The ACIT, Circle-6, Surat V. M/s. Global Syntex, Surat

ITA 3318/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57276 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

-1- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'D' BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT - JM AND SHRI A MOHAN ALANKAMONY - AM ITA NO.3318/AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-2004-05) THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), SURAT, ROOM NO.615, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT V/S M/S GLOBAL SYNTEX 208, GIDC, PANDESARA, SURAT PAN: AACFG 9622 Q [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] REVENUE BY :- SHRI B L YADAV, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY:- SHRI M K PATEL, AR DATE OF HEARING:- 13-03-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:- 16-03-2012 O R D E R PER MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT (JM) :- THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE REVENUE WHICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A)-IV, SURAT DATED 25-05-2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2004-05 AND THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE HEREBY DECIDED AS FOLLOW S:- 2 GROUND NO.1 READS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-IV, SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,51,08,934/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESS ION OF JOB CHARGES. 3 THE FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPOND ING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DATED 26-12-2006 WERE THAT 2 THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PROCESSING OF MAN MADE FABRICS. THE JOB CHARGES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION WERE RS.9,62,58,556/- ON WHICH GROSS PROFIT WAS SHOWN AT 16.49% AND NET PROFIT WAS DISCLOSED AT 2.43%. THE ALLEGATION O F THE AO WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION AND THE REFORE UNDERSTATED THE JOB CHARGES. ACCORDING TO THE AO, F OR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, THE TOTAL CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY WA S 162560 AND THE TOTAL PRODUCTION WAS SHOWN 1219268 METERS. THE RATIO OF THE PRODUCTION THUS CALCULATED AT 13.40%. THE AO HAS PR EPARED A CHART AND ON THAT BASIS HE HAS TRIED TO WORK OUT TH E RATIO OF PRODUCTION AND NOTED THAT THERE WAS SUPPRESSION OF PRODUCTION. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, WE ARE NOT REPRODUCING THE CHART OF CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY VIS--VIS PERCENTAGE OF THE PRODUCTION AS CALCULATED BY THE AO AND MADE PART OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. THE AO HAS THEREAFTER WORKED OUT THE SUPPRESSED PRO DUCTION AT 2441848 METERS. AFTER GIVING BENEFIT OF VARIATION @ 25% THE AO HAS REDUCED 610462 METERS AND FINALLY HELD THAT THE PRODUCTION WAS SUPPRESSED AT 1831386 METERS. THEREAFTER THE AD DITION WAS MADE AS FOLLOWS:- 6.4 AS REGARDS JOB CHARGES ON THIS SUPPRESSED PROD UCTION, IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT AVERAGE CHARGE HAVE BEEN S HOWN BY THE ASSESSEE @ OF RS.8.25 PER METER. SINCE THERE IS NO MAINTENANCE OF SEPARATE ACCOUNT OF CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL WITH RE FERENCE TO PRODUCTION OF DYED CLOTH OR PRINTED CLOTH INDEPENDE NTLY, IT IS IN THE FITNESS OF THING TO ASCERTAIN THE SUPPRESSION OF JO B CHARGES AS PER THE AVERAGE CHARGES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY THE COM PARABLE CASES. HERE THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IS FOUND TO BE MOST RE ASONABLE BASE SO FAR AS APPLICATION OF AVERAGE JOB CHARGE IS CONCERN ED. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AVERAGE JOB CHARGES @ 8.25 PER METER, HENCE A CCORDINGLY SUPPRESSION OF JOB CHARGE IS FOUND TO BE OF RS.1510 8934/-(1831386 X 8.25). THEREFORE, THIS AMOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF JOB CHARGE BASED ON THE SUPPRESSION OF PRODUCTION IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE 3 ASSESSEE. FOR THIS ADDITION PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 27L(1)(C) IS INITIATED SEPARATELY BECAUSE THERE IS FURNISHING OF INACCURAT E PARTICULARS AND CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. (ADDITION RS.15108934 ). 4 WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THE MA NUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECT TO EXCISE DEPA RTMENT. A COPY OF RG-1 REGISTER WAS REFERRED AND IT WAS DEMON STRATED THAT THOUGH THE SAME WAS PLACED BEFORE THE AO BUT THE AO HAS REJECTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE RG-1 REGISTER ON TH E GROUND THAT THOUGH THE SAID REGISTER BEING MONITORED BY THE EXC ISE DEPARTMENT BUT THAT WAS NOT EXAMINED EVERY DAY BY T HE SAID DEPARTMENT. ON ACCOUNT OF THAT REASON THE AO HAS HE LD THAT THE SAID REGISTER WAS NOT RELIABLE. AS AGAINST THAT, TH E LEARNED CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE AO HAS SELECTED THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2003 AS BENCH-MARK FOR WORKING OUT THE PRODUCTION O F REST OF THE 11 MONTHS OF THE YEAR. ACCORDING TO HIM, THAT BASIS WAS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THERE COULD BE A POSSIBILITY OF NON -CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY IN PROCESSING AND SUB-PROCESSING OF THE MATERIAL. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT IF THERE WAS LOW QUALITY OF PROD UCTION, THEN, A SUB-PROCESS FOR DYEING AND PRINTING WAS UNDERTAKEN. THE QUALITY OF DYEING, QUALITY OF PRINTING AND SHADE OF COLOR, ETC. PRINTED ON THE MATERIAL WERE SOME TIMES NOT SATISFACTORY AND T HEREFORE, FOR THE SAME PRODUCTION OF THE FINISHED GOODS, NUMBER O F PROCESSING IS REQUIRED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS THEREFORE HELD THAT THERE WAS NO LOGICAL REASON TO TAKE ONE PARTICULAR MONTH I.E. OCTOBER, 2003 AS A BENCH-MARK AND WHY NOT ANY OTHER MONTH WAS PIC KED UP FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPARING THE CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRI CITY. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ENTIRE MANUF ACTURING 4 PROCESS HAS BEEN UNDER INSPECTION BY THE EXCISE AUT HORITIES AS WELL. HE HAS, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS NOT PROPER FOR THE AO TO WORK OUT THE AVERAGE PRODUCTION ON THE BASIS OF PER UNIT CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY. THE ADDITION WAS DELETE D AND NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5 FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, THE LEARNED SR. DR MR. B L YADAV APPEARED AND ARGUED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN D ISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, HENCE, THOSE WERE REJECTED . THE LEARNED DR HAS ARGUED TAT NOT ONLY THERE WAS VARIATION IN T HE CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY BUT IT WAS FOUND THAT CE RTAIN BOGUS BILLS FOR PURCHASE OF COLOUR AND CHEMICALS HAVE ALS O BEEN PROCURED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON INVESTIGATION IT WAS F OUND THAT THE BOGUS BILLS WERE OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONCE IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT RELI ABLE, THEN, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY EXAMINED THE PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTIO N IN COMPARISON TO THE CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY FOR EA CH MONTH. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DR, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUG HT TO HAVE APPRECIATED ALL THOSE FACTS BEFORE GRANTING TOTAL R ELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 6 FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, MR. M K PATEL APPEARED AND PLACE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARN ED CIT(A). 7 HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, W E ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE BA SIS FOR THE AO TO COMPARE THE PRODUCTION OF THE MONTH OF OCTOBE R, 2003 VIS- -VIS THE ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION FOR THE ENTIRE RE ST OF THE PERIOD. SINCE THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF DYEING AND PRINTING OF MAN MADE 5 FABRICS IS STATED TO BE A COMPLICATED PROCESS AND S OMETIMES REPROCESSING IS REQUIRED, THEREFORE, IT WAS INCORRE CT TO PRESUME THAT THERE SHOULD BE A UNIFORM CONSUMPTION OF ELECT RICITY UNITS. ANOTHER UNDISPUTED FACT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOT ICE THAT THE ENTIRE MANUFACTURING PROCESS IS SUPERVISED BY THE E XCISE AUTHORITIES. IN SUPPORT, THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON RG-1 REGISTER WHICH WAS VERY MUCH BEFORE THE REVENU E AUTHORITIES. AS PER THE SAID REGISTER THERE WAS NO SUPPRESSION OF JOB CHARGES. ALMOST ON IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN T HE CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S PIGEON TEXTILES [ITA NO.1861/AHD/2006 FOR AY 2003-04], THE TRIBUNAL BENCH-D VIDE ORDER DATED 03- 11-2006 HAS HELD - THAT UNRELIABILITY, INCORRECTNESS AND INCOMPLETEN ESS OF THE ACCOUNTS BOOKS HAS TO BE SHOWN BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE REJE CTING THE SAME AND STRONG AND SUFFICIENT REASONS MUST BE GIVEN TO INDICATE THAT THE ACCOUNTS ARE UNRELIABLE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, APART FROM PRESUMPTION THAT GAS AND ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IS HIGHER DURI NG CERTAIN MONTHS, THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH CAN BE SAID TO BE STRONG AND SUFFICIENT REASON FOR REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIO N. WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL, JU DICIAL PROPRIETY REQUIRES TO FOLLOW THE VIEW ALREADY TAKEN BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH, HENCE, FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) . THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 8 GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER: - ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-IV, SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,46,482/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. 6 9 THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOW N CLOSING STOCK OF RS.29,29,572/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK SHOULD NOT BE TAK EN AFTER ADDING THE PROPORTIONATE OVERHEAD EXPENSES TO THE V ALUE OF CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VALUED THE CLOSING STOCK BY NOT INCLUD ING THE PROPORTIONATE OVERHEAD EXPENSES AND THIS METHOD WAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE INC EPTION OF ITS BUSINESS AND OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK WAS LYING UN -CLEARED IN THE FACTORY AT COST AND IF OVER HEAD COST RELATED T O CLOSING STOCK WAS FOUND TO BE INCLUDED, CREDIT FOR THE SAME SHOUL D BE ALLOWED TO THE OPENING STOCK ALSO. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,46,482 /-. 10 WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- BEFORE ME, THE ID. AR SUBMITTED THE REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FILED BEFORE THE AO AND STATED THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE ANY STOCK OF CLOTH OF ITS OWN AND IT WAS ONLY A JOB WORKER AND T HEREFORE THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN INCLUDING THE OVER HEADS IN THE CLOSING STOCK. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN. MAKING AN ADDITION OF 5% OF THE PROPORTIONATE OVER HEADS TO THE VALUE OF CLOSING ST OCK, SINCE IN THAT CASE THE OPENING STOCK WILL HAVE TO BE RE-VALUED AN D CREDIT WOULD HAVE TO BE GIVEN FOR OPENING STOCK IN THE NEXT YEAR. THI S KIND OF AN EXERCISE WOULD BE FUTILE SINCE IT WOULD BE REVENUE NEUTRAL. ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 11 FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, THE LEARNED DR AND FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED AR HAV E APPEARED 7 AND RESPECTIVELY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF A O AND LEARNED CIT(A). 12 HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN. MAKING AN ADDITION OF 5% OF THE P ROPORTIONATE OVER HEADS TO THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK, SINCE IN THAT CASE THE OPENING STOCK WILL HAVE TO BE RE-VALUED AND CREDIT WOULD HAVE TO BE GIVEN FOR OPENING STOCK IN THE NEXT YEAR. THIS K IND OF AN EXERCISE WOULD BE FUTILE SINCE IT WOULD BE REVENUE NEUTRAL. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THE GROUND RA ISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13 GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-IV, SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES OF CHEMICAL FOR RS.3, 83,250/-. 14 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED BILLS OF PURCHASE OF COLOUR AND CHEMIC ALS AMOUNTING TO RS.5,11,250/- FROM ONE ROHIT P PANWALA, PROPRIET OR OF POOJA DYEING & CHEMICALS WHO WAS NOT A REAL PURCHASER AND SELLER OF GOODS BUT WAS ONLY GIVING BOGUS ENTRIES / SALES BIL LS TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE AO, DURING THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATION IN THE CASE OF ROHIT P PANWALA, THIS FACT WAS ESTAB LISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EX PLAIN THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THEY HAVE PURCHAS ED THE GOODS FROM SAID SHRI ROHIT P PANWALA, PROPRIETOR OF POOJA DYE CHEM. 8 THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ASSESSED TO TAX SINCE LONG. TH EREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION FOR TAKING ANY BOGUS BILLS. THE AO D ID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN AD DITION OF R.5,11,250/-. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 15 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- BEFORE ME, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED GOODS FROM THE SUPPLIER WOULD GIVE BILLS AND THE PA YMENT WAS MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE INWARD REGISTER AT TH E FACTORY GATE CONTAINED THESE ENTRIES AND WAS REGULARLY CHECKED B Y THE SECURITY STAFF AND THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF BOGUS PURCHASES DID N OT ARISE. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS BEEN A BLE TO ESTABLISH THAT SHRI PANWALA WAS ONLY A NAME LENDER AND WAS ONLY IS SUING BILLS AND EARNING COMMISSION AFTER DISCOUNTING THE CHEQUES WH ICH WERE DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. I HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE BILLS AND THE INWARD RECEIPTS WHICH IS DULY STAMPED AND SIGNED BY THE SECURITY OFFICIALS AT THE MILL'S GATE INDICATING THAT THE GO ODS WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THE LOWLY SECU RITY OFFICERS WOULD BE IN COLLUSION WITH THE APPELLANT IN MAKING FALSE ENT RIES IN THE REGISTER BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE APPELLANT WOULD LOSE TOTAL CO NTROL OF INWARD AND OUTWARD MOVEMENT OF GOODS FROM THE FACTORY AND THE VERY PURPOSE OF HAVING SECURITY OFFICERS AT THE FACTORY GATE WOULD BE DEFEATED. THIS MEANS THAT DESPITE SHRI ROHIT PANWALA, WHO WAS CONT ROLLING THE ALLEGEDLY BOGUS FIRM, HAVING DENIED MAKING ANY SALE S TO THE APPELLANT FIRM, PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT AS EVIDENCED BY THE INWARD ENTRY STAMPS ON THE BILLS. NOW IT IS A COMMO N PRACTICE THAT THE PURCHASES, ALTHOUGH MADE, ARE NOT FROM THE ESTABLIS HED CONCERNS BUT FROM AGENTS OF SUPPLIERS AND SMALL TRADE MERCHANTS. OBVIOUSLY, THE PURPOSE IS TO CUT DOWN IN THE COST OF SUCH PURCHASE S BY GETTING THE SUPPLIES AT A LOWER RATE THAN MENTIONED ONLY IN THE BILLS AND SAVING ON VARIOUS TAXES LIKE OCTROI, SALES TAX, EXCISE AND CE RTAIN OTHER EXPENSES. SINCE I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SAID CHE MICALS AND COLOURS WERE RECEIVED AND USED BY THE APPELLANT, THE ONLY Q UESTION IS WHAT THE BENEFIT WAS TO THE APPELLANT. AS ALREADY MENTIONED THE APPELLANT 9 WOULD BE MAKING CONSIDERABLE SAVINGS DUE TO LOWER P RICES AND TAXES AS ALSO FREIGHT ETC., I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS A FIT CASE WHERE THE RATIO OF DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF M/S.VIJAY PROTEINS IS APPLICABLE, THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, IN TH AT CASE HELD THAT IT COULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE IF 25% OF SUCH PURCHAS E PRICE WAS DISALLOWED TO COMPENSATE FOR THE DISCREPANCIES. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, I HOLD THAT ONLY 25% OF THE PURCHASE PRIC E IS TO BE DISALLOWED WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.1,28,000/-. THE AO SHALL REST RICT THE ADDITION TO THIS AMOUNT ONLY. THIS VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF M/S. DADA ASSOCIATES VS. ITO IN ITA NO.2167/AHD/2006 VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 8.12.2006, WHERE THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS CONFIRMED MY FINDINGS. 16 THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. TH E LEARNED AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISS IONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT(A). 17 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECIS IONS OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASES OF M/S VIJAY PROTEINS A ND M/S DADA ASSOCIATES VS. ITO IN ITA NO.2167/AHD/2006, OR DER DATED 08-12-2006, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HER EBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 18 IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 16-03-2012 SD/- SD/- (A MONAH ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 16-03-2012 10 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S GLOBAL SYNTEX, 208, GIDC, PANDESARA, SURAT 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), SURAT, ROOM N O.615, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-IV, SURAT 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH-D, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD