ITO,Ward-3(1)(5), Surat V. M/s. Sarthee Infrastructures, Surat

ITA 756/SRT/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8857 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 131; 68; 143(3); 133(6); 191; 43

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, स ु रत Ûयायपीठ, स ु रत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (AY 2015-16) (Hearing in Physical Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(5), Room No. 115, 1 st Floor, Anavil Business Centre, Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat Vs M/s Sarthee Infrastructures, Block No. 77, Canal Char Rasta, Puna Magob Road, Puna, Surat PAN No. ABSFS 3018 F अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ /Respondent Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से /Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta and Ms Aarti Thakkar, C.A’s राजèव कȧ ओर से /Revenue by Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 19.10.2022 उɮघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of pronouncement 07.11.2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3 Surat [for short to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 24.09.2018 for the assessment year 2015- 16, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed under section 143(3) of Income TaxAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by Assessing Officer dated 28.12.2017. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeals:- ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 2 “1. Whether, on facts and in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.4,56,87,000/-being on account of opening balance of advances despite the fact that the AO has made the addition after brining the facts on records. 2. Whether, on facts and in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,82,00,000/- being on account of sundry creditors despite the fact that has brought the facts that Shri Kishorbhai Laxmanbhai is nothing but firm’s unaccounted money routed in the form of sundry creditors which failed on test. 3.On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee engaged in business of real estate, filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration, i.e. 2015-16 declaring income of Rs.8,50,200/. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer on going through the balance-sheet and audit report noted that assessee was having three projects, namely, Sarthee Industrial Park, Sarthee Height and Sarthee Township. The assessee has shown advanced booking under the current liability of Rs.4.56 crores, which includes advance of Rs. 4.05 crore in Sarthee Industrial Park, Rs.24,65,000/- crores in Sarthee Height and Rs.27,22,000/- crores in Sarthee Township. The assessee also shown sundry ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 3 creditor of Rs.2.82 crores in the balance-sheet of Sarthee Height. During the course of assessment, the assessee was asked to file confirmation, copy of return of income, bank statement of parties from whom booking amounts of Rs.4.56 crore was received. The assessee was also asked to file the confirmation of sundry creditor for Rs.2.82 crores of Kishorbhai Laxmanbhai. The Assessing Officer recorded that despite of numerous opportunities, the assessee has submitted the name and address of the advanced booking. No confirmation, income tax return any of persons from whom advances were received in Sarthee Industrial Park was filed. Further no details of Rs.24,65,000/- has shown as advance of Sarthee Height of Rs.27,22,000/- in balance-sheet of Sarthee Township Park was filed by assessee. No details in respect of Kishorbhai Laxmanbhai as a sundry creditor was filed. On the basis of such observation, the Assessing Officer doubted the advances. Against the sundry creditor of Kishorbhai Laxmanbhai of Rs.2.82 crores the assessee contended that said amount is payable to him against purchased of land at Moje Magob, Block No.77, F.P. 87, Disrict. Surat. The Assessing Officer on perusal ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 4 of sale deed dated 03.08.2011 found that complete payment of the said property was shown. And Assessing Officer was of the view that such amount could not be outstanding after execution of sale deed and handing over possession to the assessee. Further it is not known whether Kishorbhai Laxmanbhai has offered the said amount in his return of income. In such circumstances, credit shown in the name of Kishorbhai Laxmanbhai is unexplained and does not exist. The Assessing Officer was of view that it is liable to tax as unexplained cash credit under section 68. And in alternative liable to be taxed under section 41(1) of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer further recorded that she sought direction from Range / Head of Additional CIT-3(1), Surat vide his letter dated 14.11.2017 before finalizing the assessment. The Range / Head Ld. Addl.CIT-Range-3(1), Surat vide his direction dated 12.12.2017 directed to examine the genuineness /creditworthiness of the so-called credit after issuing summons under section 131 of the Act or notice under section 133(6) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that Ward Inspector was deputed to serve the summons on Kishorbhai Laxmanbhai. The ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 5 Inspector reported that no such address of Kishorbhai Laxmanbhai was found. The Assessing Officer further recorded while final show cause notice dated 20.10.2017 the assessee was asked to produce following persons on 26.12.2017 and to file their confirmations with copy of income tax return and bank statements; 1 Kishorbhai Laxmanbhai Creditor 2 Shri Haribhai Kakad, Advance booking 3 Piyushbhai Ashokbhai Kakadia, -Do- 4 Mansukhbhai Padsala, -Do- 5 Rajesh Virabhai -Do- 6 Parulben D Gabani -Do- 4. The Assessing Officer recorded that neither such persons were produced nor any confirmation of creditors or their documents were furnished. On the basis of his observation, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2.82 crores on account of sundry creditor and balance of boking advance of Rs.4.05 crores against all three concerned of assessees. 5. Aggrieved by the additions, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission. The submission of assessee are duly recorded by Ld. CIT(A) in para-6 of his order. On the addition of advance booking of Rs.4.05 crores as unexplained cash credit submitted ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 6 that all the advances were received in earlier year and same is evident from the assessment order in para-4.3, 4.10 & 4.13 itself. The provision of under section 68 is not applicable on booking advance as the Assessing Officer accepted that amounts are opening balance of the said assessment year and the same therefore do not fall in the scope of under section 68 of the Act. To support such submission, the ae relied on the case law of various Hon'ble High Courts including the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Gandhinagar Vs. Jagatkumar Satish Bhai Patel [2014] 45 taxmann.com 441 (Guj), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. (TA No.774 of 2009 dated 24.12.2011) and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alvares and Thomas 394 ITR 647 (Kar). On the basis of ratio of aforesaid decisions, the assessee stated that in assessee’s case the entire amounts of balance recorded by Assessing Officer as on the last date of accounting year, representing the same opening balance and therefore, the provision of under section 68 cannot be invoked in the year under consideration. ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 7 6. On the second addition of sundry creditor of Rs.2.82 crores as unexplained cash credit the assessee submitted that assessee had purchased non-agricultural plot of land situated at Moje Magob, Block No.77, F.P. 87, District Surat for a total consideration of Rs.8.25 crores. The said plot was owned by three co-owners namely, Dahyabhai Karmshbhai, Jayantibhai Dahyabhai and Kishorbhai Laxmanbhai. To all three seller/three co-owners, the assessee has made payment through cheques, i.e. to Kahyabhai Karmshbhai and Jayantibhai Dahyabhai. To support of such contention, the assessee furnished copy of sale deed. However, the cheque paid to Kishorbhai Laxmanbhai on 31.03.2015 was not presented by him for realisation. The balance outstanding of Kishorbhai Laxmanbhai of Rs.2.82 crores as on 31.03.2015. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to file confirmation, copy of balance- sheet and return of income of Kishorbhai Laxmanbhai. The Assessing Officer in her assessment order mentioned as per contents of sale deed and entire payment has been received for selling of the property. Therefore, Assessing Officer doubted the outstanding amount. The assessee tried to contract Kishorbhai ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 8 Laxmanbhai at the addresses available in the sale deed, however, he has changed his given addresses and could not able to file his relevant details. The summon under section 131 was not served due to change of addresses and assessee explained that the said plot was purchased in assessment year 2012-13 and not in the year under appeal as recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Despite the fact shown same was shown as opening outstanding balance, Assessing Officer made addition under section 68 of the Act. Section 68 is not applicable as no amount is credited in the books of assessee in assessment year 2015-16. Section 68 cannot be applied for the opening balance of earlier year. The assessee relied on similar case law as cited in its first addition (supra). On the observation of Assessing Officer, that sellers had already received the amount as recorded in sale deed, the assessee explained that cheque mentioned at Sr.No.24 to 42 of the sale deed were not represented by the said parties in their bank for encashed. Therefore, the same amount cannot be added under section 68. To support such contention, the assessee furnished copy of ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 9 bank statement to demonstrate that the cheques were not cleared. 7. On the observation of Assessing Officer for making addition, alternative under section 41(1), the assessee explained that though Assessing Officer made her observation but ultimately addition was made under section 68 of the Act and not under section 41(1) of the Act. Therefore, observation of Assessing Officer, without action does not invite any explanation from the assessee. The assessee submitted that the same cannot be added under section 41(1) of the Act since the amount was still payable. The assessee has not written off the same in its books of account for the year under consideration and no benefit accrued to the assessee by way of suggestion of trading liability. 8. To support such submission, the assessee again vide its submission dated 17.06.2018, further contended that Assessing Officer made both the additions under section 68 of Rs.7.38 crores while passing the assessment order under section 143(3). The said amounts representing the opening balance of the year. The section 68 deals with the credit of previous year and does not empower the Assessing Officer to ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 10 make addition in the current year for any amount credited in earlier assessment year i.e. opening balance. To support such submission, the assessee relied upon the following decisions;  Jagatkumar Satishbhai Patel (2014) 45 taxmann.com 441(Gujarat),  Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Vardhman Overseas Ltd. (TA No.774/2009 dated 24.12.2011) and  Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Alvares and Thomas 394ITR 647 (Kar) (supra). 9. The ld CIT(A) forwarded the submissions of assessee to Assessing Officer for examination and to comment, whether the entire amount of additions is opening balance for the concerned assessment year or not. The Ld. CIT(A) made reference for remand proceeding vide his order dated 02.08.2018, wherein the Assessing Officer was asked to furnish remand report on or before 27.08.2018. The assessee was also asked to appear before Assessing Officer and furnish required clarification, if so required by Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) recorded he was informed by the assessee that he appeared before Assessing Officer on 07.09.2018 and pursued the hearing for remand proceedings. It was also recorded by ld CIT(A) that assessee ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 11 informed that they attended the officer of Assessing Officer on 17.08.2018, 24.08.2018 and 07.09.2018 respectively and that they were asked by Assessing Officer to call if required later. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee that Assessing Officer made additions of two amounts under section 68, (i) opening balance of advances for booking and (ii) another sundry creditor. The assessee challenged the additions on legal ground, the assessee claimed that opening balance of advances and creditor cannot be added under section 68. On merit, the assessee claimed that advances for booking and creditor added are genuine and cannot be added under section 68. On legal ground, assessee pointed out that both the additions are made on opening balance carried forward for assessment year 2014- 15. The Ld. CIT(A) examined the audited and financial statements of assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively, wherein balance-sheet shows that both the amounts are closing balance for assessment year 2014-15. In ITR-5 for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, which was downloaded from ITD system in closing balance for assessment year 2014-15 is shown at Rs.9.26 crores which includes the ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 12 booking advance of Rs.4.56 and creditors of Rs.2.82 crores respectively. Further the creditor of Rs.2.82 crores, the assessee furnished copy of sale deed, wherein the details of cheque given to the seller and bank statements established that seller has not deposited cheques or encashed the said amount. The Assessing Officer had given categorical findings that the above amounts are opening balance. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that there is no dispute that amounts added are actually opening balance carried forward from assessment year 2014-15. On the observation of Assessing Officer for taxing the sundry creditor under section 41(1) being ceased trading liability to assessee who is a builder. The Assessing Officer was given liberty to examine and given her factual report, however, Assessing Officer has not responded. Once the Assessing Officer is given liberty, the Ld. CIT(A) found no reason to wait for her remand report as no prejudice is caused to either party on adjudication the matter. The Ld. CIT(A) after referring the contents of decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jagatkumar Satish Bhai Patel (supra) and decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 13 case of Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that no fresh amount was credited in the account of creditor in the relevant accounting year, the applicability of section 68 is ruled out. The Ld. CIT(A) also followed the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Alvares and Thomas (supra) and held that it is an admitted fact that amount added are part of opening balance and no addition can be added under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer was given liberty (direction) to examine the impugned additions in the relevant year. 11. On the applicability of under section 41(1), the Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer made a passing remark that amounts are also taxable under section 41(1). This amount cannot be added under section 68 as held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara (2014) 43 taxmann.com 5/222 Taxman 313 (Gujarat) and deleted both the additions. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 12. We have heard the submissions of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax-Departmental Representative (CIT-DR) for the ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 14 Revenue and Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. The ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that before Assessing Officer the assessee has not filed any confirmation of creditors, copy of ITRs of so-called advances given, were furnished. The address furnished by assessee about the sundry creditor as well as parties who made advance was incomplete and advances were received itself why the plots were given even after two years. The plotting process is not a time consuming process and assessee was required to make a marking of plots and to execute the sale deeds in the name of buyer. Such fact prima facie shows that it was assessees own un-accounted money. The assessee completely failed to identity of the person and to establish from whom the advances were taken, neither the creditors nor the genuineness of such transaction was proved. The assessee failed to produce such parties after issuing show cause notice before the Assessing Officer on the addition of sundry creditor. The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that no confirmation, copy of balance-sheet and return of income of creditor in its balance-sheet is filed. ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 15 13. On the second addition of sundry creditor, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue submits that as per the registered sale deed, the complete payments of consideration were received by the seller. It is not clear whether creditor has shown and offered the same in their income tax return. The addition of sundry creditor is liable to be added alternatively under section 41(1) of the Act being ceased trading liability. On the observation of remand report, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that Assessing Officer was over burdened having additional charge of another ward and sufficient time was not granted to the Assessing Officer to file remand report. 14. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the assessee submits that there was very limited dispute before Ld. CIT(A) that Assessing Officer made addition of advance booking received in earlier year as a cash credit in the present year and no stretch of imagination, could be added for the year under consideration, even otherwise it was a part of booking amount against which assessee executed sale deed in favour of purchasers. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Ld. CIT(A) after appreciation of fact found that opening balance account of assessee cannot be added in ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 16 the current assessment year. To support such submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the following decisions;  Jagatkumar Satishbhai Patel (2014) 45 taxmann.com 441 (Guj) and  Geeri Fashion (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO Ward-1(1)(2) Surat (2021) 191 ITD 155/130 taxmann.com 495 (Surat-Trib.) 15. On the addition of sundry creditor under section 68, the ld. AR for the assessee further submits that amount of sundry creditor appearing in the balance-sheet cannot be added unless it is found that there was cessation of liability that too during the relevant assessment year. In earlier year, the Assessing Officer has not doubted the identity of creditors. So far as taxability of sundry creditor under section 41(1), the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Assessing Officer only made a passing remark and ultimately no addition was made by Assessing Officer under this section. Now the Ld. CIT-DR for the revenue cannot improve the case of Assessing Officer at this stage. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that no ground of appeal for making addition under section 41(1) is raised in the present appeal by Revenue. To support the order of Ld. CIT(A), Ld. AR for both the issues, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the following case law:- ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 17  Geeri fashion (P.) Ltd. IDTO (191 ITD 155)  CIT vs. Jagatkumar Satishbhai Patel [225 Taxman 190 (Mag.)]  PCIT vs. Matruprasad C. Pandey (377 ITR 363 (Guj)  CIT vs. Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara (222 Taxman 313 (Guj)  Balaji InfoTech Services vs. ITO ITA No.5066/Mum/2010 dated 28.12.2011  Jashojit Mukherjee vs ACIT, Circle-50, Kolkata (2018) 93 taxmann.com 366 (Kolkata-Trib. /170 ITD 701 (Kol-Trib.) 04.05.2018 16. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by the ld AR for the assessee. We find that Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.7.38 crores under section 68 (Rs. 4.05 Crore of advances and Rs. 2.82 crore of sundry creditor), which was carried forwarded from earlier years, by taking view that neither such persons who made advances were produced nor any confirmation of creditors or their documents were furnished. 17. As recorded above before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission, which we have already noted above and are not repeated again for the sake of brevity. On the submission of assessee, Ld. CIT(A) direct the Assessing Officer to furnish ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 18 remand report. We find that Ld. CIT(A) recorded that despite direction no remand report was furnished by Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that no prejudice is caused to either party by adjudication the appeal on merit. We further find that ld CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee that Assessing Officer made additions of two amounts under section 68, (i) opening balance of advances for booking and (ii) another sundry creditor. On the submissions of assessee that both the additions are made on opening balance carried forward for assessment year 2014-15. The Ld. CIT(A) examined the audited and financial statements of assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively, wherein balance-sheet shows that both the amounts are closing balance for assessment year 2014-15. In ITR-5 for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, which was downloaded from ITD system in closing balance for assessment year 2014-15 is shown at Rs.9.26 crores which includes the booking advance of Rs.4.56 and creditors of Rs.2.82 crores respectively. The assessee challenged the additions on legal ground, the assessee claimed that opening balance of advances and creditor cannot be added under section 68. It was held that ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 19 advances for booking and sundry creditor added are carried forward from earlier year and cannot be added under section 68. Further, for creditor of Rs.2.82 crores, the assessee furnished copy of sale deed, wherein the details of cheque given to the seller and bank statements established that seller has not deposited cheques or encashed the said amount. The ld CIT(A) recorded that assessing officer had given categorical findings that the above amounts of both the additions are opening balance. On such observation, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that there is no dispute that amounts added are actually opening balance, which was carried forward from assessment year 2014-15. On the observation of Assessing Officer for taxing the sundry creditor under section 41(1) being ceased trading liability to assessee who is a builder, we find that the Assessing Officer was given liberty to examine such facts in relevant assessment year. Once the Assessing Officer is given liberty, the Ld. CIT(A) found no reason to wait for her remand report as no prejudice is caused to either party on adjudication the matter. We are conscious of the fact that there is no ground of appeal raised by the revenue for making/ sustaining addition under ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 20 section 41(1), yet we may observe that the assessing officer has not brought any evidence to show that it was a cessation or remission of trading liability. 18. The combination of this bench in Geeri Fashion Vs ITO (supra) by following the decision of Bombay High Court in Ivon Singh ACIT (2020) taxmann.com 499 / 422 ITR 128 and Ahmedabad bench of Tribunal in DCIT Vs Brijwasi Developers (ITA No. 1659-60/Ahd/2012 held that where share premium was received in earlier years, same cannot be taxed in the current year. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Jagat Kumar Satish Bhai Patel (supra) while considering the question of law “ whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,09,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act considering major amount of cash credit as opening balance even though no return was filed in earlier year and books of account were not maintained by the assessee” held that once the addition was deleted on the ground that only part of the amount was received in the year under consideration and balance was opening ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 21 balance in the account of the assesse. Once the Tribunal found that the amount part of amount could not have been considered during the year under consideration, the High Court found no error in the order of Tribunal. 19. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT Vs Matruprasad C Pandey (supra) held that amount of old sundry creditors appearing in the balance sheet cannot be added under section 41(1) unless and until it is found that there is remissions/ cessation of liability and that too during the relevant assessment year. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid factual and legal position, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition of advance bookings and sundry creditors, which we affirms with these additional observation. In the result, ground No.1 & 2 of the appeal are dismissed. 20. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07/11/2022 and the result was also placed on the Notice Board. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) [लेखा सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] [᭠याियक सद᭭य JUDICIAL MEMBER] Surat, Dated: /11/2022 Dkp. Out Sourcing Sr.P.S ITA No.756/SRT/2018 (A.Y 15-16) M/s Sarthee Infrastuctures 22 Copy to: 1. Appellant- 2. Respondent- 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File True copy/ By order // True Copy // Sr. P.S./Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Surat