ACIT, BHILAI V. Shri Jaibaba Castings Pvt Ltd, Jarway, Bhilai

ITA 312/RPR/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4392 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: MOOLCHAND JAIN
• Keywords: Business income; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Unexplained investment; Rule of consistency; Onus to prove; Period of limitation; TDS; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 250; 64; 43; 69B; 274; 20

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर Ɋायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR ŵी रिवश सूद, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अŜण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद˟ के समƗ । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM (ITA No. 312/RPR/2024) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned appeal is filed by the department against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”], passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), for the AY 2014-15, dated 06.05.2024, which in turn arises from the order of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai (in short, “the Ld. AO”), u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 22.12.2016. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the department in the present appeal are extracted as under: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), 32/32 Bungalow, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh 490006 V S Shri Jaibaba Castings Pvt Ltd, Plot No. 420, Jarway, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, 490026 PAN: AAMCS2023E (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) . . (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Moolchand Jain, Advocate. राजˢ की ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 28.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 2 “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,14,79,452/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act on the issue of unsecured loan? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.36,43,562/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.54,170/- made by the AO on the issue of difference in valuation of stock? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of difference in consumption of raw materials? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions of Rs.1,34,050/- and Rs.13,53,785/- made by the AO invoking the provisions of section 41 of the Income Tax Act 1961? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the id CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.14,69,178/- on account of excess interest paid on unsecured loans? 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1122,50,000/- made by the AO on account of stock statement submitted to the bank for obtaining CC limit? ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 3 8. Any other ground which may be adduced at the time of hearing. ” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee M/s Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd. is a private limited company engaged in manufacturing and trading of CI Moulds, CI Castings and other Iron/Steel items. Return of Income for the AY 2014-15 was filed by the assessee on 22.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.(-) 22,12,255/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In response, the counsel of the assessee had attended the hearings and filed written submissions before the ld. AO. The case of the assessee was discussed and deliberated by the ld. AO, which finally was concluded with certain additions/disallowances aggregating to Rs.3,11,00,815/- and assessed income of the assessee was determined at Rs.2,88,88,560/-. Various additions made by the ld. AO are culled out as under: Sr. No Addition/disallowance Amount Remarks 1. Interest on IT/TDS Rs.13,618 Agreed for the addition 2. Unexplained Cash Credit u/s68 Rs.1,14,79,452/- Additions are challenged 3. Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 Rs.36,43,562/- 4. Difference in stock valuation Rs.54,170/- 5. Short Production Rs.7,00,000/- 6. Cessation of liability u/s41 Rs.1,37,050/- 7. Of liability u/s 41 Rs.13,53,785/- 8. Excess interest paid on unsecured loans Rs.14,69,178/- 9. Unexplained investment Rs.1,22,50,000/- ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 4 4. Aggrieved with the foregoing additions/disallowances, assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A), wherein, the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, however, various reliefs were granted to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A) which are not considered justifiable by the revenue, therefore, to challenge such reasonableness of decision of the CIT(A), now the department is in appeal before us in the present case. 5. Ground wise adjudication of the issues raised by the revenue, are as follows: 6. Ground No. 1: Regarding additions of Rs.1,14,79,452/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained/unsecured loans. The issues regarding additions u/s 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan receipts from M/s Lahoti Holding Ltd. for Rs.1.00 crores and interest paid for Rs.14,79,452/- are dealt with by the ld. CIT(A), wherein, observations of the ld. CIT(A) are as under: “5.2 On perusal of the facts and grounds of the case, arguments of the appellant and the evidences placed on record, it is evident that the appellant availed unsecured loans of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- from Lahoti Holdings Pvt Ltd. and Rs. 31,99,726/- from UDIT Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and had also paid interests of Rs. 14,79,452/- and Rs. 4,43,836/- respectively. The appellant argued before the AO that these loans were not pertaining to the year under consideration, infact, those were availed in previous AYs, however, the AO alleged that the appellant failed to substantiate the loans transactions and therefore, he treated the entire principal and interests paid totaling to Rs. 1,14,79,452/- and Rs. 36,43,562/- on account of unexplained cash credits u/s ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 5 68 of the Act. During the appeal proceedings, it is argued by the appellant that the details of the loans were provided to the AO, however, the same were ignored by the AO and proceeded with making the alleged additions. It is further argued that the loans were availed originally from Betala Investment Finance Ltd, Chennai and the name of the loan creditor was changed to 'Lahoti Holdings Ltd' and the opening balance of the same was transferred to the ledger account of Lahoti Holdings Ltd and as such no fresh loans were availed during the year under consideration. In support of the contention, it has submitted copies of the certificate from ROC, Chennai regarding change of name wef 15.12.2011. copies of the audited balance sheet with its schedules& other statements of account, copies of the ITR for AY 2013-14 etc. The appellant has also submitted a/c copy of Lahoti Holdings Ltd. from ledger of the appellant for FYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 which shows the transfer entry on 01.04.2013 from the account of Betala Investment Finance Ltd to Lahoti Holdings Ltd. pursuant to the change of name and it also reflects the interest payments of Rs. 14,79.452/- (Rs. 7,39,726/- each on 30/06/2013 and 05/03/2014) after TDS. Ledger copies of Betala Investment Finance Ltd for the FY 2013-14 also reflects the transfer entry. Copies of the bank statements of Lahoti Holdings Ltd furnished for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.12.2014 also reflects the credit of interests payments after deductions of corresponding TDS and also the bank statements of the appellant company reflects the transfer entries. The appellant further submits the copies of the bank statements of ING Vysya Bank which also certifies the repayment of loan vide cheque no. 194868 drawn on ING Vyasa Bank Ltd. on 30/06/2014 of amount Rs. 1,03,36,576/- to Lahoti Holdings Ltd. From the above facts, it is safe to presume that the appellant had actually availed unsecured loans of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- from Lahoti Holdings Ltd. whose earlier name was Betala Investment Finance Ltd and during FY 2014-15, it had repaid the principal loan amount and the corresponding interests of Rs. 14,79,452/- was also paid and the entire transactions were taken place through banking channels and the audited balance sheet and the ITR filed for AY 2014-15 of the loan creditor proves the identity, credit worthiness of the loan creditor. Hence the addition made of Rs. 1,14,79,452/- u/s 68 of the Act is deleted. Thus, ground nos. 2 & 3 are allowed.” 6.1 At the outset, Dr. Priyanka Patel, learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, the “Ld. Sr. DR.”) reiterated the facts of the issue from the assessment order and have submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee had received a loan of Rs. 1.00 crore from M/s Lahoti Holding Ltd. and also paid an interest of Rs.14,79,452/-. However, when ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 6 the assessee was issued a show cause notice to explain about this transaction, the assessee replied that there was no fresh unsecured loan taken during the year and have not filed any confirmation of the lender to substantiate his claim, hence, the same is added to unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Improper explanation given by the assessee of the query prompted the AO to make the additions, which were required proper explanation, accordingly, the AO made the additions and, therefore, the same are deserves to be sustained. 6.2 On the other hand, Mr. Moolchand Jain, Advocate, learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee have submitted that the explanations which were also clarified before the CIT(A) that no loan was taken during the year under assessment, it was a balance of last year and due to change in name of lender company from “Betala Investment Finance Ltd.” to “M/s Lahoti Holding Ltd.”, the amount was transferred through Journal entry in the books of accounts of the assessee. It is further submitted that the balance is appearing in the name of “M/s Lahoti Holding Ltd.” as opening balance, copy of ledger account and evidence regarding change in name of the lender company is submitted before the CIT(A), therefore, the explanation of the assessee was considered to be acceptable by the ld. CIT(A) and addition was deleted. Ld. AR further to strengthen the facts of the issue have drew our attention to the relevant documents in the form of certificate of change of name of the company, ITR, Balance sheet and audit report of Lahoti Holdings Ltd., ledger account copy of ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 7 the lender company for FY 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 in the name of M/s Betala Investmet Finance Ltd. and for FY 2013-14 in the name of Lahoti Holding Ltd., all such documents are available at page Nos. 14 to 43 of the APB. 6.3 Backed by the aforesaid submissions, ld. AR requested that since the loan taken from M/s Betala Investment Finance Ltd. was transferred in the name of M/s Lahoti Holding Ltd., on account of change in name of the said investment company, it is apparent that no new loan has been availed by the assessee company during the year under consideration, therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly vacated the additions qua unsecured loan and interest accrued/paid, consequently, the additions made by the Ld. AO was bad in law, thus, has rightly vacated by ld. CIT(A), therefore, the decision of the ld. CIT(A) merits to be upheld. 6.4 We have considered the rival submissions of ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the materials available on record and the orders of the lower authorities. 6.5 Admittedly, the loan of Rs. 1.00 crore was received by the assessee from M/s Betala Investment Finance Ltd. during FY 2011-12, which was further carried forward up to FY 2013-14 i.e. year under consideration, wherein the balance of Betala Investment Finance Ltd. was transferred to “Lahoti Holding Ltd.” which is ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 8 the new changed name of “Betala Investment Finance Ltd Company” as per certificate of change of the name issued by Govt of India- Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Chennai dated 15.12.2011. In view of such facts, we find merits in the contention of the ld. AR, which were rightly considered by the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, we find substance in the decision of the ld. CIT(A), accordingly, we upheld the same. Resultantly, ground No. 1 of the department stands dismissed. 7. Ground No. 2: regarding deleting additions at Rs.36,43,562/- u/s 68 of the Act. The issue regarding unsecured loan of Rs.36,43,562/- which comprised unsecured loan of Rs.31,99,726/- and interest of Rs.4,43,836/-, is similar to the issue decided in ground No. 1 of the present appeal. Under this addition, it was the allegation by the Ld. AR that during the year under consideration, the assessee had received Rs.30.00 lacs from “M/s UDIT Infratech Pvt. Ltd.” whereas the loan was sourced in the earlier year from “M/s Prism Fincorp Pvt. Ltd.” and due to change of name to “M/s Udit Infratech Pvt. Ltd.”, the transaction was transferred in the books of the assessee through Journal Entry. The amount of Rs.1,99,726/-, which was accrued as interest on Rs.30,00,000/-, which was availed during the year prior to the current assessment year, wherein it was transferred in the name of “UDIT Infratech Pvt. Ltd.” from “Prism Fincorp Pvt. ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 9 Ltd.”. The ld. CIT(A) has elaborated the said fact of the case, the same are extracted as under: “5. 3 As regards to the other addition of Rs. 36,43,562/-, it is alleged by the AO that during the year under consideration, the appellant availed unsecured loan of Rs. 31,99,726/- from UDIT Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and had paid interests of Rs. 4,43,836/-, however, could not substantiate the transaction. During the appeal proceedings, it is argued it availed loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- earlier year from M/s Prism Fincon Pvt. Ltd. and due to change of name to Udit Infratech Pvt. Ltd., the transaction was transferred in the books of UDIT Infratech. Vide letter dated 24/11/2016, it had submitted all the details in regards to the alleged transaction to the AO, however, ignoring the same, it is alleged that the AO proceeded to making the addition u/s 68 of the Act. In support of the claim, it had submitted copies of the ledger accounts of Prism Fincon Pvt Ltd. from its books of FYs. 2011-12 to 2013-14 reflecting the opening balance and transfer entries to the A/c of "Udit Infratech Pvt. Ltd." Ledger copies of Udit Infratech, bank statements reflecting the repayment of loans along with the interests were also submitted during the appeal proceedings. Copies of the audited statement of accounts, ITR, bank statements of Udit Infratech P. Ltd are also submitted. On perusal of the evidences furnished during appeal proceedings and also on the basis of the aforesaid facts, it held that the original loan was availed from Prism Fincon Pvt Ltd of Rs. 30,00,000/- and subsequently the transaction of principal loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- and the accrued interest of Rs. 1,99,726/- was transferred to the books of Udit Infratech Pvt Ltd subsequent to its change of name and on 05/07/2013 and 31/03/2014, interests of Rs. 1,99,726/- and Rs. 3,99,452/- were paid through RTGS and cheque bearing no. 264509/- and on 27/06/2014 vide cheque no. 1730688, the repayment of loan was made to Udit Infratech P. Ltd. The entire transactions were taken place through banking channels and the audited accounts and the ITR filed for AY 2014-15 of the loan creditor proves the identity, credit worthiness of the loan creditor. Hence the addition made of Rs. 36,43,562/- u/s 68 of the Act is deleted. Thus, ground nos. 4 & 5 are allowed.” 7.1 Ld. Sr. DR. reiterated the facts and observations of the ld. AO from the assessment order and have requested to sustain the additions. ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 10 7.2 On the other hand, the ld. AR has submitted that the loan was taken in preceding year, and it was appearing as opening balance in the account of “UDIT Infratech Pvt. Ltd.” as the name of company was changed from “Prism Fincorp Pvt. Ltd.” to “Udit Infratech Pvt. Ltd.”. There was just transfer of balance from one account to another accounts due to change in name of the lender company, there was no new loan availed by the assessee company during the relevant year, therefore, such additions u/s 68 of the Act is without any logical basis. The relevant documents regarding change of name to “UDIT Infratech Pvt. Ltd” from “M/s Prism Fincorp Pvt. Ltd.” and other financial documents supporting such contention are placed before us at page No. 76 to 107. Based on the aforesaid submissions, it was the prayer of the ld. AR that this addition u/s 68 of the Act made by the ld. AO was in the wrong appreciation of facts and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained. 7.3 We have considered the river submissions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7.4 Admittedly, the identical issue has been dealt with by us in ground No. 1, wherein unsecured loan received by the assessee in preceding years was only transferred to other account due to change in the name of lender companies, therefore, it cannot be considered as unexplained cash credit for the year consideration. Accordingly, no addition u/s 68 of the Act could have been made. ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 11 7.5 In view of such facts, circumstances and observations, we are of the considered opinion that the additions made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act was rightly vacated by the Ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. Resultantly, the ground of appeal No. 2 of the department being bereft of merits stands rejected. 8. Ground No. 3 : Regarding justification of deleting the addition of Rs.54,170/- made by the AO The addition on account of valuation of the closing stock made by the Ld. AO was vacated by the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the facts and observations are elaborately discussed in his order at para 10.2, the same is extracted as under: “10.2 On perusal of the facts and grounds of the case, arguments of the appellant and the evidences placed on record, it is evident that the AO observed that the appellant had adopted the valuation method of closing stock on the basis of the value of the last invoice, however, in one item namely ‘Centre Column’, it had followed different method. As per the AO held that appellant was required to adopt the value @Rs.38,000/- per MT instead of Rs.36,000/- per MT based on the price of the last invoice. Thus, the differential amount of Rs.54,170/- (Rs.2,000/- x 27.085MT) was added to the total income on account of undervalued of stock. During the appeal proceedings, it is submitted that the finished goods are valued at cost derived on the basis of adjusted selling price method and the last invoice of Rs.38,000/- is the selling price of which the adjusted cost stands of Rs.36,000/- and in support of the same, copy of the sale bill/invoice dated 19/12/2013 has been furnished. Having gone through the arguments of the appellant and the sale bills, it is held that there is no infirmity in the stock valuation method adopted and the value computed by the appellant in regards to the item “Centre Column”, therefore, the addition made of Rs.54,170/- is deleted and the ground no. 11 is allowed.” ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 12 8.1 The ld. Sr. DR vehemently placed reliance on the order of Ld. AO. 8.2 Ld. AR on the other hand, have submitted that the addition on account of valuation of stock was made by the Ld. AO, stating that the assessee has not adopted the method of valuation of closing stock on the basis of value of last invoice for finished goods whereas such practice was adopted with respect to other items of the closing stock. The assessee have clarified that the finish goods are valued at cost derived on the basis of adjusted selling price method which was arrived at Rs.36000 per MT, whereas Ld. AO have picked up the value of last invoice which was selling price. Ld. CIT(A) have appreciated this fact in right perspective and his held that the inference drawn by Ld. AO was incorrect and therefore, the addition made was rightly deleted. 