Newpar Aromatiucs Pvt. Ltd., Surat V. The Jt.CIT, Navsari Range, Navsari

ITA 1207/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3435 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPAMA SINGLA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAUNAK JHAVERI
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Rejection of books of accounts; Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM ./ITA NO.1207/AHD/2015 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: (2009-10) (VIRTUAL COURT HEARING) NEWPAR AROMATICS PVT. LTD. SY NO.60/1, GROUND FLOOR, PLOT NO.1 & 2, NEAR SHUKAN BUNGLOWS, OPPO. MAHESHWARI BHAVAN CITY LIGHT, SURAT 395 007. VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO.: AAACN7941G (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHAUNAK JHAVERI CA RESPONDENT BY : MISS ANUPAMA SINGLA SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 22/10/2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/11/2020 / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VALSAD [IN SHORT THE CIT(A)] IN APPEALS NO. CIT(A)/VSL/444/11- 12 DATED 20.02.2015, WHICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT], DATED 28.12.2011. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) AS WELL AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE NOT SPEAKING ORDERS, THEREFORE THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK EITHER PAGE | 2 ITA0 1207/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2009-10 NEWPAR AROMATICS PVT. LTD. TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) OR TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR DE NOVO ADJUDICATION. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS PRESSED ONLY GROUND NO.3 AND OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEALS WERE NOT PRESSED, THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ONLY WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS PASSED THE ORDER IN THE ASSESSEES CASE OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- [6.2] THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT DETAILS WITHIN TWO DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. THE A.R. VIDE LETTER DATED 21/12/2011 REQUESTED TO EXTEND THE TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLIANCE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. AS THIS IS A TIME BARRING ASSESSMENT, AND ALSO THE UNDERSIGNED REQUIRES SOME TIME TO FINALIZE THE ASSESSMENT OF SIX CASES OF THIS GROUP, AFTER VERIFYING THE SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ADJOURN THE CASE FURTHER MORE. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING NATURAL JUSTICE, THE ADJOURNMENT WAS GRANTED AND INFORMED THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IT'S A.R. VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DTD. 21/12/2011. [7.3] FROM THE CONFIRMATION FURNISHED BY GMDC IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE U/S. 133(6), IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED COAL TO THE TUNE OF RS.72,11,105/- WHEREAS AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TOTAL AMOUNT OF COAL PURCHASE BY ASSESSEE IS RS.38,28,625/-. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT RECEIVED FROM GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD WAS PROVIDED TO A.R. TO RECONCILE AND EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE. COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF BOTH PARTIES ARE ENCLOSED WHICH IF FORMING PART OF THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EXPLANATION OF RECONCILIATION TILL DATE. OBVIOUSLY UNACCOUNTED QUANTITY OF COAL IS USED FOR GENERATION OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME. [7.7] IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY CANNOT BE FAIRLY ARRIVED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE, I AM CONSTRAINED AND DO NOT HAVE ANY ALTERNATIVE BUT TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S. 145(2) OF THE I.T. ACT AND ESTIMATE THE PROFIT AT 11.37% (BEING AVERAGE OF THREE YEARS OF PROFIT OF M/S. H. L. EQUIPMENT ) ON SALES OF RS.8,28,93,186/- , WHICH COMES TO RS.94,24,727/-. THE DIFFERENTIAL PAGE | 3 ITA0 1207/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2009-10 NEWPAR AROMATICS PVT. LTD. AMOUNT OF G.P. OF RS.62,06,629/- [9424727 - 3218098] IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT, WE NOTICED THAT IN PARA NO.6.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE NO.4, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS WITHIN TWO DAYS. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS BEFORE US THAT TWO DAYS TIME IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS/DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN AT LEAST 15 DAYS TIME TO SUBMIT SUCH DETAILS/DOCUMENTS. IN PARA 7.3 AT PAGE 5 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO RECONCILE AND EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED WITHIN THREE DAYS. FINALLY, IN PARA NO.7.7 AT PAGE NO.8 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) STATED THAT HE HAD REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 145(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AND LOSS AT THE RATE OF 11.37%. THEREFORE, LD COUNSEL SUBMITS BEFORE THE BENCH THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO RECONCILE THE FIGURES AND TO SUBMIT DETAILS/DOCUMENTS AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED IN HASTE WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 6. ON APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING THE FOLLOWING: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS CONTAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BY AR OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.6206629/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF GROSS PROFIT. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE AS EMERGING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN THE PROFIT PAGE | 4 ITA0 1207/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2009-10 NEWPAR AROMATICS PVT. LTD. AND LOSS ACCOUNT THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT OF RS.32,18,098/-ON THE TURNOVER OF RS.82893186/-GIVING GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 3.88%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THIS GROSS PROFIT RATE IS LOWER WHEN COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS GROSS PROFIT OF LAST TWO YEARS. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, IT WAS 5.86% WHEREAS IN THE AY 2007-08, IT WAS 24.38%. AFTER DEALING WITH THE REASONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED THE AVERAGE RATE OF GROSS PROFIT OF THREE YEARS WHICH COMES TO 11.37% AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.6206629/-. BEFORE MAKING THIS ADDITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT CALLING FOR THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:- (I.) P & L A/C., TRADING A/C. AND BALANCE SHEET FOR PRE SURVEY AND POST SURVEY PERIOD. (II.)DETAILS AND WORKING OF VALUATION OF OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK AND DETAILS OF WORKING OF VALUATION OF STOCK FOUND DURING THE SURVEY. (III. DETAILS REGARDING NAME OF PARTY, QUANTITY AND RATE FOR PURCHASE AND SALES OF COKE/COAL AND PNCB. AFTER CONSIDERING THAT NOBODY APPEARED WITH THE ABOVE INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT BY ANALYZING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AFTER REJECTING THE BANK OF ACCOUNTS U/S. 145(2) OF THE ACT. NOW DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE AR OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT GP IS TO BE DERIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING FACTUAL FIGURES FOR ANY GIVEN FINANCIAL YEAR IN ANY GIVEN INDUSTRY, (I) CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL (II) YIELD OF PRODUCTION.(III) SALE PRICE OF MANUFACTURED GOODS IN COMPARISON WITH PURCHASE PRICE (IV) PRODUCTIVITY OF PLANT (V) FIXED COST AND VARIABLE COST RATIO WITH PRODUCTION. SO IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THE COMPANY HAS MADE LESS PRODUCTION DUE TO VARIOUS REASONS AND THUS THERE WAS LOW GP. THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT CANNOT COMPARE THE SAME WITH POST PROFITABILITY/PERFORMANCE OF THE COMPANY AND CANNOT DEMAND INCOME-TAX ON THE BASIS OF PAST PROFITABILITY BY SETTING GP AS AVERAGE OF LAST THREE YEARS PROFITABILITY. IF SUCH PRACTICE IS FOLLOWED BY OTHER GOVT. DEPARTMENTS LIKE CENTRAL EXCISE, SALES-TAX, ETC. THEN THEY MAY ALSO DEMAND THEIR REVENUE DUE TO LOW PRODUCTION IN PARTICULAR YEAR IN COMPARISON WITH THE LAST THREE YEARS OF PRODUCTION OF ANY UNIT IN PARTICULAR YEAR. HENCE ADDITION MADE BE DELETED. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR SHOWING THE LOW GROSS PROFIT WHICH THE APPELLANT DID NOT EXPLAIN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. NOW EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE AR OF THE APPELLANT DID NOT EXPLAIN THE REASONS WITH COGENT EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION AND RATHER GAVE GENERAL REPLY AS QUOTED ABOVE. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE UNDER REFERENCE AT LENGTH AND FINDING NO REPLY FROM THE APPELLANT ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FEEL INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION GROSS PROFIT AT RS.6206629/- IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. PAGE | 5 ITA0 1207/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2009-10 NEWPAR AROMATICS PVT. LTD. 7. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A), AS NOTED ABOVE, LD COUNSEL SUBMITS BEFORE THE BENCH THAT LD CIT(A) HAS JUST REITERATED THE FACTS NARRATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HE DID NOT PUT HIS EFFORTS TO ASK THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE IN LEDGER ACCOUNTS AND ALSO DID NOT EXAMINE THE VARIOUS DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, LD COUNSEL STATES BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER, FOR THAT, HE RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF M/S. H. L. EQUIPMENTS VS. JCIT (IN ITA NO. 2952/AHD/2015 & 663/AHD/2016 FOR AY. 2009-10, 2849/AHD/2010 FOR AY.2009-10). 8. WE NOTE THAT AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GIVE SUFFICIENT TIME/OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS/DOCUMENTS AND TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE IN LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED IN HASTE. TO JUSTIFY THIS, WE AGAIN REPRODUCE BELOW PARA NO.6.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER (TO THE EXTENT RELEVANT FOR OUR ANALYSIS) AS FOLLOWS: [6.2] THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT DETAILS WITHIN TWO DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. WE NOTE THAT TWO DAYS TIME IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTS AND DETAILS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS TIME TO SUBMIT THESE DOCUMENTS AND DETAILS BEFORE HIM. NOT TO GIVE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR, IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN M. S. GILL VS. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION 1978 AIR SC 851 HELD THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE AND QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION VIS--VIS THE DOCTRINE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS PRESUMABLY OBSOLESCENT AFTER KRAIPAK (A.K. KRAIPAK VS UOI AIR 1970 SC PAGE | 6 ITA0 1207/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2009-10 NEWPAR AROMATICS PVT. LTD. 150) WHICH MAKES THE WATER-SHED IN THE APPLICATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS. THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE ROOTED IN ALL LEGAL SYSTEMS AND ARE NOT ANY NEW THEOLOGY. THEY ARE MANIFESTED IN THE TWIN PRINCIPLES OF NEMO JUDEX IN PARTE SUA ( NO PERSON SHALL BE A JUDGE IN HIS OWN CASE) AND AUDI ALTEREM PARTEM (THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD). IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE AIM OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS TO SECURE JUSTICE. 9.SO, WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT PLEAD HIS CASE PROPERLY DURING THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, HENCE THE ISSUE SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, FOR THAT WE RELY ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE (THREE JUDGE BENCH) OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TIN BOX COMPANY VS. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: IT IS UNNECESSARY TO GO INTO GREAT DETAIL IN THESE MATTERS FOR THERE IS A STATEMENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE FACT-FINDING AUTHORITY, THAT READS THUS : WE WILL STRAIGHTAWAY AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER HAD NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PLACED EVIDENCE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS REALLY OF NO CONSEQUENCE FOR IT IS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT COUNTS. THAT ORDER MUST BE MADE AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SETTING OUT HIS CASE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT AGREE WITH THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HIGH COURT THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER GIVING TO THE ASSESSEE A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. TWO QUESTIONS WERE PLACED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, OF WHICH THE SECOND QUESTION IS NOT PRESSED. THE FIRST QUESTION READS THUS : 1. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN SPITE OF A FINDING ARRIVED AT BY IT THAT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAD NOT GIVEN A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE ? PAGE | 7 ITA0 1207/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2009-10 NEWPAR AROMATICS PVT. LTD. IN OUR OPINION, THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WHICH IS INHERENT IN THE QUESTION ITSELF: IN THE NEGATIVE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE IS SET ASIDE. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THAT OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE ALSO SET ASIDE. THE MATTER SHALL NOW BE REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, AS AFORESTATED. 10. WE NOTE THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY REQUIRE THAT THE AFFECTED PARTY IS GRANTED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO CONTEST HIS CASE. WE NOTE THAT AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO PLEAD HIS CASE, THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN TIN BOX COMPANY (SUPRA), WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH ON MERITS. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 04/11/2020, AS PER RULE 34 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RULE 1963. SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (DR. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LWJR /SURAT / / DATE: 04/11/2020 / SAMANTA, PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. PR.CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, SURAT 6. GUARD FILE // TRUE COPY // BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/SR. PS/PS ITAT, SURAT