DCIT, MUMBAI V. PREMIUM CHICK FEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2309/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, as the appellant, and Premium Chick Feeds Private Limited, the respondent, concerning the Assessment Year 2021-2022. The primary dispute revolved around the genuineness of certain business expenses claimed by the respondent, which were initially disallowed by the Assessing Officer but later allowed by the CIT(A). The expenses in question included purchases of maize and payments for hatching and growing charges. The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the transactions were not supported by adequate documentation and that the parties involved did not exist at the provided addresses. However, the CIT(A) and the IBS found the transactions to be genuine based on the evidence provided, including bank statements and invoices, despite the absence of some documents like delivery challans and e-way bills, which were not required for the transactions in question.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470887 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASSESSEE
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Bogus purchase; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 250; 131; 133(6); 37(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2309/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2021-2022) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Room No.1923, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021, Maharashtra. …………. Appellant Premium Chick Feeds Private Limited The Principal Officer Shreeji Urban, Shop No.1, Lane, Opp. Bank of Maharashtra Retail, Opp. Ayappa Temple, Bitambe Marg, Gandhi Nagar, Bandra, Mumbai – 400051, Maharashtra [PAN:AAACP2422Q] Vs …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant /Department For the Respondent /Assessee : : Shri Mahesh Pamnani None Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 28.01.2025 19.03.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order, dated 01/02/2024, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal - 51, Mumbai, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 30/03/2023, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ITA No.2309/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 2 erred in allowing the purchase of Rs.3,87,31,097/- from Shri Suresh Tukaram Kore and Shri Nagesh Tukaram Kore as genuine. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the hatching expenses of Rs.1,13,21,886/- from the party Ideal Hatchery Farm as genuine. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the growing charges of Rs.9,84,688/- paid to the party Shri Surendran I Kannathuparambil as genuine.” 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing none was present on behalf of the Respondent/Assessee. We have heard the Learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material on record. 4. The grievance of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) has allowed deduction for the following expenses accepting the contention of the Assessee that the same were genuine business expenses: (a) INR.3,87,31,097/- being expenses incurred for purchase of maize; (b) INR.1,13,21,886/- being hatching expenses incurred by the Assessee; (c) INR.9,84,688/- being growing charges paid to the party Mr. Surendran Ground No. 1 5. Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A) allowing deduction for expenses of INR.3,87,31,097/- claimed to have been paid by the Assessee to Mr. Suresh Tukaram Kore and Mr. Nagesh Tukaram Kore towards purchase of maize. 6. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessee had claimed that maize was used as one of the raw materials to produce chick feed and that the Assessee had been purchasing maize regularly from Mr. Nagesh Tukaram Kore and Mr. Suresh Tukaram ITA No.2309/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 3 Kore since 2012. However, during the course of search proceedings, the aforesaid parties did not exist at the address provided by the Assessee. Further enquiries made in the neighborhood showed that the neighbors did not know the above-named persons. It was further submitted that there was no mention of the transportation cost with respect to transactions under consideration. Moreover, no written agreement fixing the cost of transportation services was produced by the Assessee. The Assessee had also failed to produce delivery challans. Therefore, according to the Assessing Officer, the purchase transactions could not have been regarded as genuine. 7. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) had, after taking into consideration the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, deleted the disallowance of INR.3,87,31,097/- made by the Assessing Officer by accepting the purchase transaction as genuine holding as under: “12. Ground No. 3 pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 3,87,31,097/- made by the AO u/s 37(1) of the Act in respect of bogus purchases. 12.1 Mr. Nagesh Tukaram Kore and Mr. Suresh Tukaram Kore were parties from whom, the assessee has been purchasing maize regularly since 2012, which was used as one of the raw materials to produce chick feed against the aforesaid purchases. During the course of search proceedings, the above parties were not found to be existing at the address provided by the assessee. Further enquiries made in the neighborhood showed that the neighbors did not know the above-named persons. The assessee had mentioned in the post search proceedings that, the parties could not be found at the address given because it was possible that their addresses might have changed. The assessee was asked by the AO to furnish documentary evidence such as ledger confirmation, invoices, E-way bill, delivery challans, ITRs and bank statements showing the payments made for the purchase transaction done with them during the year under consideration. Further, as per the directions of the Hon’ble IBS (Interim Board of Settlement), notices u/s 133(6) were issued to these parties by the AO calling for personal attendance along with relevant details and submissions as mentioned in the said notice. In response, Shri Nagesh Tukaram Kore and Shri Suresh Tukaram Kore presented themselves before the AO and filed the details called for. Thereafter, their statement on oath was recorded u/s 131, wherein both the parties confirmed doing business with the assessee and also having received payments from the assessee. However, on perusal of the submission made by them, it was ITA No.2309/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 4 noticed by the AO that they had failed to furnish documentary evidences such as delivery challans and transportation details with regard to the sale made to M/s. Premium Chick Feeds Pvt Ltd. In view of the above, the amount of Rs. 3,87,31,097/- being purchase expenses claimed on account of bogus purchase transactions done with Shri Nagesh Tukaram Kore and Shri Suresh Tukaram Kore were treated as bogus expenses and disallowed u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 12.2 The appellant on the other hand has argued that it had duly discharged its onus by producing the parties before the AO where they duly confirmed the transactions. The bills of the transactions were duly furnished and the payments were made through banking channels. Since the item sold i.e maize was exempt from GST, there was no requirement of generation of e-way bill according to the appellant. The appellant also stated that the identical issue of purchase of maize from the two parties was duly examined by the Hon’ble IBS (Interim Board of Settlement) and the purchases were held to be genuine. Thus, the appellant pleaded that the addition made be deleted. 12.3 In this regard it is seen that both Shri Nagesh Tukaram Kore and Shri Suresh Tukaram Kore presented themselves before the AO and filed the details called for. Thereafter, their statement on oath was recorded u/s 131, wherein both the parties confirmed doing business with the assessee and also having received payments from the assessee. Further, Shri Nagesh Tukaram Kore and Shri Suresh Tukaram Kore submitted that they did not have the practice of issuing separate delivery challans. Their sales invoice was an invoice cum delivery note and the details of truck/tempo number was duly mentioned in the invoice- cum delivery note and the quantity in terms of weight and number of bags was also mentioned in the invoice-cum delivery note. Once the goods (maize) reached the premises of the assessee, they duly weighed the material supplied by them and made deductions for any difference in weight and based on the final weight so arrived at and their sales invoice cum delivery note was paid for by the assessee. On receipt of the payment, for them the transaction became complete. They further stated that since sale of maize was not covered by GST, there was no requirement to generate e- way bill. Accordingly, the same are not prepared. They also submitted sample invoices for reference. Moreover, it is seen that the identical issue of purchase of maize from the two parties was duly examined by the Hon’ble IBS (Interim Board of Settlement) and the purchases were held to be genuine. The relevant extract of the order dated 28.08.2023 of the Hon’ble IBS is as under: The PCIT in the verification report has held that both the parties exist and are carrying on business with the applicant on regular basis. They have confirmed to have received payments through bank. The applicant has claimed that non- production of some documents like delivery challan by them does not make the transaction as non-genuine. There might ITA No.2309/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 5 be reasons at their end for the same. The documents produced by the applicant and recording of statement of both the parties make it clear that the purchase transactions are genuine and proper. After considering all the facts by us, no adverse view is taken. 