Sharadbhai Popatbhai Kakadia, Surat V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

ITA 29/SRT/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2128 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2022
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Prejudicial to interest; Capital Gains
• Section: 263; 143(3); 54B; 2(14); 142(1); 143(2); 207; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 29/SRT/2021 (AY 2015-16) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Shri Sharadbhai Popatbhai Kakadia, B-37, Shadhna Society, L.H. Road, Varachha Road, Surat-395 006 PAN : AEBPK 1190 C Vs The Principal Commissioner of Income (Central), Room No.501, 5 th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat Assessee / appellant Revenue /respondent Assessee by Shri P.M. Jagasheth AR Revenue by Shri H.P. Meena, CIT-DR Date of hearing 07.03.2022 Date of pronouncement 27.04.2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax (Central)-Surat [for short to as Ld. ‘PCIT’] for assessment year (AY) 2015-16 order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.03.2021. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. Commissioner of the Income Tax has grievously erred in initiating the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, 1961. ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 2 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. Commissioner of the Income Tax has grievously erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. Commissioner of the Income Tax has grievously erred in violating the principles of natural justice by not the mentioning the grounds for initiating action u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the show cause notice issued. AS such the order passed/s 263 is void ab-initio. The action of the ld. CIT was wholly unreasonable, uncalled for the bad in law. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, that the order of u/s 263 is merely ‘change in opinion’. The order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act passed by the Ld AO does not in any way represent erroneous order. The action of the Ld. Pr. CIT was wholly unreasonable, uncalled for and bad in law. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. Commissioner of the Income Tax has grievously erred in assuming that the assessing office had not verified (i) the capital gain disclosed by the assessee on sale of properties and (ii) exemption claimed u/s 54B of the Act thereof during the course of assessment proceeding and not made proper inquiry or verification finalized the order of assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act is contrary to the fact of the case. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the entire proceedings are bad-in-law and invalid as assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act for the same year were framed, wherein due inquiry was made. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. Commissioner of the Income Tax has grievously erred in setting aside the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act without pointing out as to how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. 8. It is therefore prayed that the above proposed proceedings may please be revoked as learned members of the Tribunal may deem it proper. ” ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 3 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual filed his return of income for assessment years (AY) 2015-16 on 06.02.2017 declaring taxable income of Rs.13,20,330/-. The return was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer after issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act and notice under section 142(1) with detailed questionnaire. The detailed called in the notice under section 142(1) was furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer accepted those reply / details called in his notice under section 142(1) and completed assessment under section 143(3) on 22.12.2017. The assessment order dated 22.12.2017 was revised by Ld. PCIT vide his order dated 28.03.2021. Before revising assessment order, Ld. PCIT observed that during the year under consideration, assessee sold three immovable properties out of which two are agricultural land and one residential flat (Flat No.1002, Moje-PAL, Vaishnodevi Lifestyle Bldg. Surat city). On the sale of one agricultural land being part of R.S. No.68/1, Block No.107/A Simada, (Puna) Surat City. The assessee was having 16.50% share and in other agricultural land in R.S. No.66/1 Block No.130, Moje-Simada, (Puna) Surat City, the ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 4 assessee having 100% share. Thus, assessee on sale of agricultural land received Rs.3,59,25,954/- and assessee claimed exemption under section 54B of the Act of Rs.3,34,95,835/-on purchase of another agricultural land. The assessee also sold immovable property flat (Flat No.1002, Moje-PAL, Vaishnodevi Lifestyle Bldg. Surat City) and this property was sold as per Sale Deed dated 24.11.2014 for consideration of Rs.1,13,50,000/-. Against this sale consideration, the assessee claimed cost of acquisition without indexation of Rs.77,27,400/- and cost of improved without indexation of Rs.36,15,171/- respectively. The assessee has shown Short Term Capital Gains (STCG for short) of Rs.7,429/- [1,13,500,00 – (77,27,400 + 36,15,171)]. The Ld. PCIT further recorded that on perusal of Form No. 7 & 12 issued by Local Authority in respect of agricultural activities in Block No.107/A, Simada, (Puna) Surat City, the name of assessee is not appearing in the list who were carrying out agricultural activity. The Ld. PCIT further recorded that for AY 2013-14, assessee has not shown any agricultural income in his return of income. However, for AY 2014-15, assessee has ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 5 shown agricultural income of Rs.50,681/- only. The Ld. PCIT after referring provision of section 54B held that as per the aforesaid provision, agricultural land which are sold or purchased should have been used for agricultural activities for two years immediately preceding the date on which transfer took place. Prima facie, it is apparent from the record that at- least two years ago prior to transfer, no agricultural activities were carried out on the above land. The Assessing Officer has not carried out any verifications or enquiries in this regard during the course of assessment proceedings especially, when agricultural land sold were urban agricultural land within the provision of section 2(14) of the Act. In respect of other property flat (Flat No.1002, Moje-PAL, Vaishnodevi Lifestyle Bldg. Surat city) the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of cost of acquisition and cost of improvement without any verifications or enquiries in respect of genuineness of transaction. The Assessing Officer neither called any details like purchase deed or copy of bills in support of claim of cost of improvement nor assessee furnished any evidence to substantiate his claim. On the basis of aforesaid observation, ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 6 Ld. PCIT issued show cause notice on 23.03.2021 for initiating proceedings under section 263 of the Act by taking view that assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 22.12.2017 for AY 2015-16 was completed without proper verifications or enquiries. Hence, the order it is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 r.w.s Explanation-2 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to attend the revision proceedings on 26.03.2021 (at 4 am, para 7of order) with written submission, if any. The Ld. PCIT recorded that neither assessee appeared nor any written statement filed nor sought adjournment. The Ld. PCIT further recorded that in the said circumstances, he left no option but to finalize the revision proceedings on the basis of details available on record. The Ld. PCIT by referring provision of section 263 of the Act held that if the order passed without making any enquiries or verifications, which should have been made, then clause-(a) Explanation-2 would be applicable. As no enquiry or verification in respect of capital gains and exemption under section 54B has been done, the provision of clause-(a) of ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 7 Explanation-2 is extracted the Ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to complete the assessment de novo after taking into consideration the facts of the case as discussed by him above. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. PCIT, assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard the submissions of the learned authorised representative (ld AR) of the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax –Departmental representative (CIT-DR) for the revenue. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that during the scrutiny assessment the assessing officer examined all the issues raised by ld PCIT. The Assessing Officer vide his notice dated 10/11/2017 and 29/11/2017 required details of deduction under Section 54B, details of property purchased. The Assessing Officer also enquired about the agriculture activities carried out on the land sold by assessee for two years prior to date of transfer and evidence/proof about the new asset acquired and its use for agriculture purposes alongwith other requisite details. The assessee vide his reply dated 21/11/2017 and 8 th December, 2017 furnished necessary information and relevant evidence ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 8 in the form of 7/12 extract in respect of land sold by assessee as well as new land purchased by the assessee. The Assessing Officer vide his notice dated 13/11/2017 also made necessary enquiry about the sale of other property with all relevant evidence. The assessee furnished complete details including the details with regard to flat in Life Style building. The Assessing officer after examining the submission of assessee and the necessary evidence accepted the claim of assessee. Learned AR of the assessee further submits that it is not a case of no enquiry by Assessing Officer rather the Assessing Officer after examining the submission of assessee. Learned AR of the assessee further submits that it is not a case of no enquiry by Assessing Officer rather the Assessing Officer made complete enquiry, which cannot be claimed as inadequate enquiry. 4. To buttress his submissions the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following case laws;  Pr.CIT, Surat-2 vs. Shreeji Prints P. Ltd. [2021] 130 taxmann.com 294 (SC)  CIT, v. Nirav Modi [2017] 77 taxmann.com 78 (SC) ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 9  Pr.CIT vs. Shree Gayatri Associates [2019] 106 taxmann.com 31 (SC)  Pr.CIT-I vs. Harmony Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Tax Appeal No.282 of 2016 (Guj)  CIT-III vs. R.K. Construction Co. [2008] 175 Taxman 165 (Guj)  CIT vs. Amit Corporation Tax Appeal No.2583 of 2010 (Guj)  CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P) Ltd. [2009] 182 Taxman 183 (Guj)  CIT, Central-III vs. Nirav Modi [2016] 71 taxmann.com 272 (Bom)  CIT-8 vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2015] 55 taxmann.com 514 (Bom)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxmann 585 (Bom)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2010] 194 Taxman 57 (Del)  CIT vs. Jain Construction Co. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 84 (Rajasthan)  Hilton Group vs. The Pr. CIT(Central), Surat ITA No.58- 59/SRT/2021 (ITAT, Surat)  M/s S.R.Corporation vs. The Pr. CIT(Central), Surat ITA No.289/SRT/2018 (ITAT, Surat)  Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO,Wd-27(1)(1) Mumbai [2016] 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum-Trib.) 5. The assessee has also filed following documents in the form of paper book; - ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 10  Return of income along with computation of income for AY 2015-16,  Notice u/s 143(2) dated 19.09.2017,  Reply along with return of income and bank statement filed on 12.10.2017,  Fresh opportunity notice u/s 142(1) dated 06.11.2017,  Reply filed on 21.11.2017 in respect of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act alongwith required details – submission contained ledger accounts and copies of purchase deeds of all properties purchased during the year (includes purchase deeds of agriculture land for u/s 54B – capital accounts of partnership firms – ledger accounts and sales deeds for properties sold – page 14 to 362  Notice u/s 142(1) dated 29.11.2017 – page 363  Reply filed on 08.12.2017 in respect of notice u/s 142(1) with required details – submission with copies of Form- 7/12 of sold and purchase agriculture lands,  Reply filed on 13.12.2017 in respect of notice u/s 142(1) along with required details – submission contained copies of purchased deeds of sold agriculture lands -pages 379 to 399, Assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 22.12.2017. 6. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of ld PCIT. The ld CIT-Dr submits that the assessment order is silent about the investigation or enquiry conducted by Assessing Officer. The ld. CIDT-Dr submits that ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 11 he supports the order of ld. PCIT and pray to dismiss the appeal of assessee. 7. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the order of Ld. PCIT impugned before us. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, we may refer certain leading case on the scope of revisionary jurisdiction of ld. PCIT. The Supreme Court in celebrated/ leading case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 234 ITR 832 (SC), held that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo-motu is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If one of them is absent – if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the revenue – recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act. It can be exercised only when an order is erroneous, the section 263 will be attracted. An incorrect ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 12 assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase ‘prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. The scheme of the Act is to levy and collect tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this task is entrusted to the revenue. If due to an erroneous order of the Income-tax Officer, the revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The phrase ‘prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an Income- tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 13 erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. (emphasis added by us) 8. Further, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd (1233 ITR 108 Bom / 71 Taxman 585) held that the power of suo-motu revision under sub-section (1) of section 263 is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and the same can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein exist. Two circumstances must exist to enable the Commissioner to exercise power of revision under this sub-section, viz., (i) the order is erroneous; and (ii) by virtue of the order being erroneous prejudice has been caused to the interests of the revenue. It has, therefore, to be considered firstly as to when an order can be said to be erroneous. One finds that the expressions ‘erroneous’, ‘erroneous assessment’ and ‘erroneous judgment’ have been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary. According to the definition, ‘erroneous’ means ‘involving error; deviating from the law’. ‘Erroneous assessment’ refers to an assessment that deviates from the law and is, therefore, invalid, and is a defect that is jurisdictional in its nature, and ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 14 does not refer to the judgment of the Assessing Officer in fixing the amount of valuation of the property. Similarly, ‘erroneous judgment’ means ‘one rendered according to course and practice of Court, but contrary to law, upon mistaken view of law, or upon erroneous application of legal principles. The Hon'ble High Court also held that from the definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an assessing office acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately. This section does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the ITO, who passed the order, unless ethe decision is held to be erroneous*. Cases may be visualized where the ITO while making an assessment examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determines the income either by accepting the accounts or by making some estimate himself. The Commissioner, on perusal of the records, may be of the opinion ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 15 that the estimate made by the officer concerned was on the lower side and left to the Commissioner he would have estimated the income at a figure higher than the one determined by the ITO. That would not vest the Commissioner with power to re-examine the accounts and determine the income himself at a higher figure. It is because the ITO has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in hm in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. It may be said in such a case that in the opinion of the Commissioner the order in question is prejudicial tot interests of the revenue. But that by itself will not be enough to vest the Commissioner with the power of suo-moto revision because the first requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent. Similarly, if an order is erroneous but not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, then also the power of suo-moto revision cannot be exercised. Any and every erroneous order cannot be the subject-matter of revision because the second requirement also must be fulfilled. There must be some prima ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 16 facie material on record to show that tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed. Therefore, in order to exercise power under section 263(1) there must be material before the Commissioner to consider that the order passed by the ITO was erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and that it must be an order which is not in accordance with the law or which has been passed by the ITO without making any enquiry in under haste. An order can be said to be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue if it is not in accordance with the law in consequence whereof the lawful revenue due to the State has not been realized or cannot be realized. There must be material available on the record called for by the Commissioner to satisfy him prima facie that the aforesaid two requisites are present. If not, he has no authority to initiate proceedings for revision. Exercise of power of suo-motu revision under such circumstances will amount to arbitrary exercise of power. It is well-settled that when exercise of statutory power is dependent upon the existence of certain ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 17 objective facts, the authority before exercising such power must have materials on record to satisfy it in that regard. If the action of the authority is challenged before the Court, it would be open to the Courts to examine whether the relevant objectives were available from the records called for and examined by such authority. The decision of the ITO could not be held to be ‘erroneous’ simply because in his order he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. Moreover, the Commissioner himself, even after initiating proceedings for revision and hearing the assessee, could not say that the allowance of the claim of the assessee was erroneous, he simply asked the ITO to re-examine the mater, which was not permissible (emphasis added and*under line by us). 9. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aruyan Arcade Ltd., Vs. PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. In CIT Vs Nirma Chemical Works (P) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble High Court also ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 18 held that when assessing officer after making due inquiries had adopted one of the view and granted partial relief, merely because Commissioner took a different view of the matter, it would not be sufficient to permit commissioner to exercise his powers under section 263. The Hon'ble Court in para 22 of its order on the objection of the revenue that there is no discussion of the issue in the assessment order held that the contention on behalf of the revenue that the assessment order does not reflect any application of mind as to the eligibility or otherwise under section 80-I of the Act requires to be noted to be rejected. An assessment order cannot incorporate reasons for making/granting a claim of deduction. If it does so, an assessment order would cease to be an order and become an epic some. The reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, it would cast an almost impossible burden on the Assessing Officer, considering the workload that he carries and the period of limitation within which an order is required to be made; and, secondly, the order is an appealable order. An appeal lies, would be filed, only against disallowance s which an assessee feels aggrieved with. ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 19 10. Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs Mepco Industries Ltd. (2007) 207 CTR 462 (Madras) held that when two views are possible on an issue and it is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis supplied to us). 11. Now adverting to the facts of the present case, there is no dispute that there is no reference about various enquiries or jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis supplied to us). 12. Now adverting to the facts of the present case, there is no dispute that there is no reference about various enquiries or investigations carried out by Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order on 22/12/2017. Before us, the learned AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that during assessment, the Assessing officer made detailed enquiries and accepted the claim of assessee on exemption under Section 54B as well as short term capital gain of Rs.7429/-.We find that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 20 issued various notices for seeking information and evidence with regard to the claim of exemption under Section 54B as evident from the show cause notice dated 10/11/2017 and 13/11/2017 and 29/11/2017. The assessee furnished his reply and also filed evidence that agriculture land sold by the assessee was used for agriculture activities as evident from extract of 7/12. Thus, the issue was examined by Assessing Officer and on his satisfaction, no addition was made. So far as other issue regarding sale and purchase of other properties i.e. flat in Life Style building, the Assessing Officer vide his notice dated 13/11/2017 required necessary details. 13. Since, the assessing officer has accepted the explanation of assessee, which was coupled with evidence; the assessing officer may not have thought to pass detailed order on the issue examined by her. In our view, once the contention of the assessee on a particular issue is accepted by assessing office, the order is not appealable order and no appeal would be filed, against such accepted position as an assessee will not feel aggrieved with it, it is not necessary to give reasons of acceptance of such pleas. Similar view has been taken by ITA No.29/SRT/2021 (A.Y.15-16) Sh.Sharadbhai P Kakadia 21 Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Nirma Chemical Works Ltd ((2009) 309 ITR 67). 14. After considering the aforesaid factual and legal discussion, we are of the view that the assessing office has taken a reasonable and plausible view, which cannot be branded as erroneous. Thus the twin conditions as enumerated in section 263 if not fulfilled in the present case, thus, the order passed by ld PCIT is not sustainable and the same is set- aside. In the result, the grounds of appeal is allowed. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 27/04/2022 in open court and result was also placed on the Notice Board. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 27/04/2022 Dkp. Out Sourcing P.S Copy to: 1. Appellant- 2. Respondent- 3. CIT(A)-Surat- 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File True copy/ By order // True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Surat