Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Central Cir-3, Surat

CO 3/SRT/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1697 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Accommodation entries; Competent authority
• Section: 68; 132; 143(3); 153A; 143(1); 143(2); 153C

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,स ु रत Ûयायपीठ,स ु रत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (a/o IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021) (AY 2012-13) (Hearing in Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5 th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Vs Brillare Realty Private Limited. F-104, Vedant Shreeji Apartment, Opp. Anurag Bungalow, Science City Road, Sola, Ahmedabad PAN : AAECB 0879 M अपीलाथȸ /Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ /Respondent / Cross-objector Ǔनधा[ǐरतीकȧओरसे /Assessee by Shri Umaid Singh Bhati, Advocate राजèवकȧओरसे /Revenue by Shri H.P. Meena–CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 26.07.2022 उɮघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of pronouncement 12.09.2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal under section 253 of Income-tax Act (Act) by Revenue and Cross Objection (CO) therein by assessee are directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 01.01.2021, which in turn arise out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s 153A Act, 1961dated IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 2 30.12.2016 for assessment year (AY) 2012-13. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,45,49,000/- on account of unsecured loan & Rs.20,80,300/- on account of interest on unsecured loan without appreciating the fact that such unsecured loan was arranged by the assessee from the entry provider, which was accepted by the main person, i.e., Shri Rajendra Jain of the entry providing group before the Income Tax Department during the search proceeding. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that any addition during the assessment u/s 153A has to be confined to the incriminating material found during the course of search u/s 132(1) of the Act, even though, there is no such stipulation in Section. 153A of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that sec.153A requires a notice to be issued requiring the assessee to furnish his return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and to assess or re-assess the total income of those six assessment years, and that the scheme of assessment or re-assessment of the total income of a person searched will be brought to naught if no addition is allowed to be made for those six assessment years in the absence of any seized incriminating material. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Surat may be set aside and that of the AO may be restored to the above extent.” 2. On receipt of notice of appeal by revenue, the assessee has filed its Cross Objections raising following grounds: - “1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the Ground No.3.0 without adjudication, in connection with assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A in absence of IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 3 initiation of any search warrant against the cross-objector merely on the basis that DIT(Inv.), Mumbai is his higher authority. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the Ground No.2.0 relating to validity of issue of Notice u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in failing to adjudicate Ground No.s 7.0 and 9.0 raised before him on ‘merits’ and dismissing in limine.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a Private Limited Company allegedly incorporated on 15.04.2010. The assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development. A search under section 132 was carried out on 09.10.2014 in the case of HVK International Pvt. Ltd. Surat. In the search action, the assessee was also allegedly covered. During search action, certain incriminating documents pertaining to assessee was found and seized. Consequent upon search action notice under section 153A was served upon the assessee on 11.11.2016. In response thereto, the assessee filed its return of income on 02.12.2016 declaring income of Rs.1,85,550/-. The Assessing Officer after serving notice under section 143(2) dated 02.12.2016 proceeded for assessment. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer recorded that the search action under section 132 was carried out at the premises of IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 4 Rajendra Jain group in Mumbai on 03.10.2013. During the course of search action, it was revealed that Rajendra Jain & his group was indulged in providing accommodation entries in the nature of bogus sales and unsecured loans. During the search action on the premises of Rajendra Jain & his group two pen drives containing details of group companies including details of a company Sparsh Exports Private Limited, belonging to the Rajendra Jain, was recovered. The statement of Shri Rajendra Jain and Shri Surendra Jain were recorded on 03.10.2013 under section 132(4). During the search proceedings, Shri Rajendra Jain and Shri Surendra Jain have admitted that they were provided accommodation entry of unsecured loan through Sparsh Exports Pvt. Ltd to various parties. It was found that assessee-company had received unsecured loan from Sparsh Export Pvt. Ltd., Rs. 4.454 crores. On the basis of such observation, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee to explain as to why the amount of Rs.4.454 and interest payment thereon crores should not be added to the income of assessee. The Assessing Officer recorded that no response was made by IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 5 assessee and no any evidence was furnished to substantiate said transaction. The Assessing Officer on the basis of statement of Shri Rajendra Jain and modus operandi disclosed by giving a statement made addition of Rs.4.454 crores by trading as it was non-genuine. The Assessing Officer also made the addition of interest payment of Rs. 20,80,300/-. 4. Aggrieved by the addition in the assessment the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed detailed written submission as recorded in para-4 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). The assessee in its submission, submitted that assessee was set up on 15.04.2010 and engaged in the business of real estate development. The assessee remained in active business till March, 2011 and thereafter ceased to carry out construction activity. A search action was carried out at the premises of Decent Dia Jewels Pvt. Ltd. on 05.05.2014 simultaneously the assesse was covered under survey operation as one of the Director namely Chetan Shah, was common in both the companies. Further a search action was carried out on HVK International Pvt. Ltd. Surat on 09.10.2014 and the case of assessee was centralized. The IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 6 assessee filed its original return for the year under consideration 2012-13 on 29.09.2012 declaring income of Rs.1,85,550/-. The return of income was accepted under section 143(1). Subsequently notice under section 153A dated 11.11.2016 was issued to assessee for filing return of income for assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15. The assessee in compliance of notice under section 153A filed its return of income on 02.12.2016, declaring same income Rs.1,85,550/- as declared while filing its original return on 29.09.2012. The assessee was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A on 30.12.2016. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.4.454 crores on the basis of alleged loan from Sparsh Exports Private Limited and also disallowed interest of Rs.20,80,300/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order ignored and disregarded the submissions filed on 07.12.2016, 13.12.2016 & 21.21.2016 respectively. The assessee further stated that search operation was carried out in the premises of HVK International Pvt. Ltd. Surat on 09.10.2014. The assessee was not subjected to any search under section 132 and the assertion of Assessing Officer that IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 7 assessee was also searched under section 132 is incorrect. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153A for assessment year 2012-13 on 11.11.2016. The assessee submitted that the said notice is bad in law and illegal as no document nor a single penny of cash belonged to assessee was found or recovered from the premises of HVK International Private Limited Surat. No show cause notice or questionnaire was issued by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings for linking the assessee about the recovery of seizure of any document of cash belonged to assessee from the premises of HVK International Private Limited, Surat. The assessment order is also silent about any document or cash found belonged to assessee. The addition of Rs.4.452 crores under section 68 and disallowance of Rs.20,80,300/- were made on the basis of search and seizure operation carried out by the Department at the premises of Rajendra Jain & others on 03.10.2013. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.4.50 lakh in para-7 of the assessment order though the said amount was not considered in the determination of assessed income. If any, document / cash belonged to IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 8 assessee was recovered or seized from the premises of HVK International Pvt. Ltd., the correct course of action would be to issue notice under section 153C, after recording satisfaction rather than issuing notice under section 153A. The assessee by referring the provision of section 153C and 153A submitted that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ramesh D. Patel (2014) 362 ITR 492 (Guj) has held that in absence of search authorization, the assessment order under section 153A could not have been passed. Further Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Priyanka Singhania (2015) 94 CCH 0003 (Delhi) has also held that no proceedings can be initiated against the assessee under section 153A without there being a search warrant issued in the name of assessee in terms of section 132 r.w.s. Rule 112 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee further submitted that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Saumya Construction Private Limited (2016) 387 ITR 529 (Guj) held that if in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating material is found, no addition or disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 9 section 153A and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. The assessee submitted that assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2012-13 on 29.09.2012 which was processed under section 143(1) and time limit for issuance of notice under section 143(2) has expired before the date of search and thus, assessment has to be considered as completed assessment on the date of search in terms of section 153A, the completed assessment could not be interfered by the Assessing Officer while making assessment under section 153A, only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search or requisitioned of document. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2015) 380 ITR 573 (Del). 5. On merit, the assessee also submitted detailed submission as has been recorded on pages 8 to 14 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). The assessee stated that in response to the show cause notice of the assessing officer, the assessee attended the hearing before assessing officer and filed its reply to substantiate. The assessee filed confirmation of unsecured loan, copy of PAN, IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 10 return of income of creditor with relevant bank statement evidencing the receipt and repayment of loan. The assessee submitted that as per the requirement of section 68 they have discharged their liability in proving identity, creditworthy and genuineness of the transaction. The assessee also relied on certain case laws. 6. The submission of assessee was referred to Assessing Officer for remand report. The Assessing Officer furnished remand report which is also reflected in pages 11-12 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). In the remand report, the Assessing Officer referred that Panchanama was drawn in the name of Brillare Reality Pvt. Ltd., 502, Krupanidhi Association, JVPD, Gulmohar Cross Road No.4, Ville Parle (West), Mumbai-56 residence of Shri Hareshbhai Mohanbhai Sakariya dated 05.05.2014 with Form No.45 (Warrant of Authorization under section 132) and has mentioned in the report that Brillare Reality Pvt. Ltd. was one of the cases, which were covered during the search action in the case of Decent Dia Jewels Pvt. Ltd., on 05.05.2014 and warrant of authorization under section 132 was executed. Further another search operation was carried out in the case IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 11 of HVK International Pvt. Ltd., on 09.10.2014 and Brillare Reality Pvt. Ltd., was one of the cases covered during the said search operation. The assessee filed its objection on the rejoinder to the remand report. The assessee contended that in the Form No.45, copy of which was provided by Assessing Officer, though contains the name of assessee-company. However, it is incomplete and contains merely two pages and there is no signature or seal of the Competent Authority as required under Rule 112 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Thus the Assessing Officer failed to provide complete warrant for comment of assessee. The panchanama dated 05.05.2014 enclosed with remand report, though contains name of assessee but is in respect of name in which warrant was issued. From panchanama, it is clear that search operation carried out at the premises of Hareshbhai Mohan Bhai Sakariya who happens to be one of the Director of the assessee-company. The assessee having only one office at Ahmedabad at the relevant time, which was in the database of the Department. The Department while carried out the search operation at Decent Dia Jewels Private Limited group wanted IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 12 to cover the case of the assessee-company too but not by way of search action and only survey was conducted at the office of assessee on 05.05.2014, copies of document related to survey was furnished. The Department wanted to cover the premises of Hareshbhai Mohanbhai Sakariya and the search warrant was issued in respect of residence premises at Mumbai and being director of the company, the name of assessee-company appears to be found in the panchanama. However, the above premises were not at all connected in any manner with assessee. No evidence in respect of assessee was found or seized from the said premises. The assessee stated that search was initiated in his own case (Hareshbhai Mohan bhai) rather than on the assessees-company. No search action was carried out at the premises of assessee and thus, the essential condition to invoke provision of section 153A is not fulfilled. The assessee further stated that during search action on HVK International Private Limited on 09.09.2014 neither any search nor any survey operation was carried out at the premises of assessee. The Assessing Officer though subtly mentioned in the remand report that assessee-company was IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 13 covered. However, the Assessing Officer failed to produce any evidence in this connection. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee rejected the objection of the assessee that no warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee. On the objection that no panchanama was issued in the name of assessee and proceeding under section 153A is liable to be quashed, was also rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) by taking view that Assessing Officer enclosed copy of panchanama in the name of assessee along with warrant of authorization dated 03.05.2014 issued by DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai. This document clearly shows that warrant of authorization was issued in the name of assessee. 8. However, on the addition of Rs.4.66 crores (4.454 Crore plus 20,80,300/-) the Ld. CIT(A) held that in the search action on 05.05.2014, the assessee was covered, during search no incriminating material was found which indicate that assessee has given cash to Sparsh Exports Pvt. Ltd. for obtaining accommodation entry. The assessee filed its regular return of income for assessment year 2012-13 on 29.09.2012 and no IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 14 notice under section 143(2) was issued till 30.09.2013. Therefore, on the date of search i.e., on 05.05.2014 no assessment was pending which gets abated. Therefore, the case of assessee is clearly covered by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT Vs Saumya Construction Private Limited (supra) and Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra), wherein it was held that addition cannot be made in the assessment passed under section 153A when there is no incriminating material found or seized during the course of search operation in the premises of assessee. 9. The ld. CIT(A) also examined the case of assessee on merit and held that the amount of loan received from the Sparsh Exports Pvt. Ltd., has been repaid in regular banking channel in the next financial year and that no evidence was found during the course of search at the premises of Rajendra Jain Group that no cash was paid for obtaining the accommodation entry. On the basis of aforesaid observation, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on the basis of legal issue as well as on merit. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 15 10. We have heard the submissions of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-Departmental Representative (CIT-DR) for the Revenue and the learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee and have gone through the orders of authorities below. The ld CIT-DR for the revenue submits that during the course of assessment it was noted by the assessing officer that the assessee has received unsecured loan of Rs. 4.454 Crore form Sparsh Export Private Limited, the entity managed by Rajendra Jain and his group. The entity managed by Rajendra Jain were providing the bogus entry on charging commission on such unsecured loans. The assessee merely submitted that the payments were made through banking channel, which is not sacrosanct. The assessing officer also disallowed the interest payment in absence of the sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthy and genuineness of transaction. The ld CIT-DR for the revenue after reading certain paragraph of the assessment order and the statement of fact would submit that the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition by accepting the submissions of the assessee on the pretext that no incriminating evidence was found during the search action on IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 16 the assessee. There is nothing such restriction in the scheme of section 153A, which restrict the power of assessing officer to make additions on the issue which are discovered during the assessment stage. 11. On the other hand, the ld AR for the assessee supported the order of ld CIT(A). The ld AR for the assessee by reading certain para graphs of impugned order wherein the submissions of assessee is recorded would submits that no search was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 09.10.2014. No incriminating evidence was found against the assessee in the search action carried out at the premises of HVK Group Surat, about the cash payment against the transaction of unsecured loan. Even in the search carried out on 05.05.2014 at the premises of Decent Dia Jewels Private Limited, no incriminating evidence was found and seized. Only survey was carried out at the premises of the assesse as one of the director in Decent Dia Jewels Private Limited was common. In the survey few documents were impounded in the survey. At the time of search either on 05 th May 2014 or on 09 th October 2014 no assessment for AY 2013-14 was IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 17 pending. The assessee filed its regular return of income on 29 th September, 2012, which was accepted under section 143(1) and the period for issuing notice under section 143(2) has already expired, when the search action either or 05 th May or 09 th October 2014 was carried out by the search team. The ld AR for the assesse submits that the case of assessee is covered by the series of decision of Various High Court including jurisdictional High Court in PCIT Vs Saumya Construction Private Limited (supra). The ld CIT(A) appreciated the facts and granted relief to the assessee. On merit, the ld AR for the assessee submits that ld CIT(A) examined the case on merit and granted relief to the assessee on merit as well. 12. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by ld CIT(A) in his order, which is also relied by ld AR for the assessee. We find that search action was carried out on 05 th May 2014 at the Decent Dia Jewels Private Limited at Mumbai, in the search action the residence of one of the director was also covered. Other search action on HVK Group IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 18 Surat was also conducted by the search team. The assessing officer in the assessment order contended that the assessee was also covered in the said search action. We find that the assessee has challenged the validity of notice under section 153A in absence of search warrant against the assessee in its Cross Objections, which we shall discussed later. First, let us examined whether in the search carried out at Mumbai or on HVK Group Surat and by covering the assessee either on 05 th May 2014 or on 09 th October 2014, if assessment for AY 2013- 14 was pending, the answer is no. The assessee filed its regular return of income on 29 th September 2012 and the time period for issuing the notice under section 143(2) has expired on 30 th September 2013. Even the assessing officer nowhere in the assessment mentioned that the assessment for the AY 2013-14 was abated. We further find that the assessing officer while examining the issue of unsecured loan form Sparsh Export Private Limited, nowhere mentioned that any evidence or incriminating material about the unsecured loan avail by the assessee was found or seized in the search action. The assessing officer directly noted that search action under IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 19 section 132 was carried out at the premises of Rajendra Jain and his Group and in the said search it was revealed that the said group was indulging in proving entry of unsecured loan. It is not the case of the assessing officer that any satisfaction was recorded under section 153C on the basis of material sent by assessing officer of Rajendra Jain and his Group. It is admitted fact that the assessment for AY 2013-14 was not pending thus, it was unabated assessment. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT Vs Saumya Construction Private Limited (supra) and Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Kabul Chawla (supra) held that no addition can be made in the assessment passed under section 153A, when there is no incriminating material found or seized during the course of search operation in the premises of assessee. 13. We find that the ld CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee clearly held that there was no incriminating material found during the search action with regard to the addition of unsecured loan and that the said additions are not based on the seized material. Before us no such evidence or incrimination material in the form of information or statement IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 20 of the directors of the assessee or otherwise was brought to our notice to take other view, nor any contrary law is shown to us. Therefore, we affirm the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition of unsecured loan and its interest payment on legal issue. 14. So far as deleting the addition on merit is concerned, we find that once, we have confirmed the order of ld CIT(A) on legal issue, the discussion on merit of the additions has become academic. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 16. Considering the facts that we have affirmed the order of ld CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of revenue, therefore, adjudication on the various grounds of appeal in Cross Objection raised by the assessee have become academic and treated as infructuous and dismissed as such. 17. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is also dismissed as infructuous. IT(SS)A No.10/SRT/2021 & CO No.03/SRT/2022 (A.Y.12-13) M/s Brillare Realty Pvt. Ltd. 21 Order pronounced in open Court on 12/09/2022 and result was also placed on the notice board. Sd/- Sd/- (लेखा सद᭭य/Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI) (᭠याियक सद᭭य PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER स ू रत /Surat, Dated: 12/09/2022 Dkp. Outsourcing Sr.P.S. Copy to: 1. Appellant- 2. Respondent- 3. CIT(A)-2, Surat 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File True copy/ By order Sr.P.S/P.S /Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Surat copy/