12.4 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings of the Hon’ble Interim Board of Settlement, it is held that it cannot be said that the purchases from the relevant parties Shri Nagesh Tukaram Kore and Shri Suresh Tukaram Kore were not genuine. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 3,87,31,097/- made by the AO is deleted. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed.” (Emphasis Supplied) 8. The above findings returned by the CIT(A) have gone uncontroverted during the appellate proceedings before this Tribunal. The CIT(A) had recorded that the sellers had appeared in person before the Assessing Officer and confirmed the purchase transaction. It was explained that sellers did not follow the practice of issuing separate delivery challans as their sales invoice were invoice-cum-delivery note and the same contained the details of truck/tempo number, and quantity (in terms of weight and number of bags). Once maize reached the premises of the Assessee, it was weighed and on the basis of the same payment was made by the Assessee. Since the sale of maize was not covered by GST, there was no requirement to generate e-way bill. The sellers had also submitted sample invoices for reference. Taking into consideration the aforesaid explanation offered by the sellers, the CIT(A) accepted the transaction for purchase of maize as genuine transaction. The CIT(A) had also placed reliance on the findings returned by the Interim Board of Settlement (IBS) vide order, dated 28.08.2023, in respect of identical purchases made by the Assessee from the same Sellers for preceding assessment years. We note that the IBS had returned a categorical finding that the sellers existed and were carrying on business with the Assessee on regular basis. Nothing has been placed on record to controvert the findings returned by the CIT(A) and to persuade us to take a different view of the matter. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A).Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No.2309/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 6 Ground No. 2 9. Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A) allowing deduction for expenses of INR.1,13,21,886/- claimed to have been paid by the Assessee to M/s. Ideal Hatchery Farm (for short ‘IHF’) as hatching expenses. 10. In relation to the abovesaid hatching expenses, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the above party could not be found at the address provided by the Assessee during the search operations and filed inquiry. However, during the assessment proceedings, suddenly, Mr.s Nilima Tavkar, Prop, if IHF appeared before the Assessing Officer and filed details such as bank account statement, invoices, ledger, ITR, audited balance sheet etc. but failed to furnish important documentary evidence sought in the summons under Section 131 of the Act such as invoices, delivery challans, transportation details etc. It was submitted that IHF did not maintaining any data regarding inward entry of eggs and outward entry of hatchlings. There were no proper records of vehicles used for transportation. Thus, in the absence of proper documents and data relating to transaction under consideration, the payment of hatching expenses of INR.1,13,21,886/- could not have been allowed as genuine business expenditure. 11. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) had, after taking into consideration the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, deleted the disallowance of INR.1,13,21,886/- by accepted the transactions involving payment of hatching charges to IHF as genuine holding as under: “13. Ground No. 4 pertains to the addition of Rs. 1,13,21,886/- made by the AO u/s 37(1) in respect of bogus hatching charges paid. 13.1 M/s. Ideal hatchery Farm was a party to whom the assessee had been making payments for hatching charges regularly since FY 2013-14. During the course of search proceedings spot enquiry was conducted and the above party was not found to be existing at the address provided by the assessee. The assessee was asked ITA No.2309/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 7 to furnish documentary evidences such as ledger confirmation, ITR of M/s. Ideal hatchery Farm, invoices, e-way bill, delivery challans and bank statement showing the payments made for hatching of eggs to them during the year under year consideration. Further, as per the direction of the Hon’ble IBS, notice u/s 133(6) was issued to M/s. Ideal hatchery Farm seeking all the invoices alongwith delivery challans & transportation details in original for each and every invoice alongwith the delivery challans, transportation proof & e-way bills related to the all the transactions done with M/s. Premium Chick Feeds during FY 2013- 14 to 2019-20. In compliance, Mrs. Nilima Tavkar, Prop, of M/s. Ideal Hatchery Farm filed details such as bank account statement, invoices, ledger, ITR, audited balance sheet etc but failed to furnish important documentary evidence sought in the summons u/s. 131 such as delivery challans, transportation details etc. Also, in her statement recorded u/s. 131, she stated that she runs a hatchery in the name M/s. Ideal Hatchery & Farm (IHF). She further submitted that the poultry chicken eggs were provided by M/s Premium Chick Feeds Pvt Ltd (PCFPL) at the hatchery premises at Wada, through their own transporters and at their own cost and also provided the vaccine and packing material for the newly hatched chicks to IHF. The eggs so received were put through the necessary process of pre-warming, setting and hatching of eggs at the hatchery facility of IHF, resulting in the hatching of poultry chicks. Based on the number of chicks successfully hatched, IHF raised invoice on PCFPL at the contracted rate. The delivery of the chicks was handed over by IHF to PCFPL within the hatchery premises. Thus, IHF was neither responsible, nor undertook transport of the day-old chicks. Accordingly, no delivery challan was generated. She further stated that since there was no system in place to record the delivery of eggs into the premises of Ideal Hatchery Farm, she was unable to provide the documentary evidences for transportation. Also, she submitted that the hatching of eggs in poultry industry was not covered by GST, hence there was no requirement to generate e- way bill. Accordingly, the same was not prepared. The reply was not found acceptable by the AO who treated the amount of Rs. 1,13,21,886/- being expenses on account of payment made to M/s. Ideal Hatchery Farm for hatching of eggs as bogus expense and disallowed the same u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 13.2 The appellant on the other hand has stated that in response to the notice issued by the AO, the proprietor of Ideal Hatchery Farm (IHF) Smt. Nilima Tavkar had duly appeared before the AO and duly confirmed the transactions. The relevant details such as bank account statement, invoices, ledger, ITR, audited balance sheet etc were duly filed before the AO. Also, Smt. Nilima Tavkar, proprietor IHF submitted before the AO that the poultry chicken eggs were provided by M/s Premium Chick Feeds Pvt Ltd (PCFPL) at the hatchery premises at Wada, through their own transporters at their own cost and they also provided the vaccine and packing material for the newly hatched chicks to IHF. The eggs so received were put through the necessary process of pre-warming, setting ITA No.2309/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 8 and hatching of eggs at the hatchery facility of IHF, resulting in the hatching of poultry chicks. Based on the number of chicks successfully hatched, IHF raised invoice on PCFPL at the contracted rate. The delivery of the chicks was handed over by IHF to PCFPL within the hatchery premises. Thus, IHF was neither responsible, nor undertook transport of the day-old chicks. Accordingly, no delivery challan was generated. Also, she submitted that the hatching of eggs in poultry industry was not covered by GST, hence there was no requirement to generate e- way bill. The appellant also stated that the identical issue of charges paid to Ideal Hatchery Farm was duly examined by the Hon’ble IBS (Interim Board of Settlement) and the charges paid were held to be genuine. Thus, the appellant pleaded that the addition made be deleted. 13.3 In this regard it is seen that Smt. Nilima Tavkar, Prop, of M/s. Ideal Hatchery Farm (IHF) duly appeared before the AO and confirmed the transactions. The relevant details such as bank account statement, invoices, ledger, ITR, audited balance sheet etc. were duly filed. The entire process was duly explained to the AO along with the reason why no delivery challan was generated. It was further explained that since the hatching of eggs in poultry industry was not covered by GST, there was no requirement to generate e-way bill. Moreover, it is seen that the identical issue of payment of charges to IHF was duly examined by the Hon’ble IBS (Interim Board of Settlement) and the expenses were held to be genuine. The relevant extract of the order dated 28.08.2023 of the Hon’ble IBS is as under: In the verification carried out, the suppliers are found to be in existence and have provided services to the Applicant. The PCIT on account of non-production of documents by them, as noted in the verification report, has not held the parties as bogus. Therefore, the claim of the applicant is accepted. No further action is required on the issue 13.4 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings of the Hon’ble Interim Board of Settlement, it is held that it cannot be said that the charges paid to M/s Ideal Hatchery Farm were not genuine. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO of Rs. 1,13,21,886/- is deleted. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed.” 12. The above findings returned by the CIT(A) have gone uncontroverted during the appellate proceedings before this Tribunal. The CIT(A) had recorded that the Smt. Nilima Tavkar, Proprietor of M/s. Ideal Hatchery Farm had appeared in person before the Assessing Officer, confirmed the transactions and filed documents in support of the same (such as bank account statement, invoices, ledger, ITR, audited ITA No.2309/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 9 balance sheet). It was explained that poultry chicken eggs were provided by the Assessee at the premises of IHF at Wada, through transporters of the Assessee (at their own cost). The Assessee also provided the vaccine and packing material for the newly hatched chicks to IHF. Invoice was raised by IHF upon the Assessee on the basis of number of chicks successfully hatched. The delivery of the chicks was handed over by IHF to the Assessee within the hatchery premises. Thus, IHF was neither responsible, nor undertook transport of the eggs/chicks. Therefore, no delivery challans were generated. It was also explained that the hatching of eggs in poultry industry was not covered by GST, hence there was no requirement to generate e- way bill. Taking into consideration the aforesaid explanation, the CIT(A) accepted the transaction between the Assessee and IHF as genuine transaction. While doing so the CIT(A) also placed reliance on the findings returned by the Interim Board of Settlement (IBS) vide order, dated 28.08.2023, is respect of identical transactions between the Assessee and IHF pertaining to the preceding assessment years. We note that the IBS had returned a categorical finding that the IHF existed and had provided services to the Assessee on regular basis. Nothing has been placed on record to controvert the findings returned by the CIT(A) and to persuade us to take a different view of the matter. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A).Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 3 13. Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A) allowing deduction for expenses of INR.9,84,688/- claimed to have been paid by the Assessee to Mr. Surendran I. K. as growing charges. 14. In relation to the abovesaid growing charges, the Learned Departmental Representative made similar submission. It was submitted that during the search proceedings spot enquiry was ITA No.2309/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 10 conducted and the aforesaid party could not be found at the address provided by the Assessee. However, during the assessment proceedings Mr. Surendran I. K. appeared before the Assessing Officer. The aforesaid party did not maintain proper records and in the absence of the same the deduction of INR.9,84,688/- claimed by the Assessee as growing charges could not have been allowed. 15. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) had, after taking into consideration the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, deleted the disallowance of INR.9,84,688/- paid by the Assessee to Mr. Surendran I. K. as growing charges by accepting the same as genuine expenditure holding as under: Ground No. 5 pertains to disallowance of Rs. 9,84,688/- made by the AO u/s 37(1) of the Act on account of bogus growing charges paid. 14.1 Shri Surendran I. K was a party to whom the assessee had been making growing charges payments for growing chicks on contract basis. During the course of search proceedings spot enquiry was conducted and the above party was not found to be existing at the address provided by the assessee. The assessee was asked to furnish documentary evidences such as ledger confirmation, ITR of Shri Surendran I. K, invoices, e- way bill, delivery challans and bank statement showing the payments made for growing the chicks during the year under year consideration. Further, as per the direction of the Hon'ble IBS, notice u/s 133(6) was issued to Shri Surendran I. K. asking him to furnish all the invoices alongwith delivery challans & transportation details in original for each and every invoice related to the all the transactions done by him with M/s. Premium Chick Feeds during FY 2013-14 to 2019- 20, bank statements and e-way bills. In compliance, Surendran I. K. submitted that he was a small farmer and to support his meagre farming income, he had undertaken work of growing chicks on contract basis for M/s Premium Chick Feeds Pvt Ltd. Under the contract, M/s. Premium Chick Feeds Pvt Ltd delivered the one-day old chick at his farm along with feed, medicine, etc. Subsequently, once the birds were ready for sale, the trader to whom birds were sold by M/s Premium chick feeds Pvt. Ltd., lifted the grown-up birds (usually in 40-45 days after the day-old chicks are given to him) from his farm. Therefore, no transport was done by him and no delivery challan was prepared by him. He further submitted that he was not maintaining books of accounts, as he was assessed to