The ITO, TDS-3, JAMNAGAR V. M/s. Sureshchandra D. Khatod (HUF), JAMNAGAR

ITA 23/RJT/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0472 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [ CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD ] , ! , ! #$ BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER SL. NO(S) ITA NO(S) / COS. ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) APPEAL(S) / COS BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 23/RJT/2014 2009-10 ITO TDS-3 JAMNAGAR (REVENUE) M/S.SURESHCHANDRA D.KHATOD (HUF) PROP. M/S.NIRAV INDUSTRIES 424/2, SPL SHED, GIDC JAMNAGAR (ASSESSEE) PAN: RKTS 00024 D 2. CO 31/RJT/15 (IN ITA 23/RJT/14) 2009-10 ASSESSEE REVENUE 3. 24/RJT/2014 2010-11 REVENUE ASSESSEE 4. CO 32/RJT/15 (IN ITA 24/RJT/14) 2010-11 ASSESSEE REVENUE REVENUE BY : SHRI C.S. ANJARIA, DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BHAVIN SHAH, CA (AR) &' / DATE OF HEARING 08/12/2015 () ' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11/12/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THESE APPEALS AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS BY THE REV ENUE AND THE ASSESSEE RESPECTIVELY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPA RATE ORDERS OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II, RAJKOT (CIT(A) IN SHORT) ITA NOS.23 & 24/RJT/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.31 & 32/RJT/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.SURESHCHANDRA D.KHATOD (HUF) ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY - 2 - PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 2009-10 & 2010 -11 DATED 02/10/2013. SINCE COMMON ISSUES AND FACTS ARE INV OLVED IN THESE APPEALS/CO, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIE NCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL, I.E. IT A NO.23/RJT/2014 FOR AY 2009-10 AS A LEAD CASE. THE REVENUE HAS RAI SED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S.206C(1) OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOUNT OF NON COLLECTION OF TCS OF 3,28,528/- ON SALE OF SCRAP AM OUNTING TO RS.3,27,52,825/- AND INTEREST CHARGED U/S.206C(7) O F RS.1,69,154/-, INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A TRADER OF SCRAP AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206C(1) APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE . 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN OVERLOOKING THE HEAD NOTE OF SEC.206C, WHICH CLEARLY SPEAKS THA T THE TCS PROVISIONS U/S.206C ARE APPLICABLE NOT ONLY ON THE SCRAP GENERATED FROM THE ACTIVITY OF MANUFACTURING OR MECHANICAL WO RKING OF MATERIALS BUT ALSO ON THE PROFITS AND GAINS FROM TH E BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SCRAP. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AS A CRAP DEALER, THEREFORE WHATEVER HE PURCHASES/SELLS IS SCRAP ONLY. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE LEG AL POSITION THAT CHANGE IN NOMENCLATURE BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. SCRAP T O INGOTS WOULD NOT ALTER THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 206C IN HIS CASE. 5. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING THE CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 21/05/2012 WHER EIN IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT TH E GOODS TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR SCRAP SHOULD BE PRODUCED/MANUFACTURED BY THE SELLER ITSELF (COPY ENCLOSED FOR KIND & READ REFERENCE). ITA NOS.23 & 24/RJT/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.31 & 32/RJT/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.SURESHCHANDRA D.KHATOD (HUF) ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY - 3 - 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, HE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GR OUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 8. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CI T(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE REST ORED TO THE ABOVE EFFECT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT A SURVEY U/S.133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 02/03/2010. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD SCRAP OF RS.3,27,52,825/- FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COLLECT THE TAX ON THE SAID SALES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R (AO IN SHORT) FRAMED ASSESSMENT U/S.206C(6) / 206C(7) OF THE ACT; THEREBY THE AO HELD, THE ASSESSEE IS A TRADER IN SCRAP AND NOT A MANUFACTU RE ACCORDINGLY, SECTION 206C(1) SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SALE OF SCRAP T O THE TUNE OF RS.3,27,52,825/- AS AGAINST TCS @1% WORKED OUT AT R S.3,27,528/- PLUS INTEREST W.E.F.1-5-2009 TO 26-03-2012 @1% PER MONTH (UPTO JUNE 2010 & 1.5% FROM 1-7-2010 ONWARDS) WORKED OUT TO RS .1,69,154- (AS PER ANNEXURE A ATTACHED WITH THIS ORDER) THUS THE TOTAL DEFAULT COMES TO RS.4,96,682/- FOR WHICH ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PA Y THE TCS TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT IN VIEW OF SECTION 206C(1) OF TH E I.T.ACT . THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, P REFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE ITA NOS.23 & 24/RJT/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.31 & 32/RJT/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.SURESHCHANDRA D.KHATOD (HUF) ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY - 4 - ASSESSEE ALLOWED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE OR DER OF THE LD.CIT(A), BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL AND CROSS-OBJECTION RESPECTIVELY BEFORE US. 4. GROUND NOS.1 TO 6 OF REVENUES APPEAL ARE INTER- CONNECTED. THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DECIDED TOGETHER. THE LD.D R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY INVOKING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 206C(6) AND DELETION OF INTEREST THEREON MADE U/S.2 06C(7) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE COLLEC TED THE TAX. 4.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE R EITERATED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SO FILED ARE R EPRODUCED HEREINBELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY. GROUND NO. 1: SCRAP TRADED BY THE APPELLANT DOE S NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF 'SCRAP' AS DEFINED VIDE EXPLANATION (B) TO SEC. 206 C. 1.1. YOUR APPELLANT IS NOT MERELY A SCRAP TRADER / DEALER AS MENTIONED IN GROUND NO. 1, 2 & 3 OF GROUNDS OF APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT BU T HE ALSO DEALS IN PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED FROM SCRAP. THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS IS 'METAL MERCHANT AND COMMISSION AGENT' AS DEMONSTRATED AND DISPLAYED ON ITS SALES INVOICES COPIES THEREOF ARE FILED AT PAGE NO.8 TO 50 OF THIS PAPER BOOK. YOUR APPELLANT DEALS IN TWO KIN DS OF METAL FORMS (I) METAL IN SCRAP FORM I.E. SCRAP AND (II) METAL IN PRODUCT FORM I.E. INGOTS. YOUR APPELLANT NEVER CONTENDED THAT HE IS N OT DEALING IN SCRAP; HE CONTENDED THAT THE 'SCRAP' WHICH HE DEALS; DOES NOT FALL IN R ESTRICTIVE DEFINITION OF 'SCRAP' AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION (B) TO SEC. 206C. ITA NOS.23 & 24/RJT/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.31 & 32/RJT/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.SURESHCHANDRA D.KHATOD (HUF) ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY - 5 - 1.2 THERE IS NO CHANGE IN NOMENCLATURE AS CONTENDED IN GROUND NO 4 OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. INGOT IS A PRODUCT MANUFA CTURED FROM SCRAP. EXPLANATIONS REGARDING INGOTS WITH PHOTOGRAPHS ARE ENCLOSED AT P AGE NO. 7 OF THIS PAPER BOOK. COPIES OF SALES BILLS OF INGOTS ARE SUBMITTED AT PA GE NOS. 8 TO 50 OF THIS PAPERBOOK. INVOICES ARE SELF-EXPLANATORY. THE PRODUCTS SOLD AR E CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE INVOICES. 1.3. PHOTOGRAPHS OF SCRAP DEALT WITH BY YOUR APPELL ANT IS ENCLOSED AT PAGE NO. 6 OF THIS PAPER BOOK. COPIES OF SALES BILLS OF SCRAP ARE SUBMITTED AT PAGE NOS. 95 TO 114 OF THIS PAPER BOOK. THIS SCRAP IS GENERATED FROM TH E DISMANTLING OF CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, FACTORIES AND OTHER SUPERSTR UCTURES. 1.4 EXPLANATION (B) TO SEC. 206C IS REPRODUCE D HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE:- (B) 'SCRAP' MEANS WASTE AND SCRAP FROM THE MANUFACTURE OR MECHANICAL WORKING OF MATERIALS WHICH IS DEFINITELY NOT USABLE AS SUCH BE CAUSE OF BREAKAGE, CUTTING UP, WEAR AND OTHER REASONS; 1.5 PARA NO. 22 OF ITAT SB (RAJKOT) DECISION IN CAS E OF BHARTI AUTO PRODUCTS IS REPRODUCED FOR READY REFERENCE AS UNDER: - AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES THAT IT IS NOT A SOUND PRINCIPLE OF CONSTRUCTION TO BRUSH ASIDE WORDS IN A STATUTE AS BEING INAPPOSI TE SURPLUSAGE, IF THEY CAN HAVE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION IN CIRCUMSTANCES CONCEIVABL Y WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE STATUTE. THE COURTS, IN THE INTERPRETATION OF STATU TES, ALWAYS PRESUME THAT THE LEGISLATURE INSERTED EVERY PART THEREOF FOR A PURPO SE AND THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION IS THAT EVERY PART OF THE STATUTE SHOULD HAVE EFFECT. THE LEGISLATURE IS DEEMED NOT TO WASTE ITS WORDS OR TO SAY ANYTHING IN VAIN AND A CO NSTRUCTION WHICH CONTRIBUTES REDUNDANCY TO THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTE D, EXCEPT FOR COMPELLING REASONS. 1.6 IN CASE THE LEGISLATURE'S INTENT WAS TO C OVER ALL KIND OF 'SCRAP' THEN THIS DEFINITION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSERTED. THE WORD 'MEANS' USED IN THE ABOVE DEFINITION IS USED FOR A PURPOSE TO RESTRICT THE ME ANING. YOUR APPELLANT DRAWS YOUR KIND ATTENTION TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SCRAP ENCL OSED AT PAGE NO. 6 OF THIS PAPER BOOK WHICH YOUR APPELLANT DEALS WITH. THE SCRAP TRADED BY YOUR APPELLANT IS NOT OUTCOME OF MANUFACTURE OR MECHANICAL WORKING OF MAT ERIALS. THIS SCRAP IS GENERATED FROM THE DISMANTLING OF CONSTRUCTED RESID ENTIAL BUILDINGS, FACTORIES AND OTHER SUPERSTRUCTURES. HENCE THE 'SCRAP' TRADED BY YOUR APPELLANT IS NOT COVERED BY THE DEFINITION AND ACCORDINGLY SEC. 206C IS NOT APP LICABLE IN YOUR APPELLANT'S CASE. ITA NOS.23 & 24/RJT/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.31 & 32/RJT/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.SURESHCHANDRA D.KHATOD (HUF) ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY - 6 - GROUND NO. 2: THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE APPELLANT SO LD THE SCRAP ARE NOT THE 'BUYER' AS DEFINED VIDE EXPLANATION (AA) TO SEC. 20 6C. 2.1 IN THE SCENARIO, (I) OF SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT IN SEC. 206C - EXPLA NATION (AA) BY WAY OF INSERTION OF CLAUSE (II) AND ITS IMPACT ON INTERPRETATION OF CLA USE (I); (PARA 2.2 TO 2.5) (II) WHERE HON'BLE ITAT SB HAS NOT GIVEN CONCLUS IVE VIEW ON INTERPRETATION OF 'ANY OTHER MODE' (PARA 2.6) (III) WHERE ANALYSIS OF THE TERM 'ANY OTHER MODE' IS EXTENSIVELY DONE BY HON'BLE KARNATAKA HC (PARA 2.7) INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM 'ANY OTHER MODE' IN THE DEFINITION OF 'BUYER' IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE AND NEEDS A FRESH ANALYSIS FOR A CONCLUSIVE VIEW. 2.2 DEFINITION OF 'BUYER' AS PER EXPLANATION (AA) TO SECTION 206C RELEVANT PORTION OF EXPLANATION (AA) TO SECTION 206 C IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: (AA) 'BUYER' WITH RESPECT TO (I) SUB-SECTION (1) MEANS A PERSON WHO OBTAINS IN ANY SALE, BY WAY OF AUCTION, TENDER OR ANY OTHER MODE, GOODS OF THE NATURE SPECIFIED IN THE TABLE IN SUB-S ECTION (1) OR THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE ANY SUCH GOODS BUT DOES NOT INCLUD E, (A) ......,......; OR (B) ......... ..; (II) SUB-SECTION (1D) MEANS A PERSON WHO OBTAINS IN ANY SALE, GOODS OF THE NATURE SPECIFIED IN THE SAID SECTION;........... 2.3 IN SEC. 206C, THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDE D DEFINITION OF THE BUYER. HAD THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATION WAS TO INCLUDE EVERY ' BUYER'; THE DEFINITION IS NOT REQUIRED AT ALL. HAD THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATION WAS TO EXTEND THE SCOPE OF THE TERM 'BUYER', IT WOULD EITHER HAVE PROVIDED FOR 'IN CLUSIVE' DEFINITION OR WOULD NOT HAVE PROVIDED RESTRICTIVE DEFINITION. WHEN THE INTE NTION OF THE LEGISLATION IS CRYSTAL CLEAR AS TO COVER CERTAIN DEFINITE TYPES AND NOT TH E OTHERS, IT USES 'MEANS'. IF THE DEFINITION USES THE WORD 'MEANS' AND IT FURTHER RES TRICTS BY PUTTING THE WORDS 'BY WAY OF'; IT MEANS THAT IT IS WITH A PURPOSE OF REST RICTION. 2.4 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 206C IS ENCLO SED AT PAGE NO. 5 OF THIS PAPER BOOK FOR READY REFERENCE. BECAUSE THE LEGISLATION INTENT TO COVER ONLY CERTAIN TYPES OF ITA NOS.23 & 24/RJT/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.31 & 32/RJT/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.SURESHCHANDRA D.KHATOD (HUF) ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY - 7 - BUYERS AND THEREBY TO EXCLUDE OTHER TYPES OF BUYERS , HENCE THIS DEFINITION WAS INSERTED THRU THE EXPLANATION. ACCORDING TO THE LEG ISLATIVE HISTORY, THE INTENTION WAS TO COVER LARGE NUMBER OF BENAMI PERSONS WHO WERE OB TAINING THE GOODS THRU GOVERNMENT OR INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTS THRU AUCTION, TE NDER AND OTHER MODE AND THEN EVADING THE TAXES. AMENDMENT MADE BY THE LEGISLATURE THROUGH THE FINAN CE ACT, 2012 IN SEC. 206C SUPPORTS THE ABOVE CONTENTION. WHEN THE LEGISLATURE LEVIED TCS ON JEWELLERY AND BULLION SALE BY INSERTING SUB-SECTION (1D), IT FELT NEED TO WIDEN THE DEFINITION OF THE BUYER ALSO AND HENCE EXPLANATION (AA)(II) WAS INTRO DUCED TO COVER A BUYER WHO OBTAINS JEWELLERY OR BULLION 'IN ANY SALE'. THE WORDS VIZ. 'BY WAY OF' AND 'MODE' WHICH WERE USED IN EXPLANATION (AA)(I) WERE REMOVED IN THIS NEWLY INSERTED EXPLANATION (AA)(II). IN CASE OF A BUYER IS PURCHAS ING JEWELLERY OR BULLION, HE IS COVERED BY TCS PROVISIONS IRRESPECTIVE OF 'WAY' OR 'MODE' OF SALE. AT SEC. 206C, FOR SCRAP, THE LEGISLATION HAS RESTRI CTED THE SCOPE AND COVERAGE TO ONLY SUCH BUYERS WHO HAS OBTAINED THE GOODS BY CERTAIN MODES I.E. AUCTION, TENDER OR ANY OTHER MODE. HENCE MEANING OF 'MODE' IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE HERE. 2.5 DICTIONARY MEANING OF 'MODE' (HTTP://WWW.THEFREEDICTIONARY.COM) 1. A. A MANNER, WAY, OR METHOD OF DOING OR ACTING: MODEM MODES OF TRAVEL. SEE SYNONYMS AT METHOD. B. A PARTICULAR FORM, VARIETY, OR MANNER: A MODE OF EXPRESSION. C. A GIVEN CONDITION OF FUNCTIONING; A STATUS: THE SPACECRAFT WAS IN ITS RECOVERY MODE. 2. LOGIC A. SEE MODALITY. B. THE ARRANGEMENT OR ORDER OF THE PROPOSITIONS IN A SYLLOGISM ACCORDING TO BOTH QUALITY AND QUANTITY. 3. MUSIC A. ANY OF CERTAIN FIXED ARRANGEMENTS OF THE DIATONI C TONES OF AN OCTAVE, AS THE MAJOR AND MINOR SCALES OF WESTERN MUSIC. B. A PATTERNED ARRANGEMENT, AS THE ONE CHARACTERIST IC OF THE MUSIC OF CLASSICAL GREECE OR THE MEDIEVAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 4. PHILOSOPHY THE PARTICULAR APPEARANCE, FORM, OR MANNER IN WHICH AN UNDERLYING SUBSTANCE, OR A PERMANENT ASPECT OR ATTRIBUTE OF IT, IS MANIFESTED. ITA NOS.23 & 24/RJT/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.31 & 32/RJT/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.SURESHCHANDRA D.KHATOD (HUF) ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY - 8 - 5. MATHEMATICS THE NUMBER OR RANGE OF NUMBERS IN A SET THAT OCCURS THE MOST FREQUENTLY. 6. PHYSICS ANY OF NUMEROUS PATTERNS OF WAVE MOTION OR VIBRATIO N. FROM THE ABOVE DEFINITION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LEG ISLATION INTEND TO COVER ONLY SUCH BUYERS WHO HAVE OBTAINED GOODS BY WAY OF AUCTION, T ENDER OR ANY OTHER METHODICAL WAY OR MANNER OR THRU A PARTICULAR FORM, CONDITIONS OR FUNCTIONING. THE BUYER WHO HAS NOT PURCHASED THRU ANY OTHER MODE IS NOT COVERE D OR IS INTENDED TO BE EXCLUDED. 'ANY OTHER MODE' OR METHODICAL WAY OR MANNER OR THR U A PARTICULAR FORM, CONDITIONS OR FUNCTIONING IS VISUALISED AS UNDER: I. PERMITS II. LICENSES III. TRADE FARES IV. LEASE HOLD RIGHTS V. INDUSTRIAL BULK SALES THRU OPEN ADVERTISEMENTS 2.6 WHILE INTERPRETING 'ANY OTHER MODE' IN DE FINITION OF 'BUYER', AT PARA 41 OF THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF BHARTI AUTO PRODUCTS (PAG E NOS. 51 TO 70 OF THIS PAPER BOOK), HON' ITAT STATED THAT:- THE WORDS DEFINING A BUYER AS 'A PERSON WHO OBTAINS IN ANY SALE, BY WAY OF AUCTION, TENDER OR ANY OTHER MODE' IN SEC. 206C - EXPLANATIO N (AA)(I) ARE PLAIN AND SIMPLE IN THEIR MEANING AND CONTENT. THE USE OF WORD 'OR' IN THE AFORESAID EXPRESSION SHOWS THAT ALL THE THREE PHRASES ARE INTENDED TO CARRY IN DEPENDENT MEANING WITHOUT BEING CONTROLLED BY EACH OTHER. THE WORDS 'ANY OTHER MODE ' ARE WORDS OF WIDE AMPLITUDE AND THEREFORE COVER ALL POSSIBLE MODES OF SALES IN ADDITION TO SPECIFIC MODES OF SALES BY WAY OF AUCTION OR TENDER. HENCE THEY CANNOT BE C ONSTRUED EJUSDEM GENERIS OR AS REFERRING TO SIMILAR SALES AS THOSE BY WAY OF AUCTI ON OR TENDER. NO DECIDED CASE OF ANY COURT HOLDING THAT THE WORDS 'OR ANY OTHER MODE' HAVE EVER BEEN USED IN THE SENSE CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. 2.7 YOUR APPELLANT HEREBY BRINGS TO THE NOTIC E OF YOUR HONOUR, THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HC JUDGMENT IN MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD. (KAR) 286 ITR 136 ITA NOS.23 & 24/RJT/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.31 & 32/RJT/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.SURESHCHANDRA D.KHATOD (HUF) ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY - 9 - (2006) WHERE THE HC HAD DEALT WITH 'ANY OTHER MODE' IN THE DEFINITION OF THE 'BUYER' AT LENGTH. THE FINAL VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE ASSESS EE BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT (THE DEPARTMENT) COULD PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD OBTA INED THE LIQUOR AS PER RULE 3 MENTIONED ABOVE AND HENCE HE IS COVERED BY DEFINITI ON OF THE 'BUYER' AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 206C. HOWEVER, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF TH E HC RELATED TO ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND THE WORD 'ANY OTHER MODE' I N DEFINITION OF THE 'BUYER' SUPPORTS CONTENTION OF YOUR APPELLANT IN HIS FAVOUR . COPY OF THE DECISION IS ENCLOSED AT PAGE NOS. 71 TO 94 OF THIS PAPER BOOK. THE WORDS BY WAY OF AUCTION, TENDER OR ANY OTHER MODE WERE BORROWED FROM THE STATE RULES. RULE 3 OF THE KARNATAKA EXCISE (LEASE OF RIGHT TO RETAIL VEND OF LIQUORS) RULES, 1969 PROVIDES THAT THE RIGHT OF RETAIL VENDI NG OF LIQUORS MAY BE DISPOSED OF BY THE DEPARTMENT: (/) BY TENDERS;'(II) BY AUCTION; (/ //) BY TENDER-CUM-AUCTION OR (IV) IN ANY OTHER MANNER. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT VERDIC T IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- QUOTE THE LEGAL CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT COM PANIES IS THAT THEY HAVE NOT OBTAINED THE GOODS OF ARRACK BY AUCTION BUT ONLY BY WAY OF PERMITS THEY HAD PURCHASED THE SAME FROM THE COMPANIES. THEREFORE, T HEY HAVE URGED THAT SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 206C OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CONTRACTORS/BUYERS AS THEY WERE EXEMPTED UNDER SUB-CLAUSES (I) TO (III) UNDER THE E XPLANATION OF 'BUYER'. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF BOTH THE APPELLANTS BEFORE TH IS COURT THAT THE CONTRACTORS DID NOT PURCHASE THE GOODS OF ARRACK FROM THEM PURSUANT TO THE LEASEHOLD RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY THEM PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC AUCTION, IF, THAT WERE TO BE THE CASE, THEY COULD HAVE PRODUCED THE ORDERS WHICH WERE IN THEIR POSSESSION TO SHOW THAT THE CONTRACTORS/BUYERS HAVE PURCHASED THE ARRACK BY NOT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE CONTEMPLATED UNDER RULE 3 OF THE RULES 1969. UNQUOTE IT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED IN THE CASE THAT THE LEGI SLATIVE INTENT IS CLEARLY TO COVER SUCH BUYERS WHO OBTAINS THE GOODS BY WAY OF CERTAIN MODE S I.E. AUCTION, TENDER OR ANY OTHER MODE. 'ANY OTHER MODE' IS VISUALISED AS UNDER :- I. PERMITS II. LICENSES III. TRADE FARES ITA NOS.23 & 24/RJT/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.31 & 32/RJT/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.SURESHCHANDRA D.KHATOD (HUF) ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY - 10 - IV. LEASE HOLD RIGHTS V. INDUSTRIAL BULK SALES THRU OPEN ADVERTISEMENTS YOUR APPELLANT HAS NOT OBTAINED THE GOODS IN ANY SU CH MODES I.E. AUCTION, TENDER OR ANY OTHER MODE. HENCE HE IS NOT COVERED BY DEFINITION OF THE BUYER AND ACCORDINGLY SEC. 206C IS NOT APPLICABLE. 4.2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5.5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND FINDING OF THE A.O. IN HIS ORDER U/S.206C(6) & 206C (7). MY FINDINGS ON THE VARIOUS ISSUES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE A.O. ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT RAJKOT BENCH IN THE CASE OF NATHULAL LAVATI & RAMGOPAL MAHESHWARI NO LONGER HOL DS FORT AFTER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH, RA JKOT IN CASE OF BHARTI AUTO PRODUCTS VS CIT-2, RAJKOT IN ITA NO.391 & 392/RJT/2011 DT. 6/9/2013. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH THAT ALL SCRAP SELLERS ARE COVERED U/S.206C. THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS OF LITTLE RELEVANCE. 2. THE SALE MADE BY THE APPELLANT CONSISTS OF SCRAP AS WELL AS INGOT SALE. THIS BIFURCATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPELLAN T BEFORE THE A.O. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE A.O. HAS TAKEN NO COGN IZANCE OF THE SAME WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S.206C(6) & 206C(7). IT IS A WELL- KNOWN FACT THAT INGOTS ARE NOT SCRAP BUT CAN BE GEN ERATED FROM MOLTEN SCRAP. AN INGOT IS DEFINED AS A SEMI-FINISH ED SOLID METAL FORM PRODUCED IN A NON-CONTINUOUS CASTING PROCESS B Y POURING LIQUID METAL INTO LARGE MOLDS. INGOTS ARE GENERALL Y RECTANGULAR IN NATURE AND ARE THE RAW MATERIAL FOR STEEL ROLLING M ILLS BESIDES OTHER USES ALSO. HOWEVER, INGOTS ARE NOT CLASSIFIED AS S CRAP AS PER THE ITA NOS.23 & 24/RJT/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.31 & 32/RJT/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.SURESHCHANDRA D.KHATOD (HUF) ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY - 11 - CUSTOM TARIFF ACT. THIS BEING THE CASE, THE SALE O F INGOTS BY THE APPELLANT IS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF S.206C. 3. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD THE REMAININ G SCRAP WHERE THE BUYERS ARE UTILIZING THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF MA NUFACTURING, PROCESSING OR PRODUCING ARTICLES OR THINGS AND NOT FOR TRADING PURPOSES. AS PER PROVISIONS OF S.206C(1A), NO TCS IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE IF THE BUYER FURNISHES A DECLARATION IN FORM 2 7C TO THIS EFFECT. AS PER S.206C(1B), THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLE CTING TAX UNDER THIS SECTION, I.E. THE SELLER, SHALL SUBMIT A COPY OF THE DECLARATION TO THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER ON OR BEFORE SEVENTH DAY OF THE MONTH FOLLOWING THE MONTH IN WHICH DECLARATI ON IS FURNISHED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED FORM 27C IN TIME. IN FACT, THE APPELLANT HAD NOT O BTAINED FORM 27C FROM THE BUYERS. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT AFTER TH E SURVEY THE APPELLANT HAS COLLECTED FORM 27C FROM THE BUYERS AN D HAVE SUBMITTED THE SAME TO THE CIT. THE ONLY QUESTION R EQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED HERE IS WHETHER THE PROCEDURAL DELAY ON PART OF THE APPELLANT WOULD RESULT IN THE APPELLANT REQUIRING T O COLLECT TAX AT SOURCE. IN MY OPINION, THE NON-SUBMISSION OF FORM 27C IN TIME IS ONLY A PROCEDURAL INFIRMITY AND THE APPELLANT SHOUL D NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE SAME. IN FACT, THE A.O. HAS REFE RRED THE CASE TO THE JOINT CIT, TDS RANGE, RAJKOT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/ S.272A(2)(1). THE NECESSARY PUNISHMENT FOR NON-SUBMISSION OF FORM 27C IS BEING METED OUT TO THE APPELLANT. IT IS NOT FURTHER REQU IRED TO HOLD THAT HE IS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR NON-SUBMISSION OF FOR M 27C. ALL THESE DETAILS HAD BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE A.O. THIS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. AS THE APPELLANT HA D COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF S.206C(1A), IT IS HELD THAT THE A PPELLANT IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF S.206C AND HE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE A N ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR NON-COLLECTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE S HORTFALL OF TCS COMPUTED BY THE A.O. IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO BE DE LETED. AS IT IS HELD THAT THERE IS NO SHORTFALL OF TCS, THE QUESTIO N OF LEVYING ANY INTEREST U/S.206C(7) DOES NOT ARISE. THE INTEREST IS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. ITA NOS.23 & 24/RJT/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.31 & 32/RJT/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.SURESHCHANDRA D.KHATOD (HUF) ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY - 12 - 4.3. THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT CONT ROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) , SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD AS UNDISPUTEDLY THE INGOTS CANNOT BE CHARACTERIZED AS SCRAP IN VIEW OF THE DEFINITION OF INGOTS UNDER CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT, IN R ESPECT OF REMAINING SCRAP, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE B UYERS ARE UTILIZING THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING OR PRODUCING ARTICLES OR THINGS AND NOT FOR TRADING PURPOSES. GROUND NO S.1 TO 6 RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE REJECTED. 5. GROUND NOS. 7 & 8 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH RE QUIRE NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.23/RJT /2014 FOR AY 2009-10 IS DISMISSED. 7. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION N O.31/RJT/2015 FOR AY 2009-10 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.23/RJT/2014 F OR AY 2009-10 REVENUES APPEAL-SUPRA), WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN:- ALL THE BELOW MENTIONED GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION A RE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER:- 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT( A) ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE DISCARDED BRASS ITEMS BEING TRA DED BY THE APPELLANT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SCRAP AS DEFIN ED VIDE EXPLANATION(B) TO SECTION 206C OF THE ACT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ITA NOS.23 & 24/RJT/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.31 & 32/RJT/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.SURESHCHANDRA D.KHATOD (HUF) ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY - 13 - SUCH ITEMS ARE NOT AN OUTCOME OF MANUFACTURE OR MEC HANICAL WORKING OF MATERIALS. 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A ) ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE PERSON TO WHOM THE APPELLANT SO LD THE BRASS ITEMS WERE BUYERS AS DEFINED VIDE EXPLANATION(AA) TO SECTION 206C OF THE ACT. RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND ALTER OR WITH DRAW ANY GROUND/GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION. 8. THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TIM E-BARRED BY 222 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPLICATION FOR CONDO NATION OF DELAY. IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT AND THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME ARE PERUSED. AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND TAKEN UP FO R HEARING. 8.1. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE IN THIS CROSS OBJECTION IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE DISCARDED BRASS IT EMS BEING TRADED BY THE ASSESSEE FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SCRAP AS DEFINE D VIDE EXPLANATION (B) TO SECTION 206C OF THE ACT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THA T SUCH ITEMS ARE NOT AN OUTCOME OF MANUFACTURE OR MECHANICAL WORKING OF MAT ERIALS. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THESE AR E THE PRODUCTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CANNOT BE TERMED AS SCARP. 8.2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NOS.23 & 24/RJT/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.31 & 32/RJT/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.SURESHCHANDRA D.KHATOD (HUF) ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY - 14 - 8.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION . THEREFORE, GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PRESENT CROSS-OBJECTION ARE ACADEMIC IN NATURE. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESS EE ARE REJECTED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO RAISE THIS ISSUE AT APPROPRIATE STAGE. AS A RESULT, CROSS-OBJECTION NO .31/RJT/2015 FOR AY 2009-10 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9. LASTLY, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL, I.E. IT A NO.24/RJT/2014 FOR AY 2010-11 AND ASSESSEES CO NO.32/RJT/2015 FOR AY 2010-11 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.24/RJT/2014). 9.1. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL:- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S.206C(1) OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOUNT OF NON COLLECTION OF TCS OF 7,31,816/- ON SALE OF SCRAP AM OUNTING TO RS.7,31,82,806/- AND INTEREST CHARGED U/S.206C(7) O F RS.3,05,285/-, INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A TRADER OF SCRAP AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206C(1) APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE . 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN OVERLOOKING THE HEAD NOTE OF SEC.206C, WHICH CLEARLY SPEAKS THA T THE TCS PROVISIONS U/S.206C ARE APPLICABLE NOT ONLY ON THE SCRAP GENERATED FROM THE ACTIVITY OF MANUFACTURING OR MECHANICAL WO RKING OF MATERIALS BUT ALSO ON THE PROFITS AND GAINS FROM TH E BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SCRAP. ITA NOS.23 & 24/RJT/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.31 & 32/RJT/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.SURESHCHANDRA D.KHATOD (HUF) ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY - 15 - 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AS A CRAP DEALER, THEREFORE WHATEVER HE PURCHASES/SELLS IS SCRAP ONLY. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE LEG AL POSITION THAT CHANGE IN NOMENCLATURE BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. SCRAP T O INGOTS WOULD NOT ALTER THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 206C IN HIS CASE. 5. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING THE CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 21/05/2012 WHER EIN IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT TH E GOODS TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR SCRAP SHOULD BE PRODUCED/MANUFACTURED BY THE SELLER ITSELF (COPY ENCLOSED FOR KIND & READ REFERENCE). 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, HE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GR OUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 8. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CI T(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE REST ORED TO THE ABOVE EFFECT. 9.2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS CROSS- OBJECTION:- ALL THE BELOW MENTIONED GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION A RE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER:- 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT( A) ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE DISCARDED BRASS ITEMS BEING TRA DED BY THE APPELLANT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SCRAP AS DEFIN ED VIDE EXPLANATION(B) TO SECTION 206C OF THE ACT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ITA NOS.23 & 24/RJT/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.31 & 32/RJT/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.SURESHCHANDRA D.KHATOD (HUF) ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY - 16 - SUCH ITEMS ARE NOT AN OUTCOME OF MANUFACTURE OR MEC HANICAL WORKING OF MATERIALS. 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A ) ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE PERSON TO WHOM THE APPELLANT SO LD THE BRASS ITEMS WERE BUYERS AS DEFINED VIDE EXPLANATION(AA) TO SECTION 206C OF THE ACT. RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND ALTER OR WITH DRAW ANY GROUND/GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION. 9.3. SO FAR AS THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR AY 2010-11 IS CONCERNED, IDENTICAL GROUNDS WERE RAISED IN REVENUES APPEAL I N ITA NO.23/RJT/2014 FOR AY 2009-10(SUPRA), WHEREIN WE HA VE DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AT THE OUTSET, THE REPRESENTATIVES OF TH E PARTIES HAVE ADOPTED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS WERE ADDRESSED IN ITA NO.23/RJT/2 014. SINCE THE REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY CHANGE INTO THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW FOR THIS YEAR AL SO, WE HEREBY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). THUS, GROUND NOS.1 TO 6 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. GROUND NOS. 7 & 8 ARE GENERA L IN NATURE WHICH REQUIRE NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. AS A RESULT , REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.24/RJT/2014 FOR AY 2010-11 IS DISMISSED. 9.4. SO FAR AS ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION NO.32/RJT /2015 FOR AY 2010-11 IS CONCERNED, GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PRESENT CROSS-OBJECTION ARE ACADEMIC IN NATURE. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CR OSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE WOU LD BE AT LIBERTY TO RAISE THIS ISSUE AT APPROPRIATE STAGE. AS A RESULT, CROSS -OBJECTION NO.32/RJT/2015 FOR AY 2010-11 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS.23 & 24/RJT/2014 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NOS.31 & 32/RJT/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.SURESHCHANDRA D.KHATOD (HUF) ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY - 17 - 10. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, REVENUES APPEALS, I.E. ITA NOS.23 & 24/RJT/2014 AND ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTIONS, I.E. C O NOS.31 & 32/RJT/2015 FOR AYS 2009-10 & 2010-11 ALL ARE DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 11 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ! ! ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 11/ 12 /2015 . .,.. ./ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. /0 / THE APPELLANT 2. 12/0 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 343 5 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 5 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-II, RAJKOT 5. 781 , , /DR,ITAT,RAJKOT 6. 8CDE& / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 271 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ! '# $, / ITAT, RAJKOT 1. DATE OF DICTATION 09.12.15 (DICTATION-PAD 9- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 10.12.15 3. OTHER MEMBER... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.11.12.15 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 11.12.15 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