1. DATE OF DICTATION 11/05/2017 (DICTATION-PAD 12 PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL- FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 12/05/2017 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 16/05/2017 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 16/05/2017 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S 23/05/2017. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 26/0 5/2017 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER