The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Surat V. M/s. Mega Collection Pvt. Ltd., Surat

ITA 1490/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3323 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH K KABRA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Bogus Share capital; Income from undisclosed sources; Corroborative evidences; Accommodation entries; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 143(1); 143(2); 73; 13; 22; 131; 68; 145; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM ./ITA NO.1490/AHD/2017 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEARS: (2012-13) (VIRTUAL COURT HEARING) THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4), SURAT. VS. M/S. MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD., 38-39, KAMLA ESTATE, GITANJALI PETROL PUMP, VARACHHA ROAD, SURAT-395010. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO.: AAGCM3809C (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SURESH K. KABRA, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI RITESH MISHRA, CIT(DR) / DATE OF HEARING : 07/05/2021 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/05/2021 / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, SURAT [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] IN APPEAL NO. CAS-3/TRFD/394/2015-16 DATED 27.03.2017 WHICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT]. THE GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS.5,21,31,100/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTORS, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF INVESTORS BY NOT PRODUCING THE INVESTORS BEFORE THE A.O DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THOUGH HE WAS REQUESTED TO DO SO? 2. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FACTS AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF GP AMOUNTING TO RS. 71,71,873/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT BOOKS OF [ PAGE | 2 ITA NO.1490/AHD/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2012-13 MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD. ACCOUNTS, ORIGINAL BILLS/VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION THOUGH THOSE WERE CALLED FOR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS? 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICE MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 2.FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH CAN BE STATED QUITE SHORTLY ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.09.2012 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.13,09,020/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 06.08.2013 AND DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 3.ON VERIFICATION OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TO HAVE RECEIVED EQUITY SHARES MONEY OF RS.5,21,31,100/- DURING THE YEAR. SHARE APPLICANTS WERE ISSUED SHARES OF COMPANY AT THE RATE OF FACE VALUE RS. 10/- AND PREMIUM OF RS. 140/-. THE DETAILS OF THESE SHARE APPLICANTS ARE AS UNDER: NAME ADDRESS AMOUNT RECEIVED 1 ASHWIN VEKRIYA AAJPV4979J 3-C, ASHWANI APPT. SUMUL DAIRY ROAD SURAT. 1,71,36,750 (19,75,000 OLD BALANCE + 1,53,62,000 NEW) 2 JITENDRA VEKARIYA ACVPV0312K 404, SHREE DARSHAN PALACE, LAL DARWAJA SURAT 1,04,55,600 3 HARESH VEKARIYA AAVPV3325J 3-D, ASHWANI APPT. SUMUL DAIRY ROAD SURAT. 76,44,750 (15,25,000 OLD BALANCE + 61,20,000) 4 USHA VEKARIYA AIHPV9675R 404, SHREE DARSHAN PALACE, LAL DARWAJA SURAT 1,800,000 5 BHAVIKA VEKARIYA ADXPV3371P 3-C, ASHWANI APPT. SUMUL DAIRY ROAD SURAT. 600,000 6 MANISHA VEKARIYA AHMPV1538K 3-D, ASHWANI APPT. SUMUL DAIRY ROAD SURAT. 600,000 7 VIJAY RAMANI AZKPR3730P 25, GOPINATH SOC. MOTA VARACHA SURAT 124,500 [ PAGE | 3 ITA NO.1490/AHD/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2012-13 MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD. 8 VINUBHAI RAMANI ASJPR8074L A/6,203, KRISHNA TOWNSHIP MOTA VARACHA SURAT 249,750 9 VIPUL SAVALIYA DGQPS5409N 407, BID. NO. -G, YAMUNA PALACE, MOTA VARACHA SURAT 3,000,000 10 CHETAN SAVALIYA BMPPS7036A 407, BID. NO. -G, YAMUNA PALACE, MOTA VARACHA SURAT 3,000,000 11 BHAGIRATH NARIGARA AOLPN2760D 99, SHREE NATH DWAR SOC. PUNA GAM SURAT 120,000 12 DHARMENDRA ATARA AVMPA4106C 202, PAYAL APP. ANKUR SOC. A.K ROAD SURAT 99,750 13 HASMUKHBH AI DOBARIYA AHPPD6687A 202, HARIOM COMPLEX A.K ROAD SURAT 3,000,000 14 KETAN DHANHANI AICPD6394C D-5, 403, KRISHNA TOWNSHIP VARACHA SURAT 150,000 15 POONAM DHANANI BAQPD0645G D-5, 403, KRISHNA TOWNSHIP VARACHA SURAT 1,800,000 16 PRAKASH DHANANI AHZPD4560G C/L, 101, KRISHNA TOWNSHIP , VARACHA SURAT 3,000,000 17 SHILPA DHANANI AXGPD1913Q C/L, 101, KRISHNA TOWNSHIP , VARACHA SURAT 2,400,000 DETAILS OF THESE ABOVE NOTED PERSONS WERE CALLED FOR FROM ASSESSEE. EXCEPT 3 CASES DETAILS OF CONFIRMATION, BANK STATEMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME WERE RECEIVED. THE LETTERS U/S 133(6) WERE ISSUED AND REPLIES WERE RECEIVED. BUT IN CASE OF SHRI HASHMUKH DOBRIYA LETTER COULD NOT BE SERVED AND IN FOLLOWING CASES NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED FROM INVESTORS. I) HARESH VEKARIYA, II) VIJAY RAMANI, III) BHAGIRATH NARIGRA, IV) VINUBHAI RAMANI, V) DHARMENDRA ATARA, VI) JITENDRA VENKARIYA, BANKS STATEMENTS OF INVESTORS WERE INQUIRED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT WAS FOUND THAT ALL THE INVESTORS HAVE RECEIVED SAME AMOUNT IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT AND TRANSFER THE SAME COMPANY AS THEIR INVESTMENT. NONE OF THE INVESTOR HAS MADE INVESTMENT OUT OF THEIR OWN CAPITAL BUT HAVE MADE THE INVESTMENT OUT OF RECEIPTS OF UNSECURED LOANS. [ PAGE | 4 ITA NO.1490/AHD/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2012-13 MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD. 4. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE ALL THE INVESTORS AT SPECIFIC TIME ON 12.03.2015, 13.03.2015 & 14.03.2015. BUT, ON THE FIXED DATE NONE OF THE INVESTORS HAVE ATTENDED THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SUMMONSES WERE ISSUED TO THE SIX INVESTORS BUT AGAIN NO ONE ATTENDED IN COMPLIANCE OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED. NONE OF THE INVESTORS WERE ATTENDED IN COMPLIANCE OF SUMMONS. THE MAJORITY OF INVESTORS WERE EITHER DIRECTORS OR THE FAMILY MEMBER OR THEIR FRIENDS. THE BANKING INQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED BY AO AND IT WAS FOUND BY AO THAT ALL THE INVESTORS HAVE OBTAINED UNSECURED LOAN FROM CONCERNS/PERSONS THAT HAVE NO CREDITWORTHINESS. UNSECURED LOANS WERE RECEIVED FROM FOLLOWING CONCERN: - 1) DIRG SALES, 2) SHILP INTERNATIONAL, 3) SWATI TRADELINK, 4) RED & BLUE EXPORTS, 5) PRISHA FASHINS, 6) SIDDHI INTERNATIONAL, 7) SHILP INTERNATIONALS, 8) WINTECH FASHIONS, 9) TORRENT POLYESTER, 10) COLOURFUL FABRICS, 11) SUNFLOWER ENTERPRISES, 12) SHRI VALLABH INDUSTRIES, 13) ABHISHEK SILKS AGENCY, 14) WILSON ENTERPRISE, 15) SHREE DHAN CORPORATION. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ALL ABOVE PERSONS/FIRMS WHICH HAVE ADVANCED LOAN TO INVESTORS WHO WERE DOING TRADING TRANSACTIONS WITH ASSESSEE, M/S MEGHA COLLECTION (P) LTD. THE MEGHA COLLECTION (P) LTD HAS MADE PURCHASES FROM MAJORITY OF ABOVE CONCERNS AND HAS PAID ITS PURCHASES AMOUNTS RECEIVE FROM ASSESSEE, AGAINST PURCHASES WERE GIVEN TO INVESTORS FOR MAKING INVESTMENT WITH ASSESSEE. FEW CONCERNS WHO ARE NOT DOING DIRECT TRANSACTIONS WITH ASSESSEE ARE DOING TRANSACTIONS WITH CREDITORS OF ASSESSEE AND RECEIVE AMOUNTS FOR THEIR SALE. THOSE RECEIVED AMOUNT WERE ADVANCED TO INVESTOR FOR MAKING INVESTMENT WITH ASSESSEE. TRANSACTION DETAILS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF EACH INVESTOR IS EXPLAINED IN A TABLE GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT ORDER PAGE NO. 7 TO13. ON THE PERUSAL OF DETAILS FOLLOWING FACTS WERE FOUND BY ASSESSING OFFICER. (1) EACH INVESTOR HAS TRANSFER THE SAME AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SAME DATE AS UNSECURED LOAN TO ASSESSEE. [ PAGE | 5 ITA NO.1490/AHD/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2012-13 MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD. (2) MAJORITY OF INVESTORS HAS MADE INVESTMENT WHICH IS MANY TIMES MORE THAN THEIR TOTAL CAPITAL. (3) BARRING 2 OR 3 THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT MOVABLE/IMMOVABLE ASSET IN THEIR BALANCE SHEET. (4) THE PERSONS WHICH HAVE ADVANCED LOANS TO OTHERS HAVE ALSO MADE INVESTMENT WITH ASSESSEE. TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF TURNOVER SHOWN BY INVESTORS, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE PURCHASE BILLS, DELIVERY CHALLANS, TRANSPORT BILLS, PURCHASE ORDER COPIES OF R J SQUARE LINK, DIRG SALES, TORRENT POLYESTERS, COLOURFUL FABRICS AND WINTECH FASHIONS. BUT, THOSE DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, SUMMONS WERE ISSUED TO THOSE CONCERNS TO ATTEND THE OFFICE OF UNDERSIGNED WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN CASE OF COLOURFUL FABRICS SUMMONS COULD NOT BE SERVED ON GIVEN ADDRESSES. IN OTHER CASES SUMMONS SERVED BUT NO ONE ATTENDED THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DETAILS CALLED FOR. ON ENQUIRY FROM NOTICE SERVER WHO SERVED THE SUMMONS, HAS STATED THAT AT ALL THE ADDRESSES GIVEN WERE OF RESIDENCES AND AS PER HIS OBSERVATION NO TRADING ACTIVITY WERE RUNNING FROM THOSE ADDRESSES. AS NONE OF THE PERSONS ATTENDED OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPLIANCE OF SUMMONS ISSUED. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IDENTITY OF THOSE PERSONS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AS WELL AS CREDITWORTHINESS OF THOSE CREDITORS ARE ALSO REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THE AO MADE FURTHER INQUIRY AND OBSERVED THAT EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOUND UNSATISFACTORY, THEREFORE HE MADE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,21,31,100/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. SHRI RITESH MISHRA, LEARNED CIT- DR VEHEMENTLY ASSAILING THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE AO TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO LD. CIT, DR, THE SHARE APPLICANTS IN THIS CASE HAVE COMMON SHAREHOLDING FUNDS WHICH HAVE BEEN AGAIN [ PAGE | 6 ITA NO.1490/AHD/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2012-13 MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD. AND AGAIN INVESTED AND PASSED THROUGH SEVERAL DIFFERENT CONCERNS/ COMPANIES. ACCORDING TO HIM, BOTH RECEIVING COMPANY OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND INVESTMENT MADE BY OTHER SHARE APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN DONE THROUGH CHAIN OF TRANSACTIONS OF SHARE ALLOTTEE COMPANIES, ASSESSEE COMPANY AS INVESTEE COMPANIES AND, THEREFORE, THIS IS NOTHING BUT ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. A HUGE SHARE PREMIUM WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED ON TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THESE SHARE APPLICANTS DO NOT HAVE CREDITWORTHINESS. THE LD DR ALSO STATED THAT JOURNAL ENTIRES/ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO FOREIGN UNACCOUNTED MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE.THUS, ACCORDING TO LD. CIT, DR, THE GENUINENESS, IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICANTS. THEREFORE, LD DR WANTS US TO REVERSE THE ORDER OR THE LD. CIT(A) AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI SURESH K. KABRA, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRIMARILY REITERATED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DEFENDED THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON, AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND OTHER MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS WHICH WERE RECORDED BY THE LD CIT(A) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: (I).THE SEVENTEEN SHARE APPLICANTS ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS. (II) THEY ARE ALL FILING THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME IN SURAT AND COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURN ARE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ID ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ID AO HAS ALSO MENTIONED PAN OF EACH SHARE-APPLICANTS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. (III) COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF SHARE APPLICANTS ARE FURNISHED BEFORE AO, WHEREIN THE SAID TRANSACTION IS REFLECTED. [ PAGE | 7 ITA NO.1490/AHD/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2012-13 MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD. (IV) CONFIRMATION OF ALL SHARE APPLICANTS ARE FILED BEFORE THE ID AO ALONGWITH COPIES OF SHARE APPLICATION FORMS. (V) SHARES ARE ALLOTTED TO THESE SHARES - APPLICANTS AS EVIDENT FROM THE BALANCE SHEET. (VI) THE SHARE-APPLICANTS APPEARING IN SR NO. 1 TO 3 ARE THE PROMOTERS OF THE APPELLANT -COMPANY AND THOSE APPEARING IN SR NO. 4 TO 6 ARE THE SPOUSES OF THE PROMOTERS. THE TOTAL SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM ALL 6 IS RS.3.82 CRORES. SO, OUT OF RS 5.21 CRORES OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED RS 3.82 CRORES (I.E. 73 %) IS RECEIVED FROM THE VERY PROMOTERS OF APPELLANT - COMPANY AND THEIR SPOUSES. THE REST OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS ARE ALSO STATED TO BE RELATIVES / FRIENDS OF THE PROMOTERS. (VII) IN CASE OF SHARE - APPLICANTS APPEARING IN SERIAL NOS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, 16 & 17, SIMULTANEOUSLY SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS WERE CONDUCTED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 BY THE CONCERNED AOS. THE COPIES OF ORDERS U/S 143(3) ARE PRODUCED IN PAPER BOOK. THESE 9 SHARE APPLICANTS TOGETHER ACCOUNT FOR 86 % OF THE TOTAL SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. THERE IS NO ADDITION, OR ADVERSE INFERENCE IN ANY OF THE CASES, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. (VIII) IN THE CASE OF SHARE APPLICANTS - SOURCE OF INVESTMENT - THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS FOR EACH INSTALLMENT AS REPRODUCED IN TABLE (AT PARA 5.7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ). THE IMMEDIATE 'SOURCE' IN MOST OF THE CASES ARE UNSECURED LOANS RECEIVED BY CHEQUES. THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED COPY OF ITRV OF THE 'UNSECURED LOAN' CREDITORS OF THE SHARE - APPLICANTS. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ID ASSESSING OFFICERS OF THE ABOVE 9 SHARE - APPLICANTS HAVE NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE REGARDING THESE LOANS IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS. THE AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT DETAILS, CONFIRMATIONS, COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS AND ITR COPIES OF UNSECURED LOAN CREDITORS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ID AOS OF SHARE APPLICANTS IN THEIR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AR HAS FURNISHED COPY OF LETTER FILED BEFORE THE ID ASSESSING OFFICER OF SHRI VIPUL SAVALIA TO DEMONSTRATE THE POINT. [ PAGE | 8 ITA NO.1490/AHD/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2012-13 MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD. (IX) THE ID AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) TO ALL THE 17 SHARE APPLICANTS AND THEY WERE SERVED IN 16 OUT OF 17. REPLIES, HOWEVER, WERE RECEIVED ONLY FROM 10 SHARE - APPLICANTS. (X) THE ID ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC ENQUIRIES EITHER WITH SHARE - APPLICANTS OR WITH THE UNSECURED LOAN CREDITORS / OF SHARE APPLICANTS REGARDING THESE LOANS RECEIVED BY THE SHARE-APPLICANTS. 10. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE, LET US EXAMINE, WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS SATISFIED THE THREE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68, THAT IS, IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS. THE ARGUMENT MADE BY LD DR ABOUT CASH CREDIT, MEAN JOURNAL ENTRIES TOO, UNDER MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IS IRRATIONAL AND LOGICALLY FALSE. THE SECTION 68 SPEAKS ABOUT RECEIPT OF MONEY FOR INVOCATION OF THE PROVISION. THE ACCOUNTING METHOD IS FOR MAINTENANCE OF ACCOUNTS TO DETERMINE THE INCOME OF THE YEAR U/S 145 OF THE ACT AND IS COMPUTING PROVISION. SECTION 68 IS DEEMING PROVISION TO CHARGE THE RECEIPT AS INCOME NOT DECLARED AND DISCLOSED TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR TAX. THUS, THE SUPER IMPOSITION OF WORD 'ENTRIES' OR 'ACCOUNTING ENTRIES' IN SECTION 68 IN PLACE OF 'SUM' IS TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE AND AGAINST THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION. NO TAX CAN BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT WORDS IN THE ACT CLEARLY SHOWING AN INTENTION TO LAY A BURDEN UPON HIM. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TAXED UNLESS HE COMES WITHIN THE LETTER OF LAW. IN A TAXING ACT, ONE HAS TO LOOK MERELY WHAT IS CLEARLY SAID. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR ANY INTENDMENT. NO TAX CAN BE IMPOSED BY INFERENCE OR ANALOGY. SECTION 68 GIVES THE STATUTORY RECOGNITION TO THE PRINCIPLE THAT CASH CREDIT WHICH ARE NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BY AN ASSESSEE MAY ASSESSED AS INCOME. THE PROVISION IS TO DEFEAT THE PROLIFERATION OF BLACK MONEY AND INTRODUCTION IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS CAMOUFLAGE BEING AS RECEIPT OF SUM FORM THIRD PARTY OR INTRODUCTION AS OWN CAPITAL. THE BASIC POINT IS THE INTRODUCTION OF A SUM OF MONEY IN BOOKS. LOGICALLY TOO, UNLESS THERE IS A RECEIPT OF ACTUAL MONEY THERE IS NO CHANCE OF INTRODUCTION OF UNACCOUNTED MONEY. MERE [ PAGE | 9 ITA NO.1490/AHD/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2012-13 MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD. JOURNAL/NOTIONAL ENTRIES DO NOT GIVE SCOPE TO INTRODUCE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OR FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. 11. THE PRIME FACIE EVIDENCE IS RECEIPT OF MONEY FOR LOGICAL STEPS TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE SECTION PUTS THE ASSESSEE UNDER A CLOUD AND MUST DISPEL THAT CLOUD TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES, UPON THE ESTABLISHING THE PRIME CAUSE OF RECEIPT OF MONEY. THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PROVE THAT THE MONEY HE HAS RECEIVED IN HIS BOOKS HAS EITHER NOT UNDER THE SCOPE OF TAXATION OR IT HAD ALREADY SUFFERED TAX. IN CASE, THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO SATISFY, THE AO, ABOUT ANY OF THE CONDITIONS, THEN SAID SUM IS TREATED AS HIS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE OR UNEXPLAINED SOURCE. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD CIT(A) NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, INCLUDING ITR, BANK ACCOUNTS, ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL AOS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS AS WELL AS THE LOAN CREDITORS (SOURCES) OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS, THE SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF SHARE APPLICANTS IN SELLING THE SHARES AT A PROFIT, COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT, SHARE APPLICANTS ARE THE VERY PROMOTERS AND MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILY ( WHO ALREADY HOLD SHARES IN APPELLANT - COMPANY) GO ON TO PROVE THE 3 ELEMENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, VIZ: (I) IDENTITY, (II) CREDITWORTHINESS AND (III) GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUBSCRIPTION TO NEW SHARES OF A COMPANY BY EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS / PROMOTERS CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED TO BE ESTABLISHED, UNLESS SOME CONCLUSIVE OR IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE IS FOUND TO CONTRARY. NO SUCH EVIDENCE OR FINDING HAS BEEN MADE IN THE CASE. AS AGAINST THE ABOVE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES AND FACTS, THE SINGLE FACT OF NON - APPEARANCE OF THE SHARE - APPLICANTS BEFORE THE ID AO ( IN RESPONSE TO HIS DIRECTION IN ORDER SHEET ENTRY) CANNOT BE SOLELY RELIED UPON TO SAY THE SAID TRANSACTIONS ARE BOGUS. WHEN THE SHARE APPLICANTS ARE THE VERY PROMOTERS OF THE APPELLANT - COMPANY, INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED TO TAX, THEIR IDENTITY CANNOT BE DENIED JUST FOR NON - APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ID A. O. IF THEIR IDENTITY IS FALSE, THEN THE IDENTITY OF APPELLANT - COMPANY, WHICH HAS MADE A TURNOVER OF RS.112 CRORES FOR THE YEAR AND HAS PAID RS 4 LACS AS INCOME TAX FOR THE YEAR WILL ALSO HAVE TO BE HELD AS FAKE. [ PAGE | 10 ITA NO.1490/AHD/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2012-13 MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD. 12. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR SHARE - APPLICANTS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ID AO WHEN THEY FILED CONFIRMATIONS, BANK ACCOUNTS, STATEMENTS, ITRS AND ALSO COMPLIED WITH STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 133 (6). IT SHOULD ALSO BE KEPT IN MIND THAT, MOST OF THEM WERE ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WHEREIN THE MATTER OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF APPELLANT - COMPANY AND THE SOURCES OF SAME WERE BEING EXAMINED BY THE AOS. THE ID AO COULD HAVE INFORMED THE CONCERNED AO TO MAKE ANY VERIFICATION HE WANTED TO. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ID AO IS DUTY BOUND TO INFORM CONCERNED AO OF SHARE - APPLICANT AND NOT TO DO DIRECT INQUIRY WITH THEM, AS HELD IN THE DECISION OF NAKHWA RANCHHO JWABHAI (208 TAXMANN. 35 ) BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS DID NOT TURN UP BEFORE THE ID AO, CANNOT A REASON FOR ADDITION, WHEN ALL CONFIRMATORY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ARE FURNISHED. CONSIDERING THESE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS SATISFIED THREE INGREDIENTS OF THE SECTION 68 , VIZ: (I) IDENTITY, (II) CREDITWORTHINESS AND (III) GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS.THAT BEING SO, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF ID. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS. HIS ORDER ON THIS ADDITION IS, THEREFORE, UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 13.GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF GROSS PROFIT (GP) AMOUNTING TO RS.71,71,873/-. 14. BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH GROSS PROFIT (GP) RATIO OF A.Y. 2012-13 AND PRECEDING TWO YEARS. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE GROSS PROFIT (GP), WHICH ARE GIVEN BELOW: A.Y. 2010-11 NA (BUSINESS NOT STARTED) A.Y. 2011-12 0.88% A.Y. 2012-13 0.24% ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE REASON OF DOWNFALL OF GP WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. NO REASON FOR GP WAS FURNISHED. ON 09.01.2015 ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN ASKED TO FURNISH THE SAME VIDE NOTICE U/S 142(1) AS UNDER: [ PAGE | 11 ITA NO.1490/AHD/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2012-13 MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD. 'IN YOUR SUBMISSION DATED 21/08/2014 IN POINT NO. 27 TO STATED THE GROSS PROFIT IS HIGHER THAN IMMEDIATE PREVIOUS YEAR. BUT G P CHART MENTIONED BY YOU EXPLAINS THAT G P OF CURRENT YEAR 0.24% WHICH IS MUCH LOWER THAN PREVIOUS YEAR G P RATE OF 0.88%. PLEASE FURNISH DETAIL REASON WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR THIS FALL OF G P RATE. PLEASE PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ALONG WITH BILL OR VOUCHERS' 15. ON THE FIXED DATE NEITHER REASON FOR FALLING GROSS PROFIT WAS FURNISHED NOR ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON 05.03.2015 SHRI S K KABRA, AR OF ASSESSEE ATTENDED AND DISCUSSED THE CASE. HE WAS AGAIN REQUESTED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITH SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS. BUT AGAIN ON FIXED DATE 12.03.2015 NEITHER ANY ONE ATTENDED NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS CALLED FOR. SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT STAGE TO FURNISH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR VERIFICATION BUT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NEVER PRODUCED. VIDE SHOW CAUSE LETTER OF AO DATED 20.03.2015, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED U/S 145 OF THE IT ACT AND GROSS PROFIT SHOULD NOT BE ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF GP RATION OF PRECEDING YEAR. RELEVANT PORTION OF SHOW CAUSE IS AS UNDER: 'VIDE SUBMISSION FURNISHED DATED 21.08.2014. YOU HAVE SHOWN YOUR GROSS PROFIT RATIO AT 0.24% WHICH WAS 0.88% IN A.Y. 2011-12. NO REASON FOR THIS DOWNFALL OF GP FURNISHED. VIDE LETTER DATED 09.01.2015 YOU HAVE REQUESTED TO FURNISH DETAILED REASON WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FOR THE ABNORMAL FALL OF GP RATE. VIDE REPLY RECEIVED DATED 15.01.2015 YOUR AR STATED THAT EXPLANATION WITH RESPECT TO FALL IN GP IS UNDER PREPARATION AND WILL BE SUBMITTED SHORTLY. TILL DATE NO EXPLANATION FOR FALL IN GP RECEIVED. VIDE LETTER DATED 09.01.2015 YOU HAVE REQUESTED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITH SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS. BUT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PRODUCED. VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 05.03.2015 YOUR AR WAS AGAIN REQUESTED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITH SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS ON 12.03.2015 BUT AGAIN NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 05.03.2015 YOUR AR WAS ASKED TO FURNISH PURCHASE BILLS, DELIVERY CHALLANS, TRANSPORT BILLS, PURCHASE ORDER COPIES OF M/S R J SQUARE LINK, DIRG SALES, TORRENT POLLYSTER, COLOURFUL FABRICS AND WINTECH FASHIONS BUT DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED. SUMMONS U/S 131 WERE ISSUED TO COLOURFUL FABRICS, DIRG SALES, TORRENT POLLYSTER, SIDDHI INTERNATIONAL AND WINTECH FASHION. IN CASE OF COLOURFULS FABRICS SUMMON COULD NOT BE SERVED AS PERSONS IS NOT AVAILABLE ON GIVEN ADDRESS. OTHER PERSON DID NOT COMPLY THE SUMMON ISSUED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY YOUR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 [ PAGE | 12 ITA NO.1490/AHD/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2012-13 MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD. OF THE IT ACT AND GROSS PROFIT SHOULD NOT BE ESTIMATED AS SHOWN IN THE PRECEDING YEAR.' 16. ON THE FIXED DATE I.E. ON 26.03.2015, NO ONE ATTENDED. ON 28.03.2015 ASSESSEE FURNISHED HIS REPLY BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND STATED THAT ASSESSEES BUSINESS IS BASED ON ORDERS OF CUSTOMERS AND THE ORDERS ARE DIRECTLY DELIVERED BY SUPPLIERS. DELIVERY CHALLANS AND TRANSPORT DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE WITH SUPPLIERS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE HAS JUMPED ITS TURNOVER BY 10 TIMES AND TO ACHIEVE THE HIGHER VOLUME OF BUSINESS HIS GROSS PROFIT RATIO IS DECREASED. WITH THE SHOW CAUSE REPLY ASSESSEE STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETE RECORD WITH REGARD TO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND COMPUTER PRINTS OUT ARE PRODUCED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT COMPLETE QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION ARE AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSEE AND ARE SUBMITTED BUT NEITHER THE COMPUTER PRINTOUT NOR BOOKS WERE PRODUCED NOR QUANTITATIVE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NEVER FURNISHED. BILLS AND VOUCHERS RELATED TO PURCHASE AND SALES WERE NEVER FURNISHED THOUGH THOSE WERE CALLED FOR AGAIN AND AGAIN AND ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE SAME. NO DETAILS IN FORM OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE FURNISHED. THE PROVISIONS U/S 145 WAS INVOKED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. AS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF EXPENSES WAS FURNISHED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE BOOK RESULT SHOWN BY ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED. FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13 ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT RATIO OF 0.24%. IN IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR GP RATIO WAS 0.88%. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS OF ASSESSEE GP RATIO WAS ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF GP RATIO SHOWN IN PRECEDING YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, GP WAS CALCULATED @ OF 0.88% WHICH WORKED OUT AT RS. 98,75,150/-. DIFFERENCE OF RS.71,71,873/- (RS.98,75,150 - RS.27,03,277) WAS ADDED TO TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 17. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: 10.1 THE LD AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT AT 0.88 % AS AGAINST 0.24 % SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT - COMPANY. THE MATTER IS DISCUSSED. THE MAIN REASON FOR REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT APPEARS TO BE NON - PRODUCTION OF BOOKS BEFORE THE LD AO. THE AR HOWEVER, FURNISHED COPY OF HIS [ PAGE | 13 ITA NO.1490/AHD/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2012-13 MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD. LETTER DATED 28.03.2015 (ALSO REFERRED BY THE LD AO IN PARA 4.3 AND 5.11) WHEREIN THE AR HAS (IN PARA 1) STATE THAT COMPUTER PRINT OUTS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. AGAIN IN PARA 6 OF THIS LETTER, IT IS WRITTEN THAT COMPLETE QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION OF SALES AND PURCHASES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED. THERE IS A CONFLICT IN STATEMENTS OF ID AO SAYS VIS- A-VIS STATEMENT OF THE AR. HOWEVER, RECORDS ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE AR. 10.2 THE AR EXPLAINED THE FALL IN GROSS PROFIT RATE IN HIS ABOVE LETTERS (PARA 3- 5). AS PER THIS THE GP RATE IS REDUCED, BUT IN ABSOLUTE TERMS BOTH GP AND NP HAS INCREASED. THE TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT -COMPANY JUMPED 10 TIMES DURING THIS YEAR AND HENCE, THERE IS REDUCTION OF G P PERCENTAGE. TURNOVER HAS INCREASED FROM RS 11.90 CRORES TO RS 112. 22 CRORES AND THE GP HAS ALSO INCREASED FROM RS.10.61 LAKHS TO RS 27.03 LAKHS. (Y O Y) THE AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT BUSINESSMEN ARE MORE INTERESTED IN HIGHER VOLUMES AND INCREASE ABSOLUTE TERMS AS AGAINST THE PERCENTAGE (%). THE AR BEFORE ME EXPLAINED THAT, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE GP RATE SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT, WHEN SUCH A HUGE JUMP IN TURNOVER JUSTIFIES REDUCTION IN MARGINS AND WHEN THE ACCOUNTS ARE SUBJECTED TO TAX AUDIT AND AUDIT UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. 10.3 THE AR POINTED OUT THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CAN BE REJECTED ONLY ON COGENT FINDING OF DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WHEN THE ID AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF REJECTION OF SAME. THE ID AO COULD HAVE INVOKED SEC. 144 OF THE ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WHICH THE ID AO HAS NOT DONE. THE AR IN PARA 22 (A) OF SUBMISSION (REPRODUCED ABOVE) ARGUES THAT COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT LEDGER A/C OF CREDITORS, MAJOR EXPENSES, CASH BOOK, ETC. WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ID AO. 10.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT, THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS ESTIMATION OF GROSS PROFIT IS UNCALLED FOR. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.71,71,875/- MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE GROUND NO 2 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 18. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 19. LEARNED DR SUBMITS BEFORE US THAT THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE BILLS AND VOUCHERS RELATED TO PURCHASE AND SALE WERE NEVER FURNISHED BEFORE AO THOUGH THESE WERE CALLED FOR EXAMINATION. HENCE, LD AO HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 20. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). [ PAGE | 14 ITA NO.1490/AHD/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2012-13 MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD. 21. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). WE NOTE THAT WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.71,71,873/- ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF GROSS PROFIT, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CAN BE REJECTED ONLY ON COGENT FINDING OF DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WHEN THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF REJECTION OF THE SAME. WE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE LD CIT(A). THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE LD CIT(A) ARE, THEREFORE, CORRECT AND ADMIT NO INTERFERENCE BY US. WE, APPROVE AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 22. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 28/05/2021 BY PLACING RESULT ON NOTICE BOARD. SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (DR. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LWJR /SURAT / DATE: 28/05/2021 SAMANTA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, SURAT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/SR. PS/PS ITAT, SURAT