The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad V. GSP Crop Sciences Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 201/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 20120514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: M G PATEL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Corroborative evidences; Avoidance of tax

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD . , ! ' ' ' ' # $%, ! BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. ./ I.T.A. NO.201/AHD/2013 AY 2008-09 2. ./ I.T.A. NO.202/AHD/2013 AY 2009-10 DCIT CIRCLE-4 AHMEDABAD / VS. GSP CROP SCIENCES PVT.LTD. 404, LALITA COMPLEX 352/3, RASALA ROAD NAVRANGPURA AHMEADBAD-380 009 !' ./() ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACG 7984 Q ( '* / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( +,'* / RESPONDENT ) '* - / APPELLANT BY : SHRI O.P. BATHEJA, SR.D.R. +,'* . - / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.G.PATEL, A.R. #'/ . %0 / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 01/08/2013 12 . %0 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/08/2013 3 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF S AME ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-VIII, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) FOR SHORT] BOTH DATED 25/10/201 2 FOR AYS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. SINCE THE GROUNDS RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE SAME AND IDENTICAL, THEREFORE BOTH WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND A RE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NOS.201 & 202 /AHD/2013 DY.CIT VS. GSP CROP SCIENCES PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 2 - 3. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL, I.E. ITA NO.201/AHD/2013 PERTAINING TO ASST.YEAR 2008-09. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE DISALLOWANCE OF TURNOVER DISCOUNT OF RS.18,09,950/- GIVEN TO ITS ASSOCIATE COMPANY M/S.BHARAT PESTICIDES INDS.PVT.LTD. WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY TURNOVER DISCOUNT FROM THE SAID COMPANY ON THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSOCIATE COM PANY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE SCHEME HAD BEEN SPE CIALLY MADE TO ENSURE UNDUE BENEFIT TO THE RELATED PARTY. 2) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.82,425/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIAT ION ON CAR PURCHASED ON 31.03.2009, I.E. ON THE LAST DAY O F THE PREVIOUS YEAR WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WAS GIVEN TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS C LAIM THAT THE CAR WAS USED FOR HIS BUSINESS PURPOSE. 3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. 4) IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.C IT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 2. THE FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF TURN OVER DISCOUNT OF RS.18,09,950/-. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMEN T U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 24/12/2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FRA MING THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS.18,09 ,950/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF TURNOVER DISCOUNT GIVEN TO SISTER-C ONCERN. THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER ITA NOS.201 & 202 /AHD/2013 DY.CIT VS. GSP CROP SCIENCES PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 3 - CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. LD.SR.DR HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS ARE SQUARELY COVE RED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI RENDERED IN THE CASE OF UNITED EXPORTS VS. CIT 350 ITR 549 (DELHI). HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DEC ISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. A.RAMA N AND CO. 67 ITR 11(SC). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT H AS HELD THAT LAW DOES NOT OBLIGE A TRADER TO MAKE THE MAXIMUM PROFIT THAT HE CAN OUT OF HIS TRADING TRANSACTIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE H ONBLE APEX COURT HAS ALSO HELD THAT AVOIDANCE OF TAX LIABILITY BY SO ARR ANGING COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS THAT CHARGE OF TAX IS DISTRIBUTED IS NOT PR OHIBITED. A TAXPAYER MAY RESORT TO A DEVICE TO DIVERT THE INCOME BEFORE IT A CCRUES OR ARISES TO HIM. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DEVICE DEPENDS NOT UPON CONSID ERATIONS OF MORALITY, BUT ON THE OPERATION OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. LEGISL ATIVE INJUNCTION IN TAXING STATUES MAY NOT, EXCEPT ON PERIL OF PENALTY, BE VIOLATED, BUT IT MAY LAWFULLY BE CIRCUMVENTED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE H ONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF UNITED EXPORTS VS. CIT (330 IT R 549) HELD THAT THE TRADE DISCOUNT IS NOT AN EXPENDITURE THEREFORE THER E IS NO APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HE ALSO R ELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (TRAVEL) P.LTD. REPORTED AT (2009) 3 10 ITR 306 (BOM). IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE SISTER-CONCERN W AS ALSO ASSESSED TO TAX AND NO DISALLOWANCE WAS TO BE MADE U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT ITA NOS.201 & 202 /AHD/2013 DY.CIT VS. GSP CROP SCIENCES PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 4 - OF PAYMENT MADE TO THE RELATIVES AND SISTER-CONCERN WHERE THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE JUDGEMENTS CITED SUPRA. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN P ARAGRAPH NO.2.3 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER:- 2.3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED RS.18,09,950/- OBSERVING THAT SUCH RESOLUTION FOR T URNOVER DISCOUNT WAS MADE MERELY TO BENEFIT THE ASSOCIATE C OMPANY M/S.BHARAT PESTICIDES INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD. AND THAT THE DISCOUNT RESOLUTION WAS LIMITED TO CORPORATE ENTITIES ONLY A ND WAS NOT PUBLICIZED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY PASSED RESOLUTION IN THE IR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING HELD ON 2 ND APRIL 2007 WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT CUSTOMER EFFECTING TURNOVER OF ABOVE RS .7 CRORE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DISCOUNT @ 2.5% ON SALES AND ACCORDING LY THE SAME IS GIVEN TO M/S.BHARAT PESTICIDES INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD. AS PER CREDIT NOTE DATED 31/03/2008 ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT COMPA NY. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURNED INCOME OF M/S.B HARAT PESTICIDES INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD. IS RS.67,41,180/- FO R A.Y. 2008-09 WHICH MEANS THAT THE SAID COMPANY IS ASSESSABLE AT THE SAME RATE OF TAX (MAXIMUM RATE FOR COMPANIES) AS THE APPELLAN T COMPANY AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY LOSS OF REVENUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT APPELLANT COMPANY HAS GIV EN TURNOVER DISCOUNT I.E. TRADE DISCOUNT OF RS.18,09,950/- WHIC H IS BY WAY OF REDUCTION IN THE SALE PRICE TO THE PURCHASER COMPAN Y VIZ. M/S.BHARAT PESTICIDES INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD. THEREFOR E, THE SAME IS NOT AN EXPENDITURE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. HENCE , QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE AMOUNT BY WAY OF EXPENDITURE U/ S.40A(2)(B) IS NOT WARRANTED. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION AND THE C ASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT, IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE AND THE BHARAT PESTICIDES INDUSTRIES PVT IS ASSESSABLE AT THE SAME RATE ITA NOS.201 & 202 /AHD/2013 DY.CIT VS. GSP CROP SCIENCES PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 5 - OF TAX (MAXIMUM RATE FOR COMPANIES) AS THE APPELLAN T COMPANY. SECONDLY, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE ABOVE AMOUNT ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THIS ARRANGEMENT HAS BEEN DONE TO BENEFIT THE OTHER SISTER CONCERN BUT IT HAS NOWHERE BEEN ESTABL ISHED OR INDICATED AS HOW THE SISTER CONCERN HAS GOT BENEFIT ED BY THIS ARRANGEMENT. IN VIEW OF THIS IT CANNOT BE SAID THA T THERE ARE LEAKAGES OF TAX THROUGH THIS SCHEME FROM ONE CONCER N TO ANOTHER CONCERN. THE STAND OF THE AO CANNOT BE VINDICATED. THEREFORE THE SAME ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE AO IS DIREC TED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON TURNOVER DISCOUNT. 5. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON FACT THAT THERE IS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE AND M/ S. BHARAT PESTICIDES INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD., I.E. SISTER-CONCERN OF THE ASS ESSEE IS ASSESSABLE ON THE SAME RATE OF TAX (MAXIMUM RATE FOR COMPANIES) AS TH E ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THIS FINDING ON THE FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD.SR.DR. 6. UNDISPUTED FACT ARE THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITIO N ON THE BASIS THAT ADDITIONAL TURNOVER DISCOUNT PASSED ON TO THE RELATED PARTY M/S.BHARAT PESTICIDES INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD. IS NOT FO UND REASONABLE AND HAS DISALLOWED AN EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE BEING REASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOT SPECIFICALL Y MENTIONED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) BUT SUCH DISALLOWAN CE TO BE MADE U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE APEX COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. A.RAMAN AND CO. HAS HELD THAT THE LAW DOES NOT OBLI GE A TRADER TO MAKE THE MAXIMUM PROFIT THAT HE CAN OUT OF HIS TRADING T RANSACTIONS. AVOIDANCE OF TAX LIABILITY BY SO ARRANGING COMMERC IAL AFFAIRS THAT CHARGE OF TAX IS DISTRIBUTED IS NOT PROHIBITED. A TAXPAYE R MAY RESORT TO A DEVICE TO DIVERT THE INCOME BEFORE IT ACCRUES OR ARISES TO HIM. EFFECTIVENESS OF ITA NOS.201 & 202 /AHD/2013 DY.CIT VS. GSP CROP SCIENCES PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 6 - THE DEVICE DEPENDS NOT UPON CONSIDERATIONS OF MORAL ITY, BUT ON THE OPERATION OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. LEGISLATIVE INJUN CTION IN TAXING STATUES MAY NOT, EXCEPT ON PERIL OF PENALTY, BE VIOLATED, B UT IT MAY LAWFULLY BE CIRCUMVENTED. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF UNITED EXPORTS VS. CIT (330 ITR 549) HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) DID NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS THE TRADE DISCOUNT IS NOT AN EXPENDITURE WHICH IS INCURRED OR WITH RESPECT TO WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE. FURTHER, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (TRAVEL) P LTD (310 ITR 306) (BOM.) HAS HELD THAT THE SISTER-CONCERN WAS ALSO ASSESSED TO T AX AND AS PER BOARD CIRCULAR NO.6-P, DATED JULY, 1968, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS TO BE MADE U/S.40A(2) IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE TO THE RELATI VES AND SISTER CONCERN WHERE THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX. 6.1. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THERE IS A FINDING O F FACT BY LD.CIT(A) THAT SISTER-CONCERN IS ALSO SUBJECTED TO SAME RATE OF TA X AND THERE IS NO ATTEMPT OF EVADING TAX. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE D ECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. GROUND I S DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO.2 IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF DE PRECIATION. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT THERE W AS NO DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION IN THIS YEAR AND BEFORE LD.CIT(A) ALSO , THERE WAS NO GROUND AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION. IT APPE ARS THAT THIS GROUND WAS WRONGLY RAISED, THEREFORE THE SAME IS REJECTED. ITA NOS.201 & 202 /AHD/2013 DY.CIT VS. GSP CROP SCIENCES PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 7 - 8. GROUND NOS.3 & 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH REQ UIRE NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 9. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL FOR AY 2008-09 IS DISMISSED. 10. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL, I.E. ITA NO.202/AHD/2013 FOR AY 2009-10. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RA ISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE DISALLOWANCE OF TURNOVER DISCOUNT OF RS.42,41,138/- GIVEN TO ITS ASSOCIATE COMPANY M/S.BHARAT PESTICIDES INDS.P VT.LTD. WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COM PANY HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY TURNOVER DISCOUNT FROM THE SAID COMPAN Y ON THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSOCIATE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE SCHEME HAD BEEN SPECIALLY MADE TO ENSURE UN DUE BENEFIT TO THE RELATED PARTY. 2) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.82,425/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIAT ION ON CAR PURCHASED ON 31.03.2009, I.E. ON THE LAST DAY OF TH E PREVIOUS YEAR WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WAS GIVEN TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT THE CAR WA S USED FOR HIS BUSINESS PURPOSE. 3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 4) IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.C IT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 10.1. THE FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF T URNOVER DISCOUNT OF RS.42,41,128/- GIVEN TO ITS ASSOCIATE-COMPANY. THE IDENTICAL GROUND WAS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE AY 2008-09 BAY WAY OF ITA NO.201/AHD/2013(SUPRA). SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTI CAL AND THERE IS NO CHANGES IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES POINTED OUT BY THE LD.SR.DR, ITA NOS.201 & 202 /AHD/2013 DY.CIT VS. GSP CROP SCIENCES PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 8 - THEREFORE FOLLOWING OUR DECISION RENDERED IN ITA NO.201/AHD/2013(SUPRA), THIS GROUND OF REVENUES AP PEAL IS REJECTED. 11. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.82,425/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION OF CAR PURCHASED ON 31.03.2009. THE LD.SR.DR HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO, WHEREAS LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ON VERIFICATION OF THE DEPRECIATION CHART. NOTICED THAT THERE IS ADDITION ON THE GROSS TO THE GROSS BLOCK UNDER T HE HEAD VEHICLES TO THE TUNE OF RS.39,00,000/-. ON VERIFICATION OF THE DET AILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION TO FIXED ASSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A SWIFT CAR FOR RS.5,49,500/ - ON 31.3.2009. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO GIVE THE DETAIL S OF PUT TO USE OF THE SAID VEHICLE AND ALSO THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES I NCURRED TOWARDS PETROL/DIESEL, ETC. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT DEALER HAD PROVIDED REASONABLE QUANTITY OF FREE DIE SEL AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY WHICH WAS SELF-SUFFICIENT TO USE THE CAR F OR THE DAY. THIS EXPLANATION HAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEP TABLE TO THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT NO DIESEL WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSE SSEE TO PUT IT TO USE FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DIE SEL PROVIDED BY THE DEALER IS HARDLY SUFFICIENT TO REACH THE PETROL PUM P. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT THE VEHICLE H AS BEEN PUT TO USE ON ITA NOS.201 & 202 /AHD/2013 DY.CIT VS. GSP CROP SCIENCES PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 9 - THE SAME DAY. HOWEVER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMI SSIONS, THE LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT THE AO HAS HELD ON THE SURMISES THAT THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT DIESEL IN THE NEW VEHICLE PURCHASED ON 31/03/2009 WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE BU SINESS PURPOSE, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT DEALER HAS PRO VIDED REASONABLE QUANTITY OF FREE-DIESEL AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY AND THE CAR WAS USED ACCORDINGLY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE S UBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). SINCE THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BASED MERELY ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES THAT THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT DIESEL/PETROL AS PROVIDED BY THE DEALER, WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT HOW CAN AO DETER MINE THAT HOW MUCH PETROL WAS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE DEALER W ITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY FROM THE DEALER. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND O F THE REVENUE IS HEREBY REJECTED. 13. GROUND NOS.3 & 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH RE QUIRE NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 14. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL FOR AY 2009-10 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 15. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE RE VENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE SD/- SD/- (. ) (# $%) ! ! ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 14/ 08 /2013 60.., '.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NOS.201 & 202 /AHD/2013 DY.CIT VS. GSP CROP SCIENCES PVT.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 10 - 3 . +%7 872% 3 . +%7 872% 3 . +%7 872% 3 . +%7 872%/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '* / THE APPELLANT 2. +,'* / THE RESPONDENT. 3. % #9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. #9() / THE CIT(A)-VIII, AHMEDABAD 5. 7'$: +% , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :;< =/ / GUARD FILE. 3# 3# 3# 3# / BY ORDER, ,7% +% //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / ( ( ( ( ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 7.8.13 (DICTATION-PAD 18 PA GES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 8.8.13 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.14.8.13 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 14.8.13 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER