The ACIT, Circle-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. M/s. Kaneria Oil Industries, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 363/RJT/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 36324914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MK SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: R D LALCHANDANI E
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Depreciation
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

R, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBU N AL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. BEFORE SHRI D . K. TYAGI , JM AND SHRI A. M OHAN ALANKAMONY , AM IT A NO . 219 & 363/RJT//2012 TI I / ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 M/S. KANERIA OIL I NDUSTRIES, GONDAL ROAD, B/H. GOKUL NAGAR, DR. VIKRAM SARABHAI MARG, RAJKOT PAN : AACFK 3239 M ( I / APPELLANT) VS. JCIT, RANGE 1 RAJKOT YI / RESPONDENT TI /ASSESSEE BY SHRI R D LALCHANDANI, ADVOCATE E / REV ENUE BY SHRI M K SINGH, DR / DATE OF HEARING 22.04.2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26 .04.2013 / ORDER PER BENCH: - THE SE ARE TWO A PPEAL S FILED , ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER BY THE REVENUE , AGGRIEVED BY THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) I, RAJKOT IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A) - I/RJT/0232/11 - 12 DTD 29 .0 3 .201 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 PASSSED U/S. 250 R.W . S 143(3) OF THE ACT SINCE BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ARISING OUT OF THE SAME ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND PERTAINING TO THE SAME ISSUES, THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND DISPOSED - OFF BY PASSING BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL B EARING NO. ITA/219/RJT/2012 ARE AS UNDER: - 1 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [AP PEALS] ERRED IN UPHOLDING THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REGULARLY MAINTAINED, SUPPORTED BY BILLS, VOUCHERS, QUANTITY STOCK ACCOUNTS AND DULY AUDITED BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS NEITHER JUSTIFIED ON FACTS NOR JUSTIFIED IN LAW. 219 & 363/RJT/2012 2 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS] ERRED IN ADOPTING G.P. AT 3. 68% AS AGAINST 3.48% DISCLOSED BY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE G.P. DISCLOSED BY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS BETTER THAN EARLIER YEARS. THE ADOPTION OF G.P. AT 3.68% IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 AND 2, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS] ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4635711/ - IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION IS TOO HEAVY, ARBITRARY AND NOT WARRANTED BY THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS] ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.59889/ - ON THE ADDITIONS MADE TO THE GODOWNS. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE IS UNWARRANTED AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3 . THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL BE ARING NO. ITA/363RJT/2012 ARE AS UNDER: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.16,06,556/ - BY RESTR ICTING THE GP ADDITION TO 3.68% AS AGAINST THE GP ADOPTED BY THE AO AT 3.75%. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE DISMI SSED/DELETED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. GROUND NO.2 & 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION AND THE ONLY RELEVANT GROUND TO BE DECIDED IS GROUND NO.1. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM , ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING AND REPACKING OF EDIBLE OIL, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.07.2009 ELECTRONICALLY DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,90,14,170/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS TAKEN FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDE R DATED 29.12.2011 ; WHEREIN THE LD AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT FOR THE ASSESSES AT 3.7 5 % OF THE TURNOVER AND FURTHER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION FOR RS.59,889/ - BY HOLDING THAT THE BUILDING WAS NOT COMPLETED DU RING THE YEAR. 219 & 363/RJT/2012 3 5. THE LD AO HAD REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS AND E STIMATED THE GP AT 3.75% OF THE TURNOVER WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.8,60,65,445/ - AS AGAINST THE GP OF RS.7,98,23,188/ - SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREBY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.62,42,267/ - : - A. THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING SHORTAGE ON THE BASIS OF THE LORRY RECEIPT S WHEREAS THE AD - HOC SHORTAGE S ALLOWABLE FOR THE TRANSPORTERS WERE 30KG PER 10 TONS AND 60 KG FOR 20 TONS , B. IT APPEARED THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S DEBITING SHORTAGE ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND THEREBY MANIPULATING THE ACCOUNTS , C. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE QUANTITATIVE BASIS FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF SHORTAGES, HOWEVER, THE SHORTAGES WERE ESTIMATED AT ITS WHIMS AND FANCIES , D. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING A CONSTAN T RATIO OF SHORTAGE WHICH IS DOUBTFUL AND NOT JUSTIFIABLE , E. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS BENCH MARK ED SHORTAGES AT 30KG PER 10 TON THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING SHORTAGES OF 40KGS PER 10 TONS , F. THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED CONSISTENTLY GROSS PROFIT RATIO OF 2 .8% FOR THE AY 2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09 BUT HAS ONLY MARGINALLY GONE UP TO 3.48% FOR THE AY 2009 - 10, THOUGH IT HAD A REPUTED B RAND NAMED RANI AND HAD ENORMOUS GOODWILL IN SOURASHTRA REGION , G. COMPARABLE INSTANCES OF TW O COMPANIES INVOLVED IN THE IDENTICAL BUS INESS SHOW THAT THEY HAD A GROSS PROFIT MARGIN RATIO OF 8.29% AND 9.09% COMPARED TO 3.48% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE . 6. THE ASSESSEE HAD ARGUED BEFORE THE LD AO WITH THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS. A. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REGULARLY MAINTAINED AND ARE SUPPOR TED BY QUANTITATIVE DETAILS, BILLS AND VOUCHERS ; 219 & 363/RJT/2012 4 B. PARTICULARS WITH RESPECT TO PRODUCTION OF OIL, PURCHASE OF OIL, SALES OF OIL ETC, ARE MAINTAINED ON DAY TO DAY BASIS; C. BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE DULY AUDITED ; D. THE REVENUE HAD ACCEPTED ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT D URING THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS ; E. THE SHORTAGES IN OIL VARY ACCORDING TO THE DISTANCE THE OIL IS TRANSPORTED FROM. WHEN THE DISTANCES ARE LON GER, PILFERAGES ARE ALSO HIGHER; F. SHORTAGES ALSO DIFFER FROM THE KIND OF OIL PURCHASED ; G. THE PROCESSED OIL WER E PACKED IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF JARS, CONTAINERS, BOTTLES, TINS, ETC.. OF VARIOUS QUANTITIES RANGING FROM 15 ML TO 15 LTRS WHICH RESULTS IN PILFERAGES AND SHORTAGES ; H. THERE WERE NO MANIPULATIONS OF ACCOUNTS BY SHOWING HIGHER SHORTAGES BECAUSE THE GROSS PROF IT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMPROVED TO 3.48% AS AGAINST 2.8% DECLARED DURING THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS ; I. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE DURING THE SUCCEEDING YEARS ; 7. HOWEVER NOT ACCEPTIN G THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD AO MADE THE ADDITIONS BASED ON HIS FINDINGS. THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD AO WITH RESPECT TO REJECTING THE BOOKS SINCE THE SHORTAGE HAS BEEN BOOKED IN THE STOCK REGISTER PURELY ON ESTIMAT E BASIS SHO WING WRONG FIGURES. THE LD CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADOPT A SCIENTIFIC OR AUTHENTIC METHOD TO MEASURE THE SHORTAGE S . THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT IT IS NOT PRACTICABLE OR FEASIBLE TO WEIGH EACH AND EVERY LORRY TO ASCERTAIN THE LOSS WAS ALSO REJECTED. THUS AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE LD CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITIONS TO RS.46,35,711/ - BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 4.4 NOW COMING TO THE QUESTION OF ESTIMATION. IT IS FOUND THAT AO ADOPTED GP AT 3.75% AS AGAINST GP AT 3.4 8% DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. THUS AN INCREASE IN GP OF 0.27% WAS MADE BY THE AO. 219 & 363/RJT/2012 5 AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT VARIOUS FACTORS EXISTING IN THIS CASE I CONSIDER IT WILL BE REASONABLE THAT THIS YEARS GP SHOULD BE INCREASED BY 0.20%. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOW N GP 3.48%, HENCE THIS YEAR A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT GP AT 3.68%. THUS INCREASE OF GP BY A.O. AT 0.27% IS RESTRICTED TO 0.20% TO MAKE IT REASONABLE. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL ABOVE FACT, IT IS HELD THAT A.O. HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND REWO RKED OUT THE PROFIT OF APPELLANT. A.O. IS DIRECTED TO TAKE GP AT 3.68% ACCORDINGLY THE PROFIT ON TURNOVER OF APPELLANT. A.O. IS DIRECTED TO TAKE GP AT 3.68% ACCORDINGLY THE PROFIT ON TURNOVER OF APPELLANT @ 3.68% WORKS OUT TO RS.8,44,58,899/ - AS AGAINST GP OF RS.7,98,23,188/ - SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. HENCE THE GP ADDITION COMES TO RS.46,35,711/ - & TO THIS EXTENT ACTION OF A.O. STANDS CONFIRMED. AS THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY DEBITED ALL THE EXPENSES IN ITS P&L ACCOUNT, THIS ADDITION OF RS.46,35,711/ - IS HE LD TO BE NET ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF APPELLANT. APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.16,06,556/ - . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. T HE LD AR STOUTLY OPPOSED TO THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATING THE INCOME AND FURTHER REITERATED HIS SUBMISSION S BEFORE US. WHILE THE LD DR ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE LD AO AND PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY BE SUSTAINED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE THAT IT HAD REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT ACCURATELY RECORDING THE SHORTAGES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEES HAVING SIMILAR BUSINESS, THE GP RATE D ECLARED BY THEM WERE MUCH HIGHER I.E.. 8.29 % AND 9.09% AS COMPARED TO 3.48% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. WITH THESE REASONS THE REVENU E HAD REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE LD AO ESTIMATED THE GP AT 3.75% OF THE TURNOVER ARBITRARILY WITHOUT CITING ANY LOGICAL REASON AND SIMILARLY THE LD CIT(A) HAS MODIFIED BY ESTIMATING THE GP AT 3.68%. WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION ON THE STAND OF THE REVENUE. ADDITION BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS WITHOUT ANY SCIE NTIFIC BASICS OR LOGICAL REASONING CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S ON DAY TO DAY BASIS AND THE ONLY DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE DISCREPANCY WITH RESPECT TO RECORDING OF SHORTAGES. REVENUE COULD HAVE INVESTIGATED THE ISSUE IN DETAILS AND ADOPTED A LOGICAL METHOD TO ARRIVE AT THE CORRECT PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE IF AT ALL THERE WERE GENUINELY SOME DISCREPANCIES WITH RESPECT TO 219 & 363/RJT/2012 6 SHORTAGES. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN THE STAND OF THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY WE HEREBY DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD AO WHICH WAS FURTHER PARTLY SUSTAINED BY THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. WE ALSO DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN THE STAND OF REVENUE FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS . ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO S .1, 2 & 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL ARE ALLOWED IN ITS FAVOUR AND CONSEQUENTLY GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.59,889/ - FOR THE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING FOR ITS BUSINESS. LD AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION STATING THAT THE FLOORING MATERIAL IN THE BUILDING WERE BILLED ON THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THEREFORE, THE BUILDING COULD NOT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED IN THE PR EVIOUS YEAR AND HENCE THE CLAIM OF THE DEPRECIATION IS NOT ALLOWABLE. WHEN THE MATTER WAS BROUGHT UP BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) , LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD AO AND OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FINDING OF THE A.O. & TH E SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE A.O.S ACTION IN DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION MERELY BECAUSE BILL OF KOTA STONE IS DATED 31.03.2009 LACKS REASONING. A BILL NEVER PROVES EXISTENCE OF ASSETS. FOR FOLLOWING DEPRECIATION, THREE CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED: - (I) EXISTENCE OF AN ASSET (II) ITS OWNERSHIP DURING YEAR, & (III) ITS USE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE DURING THE YEAR IF APPELLANT FULFILLS ALL ABOVE CONDITIONS, HENCE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION ON PRESCRIBED RATE. VARIOUS EVIDENCES, I.E. COPIES OF CHALLANS ET SHOWS RECEIPT OF MATERIAL BY THE APPELLANT. THE SAID MATERIAL WAS USED IN CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOR OF GODOWNS. IT IS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT THAT BILL DATED 29.03.2009 WAS RECEIVED ON 31.03.2009 AFTER GOODS WERE DELIVERED BY THE SUPPLIER. THE ABOVE PRACT ICE IS NORMAL IN BUSINESS AND CAN BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT. BUT QUESTION IS WHETHER BUILDING/ GODOWN WAS COMPLETED ON 31.03.2009 AND IT WAS PUT TO BUSINESS USE. NEITHER A.O. HAS ADDUCED EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT BUILDING WAS NOT COMPLETED AND USED FOR BUSINE SS, NOR APPELLANT COULD PROVE THAT BUILDING/GODOWN WAS COMPLETED AND IT WAS USED FOR 219 & 363/RJT/2012 7 BUSINESS PURPOSE. THE ONUS LIES ON APPELLANT TO PROVE USE OF BUSINESS ASSETS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES DURING THE YEAR BEFORE CLOSING ON 31.03.2009. AS THE APPELLANT HAS FAI LED TO DISCHARGE ABOVE ONUS, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF AO IN NOT ALLOWING DEPRECIATION. THUS, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.59889/ - MADE BY A.O. STANDS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 11. LD. AR REFERRED TO THE PAPER BOOK PAGE NO S . 101 T O 114 WHEREIN EXTRACTS OF THE LEDGER CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING WAS RECORDED. HE ARGUED STATING THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING WAS UNDERT AKEN THROUGH - OUT THE YEAR AND THE FLOORING MATERIA L S WERE ALSO PURCHASED IN THE BEGINNING OF THE MONTH MARCH 20 09 AND THE CONSTRUCTI ON WAS COMPLETED BEFORE THE END OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE BUILDINGS WAS PUT TO USE FOR THE PUR P OSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE PRAYED THAT TH E CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION MAY BE ALLOWED. LD DR ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD INCLUDING PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON EXAM INING THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL S FOR THE GODOWN WERE PURCHASED THROUGH - OUT THE YEAR AN D THE LAST ITEM BILLED VIZ KOTA - STONE FOR FLOORING WAS ON 29.03.2009 (PAGE NO.108 OF THE PAPER BOOK) . IN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, IT IS QUITE COMMON T HAT CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS SUPPLIED IN THE SITE ARE MUCH PRIOR TO THE BILLING AND PAYMENT AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR . MOREOVER, LAYING OF THE FLOORING TILES IS ONE OF THE LAST ACTIVITIES IN THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY . CONSI DERING THE FACTS, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BUILDING WAS READY FOR USE PRIOR TO 31.03.2009 HAS CONSIDERABLE FORCED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE REVENUE IS NOT RIGHT IN DENYING THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. AR HAS FURTHER STATED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED ONLY 50% OF THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE SINCE THE 219 & 363/RJT/2012 8 BUILDING WAS PUT TO USE DURING THE MONTH OF M ARCH 2009. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LD AO TO GRANT THE DEPRECIATION FOR THE GODOWN CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER VERIFYING QUANTUM OF DEPRECIATION AS VOUCHED BY THE LD.AR . ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. T HIS O RDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD/ - SD/ - (D .K. TYAGI) ( A. M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) T E / JUDICIAL MEMBER OHAN / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER N/ ORDER DATE 26 .04.2013 /RAJKOT BT T RJO O / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. I / APPELLANT - M/S. KANERIA OIL INDUSTRIES, GONDAL ROAD, RAJKOT 2. YI / RESPONDENT - JCIT, RANGE 1, RAJKOT . R / CIT - I, RAJKOT 4. - / CIT (A) - I, RAJKOT 5. TTR, R, / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. I / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , TRUE COPY SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , RAJKOT.