8.3 We have considered the rival submissions, and perused the material available on record. The valuation of stock was computed by the assessee on a consistent method of valuation, Ld. AO’s opinion to value the stock at selling price without pointing out any departure from the consistent method of valuation on cost cannot be concurred with. We, therefore, find substance in the decision of Ld. CIT(A), and therefore, approve the same. Resultantly, Ground No. 3 of the department in absence of any cogent material to dislodge the observations of Ld. CIT(A) is unsustainable. ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 13 9. Ground No. 4: Regarding justification in deleting the addition of Rs. 7.00 lacks on account of difference and consumption of raw material. 9.1 The addition was made by the Ld. AO due to the variation in figure of consumption of raw material calculated by adding the monthly details of raw material and finished goods submitted by the assessee, which was found to be 4746.753 MT, whereas as per annexure furnished before the Ld. AO regarding production yield the amount was 4726.753 MT. As there was a difference of 20 MT in the aforesaid two figures an addition was made for Rs. 7.00 lac(20x35000) considering the value of finish goods at Rs. 35000 per MT. When the issue was carried before the Ld. CIT(A), it is clarified by the Ld. AR that there was clerical mistake in the unit chart wherein the actual consumption of 4746.753 MT was wrongly typed as 4726.753 MT. Such fact was explained to Ld. CIT(A) which was very considerately accepted by him and vacated the addition accordingly. Ld. AR in order to substantiate such contention have drawn our attention to page 139 of the assessee’s PB, comprising of annexure F & G of Form No. 3CD, showing consumption of raw materials and finished products during the previous year. It is further submitted that the consumption of raw materials for 4635 MT and sale of hand pump parts and hand pumps 112 MT (31+81), in aggregate constitute total consumption of 4747 MT in round figure, thus, the addition was only on account of clerical mistake which was rightly vacated by the Ld. CIT(A). ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 14 9.2 Contradicting the aforesaid submissions of Ld.AR, Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. 9.3 We have considered the rival submissions, and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, from the facts of the issue demonstrated with supporting evidence i.e., annexures to Form 3CD showing quantitative details of consumption of raw materials as well as finished goods and also the quantitative details furnished before the Ld. AO, it can be construed that there was a clerical mistake on the part of assessee, which was duly explained by the assessee and, therefore, the addition made on account of such mistake cannot be allowed to sustain. Ld. CIT(A) have rightly appreciated the facts and deleted the addition, we, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue to interfere with. Consequently, Ground No. 4 of the present appeal of the revenue being bereft of substance rendered as rejected. 10. Ground No. 5: Regarding deleting the addition of Rs. 1,37,050/- & 13,53,785/- u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. 10.1 The aforesaid additions made by the Ld. AO u/s 41(1) of the Act on account of cessation of liability stating that there were fictitious liability of Rs. 1,37,050/- transferred from M/s Satpura Refractories (Jabalpur) to M/s Satpura Acid ware & Store ware, because it was not paid but transferred to different entity ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 15 in the subsequent period, other liabilities in the name of Maa Mahamaya Alloys Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 9,40,370/- and Shree Vishnu Iron Foundry of Rs.4,13,415/- in the books of the assessee. The assessee was asked specifically to explain from when this credits are appearing in your books, but no reply was made, only the ledger of AY 2014-15 & 2015-16 i.e., subsequent period were furnished. In absence of any explanation as sought by the Ld. AO, he find it appropriate to disallow such liabilities considering the same as ceased / fictitious liabilities and have made the additions u/s 41(1). While dealing with this issue, Ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the facts along with various judicial pronouncements and, thereby deleted the additions made by the Ld. AO with the following observations: 7.2 The facts and grounds of the case, arguments of the appellant, evidences placed on record and the relevant case laws have been gone through carefully. During the assessment proceedings, the AO alleged that there were fictitious liabilities of Rs. 1,37,050/-, Maa Mahamaya Alloys Pvt Ltd. of Rs. 9,40,370/- and Shree Vishnu Iron Foundry of Rs. 4,13,415/- in the books of the appellant and were disallowed u/s 41 (1) of the Act. During appeal proceedings, it f is argued by the appellant that during the year under consideration, it had made two purchases and payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- was made and in support, ledger copies and bank statements of Satpura Refractories have been furnished. It is further seen that there were continuous transactions held with Satpura Refractories as are evident from the purchase bills and bank statements. The appellant further submits that in AY 2015-16 by journal credit entry an amount of Rs. 1,37,050/- was transferred to its sister concern namely 'Satpura Acid Ware & Store Ware Pipes'. It is further argued that Shree Vishnu Iron Foundry had placed an order for purchasing of Chara cutting machine and had paid advances in this regard but was not lifted by the party and in support of the payments through banking channels, bank statements and sale bills are furnished and there exists credit balance of Rs. 8,42,875/- in its books. Maa Mahamaya Alloys Pvt Ltd. placed order for supplying Cl Ingot Moulds and had advanced Rs. 9,40,370/- but it is stated that the party is not lifting the ordered items. Hence, it is argued that there is no cessation of liability as it still exists in its books. 7.3 Now coming to the applicability of section 41 (1) of the Act in the appellant's present case, Sec. 41(1) mandates that when there is any form of waiver of loan or cessation of trade liability, then such liabilities, which are no longer payable, should be added back to the Business Income of the Assessee and offered to tax in the year of waiver. For better clarity, Section 41 of the Act, is reproduced as under:- ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 16 "41. Profits chargeable to tax.-(l) Where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee (hereinafter referred to as the first-mentioned person) and subsequently during any previous year, - (a) the first-mentioned person has obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of such loss or expenditure or some benefit in respect of such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof, the amount obtained by such person or the value of benefit accruing to him shall be deemed to be profits and gains of business or profession and accordingly chargeable to income tax as the income of that previous year, whether the business or profession in respect of which the allowance or deduction has been made is in existence in that year or not; or (b) the successor in business has obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of which loss or expenditure was incurred by the first-mentioned person or some benefit in respect of the trading liability referred to in clause (a) by way of remission or cessation thereof, the amount obtained by the successor in business or the value of benefit accruing to the successor in business shall be deemed to be profits and gains of the business or profession, and accordingly chargeable to income tax as the income of that previous year. Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "loss or expenditure or some benefit in respect of any such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof" shall include the remission or cessation of any liability by a unilateral act by the first mentioned person under clause (a) of the successor in business under clause (b) of that sub-section by way of writing off such liability in his accounts. Thus, insofar as a trading liability is concerned, what is envisaged under section 41 (1) of the Act is that an allowance or deduction should have been made in the assessment for any year in respect of any trading liability incurred by the appellant and subsequently during any previous year, the appellant should have obtained some benefit in respect of such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof in which case, the value of the benefit accruing to the appellant shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession and shall be chargeable to income-tax as income of that previous year. Thus, for the purpose of invoking sub-section (1) of section 41 of the Act, there has to be remission or cessation of the trading liability in the previous year and in the light of Explanation 1 thereto, such remission or cessation shall include the remission or cessation of any liability by a unilateral act of the appellant by way of writing off such liability in his accounts. Undisputedly in the facts of the present case, the appellant has not written off the liability in its accounts and as such there is no remission or cessation of liability by a unilateral act of the appellant as envisaged under Explanation 1. Regarding the issue of unilateral write off for the assessments of the post-amendment period, i.e., 1st April, 1997, it is noticed that the Explain. 1 was brought into statute by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996 w.e.f. 1st April, 1997. The appellant's case, being the one where the alleged liabilities are not unilaterally writing Off, the requirements of the Explanation is not met and therefore, it cannot be considered as the case of obtaining of the benefit during the year under consideration. Although the following is inapplicable to appellant's case, the act of unilateral write off of the liabilities assumes great significance for the post- amendment assessments for deciding the finality of obtaining of the benefit specified ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 17 in the s. 41(1) of the Act. It is even more significant when the AO has not established that the liabilities have ceased or there is no chance of revival of the claim by the creditors in future. In the absence unilateral entries in books of the appellant, it cannot be held that the AO has correctly applied the provisions of Section 41 (1) of the Act. The AO has not discharged his onus to prove that there is cessation of liabilities and the appellant obtained the benefits finally. In such circumstances and when the appellant has not unilaterally written off the said liabilities, the question of taking such outstanding liabilities as deemed profits of the year does not arise. 7.4 Reliance is placed in the case of CIT Vs. Enam Securities (P.) Ltd. reported in [2012] 345 ITR 64 (Bom), wherein, it was held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court that, "Whether since there was no remission or cessation of liability in question during current assessment year, addition made by Assessing Officer was to be deleted." Also, in the case of Sugauli Sugar Works Pvt Ltd reported in [236 ITR 518 (SC)], Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "Expiry of period of limitation cannot extinguish the debt - Section 41(1) not applicable." Further in the case of Puridevi Mahendrakumar Chaudhary reported in [41 taxmann.com 329 (Guj)] Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that, "Where assessee had outstanding creditors for goods and Assessing Officer made addition in income of assessee under section 41(1) on basis that with respect to 14 creditors liability was outstanding for more than three years, Assessing Officer was not justified in his view." Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Pukhraj S. Jain (ITA No. 1288 of 2016, has held as under:- "S. 41(1) (o/d & unpaid liability for sundry creditors): It is well settled through series of judgments that merely because a debt has not been repaid for over three years, would not automatically imply cessation of liability. Exhaustion of period of limitation may prevent filing of recovery proceedings in a Court of law, nevertheless it cannot be stated by itself that the liability to repay the amount had ceased. Such liability cannot be termed as bogus" Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs M/s Soorajmul Nagarmull in ITA T/46/2020 dated 23/11/2022 held as under- “15. In the preceding paragraphs, we have noted the undisputed factual position which was rightly taken note of by the learned tribunal and in particular, noting that there is no dispute about the assessee to have been carrying forward the impugned liability in its books for a time span of almost three decades and the department did not raise any issue in al/ the intervening assessment years in question. The tribunal also noted that the assessing officer after the matter was remanded to him had issued summons to six directors of the concerned entities on test check basis, and four out of the six directors had appeared in response to the summons. The statements were recorded. The learned tribunal also notes that the creditors have given written reply in response to the summons reiterating their liability as a/so the fact that the assessee had settled some of the creditors even after 31.03.2001. Thus the assessee has fulfilled the duty cast upon them to provide evidence that the liability exist at the end of the year. The duty on the assessing officer is to prove that the liability has ceased to exist which in our considered view has been miserably failed to be established. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Babul Products (P.) Ltd. reported in (2018) 96 taxmann.com 82 held that since assessee had not written off liability in his books of account with respect to debtors and had ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 18 carried forward and continued same liability, Tribunal was justified in deleting addition made by Assessing Officer under section 41(1), on account of cessation of said liability. In the case of Sh. Nitin S. Garg vs. ACIT in ITA No 169,170,171,172/Ahd/2009 dated 04/06/2010, Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal held as under:- "9.1 Considering the facts of the case as noted above it is clear that the assessee had continued to show the admitted amounts as liabilities in its balance sheet. The liabilities reflected in the balance sheet cannot be treated as cessation of liabilities. Merely because the liabilities are outstanding for last many years, it cannot be inferred that the said liabilities have ceased to exist It is also a fact that the assessee has not written off the outstanding liabilities in the books of account and the outstanding liabilities are still in existence would prove that the assessee acknowledged his liabilities as per the books of account. Section 41(1) of the IT Act is attracted when there is cessation or remission of a trading liability. 7.5 In view of the above facts and discussions and respectfully following the decisions of various courts and also in my considered opinion, it is held that there is neither any cessation of liability nor was there any remission of income. In these circumstances, the plea taken by the appellant deserves to be allowed and therefore, the additions made by the AO at Rs. 1,37,050/- and Rs. 13,53,785/- invoking the provisions of section 41 (1) of the Act is hereby deleted. Thus, ground nos. 7 & 8 are treated as allowed. 10.2 Ld. AR placed his reliance on the order of Ld. CIT(A) have submitted that there was neither cessation of liability nor remission of income. The transfer of amount from M/s Satpura Refractories (Jabalpur) to M/s Satpura Acid Ware & Store Ware, Jabalpur was adjustment between the sister concerns on account of sale bills of CI casting. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the issue following the settled position of law. 10.3 Ld. Sr. DR strongly placed her reliance on the Ld. AO. 10.4 We have considered the rival submission, perused the material available on record and case relied upon qua the issue. In the present case, on a ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 19 thoughtful consideration of the material available on record and the observations of revenue authorities on the basis of explanation and evidence furnished by the assessee, the cessation of liability or remission of income could not be established by the revenue, the addition was made only for the reason that the explanation of the assessee are not to the satisfaction of the Ld. AO. All material aspects including verification of the facts are dealt with by the Ld. CIT(A), a thorough interpretation of provisions of section 41(1) along with support of guiding principles from the judicial pronouncements, we concur with the observations of Ld. CIT(A) that the cessation of liabilities and benefit from it through unilateral writing of the said liabilities by the assessee, could not be proved by the Ld. AO, therefore, addition invoking provisions of section 41(1) on outstanding liabilities as deemed profit of the year under consideration does not arise. In view of such observations, we do not find any error in the decision of Ld. CIT(A) which needs to be modified. Consequently, Ground no. 5 of the present appeal of revenue is dismissed having no material substance to invalidate the findings of Ld. CIT(A). 11. Ground No. 6: Regarding deleting the addition of Rs. 14,69,178/- on account of excess interest paid on unsecured loan ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 20 11.1 The Ld. AO has disallowed the interest over and above paid for more then 12% to various parties, @ 15.6%, 15% & 18%. The basis for disallowance was unreasonableness of interest. 11.2 Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of assessee by deleting the addition made by Ld. AO on account of the fact that all such unsecured loans are carried forward from the earlier years and interest was paid consistently on the rates on which the same was paid during the relevant year. Assessment for AY 2013-14 was also completed u/s 143(3) on 22.03.2016 and no adverse inference to this issue was drawn by the Ld. AO. Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO with the following observations: 8.2 The facts and grounds of the case, arguments of the appellant, evidences placed on record and the relevant case laws have been gone through carefully. During the assessment proceedings, the AO alleged that the appellant had paid interests on unsecured loans @ 18% and 15% to Nikhil Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Buildcon Finance Ltd and Lupin Gases Pvt Ltd which are on higher side than the reasonable bank interest rate of 12% and therefore, he disallowed the excess interest paid of Rs. 14,69,178/- and added to the total income. In this regard, the appellant submits that no fresh loans were availed during the year under consideration, only interests were paid during the year on the loans availed on earlier years. It is further argued that the interests are paid at the same rate which were paid in AY 2013-14 and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 22/03/2016 in its own case, wherein, no adverse inference was drawn by the AO in regards to the interests paid to the creditors. I find merit in contention of the appellant as it is seen that the entire transactions held through banking channels and also the creditors have shown the interests received in their return of income, furthermore, the loan was availed on prior to the year under consideration and interests were paid in earlier AY at the same rate of interests and also the AO has not objected the same in the scrutiny assessment proceedings ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 21 carried out for previous AY i.e. 2013-14. Considering the very fact of the case and discussions made above, I find no reason to sustain the disallowance made of Rs. 14,69,178/- on account of interests paid to the creditors. Hence the same is deleted and ground no. 9 is allowed. 11.3 Ld. AR of the assessee placed his full reliance on the order of Ld. CIT(A), whereas on the other hand Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the order of ld. AO. 11.4 We have considered the rival submission and perused the material available on record. Admittedly in the present case as the rate of interest on which the assessee had availed loan from various parties and paid interest as mutually agreed by them. Such unsecured loans were availed in the earlier years and the rate of interest paid by the assessee in previous years was allowed by the revenue while assessing the case of assessee u/s 143(3). Ld. CIT(A) had decided the issue in favour of the assessee following the principle of consistency and no adverse inference by the department in the earlier years. Under such facts and circumstances, when the revenue has allowed the assessee to claim interest expenditure on similar rates in the prior year’s then there was no reason for the Ld. AO to make such additions with deviation from his own stand taken in earlier years without any plausible reason brought on record, we, therefore, find substance in the observation of Ld. CIT(A) and approve the same. Ground no. 6 of the revenue’s appeal, thus, have been dismissed. ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 22 12. Ground No. 7: Regarding deleting the addition of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- on account of stock statement submitted to the bank for obtaining CC limit. On this issue, the addition was made by the Ld. AO with the following observations: “12. The assessee has been asked to furnish acknowledged copy of stock statement submitted to the banks for obtaining CC Limit. The assessee has filed the acknowledged copy of stock statement submitted with ING Vyasa Bank Ltd. The stock statement for the month of March, 2014 was submitted and received by the bank authority on 10/04/2014 which contains the details of stock position as on 30/03/2014. The stock statement submitted to the bank is duly signed and verified by the Director of the company. It is a summary sheet of Hypothecation of stock and book debts to bank with reference to their overdraft/open cash credit account with bank, Copy of the said stock statement is appended separately as part of order as ANNEXURE-I . On perusal of the said stock statement, it is seen that there is closing stock of Raw Material & Finished Goods of 93.345 MT and 1045.463 MT respectively. Whereas as per accounts provided in tally software by the assessee the position of stock as on 30/03/2014 of Raw material and Finished Goods are 93.345 MT and 695.463 MT respectively. Accordingly, there is no difference in stock of Raw Material but there is difference of 350 MT in stock of Finished Goods. Copy of extract generated from the soft books of accounts provided by the assessee during the course of assessment i.e. tally accounts is also appended as ANNEXURE-2 as part of order. The difference in quantity as per tally accounts and as per stock statement submitted with the bank is worked out at 350MT which is valued on the basis/price of CI INGOT Mould i.e. @ Rs 35,000/- per MT (As this value is minimum in all items of finished goods and it is the major part of total production and stock of finished goods). Thus the value of excess quantity is worked out to Rs.1,22,50,000/- i.e. (350*35000/-). Hence, the amount of Rs.1,22,50,000/- is treated as unexplained investment of the company and added to the returned income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated separately for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 23 12.1 When the issue was taken up by Ld. CIT(A), the explanations of assessee along with various case laws were considered and the addition made was vacated. The observations of Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced for the sake of completeness of facts: 6.2 The facts and grounds of the case, arguments of the appellant, evidences placed on record and the relevant case laws have been perused carefully. The AO during the course of the assessment proceedings observed that the appellant had submitted the stock statement the banks to avail CC limit, wherein, the closing stock of raw materials and finished goods were shown 93.345 MT and 1045.463M T respectively, however, the figures declared in the accounts provided in the tally software were 93.345M T and 695.463M T respectively. Thus, there was difference of 350MT in stocks of finished goods which was valued on the basis/price of Cl Ingot Moulds @ Rs. 35,000/- per MT and was computed at Rs. 1,22,50,000/- (Rs. 35,000/- x 350) and treated the said sum as unexplained investment. In this regard, the appellant argues that it had shown 1045.463MT of finished goods in the stock statement, however in Note 19(b) of the audited balance sheet the 'Mould Boxes" were not declared as it manufactured the mould boxes which are partly used in its factory as pant and partly to its customers. In this regard, it has submitted a chart reconciling the difference in closing stock of finished goods alongwith depreciation chart. It is further argued that the entire mould boxes lying as finished goods or assets were reported to the bank as stock of finished goods and to increase the CC limit the higher figures were reported. The appellant further submits that there was no stock mortgaged to the bank, it is only hypothecated and the stock still remains under its own custody and relying on various judicial decisions wherein, it is held that based on the inflated value of the stocks statements furnished before the banking authorities, addition cannot be made u/s 69B of the Act. I find merit in the contention of the appellant. In a similar issue, Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case CIT vs Apcom Computers (P.) Ltd. reported in [20071 292 ITR 630 (Madras-HC) held as under:- "5. Heard the counsel. Any addition on account of difference in stock can be made only on adequate materials, but not arbitrarily. Admittedly, there was a difference between the value of closing stock declared to the bank and to the Income-tax authorities. There is no dispute that the assessee was maintaining books of account on day-today production. The assessee, in the present case, has taken the actual physical stock for the purpose of declaring closing stock to the Income-tax authorities. Further the purchases and sales were supported by vouchers and the Assessing Officer had not pointed out any suppression of sales or purchases. There was a finding by ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 24 the authorities below that the statement given to the bank was on estimate basis without any actual physical verification and the same was not suppolted by books of account. We find there is evidence to show that stock declared to the Income-tax Depattment was supported by books of account. No detailed inventory was also available in the statement made to the bank. Except a mere value declared for overdraft purposes to the bank, there were no detailed items of stocks in support of the declared value. It was also pointed out that there was no physical verification of stock, either by the assessee or the bank at the time of furnishing the stock statement. The Tribunal as well as CIT(A) given a concurrent finding that the assessee declared closing stock for assessment purpose which is based on actual physical verification. There is enough materials available on record and the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is based on valid materials and evidence. In view of the same, there is no basis to treat the difference in value as the assessee's under-valuation of stock or undisclosed income. Hon. Delhi ITAT in case of CIT Vs Jyoti Woolen Mills Ltd reported in 125 TTJ 810 has held as under: “..Held that the credit facility was extended by the bank to the assessee against the hypothecation of stock and the valuation of the stock declared to the bank was higher than the actual stock available in the books of account and this inflation of the stock was done by the assessee to obtain higher credit limit from the bank. The Assessing Officer had not brought on record any evidence to show that the assessee was in fact in possession of higher quantity of stock. Therefore, on mere comparison of the stock declared to the bank and the one shown in the books of account, addition could not be made of the difference between the two" Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Patel Proteins (P.) Ltd. Reported in [2017] 393 ITR 274 (Guj-HC) held that difference in stock statement as furnished before bank as compared to stock shown in books of account for availing of higher credit facility could not be added under section 69B as undisclosed investment. Thus, it is evident from the above that the Hon'ble courts have held that only on account of inflated statements furnished to the banking authorities for the purpose of availing of larger credit facilities, no addition can be made if there appears to be a difference between the stock shown in the books of account and the statement furnished to the banking authorities. In view of the very facts of the case and also respectfully relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble courts, the addition made of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- as unexplained investment on account of difference in stock statement as furnished before the bank as compared to shown in books of account deserves to be deleted. Thus, ground no. 6 is allowed. ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 25 12.2 On this issue, Ld. AR submitted that the Mould Boxes are manufactured by the assessee used as plant in captive production. The quantity of mould boxes was reported to bank under the head finished goods to save the extinction of CC limit. A reconciliation statement was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and explained that the stock was hypothecated and mortgaged, no physical verification was done by the bank. Books of accounts of the assessee are authentic, accepted by the excise and commercial tax department. Various case laws were relied upon by the assessee referred to supra in the observations of Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, the difference in the stock statement furnished before the bank as compared to stock in books of account for availing of higher credit facility could not be added u/s 69B as undisclosed investment. Such ratio of law was followed by the Ld. CIT(A) and have directed to delete the addition made by Ld. AO. 12.3 Ld. Sr. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. 12.4 We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record. On perusal of facts of the issue in hand that the stock statement of finished goods furnished before the bank has excess quantity of 350 MT as compared to stock shown by the assessee in its regular books of accounts. Assessee explained before the Ld. CIT(A) with the relevant documents, information and reconciliation statement. Before us also, the contention raised to substantiate that the difference of on account of certain adjustments qua the ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 26 Mould Boxes, which were reported as finished goods before the bank whereas the same were shown as plant in the regular books. Various case laws were relied upon by the assessee, wherein it is held that the inflated value of stock furnished before the banking authorities cannot be the basis for addition u/s 69B of the Act on account of undisclosed investment. 12.5 In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, wherein the addition was made because of difference in stock statement furnished before the bank as compared to position of stock in the books of assessee. The assessee tried to explain the reasons for such variations by way of furnishing reconciliation statement before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) had decided the issue referring to judgments by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Apcom Computers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 292 ITR 630 (Madaras HC), and similar judgments by Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court referred to supra. As per all the aforesaid judgments the stock statements furnished before the bank for availing higher credit limits cannot be the basis for addition on account of undisclosed investment u/s 69B. In the present case, as the difference detected by the Ld. AO between stock statement furnished before the bank and regular books of accounts of the assessee could not be further established as actual variation on the basis of any cogent evidence, therefore, the decision of Ld. CIT(A) based on judgments of Hon’ble High Courts has the essence to sustain, we accordingly uphold the same. Consequently, ground no. 7 of the ITA No.312/RPR/2024 ACIT, Circle-1(1) vs Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 27 revenue in absence of any explanation, decision or fact brought on record to contravene the decision of Ld. CIT(A), stands declined. 13. Ground No.8 of revenue is general in nature, thus, in absence of any further advancement of arguments the same has been rendered as academic. 14. In result, the appeal of the department in ITA No. 302/RPR/2024 has been rendered as dismissed in terms of our observations qua the various grounds of present appeal. Order pronounced in the open court on 05/09/2024. Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर/Raipur; िदनांक Dated 05/09/2024 Hem आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Private Secretory) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ITAT, Raipur 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant- ACIT, Bhilai 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent- Shri Jaibaba Casting Pvt. Ltd 3. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur, (C.G.) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. // स×याǒपत Ĥित True copy //