income tax under presumptive tax scheme. He also furnished the copy of his ITR and bank statement. However, the reply was not found acceptable by the AO who disallowed the amount of Rs. 9,84,688/- being expenses on account of payment ITA No.2309/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 11 made to Shri Surendran I. K. for growing of chicks on contract basis as bogus expense and disallowed the same u/s. 37(1) of the Act. 14.2 The appellant on the other hand has stated that Sh. Surendran I. K. duly appeared before the AO and confirmed the transactions. He duly stated that he was a small farmer and to support his meagre farming income, he had undertaken work of growing chicks on contract basis for M/s Premium Chick Feeds Pvt Ltd. Under the contract, M/s. Premium Chick Feeds Pvt Ltd delivered the one-day old chick at his farm along with feed, medicine, etc. Subsequently, once the birds were ready for sale, the trader to whom birds were sold by M/s Premium chick feeds Pvt. Ltd., lifted the grown-up birds (usually in 40-45 days after the day-old chicks are given to him) from his farm. Therefore, no transport was done by him and no delivery challan was prepared by him. He further submitted that he was not maintaining books of accounts, as he was assessed to income tax under presumptive tax scheme. He however submitted copy of his ITR and bank statements. The appellant also stated that the identical issue of growing charges paid to Sh. Surendran I. K was duly examined by the Hon’ble IBS (Interim Board of Settlement) and the charges paid were held to be genuine. Thus, the appellant pleaded that the addition made be deleted. 14.3 In this regard it is seen that Sh. Surendran I.K to whom the growing charges had been paid duly appeared before the AO and confirmed the transactions. The relevant details such ITR and bank account statement were duly filed. Sh. Surendran clearly stated before the AO that he was covered under the presumptive scheme of taxation. The entire process was duly explained to the AO along with the reason why no delivery challan was generated. Moreover, it is seen that the identical issue of payment of growing charges to Sh. Surendran I.K was duly examined by the Hon’ble IBS (Interim Board of Settlement) and the expenses were held to be genuine. The relevant extract of the order dated 28.08.2023 of the Hon’ble IBS is as under: In the verification carried out, the suppliers are found to be in existence and have provided services to the Applicant. The PCIT on account of non-production of documents by them, as noted in the verification report, has not held the parties as bogus. Therefore, the claim of the applicant is accepted. No further action is required on the issue. 14.4 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings of the Hon’ble Interim Board of Settlement, it is held that it cannot be said that the growing charges paid to Sh. Surendran I.K were not genuine. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 9,84,688/- made by the AO is deleted. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed.” 16. The above findings returned by the CIT(A) have gone uncontroverted ITA No.2309/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 12 during the appellate proceedings before this Tribunal. The CIT(A) had recorded that as per the contract between the Assessee and the Contractor, the Assessee delivered the one-day old chick at his farm along with feed, medicine, etc. to the Contractor. Subsequently, once the birds were ready for sale, the trader to whom birds were sold by the Assessee lifted the grown-up birds (usually in 40-45 days old) from the farm of the Contractor. Therefore, no transport was done by the Contractor and no delivery challans were prepared. The Contractor did not maintaining books of accounts, as the Contractor was a small farmer who carried out the work of growing chicks for the Assessee on contract basis and offered to tax income under presumptive basis of taxation. While concluding as aforesaid, the CIT(A) placed reliance on the findings returned by the Interim Board of Settlement (IBS) vide order, dated 28.08.2023, wherein IBS had accepted that the Contractor existed and returned and had provided services to the Assessee. Nothing has been placed on record to controvert the findings returned by the CIT(A) and/or to persuade us to take a different view of the matter. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A).Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 17. In result the present appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 19.03.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 19.03.2025 Divya Nandgaonkar, Stenographer ITA No.2309/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 13 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ The CIT 4. Ůधान आयकर आयुƅ / Pr.CIT 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सȑािपत Ůित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai "