Shri Haresh Nanubhai Tharnariwala, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Surat

ITA 1673/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2262 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIB P K
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,SURAT BENCH,SURAT , , BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO.1673/AHD/2015/SRT [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 HARESH NANUBHAI THARNARIWALA, 40, NEELAM SOCIETY, OPP: SVR ICHCHHANATH, DEMAS ROAD, SURAT 395 009. [PAN:AAMPT 5784C] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), SURAT. ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KAMLESH BHATT, C.A /REVENUE BY : SHRIB.P.K. PANDA, SR. D.R /DATE OF HEARING : 28-06-2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03-08-2018 / ORDER PERC.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THISAPPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THEORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, SURAT (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 01.05.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y) 2008-09. 2. THEGROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS FOLLOWS: 2 ITA NO.1673/AHD/2015/SRT (A.Y: 2008-09) SHRI HARESH NANUBHAI THARNARIWALA 1. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 5,43,020/- LEVIED BY THE LD. A.O U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND HENCE YOUR APPELLANT MOST HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE SAME BE DELETED. 2. SUCH OTHER RELIEF(S) TO WHICH THE APPELLANT MAY BE LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON THE RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 5,43,020/- LEVIED BY THE LD. A.O U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND HENCE YOUR APPELLANT MOST HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE SAME BE DELETED. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED BY THE AO AND IN PURSUANCE THERETO THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REDUCED THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION TO RS. 14,25,000/- DISBELIEVING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND SALE PROCEED OF JEWELLERY OF RS. 4,00,400/- DEPOSITED BY CHEQUES/DD AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN RESPECT OF SALE OF SHARES AND DIAMOND IS ALSO ASSESSED AND THE ADDITION ON THE STRENGTH WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED IS NEITHER AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR BASED ON ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT VALID AND SUSTAINABLE. THE LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ALLEGATION OF EITHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, IMPUGNED PENALTY MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3 ITA NO.1673/AHD/2015/SRT (A.Y: 2008-09) SHRI HARESH NANUBHAI THARNARIWALA 3. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE CORROBORATIVE AND PLAUSIBLE EVIDENCE REGARDING CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 14,25,000/- AND RS. 4,00,400/- DEPOSITED BY WAY OF PAY ORDER AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN ABOUT DEPOSIT MADE IN THE UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALMENT PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 15,34,400/- (AFTER REDUCING THE CASH WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 2,91,000/- FROM ABOVE TWO ADDITIONS) FOR WHICH ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HE SUPPORTED THE PENALTY ORDER AS WELL AS FIRST APPELLATE ORDER AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HCIL KALINDEE ARSSPL REPORTED IN 37 TAXMANN.COM 347 (DEL) AND DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ZOOM COMMUNICATION (P.) LTD. 191 TAXMAN 179 (DEL) AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT HE ACTED BONAFIDELY THEN, PENALTY HAS TO BE LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IS THE ASSESSEE MAKES THE CLAIM WHICH IS NOT INCORRECT IN LAW BUT IS ALSO WHOLLY WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND EXPLANATION FURNISHING BY HIM FOR MAKING SUCH CLAIM IS NOT FOUND TO BE BONAFIDE THEN, EXPLANATION 1 TO S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WOULD COME INTO PLAY AND ASSESSEE WOULD BE LIABLE TO PENALTY. 4. PLACING REJOINDER TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE RATIO OF THE BOTH THE DECISIONS AS RELIED BY THE LD.DR ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HAVING DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT FACTS AND 4 ITA NO.1673/AHD/2015/SRT (A.Y: 2008-09) SHRI HARESH NANUBHAI THARNARIWALA CIRCUMSTANCES. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE CHEQUES AND DD DEPOSITED TOWARDS SALE OF JEWELLERY OF RS. 4,00,400/- IS SELF-EXPLAINED AS THE JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE FATHER, WHO WAS DIED LONG TIME AGO AND THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AGAINST SALE OF JEWELLERY WHICH CANNOT BE DISPUTED. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE TAKEN VERY UNREASONABLE VIEW WHEN THEY NOT ONLY DISMISSED PLEA OF SALE OF JEWELLERY IN CASH OF RS. 8,25,000/-, BUT ALSO DISMISSED CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING SALE OF JEWELLERY AGAINST PAYMENT RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THATTHE ASSESSEE IS A REGULAR TAX PAYER HAVING OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 5,79,878/- AS ON 01.04.2007 WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS BUT, THE SAME IS CLEARLY DISCERNABLE FROM THE FINANCIAL ACCOUNT PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DURING QUANTUM AS WELL AS DURING FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED OR NOT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE IMPOSED AUTOMATICALLY WITHOUT ARRIVING TO A SOLID CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. AR FINALLY SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 5. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FIRST OF ALL, WE MAY POINT OUT THAT AS PER STATEMENTS OF FACTS,THE AO MADE FOUR ADDITIONS 5 ITA NO.1673/AHD/2015/SRT (A.Y: 2008-09) SHRI HARESH NANUBHAI THARNARIWALA OUT OF WHICH ONE ADDITION WAS PARTLY CONFIRMED ON TWO COUNTS VIZ. FIRST DEPOSITS OF RS. 14,25,000/- TO THE BANK OF THE ASSESSEE AND SECOND OF RS. 4,00,400/- PERTAINING TO AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY WAY OF PAY ORDER AND AFTER GIVING CREDIT OF RS. 2,91,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS BY THE ASSESSEE THE TOTAL CONFIRMED ADDITION WAS OF RS.15,34,400/- WHICH BECAME BASIS FOR IMPOSING IMPUGNED PENALTY. BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE APPELLANT IS IN THE LINEOF GOLDSMITH. AS A RESULT, PEOPLE DO COME TO HIM WHEN THEY ARE TO BUY THE ORNAMENTS. IT IS VERY COMMON PRACTICE THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE BUY THIS IN CASH AND SOME PEOPLE MAY GIVE THE CHEQUES BUT THE SAME MAY OR MAY NOT BE FROM OWN ACCOUNT. 6. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBMISSIONS THAT AS PER COPY OF LAST WEALTH TAX RETURN OF HIS FATHER FOR AY 1992-93 WHO WAS ASSESSED U/S. 16(3) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 AS ON 31.03.1992 THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY OF RS. 7,72,222/- AND THE COMPUTATION OF NET WEALTH ALSO CONTAINED IS SPECIFIC MENTION TOTHE JEWELLERY AS WELL AS FLAT AT URMISH APARTMENT AND ACCORDINGLY WEALTH TAX WAS PAID AND WAS ASSESSED ALSO. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE COPY OF THE LAST RETURN OF INCOME OF HIS FATHER WHICH WAS FOR THE AY 2001-02. THIS RETURN WAS PREPARED AND FILED BY THE APPELLANT AS LEGAL HEIR AND WAS FILED ON 29.08.2001 WHICH RANGE- 5, SURAT ACCOMPANIED BY THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE SHEET.FROM THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER, WE ARE 6 ITA NO.1673/AHD/2015/SRT (A.Y: 2008-09) SHRI HARESH NANUBHAI THARNARIWALA UNABLE TO SEE ANY FINDINGS WHICH MAY BE TAKEN AS CONCLUSION OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONTROVERTING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS/EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THESE EXPLANATIONS ARE EITHER FALSE OR BOGUS OR THE ASSESSEE OFFERED AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION IS BONAFIDE. THE LEGISLATURE HAS VERY CAUTIOUSLY USED WORD SUBSTANTIATE AND BONAFIDE' BECAUSE IT IS NOT AN EXPECTATION FROM THE ASSESSEE TO PUT-FORTH OR TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION AND TO PROVE THE SAME BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BUT, IF THE EXPLANATION IS BONAFIDE AND THE AO COULD NOT AND HAS NOT HELD IT TO BE FALSE THEN, E XPLANATION 1 TO U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED FOR IMPOSING PENALTY. 7. IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE DETAILS OF BUYER, BILL NUMBER, DESCRIPTIONS OF JEWELLERY ETC., BUT THE SALE PROCEED RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL BY WAY OF PAY ORDER MAY BE DOUBTED FOR MAKING ADDITION BUT THIS EXPLANATION CANNOT BE TAKEN AS FALSE OR BOGUS IN VIEW OF THE WEALTH TAX AND INCOME TAX RETURNS OF THE DECEASED FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED A BONAFIDE EXPLANATION REGARDING DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,00,400/- TO HIS BANK ACCOUNT BY WAY OF PAY ORDER AND MERELY BECAUSE HE COULD NOT SATISFIED THE AO BY WAY OF FILING REQUIRED EVIDENCE THE PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THIS COUNT UNLESS THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE FALSE OR BOGUS. IN THIS SITUATION, 7 ITA NO.1673/AHD/2015/SRT (A.Y: 2008-09) SHRI HARESH NANUBHAI THARNARIWALA THE EXPLANATION 1 TO U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE TRIGGERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR IMPOSING PENALTY ON THE ALLEGATION OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 8. SO FAR AS ADDITION OF RS. 14,25,000/- IS CONCERNED, THE AMOUNT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK OF RS.2,91,000/- HAS BEEN ADJUSTED AND ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL AND THUS, DISPUTED CASH DEPOSITS COMES TO RS. 11,34,000/-. THE SALE OF JEWELLERY IN CASH OF RS. 8,25,000/- BY A PERSON WHO IS IN THE LINE OF BUSINESS OF GOLDSMITH WITHOUT ANY BILL ANY VOUCHER CANNOT BE HELD AS RELIABLE AND ACCEPTABLE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CLAIMED SALE OF JEWELLERY RECEIVED FORM HIS FATHER RS. 4,00,400/- AGAINST THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY WAY OF PAY ORDER AND IT CANNOT BE PERCEIVED THAT THE ASSESSEE LEAVING HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS ASIDE INHERITED ENTIRE JEWELLERY OF HIS FATHER WHICH HE SOLD AGAINST PAY ORDER AND CASH. FURTHER, IN VIEW OF FINDINGS ARRIVED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL ORDER DATED 27.02.2017 THE ASSESSEES OWN APPEAL FOR AY 2008- 09 PARA 5 AND THUS, ON THIS COUNT PENALTY ACTION OF THE AO AS WELL AS FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE FOUND SUSTAINABLE AND PENALTY ON THIS AMOUNT U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS FOUND TO BE SUSTAINABLE AS THE ASSESSEE OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND FAILED TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION IS BONAFIDE . 8 ITA NO.1673/AHD/2015/SRT (A.Y: 2008-09) SHRI HARESH NANUBHAI THARNARIWALA 9. SO FAR AS REMAINING AMOUNT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 3,09,000/- (RS.11,34,000 RS. 8,25,000/-)IS CONCERNED ADMITTEDLY AND UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE IS A GOLDSMITH HAVING JOB WORK INCOME AND SUBMITTING RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED OPENING BALANCE OF CASH AS ON 01.04.2007 OF RS. 5,79,878/- FOR WHICH THERE IS NO DELIBERATION OR DISCUSSION NEITHER BY THE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER NOR BY THE LD. CIT(A) DESPITE THE FACT HE HAS REPRODUCED WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 16.04.2015 IN PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER.THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY REGARDING THIS EXPLANATION AS PER REQUIREMENT OF EXPLANATION 1 TO U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT THAT EITHER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE AO OR CIT(A) TO BE FALSE OR THE ASSESSEE OFFERED AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE. FROM THE COPY OF THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME IT IS DISCERNABLE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME OF RS. 3,51,719/- WHICH CONSIST OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS, CAPITAL GAINS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 PERTAINING TO AY 2008-09 PLACED AT PGS. 152 & 153 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME OF RS. 3,93,476/- AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT OPENING BALANCE IN THE BEGINNING OF YEAR HAS BEEN SHOWN TO RS. 37,38,367/- WHICH WAS ENHANCED AND CARRY FORWARDED AT THE END OF THE YEAR TO RS. 43,62,927/-. IN THE BALANCE SHEET CASH IN HAND HAS BEEN 9 ITA NO.1673/AHD/2015/SRT (A.Y: 2008-09) SHRI HARESH NANUBHAI THARNARIWALA SHOWN RS. 2,37,380/- AT THE END OF THE YEAR, WHEREAS FOR IMMEDIATELY FINANCIAL YEAR AY 2006-07 PERTAINING TO PRECEDING AY 2007-08THE CASH BALANCE/CASH IN HAND HAS BEEN SHOWN AS AT RS. 5,79,877/- WHICH BECAME OPENING BALANCE OF FY 2007-08 PERTAINING TO PRESENT AY 2008-09 HAS BEEN SHOWN AS ON 01.04.2007. HOWEVER, WE POINT OUT THAT DURING THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS THIS CASH BALANCE WAS NOT PRESSED INTO SERVICE AS AN EXPLANATION AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAME WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDIT. AT THE SAME TIME, WE MAY POINT OUT THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLANATION 1 TO U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR ADJUDICATION OF BURDEN OF THE ASSESSEE LAY ON HIS SHOULDERS TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SAID EXPLANATION 1 . 10. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF GOLDSMITH JOB WORK AND EARNING INCOME AND HAS SHOWN JOB WORK INCOME RS. 3,93,476/- THEREFROM. IN ADDITION TO THIS INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EARNED CAPITAL GAIN INCOME OF RS. 1,22,611/- AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS. 40,543/- WHICH CANNOT BE IGNORED WHILE EXAMINING THE CREDITABILITY OF CASH IN HAND IN THE BEGINNING AND AT THE END OF THE YEAR WHILE EXAMINING THE SUBSTANCE OF EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE IS ALSO HAVING HANDSOME AMOUNT OF CAPITAL IN THE BEGINNING FINANCIAL YEAR WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIALLY 10 ITA NO.1673/AHD/2015/SRT (A.Y: 2008-09) SHRI HARESH NANUBHAI THARNARIWALA ENHANCED AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND LEADS TO RS. 43,62,927/- . IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED THE VIEW THAT THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 3,09,000/-IS VERY LESSOR AND COVERED IN COMPARISON TO THE AMOUNT OF CASH IN HAND SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BEGINNING OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR, THE JOB WORK INCOME, CAPITAL GAIN INCOME AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ASSESSEE REASONABLY AND SUCCESSFULLY SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM REGARDING REMAINING OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 3,09,000/- HENCE, PENALTY ON THIS COUNT CANNOT BE LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY PRESSING INTO SERVICE EXPLANATION-1 TO SAID PROVISION ON THE ALLEGATION OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 11. TO SUM UP IN VIEW OF FOREGOING DISCUSSION, PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT FOR RS. 8,25,000/- IS CONFIRMED AND REMAINING PART OF PENALTY IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE PENALTY ACCORDINGLY. 12. IN THE RESULT,THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 03 RD AUGUST, 2018. / SURAT ; DATED :03 RD AUGUST, 2018 EDN SD/ - SD/ - ( ) ( O.P.MEENA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (C.M.GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER 11 ITA NO.1673/AHD/2015/SRT (A.Y: 2008-09) SHRI HARESH NANUBHAI THARNARIWALA / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT ; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-1, SURAT; 4. PRL. CIT, SURAT; 5. , , / DR, ITAT, SURAT; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY// / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , / ITAT, SURAT