Prakashkumar Devshibhai Dharodiya, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 217/RJT/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 21724914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-03-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVINASH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: DR ADHIA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

R N : S : IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL : RAJKOT BENCH : RAJKOT .. [, M .. M , M BEFORE SHRI T K SHARMA, JM AND SHRI D K SRIVASTA VA, AM ITA NO. 217/RJT/2012 TR R/ ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 PRAKASHKUMAR DEVSHIBHAI DHARODIYA V. ITO PROP. OF M/S. OM ROADLINES, WARD NO - 1(2) DIST. RAJKOT RAJKOT PAN: AIPPO4817K DATE OF HEARING : 19 - 0 3 - 201 3 DATE OF PRONO UNCEMENT : 12 - 0 4 - 201 3 ASSESSEE BY: SHRI D R AD HIA, AR REVENUE BY: SHRI AVINASH KUMAR, DR / ORDER .. M /D. K. SRIVASTAVA : T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) - I, RAJKOT ON 30 .09.2011 , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1.1 THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.5,54,579/ - . THE SAME NEEDS DELETION. 1.2 THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRM ING THE GROSS RECEIPTS TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,54,579/ - THOUGH NOT PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME NEEDS DELETION. 1.3 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTING THE FOLLOWING THE SETTLED LAW AND POSITION THAT IN TRANSPORT BUSINESS, THE MEDIATORY BEING WORKING AS AGENT EARNS ONLY COMMISSION AND HAS NO CONCERN WHATSOEVER IS GROSS RECEIPTS WHICH PERTAINS TO THE TRUCK OWNER / DRIVER. 1.4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN NOT GRANTING EXPENSES OUT OF ADDITION SUSTA INED BY HIM. 1.5 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING GROSS RECEIPT AT 7%. THE SAME NEEDS SUITABLE REDUCTION BEING VERY EXCESSIVE. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.2,500/ - AT 40% OF EXPENSES OF RS.6,250. THE SAME NEEDS DELETION. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.3,148/ - AT 40% OF EXPENSES OF RS.7,870/ - . THE SAME NEEDS DELETION. 2 ITA 217/RJT/2012 4. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE LEGAL, STATUTORY, FACT UAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS, NO ADDITION OF EACH OF THE ABOVE ITEMS MENTIONED AT PARAGRAPHS 1 TO 3 OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED. THE ADDITIONS NEED DELETION. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ASSESSMENT MADE IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES ANNULMENT. 6. WITHOUT P REJUDICE, NO ADEQUATE, SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED. THE ASSESSMENT NEEDS ANNULMENT. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, NO ADEQUATE, SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE CIT(A). 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO A DD/ALTER/AMEND AND/OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OR ALL GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE ACTUAL HEARING TAKES PLACE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE IS ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES. HE IS ALSO AN AGENT FOR RAILWAYS. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 2 5 .0 9 .200 8 RETURNING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,91,960/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SHOWN TRUCK FREIGHT COMMISSION AT RS.4,16,323/ - AND RAILWAY COMMISSION AT RS.4 4, 5 0 0/ - IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE ALSO P URSUED TH E TDS CERTIFICATE S FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH REFUND AMOUNT ING TO RS.1,49,100 WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOTICED THAT THE TRUCK FREIGHT CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTED TO RS.79,22,550/ - AS AGAINST TRUCK FREIGHT COMMISSION OF RS.4,16,323/ - SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE, THEREFORE, TREATED THE SAID SUM OF RS.79,22,550/ - AS UN ACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT THE S AME TO THE CHARGE OF INCOME - TAX WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: - 3.1 IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 30.11.2010 STATED THAT I AM WORKING AS A COMMISSION AGENT FOR TRANSPORT BUSINESS. I DO NOT HAVE ANY VEHICLE OF MY OWN. I SIMPLY USE TO CONTACT THE PARTIES WHO WANT TO SEND THEIR GOODS OUT OF CITY AND AL SO USE TO CONTACT THE TRUCK OWNERS FOR RENTING THEIR TRUCK. AFTER RUNNING THE TRUCKS, THE LUGGAGE USED TO SEND TO THE PLACE OF DESTINATION WHERE THE RIVAL PARTY USED TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF TOTAL AMOUNT TO THE DRIVER AFTER DEDUCTING TDS THERE FROM. THUS, THE TRUCK BELONGS TO THE DRIVER WHO RUNS THE SAME ON CONTRACT, RECEIVE THE CONTRACT MONEY AFTER DEDUCTION TDS. SINCE THE TRUCK DRIVER RECEIVES THE GROSS AMOUNT, IT IS HIS GROSS RECEIPTS AND NOT MINE. SINCE, HOWEVER, BEING MEDIATORY THE TDS VOUCHERS ARE B EING PREPARED IN MY NAME. HOWEVER, ONLY COMMISSION AMOUNT IS DUE TO US WHICH I HAVE SHOWN IN MY RETURN 3 ITA 217/RJT/2012 3.2 THE ABOVE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT AND ALSO NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE, AS ALL THE TDS CERTIFICATES ARE IN THE NAME OF THE A SSESSEE AND AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED WAS DEPOSITED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DEDUCTORS. MORE EVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY CLAIMED CREDIT OF SUCH TDS AMOUNT, BUT ALSO ENCASED REFUND OF RS.1,49,000/ - RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS SIMPLY STATED THAT BEING MANDATORY THE TDS VOUCHERS ARE BEING PREPARED IN MY NAME. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SHOWN TRUCK FREIGHT RECEIPTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE CLAIMING CREDIT FOR SUCH TDS AMOUNT. THEREFORE, TOTAL TRUCK FREIGHT CHARGES O F RS.79,22,550/ - ARE RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS TREATED UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED TO TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1) (C) R.W.S. 274 OF THE ACT, FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME & FURNISHING INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE BEING SEPARATELY INITIATED ON THIS POINT. 3 . HE ALSO DISALLOWED 40% OF OFFICE EXPENSES AND 40% OF FUEL EXPENSES FOR WANT OF VOUCHERS AND VERIFICATION . 4 . ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO APPLY NET PROFIT RATE OF 7% OF GROSS RECEIPTS. HE HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF OFFICE EXPENSES AND FUEL EXPENSES. 5 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEA L BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL . 6 . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 11.02.2013 WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 1. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTER SERVICE AND COMMISSION WORK. WHENEVER ANY COMPANY OR CONSIDER REQUIRE TRUCK OR VEHICLE, THE APPROACH THE ASSESSEE, WHO ARRANGED TRUCK ONLY ON COMMISSION BASIS FROM MARKET. SEMIYARLY OUT SIDE TRUCKS COMING, FOR UNLOADING OF CARGO APPROACHED ASSESSEE FOR OUT WORD CARGO FOR WHOM ASLO THE ASSESSEE ARRANGED CARGO ON COMMISSION BASES. THE ASSESS EE IS MEDIATOR BETWEEN THE CONSIDER AND TRUCK OWNER / DRIVER. THE CONSIDERATION IS ONLY COMMISSION AND NOT FREIGHT. 2. ACCORDING TO WORKING SYSTEM PREVAILING IN THE MARKET SINCE THE DRIVERS / OWNERS OF THE TRUCKS USE TO RECEIPT THE ENTIRE RENT / FRIGHT C HARGES DEDUCTING THERE FROM TDS BUT THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS AND TDS ARE BEING MADE IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE. THIS IS WELL NON SYSTEM PREVAILING ALL OVER SAURASHTRA AND EVEN GUJARAT. THUS THE ENTIRE GROSS RECEIPTS ARE BEINGS MADE IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE BUT HE RE NOTHING TO DO THERE WITH. ON THE OTHER HANDS SINCE TDS IS 4 ITA 217/RJT/2012 MADE IN HIS NAME AND THAT TOO AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF FRIGHT CHARGES THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SHOW THE SAME IN HIS RETURN. 3. DURING THE YEAR TDS CERTIFICATED SHOWS FRIGHT COMMISSION OF RS.4,16,323/ - AN D RAILWAY COMMISSION INCOME OF RS.44,500/ - IN HIS RETURN THE GROSS RECEIPT OF TRUCK FRIGHT AMOUNT IN TO RS.79,22,550/ - HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ASSESSEE AS STATED ABOVE. THE LD. A.O. HOWEVER INCLUDED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.79,22,550/ - AS INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE AGAINST THE PREVAILING POSITION WHICH IS FULLY SETTLED THAT SUCH TYPE OF ASSESSEE DERIDE NO INCOME FROM FRIGHT CHARGES. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARA 5 PAGE NO.3 OF HIS ORDER ESTIMATE THE NET INCOME AT 7% OF GROSS RECEIPT OF RS.79,22,550/ - AND RESTRI CTED THE ADDITION TO RS.5,54,579/ - AND DELETED ADDITION OF RS.73,67,971/ - . THIS HUGE DELETION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 5. SINCE IN THE LINE OF TRANSPORT CONTRACT USUALLY 5% ARE BEING ACCEPTED, THE PROFIT DETERMINED AT 7% BY THE LD. CIT(A) BEING EXCESSIVE MAY KINDLY BE REDUCED TO 3% OR AT A SUITABLE % AS DEEMED FEET TO THE MOST HON. BENCH. 6. THE LD. A.O. ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,500 AT 40% OF OFFICE EXPENSES OF RS.6,250/ - AND RS.3148/ - AT 40% OF FUEL EXPENSES OF RS.7,870/ - ON THE GROUND THAT VOUCHERS FOR THE GROSS EXPENDITURE WERE NOT PRODUCED. WHEN THE LD. A.O. ACCEPTS CLAIM AT 60%, IN THE SAME SITUATION THE DISALLOWANCE AT 40% ITSELF BEING BAD IN LAW AND OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN MADE. THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. IN EITHER CA SE SUITABLE REDUCTION AS DEEMED FIT MAY KINDLY BE GRANTED. 7 . SECOND WRITTEN SUBMISSION S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 19.03 .2013 READ AS UNDER: - 1. AS MENTIONED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SUBMITTED EARLIER IT MAY FURTHER BE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO MMISSION AGENT. THE LD. A.O. TREATED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF TRUCK FREIGHT AMOUNTING TO RS.79,22,550/ - AS IS INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) TIGHTLY CONSIDERED THAT ASSESSEE IS MERELY ENGAGE IN COMMISSION WORK. HE THEREFORE DELETED ADDITION OF RS.73,67,971/ - . THE DEPARTMENT APPEARS TO HAVE ACCEPTED THIS DECISION SINCE NO SECOND APPEAL IS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN FILED. AT THE TIME OF LAST HEARING THE HON. BENCH WAS PLEASED TO ASK THE DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY WHETHER DEPARTMENT HAS FILED APPEAL OR NOT AND IF SO BOTH THE AP PEALS TO BE PLACED FOR HEARING TOGETHER. 2. SINCE ONLY APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS FIXED IT IS PRESUMED THAT DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FILED APPEAL. THUS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON MERITS FULLY. 5 ITA 217/RJT/2012 3. THE GRIEVANCE OF TH E APPELLANT IS THEREFORE RETENTION OF ADDITION OF RS.5,54,579/ - AT 7% OF GROSS RECEIPTS RS.79,22,550/ - . AS MENTION AT PARA 4 & 5 OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS EARLIER FILED THE RETENTION OF GROSS RECEIPT OF 7% IS VERY HIGH AND MAY KINDLY BE REDUCED TO A TOKEN FI GURE THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELY ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON. BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAJA ROADLINES (ITA NO.377/RJT/2011 DATED 24.01.2013) (COPY ENCLOSED) WERE IN THE HON. BENCH HAS BEEN PLEASED TO APPLY NET PROFIT RATE OF 3.5%. 4. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYE D THAT NET RECEIPT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO BE ACCEPTED AT 3% TO 3.5% OR AT A SUITABLE % AS DEEMED FIT TO THE HON. BENCH. 8 . IN REPLY, THE LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT (A). AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 11.02.2013 , THE LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO VERIFY THE RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT TO ASCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ON 19.03.2013, THE L D DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONFIRMED THAT NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT (A). 9 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THEIR SUBMISSIONS. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HA S DELIBERATELY SUPPRESSED HIS RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED CREDIT FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND STILL DID NOT SHOW THE CORRESPONDING I NCOME IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS/RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.79 , 22,550/ - AS TRUCK FREIGHT CHA RGES AS AGAINST WHICH HE REFLECTED TRUCK FREIGHT COMMISSION OF RS.4,16,323/ - ONLY. IT IS IN THIS FACTUAL BACKGROUND THAT THE LD CIT (A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO APPLY NET PROFIT RATE OF 7% ON GROSS RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO RS.79,22,550/ - , WITH TH E FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: - 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE AR OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS ADDED ENTIRE TRUCK FREIGHT INCOME OF RS.79,22,550/ - , WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. ONL Y PROFIT PORTION HAS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND REASONABLY ESTIMATING THE PROFIT MARGIN OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ACTED ONLY AS A MEDIATOR BETWEEN THE CONSIGNER AND THE TRUCK - O WNER/DRIVER AND THE CONSIDERATION IS ONLY COMMISSION AND NOT FREIGHT. HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY VEHICLES OF HIS OWN. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT IS ONLY A COMMISSION AGENT. I ALSO FIND THAT, ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS, THE HONBLE ITAT, RAJKOT BENCH, IN THE CASE OF SHRI KHODIYAR TRANSPORT FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06 IN ITA NO.31/RJT/2003, DATED 24.12.2009, ESTIMATED THE NET INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT 7% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.1,27,68,775/ - AS AGAINST 8% ESTIMATED BY THE A.O., WHICH WAS, IN TURN, CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT( A). IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES 6 ITA 217/RJT/2012 OF THE APPELLANTS CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT, RAJKOT BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI KHODIYAR TRANSPORT (SUPRA), I ESTIMATE THE NET INCOME AT 7% OF GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.79,22,550/ - . ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION IS RESTRICTED TO RS.5,54,579/ - AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.79,22,550/ - MADE BY THE A.O. THUS, THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS.73,67,971/ - . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10 . THE LD CIT (A) HAS FOLLOWED THE OR DER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHILE DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO APPLY NET PROFIT RATE OF 7%. ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE D O NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD CIT (A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO APPLY NET PROFIT RATE OF 7%. HIS ORDER IN T HIS BEHALF IS , THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. 1 1 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAJA ROADLINES (ITA NO.377/RJT/2011 DATED 24.01.2013) WHICH IS COMPLETELY DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. THEREFORE, THE SAID ORDER HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 1 2 . IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, GROUND NO.1 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 1 3 . GROUND NO S . 2 AND 3 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: - 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITIO N OF RS.2,500/ - AT 40% OF EXPENSES OF RS.6,250. THE SAME NEEDS DELETION. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.3,148/ - AT 40% OF EXPENSES OF RS.7,870/ - . THE SAME NEEDS DELETION. 1 4 . THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED T HE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: - 6. IN GROUND NO.2 & 3 THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION OF MAKING DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES AT THE RATE OF 40% OF OFFICE EXPENSES (RS.6250/ - ) & FUEL EXPENSES (RS.7870/ - ) IN ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING VOUCHERS. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANYTHING IN THIS REGARD. THUS, THE APPELLANT HAS MISERABLY FAILED IN SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM AND DISCHARGING HIS ONUS OF PROVING THE GEN UINENESS OF EXPENSES. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.5648/ - IS CONFIRMED. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 1 5 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US TO REBUT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD C IT (A). IT IS STATED IN PARA 6 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY SUBMISSION BEFORE HIM IN THIS BEHALF. BESIDES, THE EXPENSES ARE NOT FULLY VOUCHED. IN THIS VIEW 7 ITA 217/RJT/2012 OF THE MATTER, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD C IT (A) IN THIS BEHALF IS CONFIRMED. G OUND NOS. 2 AND 3 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 1 6 . GROUND NO S .4 TO 8 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE GENERAL IN NATURE . THEY DO NOT THEREFORE REQUIRE ADJUDICATION. 1 7 . THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. 2 ( 12 .04 . 2013 2 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12 .04 . 201 3 SD/ - S/D - ( R.. R / T. K. SHARMA) ( .. DN / D. K. SRIVASTAVA) ST N /JUDICIAL MEMBER N / A CCOUNTANT MEMBER RAJKOT: 12 . 0 4.2013 BT T ' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - . / APPELLANT - SH. PRAKASHKUMAR DEVSHIBHAI DHARODIYA, PROP. OF M/S.OM ROADLINES, WANKANER, DIST. RAJKOT . V / RE SPONDENT - THE ITO, WARD - 1(2), RAJKOT 3. N / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) - I, RAJKOT 5. VTTN, R N, / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. R / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , TRUE COPY SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, RAJKOT