M/s. Laxmi Paints, JAMNAGAR V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), JAMNAGAR

ITA 58/RJT/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4363 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVINASH KUMAR A A
• Assessee Lawyers: CHETAN AGARWAL T A
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

A I, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBU N AL; SMC, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA, J UDICIAL M EMBER IT A NO . 58 / RJT/20 1 3 I I / ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98 M/S. LAXMI PAINTS, PROP.BHARA TBHAI G KARIA, 11 PATEL COLONY, JAMNAGAR. PAN : ACYPK3681M ( / APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JAMNAGAR. / RESPONDENT IA / ASSESSEE BY SHRI CHETAN AGARWAL T A / REVENUE BY SHRI AVINASH KUMAR A A /DATE OF HEARING 08.04.2013 A A / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18 . 0 4 . 2013 / ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 24.1.2013 OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.25,930/ - LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)( C ) OF THE ACT FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN PARA GRA PH 4.1 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER WHICH READ S AS UNDER : 4.1 THE APPELLANT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING/PROCEEDINGS OF DISTEMPER AND OIL PAINTS IN THE NAME OF LAXMI PAINTS. A SURVEY OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT ON 15.10.1996. DURING THE COURS E OF SURVEY OPERATION, PHYSICAL STOCK OF RS.5,83,534/ - WAS FOUND AGAINST BOOK STOCK OF RS.1,84,150/ - . AFTER GRANTING CREDIT FOR DIRECT EXPENSES OF RS.61,470/ - NET EXCESS OF RS.3,37,914/ - WAS WORKED OUT, HOWEVER, IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AO HAD OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN TOTALING FOR THE FIGURES OF PURCHASE FOR THE MONTH OF JULY 19 9 6 BY RS.54,649/ - AND ACCORDINGLY HE MADE FURTHER ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT THEREBY ARRIVING AT EXCESS STOCK OF RS.9,92,563/ - . AS THE APPELLANT HAD DE CLARED EXCESS STOCK OF RS.42,063/ - IN ITS REVISED RETURN ADDITION OF RS.3,50,00/ - WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)( C ) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 3 . THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE AF ORESAID ADDITION WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) - II, RAJKOT. IN FURTHER APPEAL, THE RAJKOT BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ITA NO.58/RJT/2013 2 RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO VERIFY THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES AND THE BILLS WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TR IBUNAL ALSO HELD THAT IF THE AO IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON VERIFICATION OF THE ABOVE BILLS, THEN HE IS AT LIBERTY TO PASS SPEAKING ORDER AFTER G IVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE AO PASSED ORDER U/S 1 43(3) R.W.S.254 ON 29.12.2006 WHEREIN HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.65,828/ - .AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S.254, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 13.05.2009 . PURSUANT TO THE DISMISSAL OF APPEAL BY THE LD. C IT(A), A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S.271(1) (C ) WAS ISSUED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A REQUEST TO EXCLUDE FROM THE ADDITION AN AMOUNT OF RS.54,649/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TOTALING MI STAKE, FROM TH E PURVIEW OF LEVY OF PENALTY . THE AO ON THAT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED TOTALING MISTAKE FOR JULY 1996 WHICH WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THE ISSUE BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HENCE CA NNOT BE CONSIDERED DURING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.25,930/ - U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. ON APPEAL, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN THE PARAGRAPH 8 TO 11 OF HIS ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER : 8. BEFORE ME, NOW THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE SAME ARGUMENTS STATING THAT ONCE THE TOTALING MISTAKE OF RS.54,649/ - IS REMOVED FROM THE REVISED EXCESS STOCK COMPUTED BY THE AO AT RS.65,828/ - , THEN, THE NEXT EXCESS STOCK WILL DRASTICALLY GET REDUCED TO ONLY RS.11,179/ - . THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH ITAT HAD SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF STOCK FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE AO AND THE CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER HIS ARGUMENT FOR RECTIFYING THE TOTALING MISTAKE AS STATED ABOVE. IT IS SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT ALTHOUGH THE ADDITION OF RS.65,828/ - HAS BEEN SUSTAINED, THE SAME CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR LEVYING PENALTY IN VIEW OF THE TOTALING MISTAKE CITED ABOVE. 9. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AR E CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT APPEAL HAVE ALSO BEEN PERUSED. IT IS A FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF TOTALING MISTAKE IN STOCK BEFORE THE AO AND CIT APPEAL, BUT THE SAME WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THEM AS THE ISSUE W AS NEVER RAISED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE ITAT AND THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT DID NOT INCLUDE THE EXAMINATION OF THE TOTALING MISTAKE APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, NOW ADDITION OF EXCESS STOCK OF RS.65,828 / - STANDS CONFIRMED BY CIT APPEAL AND SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT REPORTED HAVING ITA NO.58/RJT/2013 3 FURTHER APPEALED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) BEFORE THE ITAT, THIS ADDITION NOW HAS BECOME FINAL. 10. THE ISSUE OF TOTALING MISTAKE HAS BEEN WELL DELIBERATED BY BO TH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT APPEAL AND HAS BEEN CONSCIOUSLY DISREGARDED BY THEM IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SAID TOTALING MISTAKE IS NOT APPARENT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BUT LIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT AND SUCH MISTAKES WAS NE VER RAISED BEFORE THE ITAT BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABOVE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ISSUE OF TOTALING MISTAKE WAS NOT TAKEN UP BY IT BEFORE THE ITAT IF SUCH A MISTAKES HAD CREPT INTO THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. SINCE THE APPELLANTS ARGUMENTS AND POINTS REGARDING TOTALING MISTAKE HAVE ALREADY BEEN DELIBERATED AND DISMISSED BY THE CIT APPEAL, DURING THIS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, IT IS NOT WITHIN MY MANDATE TO GO INTO THE DETAILS OF THE MERIT OF THE QUANTUM ADDITION ALL OVER AGAIN. BEING A PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, I CANNOT DECIDE THE QUANTUM ADDITION BY REVISITING THE FACTS OF THE CASE ONCE AGAIN, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DELIBERATED AND DECIDED BY MY PREDECESSOR CIT (A). THEREFORE, I HAVE TO CONSIDER THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE AMOUNT OF CONCEA LED INCOME FINALLY DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FORM OF EXCESS STOCK AT RS.65,828/ - 11. COMING BACK TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SEC. 271(1)(C), IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME PURSUANT TO THE SURVEY OPERAT ION IN WHICH IT HAD DECLARED EXCESS STOCK OF RS.42,063/ - IN THIS TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,89,600/ - . THUS, EVEN AFTER THE SURVEY OPERATION, THE APPELLANT HAS CONSIDERED ONLY RS.42,063/ - FOR DECLARATION TOWARDS EXCESS STOCK, WHEREAS, AFTER REVISING THE ASSESSME NT ORDER IN TERMS OF DIRECTIONS OF ITAT, THE TOTAL QUANTUM OF EXCESS STOCK, OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK DECLARED IN REVISED RETURN, HAS BEEN DETERMINED AT RS.65,828/ - . THUS THE REVISED EXCESS STOCK OF RS.65,828/ - WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT NOW REPRESENTS ITS INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS. THE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME HAVE NEVER BEEN FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN, INCLUDING THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY HIM. THE EXC ESS STOCK WHICH IS FINALLY ADDED BY THE AO IS DEFINITELY AN IMPORTANT FACT MATERIAL TO COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IN TERM OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) FOR WHICH, THE APPELLANT HAS OFFERED EXPLANATIONS BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN AC CEPTED EITHER BY THE AO OR THE CIT APPEAL. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FACTS OF THE CASE CLEARLY ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION 1, AS THE CONCEALMENT INCOME OF RS.65,828/ - . COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT WITH A NY BONAFIDE REASONS, EXCEPT FOR RAISING THE TOTALING ERROR WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED (SUPRA)NUE. AS IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME FOR WHICH THE EXPLANATION OFFER ED BY THE APPELLANT REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED, I CONSIDER THE ACTION OF LEVYING PE NALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) BY THE AO TO BE IN ORDER, HENCE, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA VS. DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS (20 08) 306 ITR 277 AND CIT VS. ATUL MOHAN BINDAL (SC) 317 ITR 1 DISCUSSED (SUPRA), I CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE ME, ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE SHRI CHETAN AGARWAL, CA APPEARED AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS M ADE U/S 143(3) ON 30.03.2000 AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,69,740/ - . THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 28.02.2006 SET ASIDE THE ADDITIONS MADE AND DIRECTED THE ITA NO.58/RJT/2013 4 ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSES SEE. 6. THE LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON 15.10.1996, PHYSICAL STOCK OF RS.5,83,534/ - WAS FOUND AGAINST BOOK STOCK OF RS.1,84,150/ - . AFTER GRANTING CREDIT FOR EXPENSES OF RS.61,470/ - NET EXCESS OF RS.3, 37,914 / - WAS WORKED OUT. DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN TOTALING IN THE MONTH OF JULY 1996 BY RS.54,649/ - IN PURCHASES AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE FURTHER ADDITION OF SAI D AMOU NT ARRIVING AT STOCK OF RS. 3,92,563/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED EXCESS STOCK OF RS.42,063/ - IN THE REVISED RETURN, HENCE ADDITION OF RS.3,50,500/ - WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS S ET ASIDE FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 28.02.2006 AS POINTED OUT (SUPRA) . THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 154 (WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 28.02.2006) REDUCED THE ORIGINAL ADDITION OF EXCESS STOCK TO RS.65,828/ - , CONSISTING OF RS.54,649/ - TOTALING MISTAKE IN THE MONTH OF JULY 1996 AND RS.11,179/ - NET OF OTHER DISCREPANCIES. DURING THE COURSE OF FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS (WHICH WAS MADE AS PER DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 28.02.2 006), IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN TOTALING IN CONSIDERING THE FIGURE OF PURCHASE FOR THE MONTH OF JULY 1996. ALL THE EVIDENCES ALONGWITH ORIGINAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAD BEEN VERIFIED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED TO ACCEPT AND MADE ADDITION BY MAKING OBSERVATION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ARGUED FOR HIS CLAIM IN RESPECT OF TOTAL MISTAKE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN PAST BEFORE CIT(A) OR TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, SA ME IS NOT CONSIDERED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. THE LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF STOCK FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER GRANTED THE RELIEF OF ENTIRE ADDITION WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, BUT THOUGH THE CLAIM WAS FOUND CORRECT, REDUCTION WAS NOT ALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THIS ITA NO.58/RJT/2013 5 WAS NOT ARGUED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ADDITION WAS ARGUE D BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND TRIBUNAL AS CAN BE VERIFIED FROM THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE BOTH THE AUTHORITIES. THE LD CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.54,649/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 7. THE L D COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE CONSPICUOUS FACTS OF THE CASE, THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK, WHICH WAS SUSTAINED BECAUSE IT WAS TOTALING MISTAKE, BE DELETED IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: - A. IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THOUGH THE CLAIM OF APPELLANT WAS FOUND CORRECT, IT WAS NOT ALLOWED ON THE OBSERVATION THAT THE SAME WAS NOT ARGUED BEFORE CIT(A) AND ITAT IN ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS, WHICH IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. B. WE SUBMIT HEREWITH COPY OF SUBMISSION MADE TO CIT(A), WHICH CONTAINS ALL EVIDENCES. 8. IN THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION, THE LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE LETTER NO.WARD - 2(1).BGR/RR/07 - 08 DATED 19.07.2007 WRITTEN BY ITO, WARD - 2(1), JAMNA GAR TO THE CIT(A), JAMNAGAR; WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED IN PARA 3 THAT THERE WAS A TOTALING MISTAKE. THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH OF AFORESAID LETTER READS AS UNDER: - 3. IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE COPIES OF INWARD REGISTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH SUBMISSION THAT PREVIOUSLY A TOTALING FIGURE OF THE MONTH OF JULY96 WAS RS.193970/ - AND AFTERWARDS IT IS ERASED AND FRESH FIGURE OF RS.439321/ - IS WRITTEN. HOWEVER, ON MAKING GRAND TOTAL OF EACH ITEM OF PURCHASE, THE FIGURE ARRIVES AT RS.439321/ - . THE FIGURE OF PURCHASE AS PER SALE/PURCHASE LEDGER ACCOUNT (COPY) IS RS.439321/ - FOR THE MONTH OF JULY96 WHILE PURCHASE FIGURE FOR THE MONTHS OF 01.04.96 TO 30.06.96 IS RS.493970/ - . THEREFORE, IT APPEARS THAT TOTAL FIGURE OF PURCHASE FOR TH E MONTHS OF 01.04.96 TO 30.06.96 WHICH IS RS.493970/ - HAS BEEN WRONGLY SHOWN AS PURCHASE OF THE MONTH OF JULY96 INSTEAD OF CORRECT FIGURE OF RS.439321/ - 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI AVINASH KUMAR, DR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT (A). ITA NO.58/RJT/2013 6 10. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INDEPENDENT PROCEEDINGS. IN QUANTUM APPEAL AN ADDITION CAN BE SUSTA INED, BUT WHILE LEVYING PENALTY ON ADDITION SUSTAINED, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCES. IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) IN LETTER DATED 19.07.2007, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THAT THERE WAS A TOTALING MISTAKE OF RS.54,649/ - IN RECORDING THE PURCHASES FOR THE MONTH OF JULY 1996. THOUGH WHILE GIVING THE APPEAL EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) , THE AO IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S.254 HAS NOT ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF SAME ON TECHNICAL GROUND BUT IN MY VIEW ON THIS ADDITION OF RS.54 , 649/ - PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT LEVIABLE. IN RESPECT OF SMALL DISCREPANCY OF RS.11,179/ - ALSO, I AM OF THE VIEW LOOKING TO THE VOLUME OF BUSINESS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE PENALTY U/S 271(1 ) (C) IS NOT LEVIABLE. TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ANWAR ALI [ 1970 ] 76 ITR 696 (SC) HELD THAT FINDING IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE. IN THIS JUDGMENT, IT WAS HELD THAT FINDING GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR DETERMINING OR COMPUTING THE T AX IS CONCLUSIVE BUT PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED ON THE ENTIRETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, M OST REASONABLY FIND, CONCEALMENT THAT DISPUTED AMOUNT REPRESENTED THE INCOME. I THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF ANWAR ALI (SUPRA) CANCELED THE PENALTY OF RS.25,930/ - LEVIED BY T HE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER . 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE D ATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD (T. K. SHARMA) T / JUDICIAL MEMBER N/ ORDER DATE 18 . 04 .2013 . /RAJKOT SRL 4 RJO O / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / APPELLANT - , 2. / RESPONDENT - 3. I E / CONCERNED CIT . 4. E - / CIT 5. D I, A I, / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. I / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , TRUE COPY SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT.