Shri Vijay Totaram Sharma, Surat V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-2, Surat

ITA 863/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67593 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Principle of natural justice; Commercial expediency
• Section: 69C; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SRI D.K TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2, SURAT-3955001 (APPELLANT) VS SRI VIJAY TOTARAM SHARMA, PROP OF M/S. SUN TEXTILE ENGINEERS, 441/2, A-1, SHED, GIDC, SACHIN, SURAT- 394210 PAN: AFXPS2775Q (RESPONDENT) SRI VIJAY TOTARAM SHARMA, PROP OF M/S. SUN TEXTILE ENGINEERS, 441/2, A-1, SHED, GIDC, SACHIN, SURAT- 394210 PAN: AFXPS2775Q (APPELLANT) VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2, SURAT-3955001 (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SRI P.L. KUREEL, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SRI S.N. SOPARKAR, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 20-08-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23-08-20 13 ITA NO. 827/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ITA NO. 863/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 I.T.A NOS.827/AHD/2013&863/AHD/2013 A.Y.2009-1 0 PAGE NO DCIT VS. VIJAY TOTARAM SHARMA, PROP OF M/S. SUN TEX TILE ENGINEERS 2 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. C IT(A)-II SURAT DATED 30-01-2013. 2. GROUND NO. 1 OF REVENUE AND ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUN D OF ASSESSEES APPEAL RELATE TO ADDITION OF RS. 1,41,88,830/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN OUTS TANDING BALANCES AGAINST SOME PARTIES IN HIS ACCOUNTS. IT WAS FURTHE R OBSERVED THAT IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THESE PARTIES THERE WAS NO OPENING BALA NCE, NO PURCHASES IN PRECEDING YEAR AND OUT OF PURCHASES MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT, MOST OF PURCHASE AMOUNTS STAND AS CREDITOR AS ON 31 .03.2009. TO EXAMINE THE STATE OF AFFAIRS, AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THOSE PARTIES. HOWEVER, THE NOTICES REMAINED UNSERVED DUE TO NON E XISTENCE OF PARTIES AT THEIR RESPECTIVE ADDRESSES. SUCH PARTIES WERE AS UN DER:- NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT OF PURCHASE IN RS. DT OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 133(6) REPLY RECEIVED OR NOT POSTAL DEPARTMEN T RE MARKS BHARAT BROTHERS 19,90 , 954/- 25/08/2011 NO REPLY NOT KNOWN BIJAL BROTHERS 13,47 , 379/- 25/08/2011 NO REPLY NOT KNOWN I.T.A NOS.827/AHD/2013&863/AHD/2013 A.Y.2009-1 0 PAGE NO DCIT VS. VIJAY TOTARAM SHARMA, PROP OF M/S. SUN TEX TILE ENGINEERS 3 DC ENTERPRISE 17,60,550/- 25/08/2011 NO REPLY NOT KNOWN R.D TRADERS 15,70 , 824/- 25/08/2011 NO REPLY NOT KNOWN RAJNI TRADERS 17,61, 772/- 25/08/2011 NO REPLY NOT KNOWN VINAY CORPORATION L5,33,133/- 25/08/2011 NO REPLY NOT KNOWN VIPUL TRADING 18,48,760/- 25/08/2011 NO REPLY NOT KNOWN YASH SALES 13,83,732/- 25/08/2011 NO REPLY NOT KNOWN AV ENTERPRISE 9,91,726/- 25/08/2011 NO REPLY NOT KNOWN IN DUE COURSE, THE AO ASKED ASSESSES TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCIES. IN RESPONSE TO THAT, ASSESSEE FILED THE COPIES OF PURC HASE BILLS OF ABOVE MENTIONED PARTIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THEY HAV E SHIFTED THEIR BUSINESS PREMISES AND THEIR PRESENT WHEREABOUTS ARE NO T KNOWN. HOWEVER, THE AO EXAMINED THOSE COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS AND VERIFIE D WITH THE DATA AVAILABLE ON WEBSITE OF MAHARASTRA GOVERNMENT VAT DEPARTMENT AND FOUND THAT ALL THE BILLS IN RESPECT OF AFORESAID PARTIES SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE WERE BOGUS AND I.T.A NOS.827/AHD/2013&863/AHD/2013 A.Y.2009-1 0 PAGE NO DCIT VS. VIJAY TOTARAM SHARMA, PROP OF M/S. SUN TEX TILE ENGINEERS 4 VAT NUMBERS MENTIONED ON THE BILLS WERE NON-EXISTIN G NUMBERS. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS THAT NOTICES U/S. 133 (6) REMAINED UN-SERVED AND VAT NUMBERS MENTIONED ON THE BILLS WERE BOGUS, AO C ONCLUDED THAT THE TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS, L,41 , 88,830/- AGAINST AFORESAID PARTIES ARE BOGUS PURCHASES THEREFORE HE ADDED THIS A MOUNT TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. 4. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WAS AS FOLLOWS:- 3.2 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SUBMI TTED BY APPELLANT THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY AO IS UNJUSTIFIABLE AND U NWARRANTED FOR THE REASON THAT GP PERCENTAGE HAS INCREASED TO 26.91% O N ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF BOGUS PURCHASES WHEREAS THE AVERAGE GP RATIO IN LAST FIVE YEARS IS 9.76% WHICH ALL OF SUDDEN CANNOT JUMP TO 26.91%. IN RESPECT OF BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS AND WRONG VAT NUMBE RS, APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT IN NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS WHEN A BUSINESSMAN MAKES PURCHASES OF MATERIALS FROM SELLERS, HE WOULD NOT MAKE SUCH INQUIRIES AS WHETHER THE VAT NUMBER IS CORRECTLY ST ATED OR NOT. IN HIS CASE, HE CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR IRREGULARIT IES COMMITTED BY SELLING PARTIES. IN RESPECT OF UN-SERVED NOTICES U /S. 133(6) OF THE ACT , APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF 129 TOTAL PURCHASE PARTIES, ONLY NINE PARTIES HAVE SHIFTED THEIR BUSINESS PREMISES OR CLO SED DOWN THEIR BUSINESS PREMISES THEN SUCH FACT DOES NOT PRIMA-FAC IE SOUND IMPOSSIBLE OR IMPRACTICAL. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE IN REGULAR COURSE OF BUSIN ESS KEEPING IN MIND THE BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. IN SUP PORT OF HIS CLAIM, APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS. (I) CIT V/S JAGDISHCHANDRA VISHWAKARMA (2011) 59 DT R (MP) 415. (II) BABULAL C. BORSNA V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS . (2005) 195. (III) SRI TOTARAM B. SHARMA V/S THE ITO, 1TA NO. 22 39/AHD/2004. (V) ITO V/S GHANSYAM STEEL TRADERS (1999) 107 TAXM AN 126 (AHD) (MAG). (V) DCIT V/S ETCO TELECOM LTD. (2012) 32 CCH 035 M UM. (VI) YFC PRODUCTS (P) LTD. V/S DC1T (2010) 134 TTJ (DEL) 167. I.T.A NOS.827/AHD/2013&863/AHD/2013 A.Y.2009-1 0 PAGE NO DCIT VS. VIJAY TOTARAM SHARMA, PROP OF M/S. SUN TEX TILE ENGINEERS 5 5. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSION O F THE ASSESSEE, LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THIS ADDITION TO RS. 35,47,207/- IN PLACE OF 1,41,88,830/- MADE BY AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3.3 1 HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON THE ISSUE AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS SUPPORTED WI TH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO EXPLAIN THE CREDITORS DURING ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS NOR THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HE HAS SIMPLY GIVEN THE GENE RAL REPLY AND ARGUMENTS THAT THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS AND HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IRREGULA RITIES ON THE PART OF SELLERS. BUT, HE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THAT WHY THE CRE DITORS WERE FOUND NON- EXISTENT IN REPLY TO THE NOTICES SENT U/S. 133 (6) OF THE AO AND THE PURCHASES ARE SUPPORTED WITH BOGUS BILLS. AS MENTIO NED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, DESPITE OF GIVING MANY OPPORTUNIT IES BY AO, ASSESSEE FAILED TO REPLY ANY OF THEM. IF THE CREDITORS ARE S HOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE ASSESSEE IS ENJOYING THEIR FUNDS FOR HIS OWN BUSINESS PURPOSES, ONUS IS ON HIM TO ESTABLISH THEIR GENUINE NESS. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS. IN THE LIGHT OF A FORESAID FACTS, THE GENUINENESS OF CREDITORS IS NOT PROVED BEYOND DOUBT . IN SUCH SITUATION, ALTERNATIVE OPTION TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT ON SUCH U NEXPLAINED PURCHASES CAN BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF DECISIONS OF JURI SDICTIONAL ITAT. THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTE INS LTD. CO. VS ACIT, REPORTED IN 58 ITAT 528 (AHD.) WHEREIN ASSESSEE HA D FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS REGARDING SOURCE OF PURCHASES THEREFORE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C WERE APPLIED IN HIS CASE, IS VERY MU CH APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT. THE DISALLOWANCE OF WHOLE OF THE PURCHASES WAS CONSIDERED EXCESSIVE THEREFORE 25% OF THE ALLEGED D ISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT ALSO, PURCHASES OF RS. 1,41,88,830/- ARE NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THEREFORE 25% OF T HE SUCH AMOUNT WHICH COMES TO 35,47,207/-, CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLO WANCE. IN VIEW OF THIS, I HOLD THAT, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF JURISDICTION AL ITAT , THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 35,47,207/- IS JUSTIFIED IN PLA CE OF RS. L,41,88 , 830/- AS DISALLOWED BY AO. I, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ADDITIO N TO THE EXTENT OF RS.35,47,207/-. APPELLANT GETS PART RELIEF. I.T.A NOS.827/AHD/2013&863/AHD/2013 A.Y.2009-1 0 PAGE NO DCIT VS. VIJAY TOTARAM SHARMA, PROP OF M/S. SUN TEX TILE ENGINEERS 6 6. AGGRIEVED BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. REVENUE AGAINST THE RELIEF GIVEN TO ASSESSEE WHILE ASSESSEE HAS COM E AGAINST THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A). 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF AO WHILE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSION M ADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND PLACED RELIANCE ON A DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF SRI ALAP SHIRISHBHAI DERASARY ITA NO. 1101-1103/AHD/2009 DAT ED 21/09/2012 WHEREIN ON SIMILAR FACTS DISALLOWANCE WAS RESTRICTE D TO THE EXTENT OF 12.5 % OF THE BOGUS PURCHASE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1,41,88,830/- BY HOLDING TH AT PURCHASES MADE BY ASSESSEE FROM NON-EXISTING PARTIES WERE BOGUS. LD . CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THIS ADDITION TO 25 % OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THESE PARTIES WHICH COMES TO RS. 35,47,207/- FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE I TAT IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD CO. VS. ACIT, REPORTED IN58 ITAT 528(A HD). BEFORE US RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ALAP SHIRISHBHAI DERASARY(SUPRA) WHEREIN ON SIMILAR FACTS THE DISALLOWANCE WAS RESTRICTED TO 12.5 % OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES MADE BY ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT SINCE ASSESSEE WAS ENGA GED IN THE BUSINESS IN WHICH PROFIT WAS MUCH LESS THAN THAT OF IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD CO.. SINCE THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DISPU TED BY THE REVENUE WE ARE INCLINED TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO 12.5% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,41,88,830/-. AO IS DIRECTED TO RE- CALCULATE THE DISALLOWANCE ACCORDINGLY. I.T.A NOS.827/AHD/2013&863/AHD/2013 A.Y.2009-1 0 PAGE NO DCIT VS. VIJAY TOTARAM SHARMA, PROP OF M/S. SUN TEX TILE ENGINEERS 7 THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. GROUND NO. 2 IN REVENUES APPEAL RELATES TO ADDI TION OF RS. 11,71,589/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY LD. CIT(A). 10. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO EXAMINED ONE MORE PARTY NAMELY MONICA METAL INDUSTR IES FROM WHOM PURCHASES OF RS. 11,71,569/- WERE MADE AND THE CLOS ING BALANCE OF RS. 49,24,113/- WAS SHOWN. THE STATEMENTS OF PROPRIETOR OF SAID CONCERN WERE RECORDED DURING WHICH HE ADMITTED THE PURCHASE TRAN SACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE AND GIVING CREDIT OF 45 DAYS. HOWEVER, AO NOTICED THE FOLLOWING DISCREPANCIES IN THE PURCHASE BILLS FOR REJECTING T HEM. 1. SALES INVOICE NO. WAS HAND WRITTEN WHICH IS REQ UIRED TO BE PRINTED AS PER VAT LAW. 2 THERE WAS NO SUPPORTING OF PURCHASE BILL LIKE CH ALLANS, LORRY RECEIPT, WEIGHTS PROOF ETC WHICH ARE NORMALLY PART AND PARCE L OF PURCHASE BILL. 3. SALES BILL WAS NOT SIGNED BY RECEIVER. 4. ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY GO-DOWN AND AS STATED BY HIM HE TAKES ORDER ON PHONE AND MAKES DIRECT DELIVERY. I.T.A NOS.827/AHD/2013&863/AHD/2013 A.Y.2009-1 0 PAGE NO DCIT VS. VIJAY TOTARAM SHARMA, PROP OF M/S. SUN TEX TILE ENGINEERS 8 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCREPANCIES IN THE BILLS AND WITH THE COMMENT THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT NO PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED FOR WHOLE OF THE YEAR OUT OF OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF RS. 40,00,582/- WHEN ASSE SSEE IS EARNING INCOME BELOW RS. 2 LAKHS ONLY, AO CONCLUDED THAT THE TRANS ACTIONS WITH MONICA METAL INDUSTRIES IS NOTHING BUT FICTITIOUS PURCHASE S MADE TO INFLATE EXPENSES. CONCLUSIVELY; THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS, 11,71 ,569/- AS BOGUS PURCHASES TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE.. 11. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WAS AS FOLLOWS:- 4.2 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SUB MITTED BY APPELLANT THAT THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN TREATING THE PURCH ASES AS BOGUS AND FICTITIOUS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CONFI RMATION OF MONICA METAL INDUSTRIES WAS SUBMITTED TO AO MENTIONING THE ADDRESS AND PAN OF THE PARTY ALONG WITH COMPLETE DETAILS CONFIR MING THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASES. THE AO RECORDED STATEMEN TS OF THE PROPRIETOR AT THE BACK OF ASSESSEE AND NEVER CONFRO NTED HIM OR GAVE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE, WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE IRREGULARIT IES MENTIONED BY AO ARE INSIGNIFICANT AND ON THAT BASIS IT CANNOT BE CO NCLUDED THAT PURCHASES ARE BOGUS. THE PURCHASE BILLS AND CHALLAN S CLEARLY MENTION THE COMPLETE ADDRESS, MOBILE NUMBER ETC. OF THE PAR TY, MODE OF TRANSPORTATION, MODE OF ORDER, DESCRIPTION OF GOODS SOLD, DETAILS OF VALUE ADDED TAX ADDED IN THE SALES VALUE, GUJARAT S ALES-TAX REGISTRATION NUMBER, CENTRAL SALES-TAX REGISTRATION NUMBER, TERMS OF PAYMENT, NAME OF THE PURCHASING PARTY, QUANTITY OF GOODS SOLD ETC. OF THE SAID PARTY. FURTHER, THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MAD E THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND GIVING CREDIT FOR 30 DAYS OR 45 DAYS IS PURELY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND BUSINESS REQUIREMENT WHICH CANNOT BE JUDGED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A REVENUE OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, APPELLANT REQUESTED TO DELETE THE ADDI TION MADE BY AO. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED O N FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS. (A) CIT V/S DHANRAJGIRI RAJA NARSINGGIRJI (197 3) 91 ITR 544 (SC.) I.T.A NOS.827/AHD/2013&863/AHD/2013 A.Y.2009-1 0 PAGE NO DCIT VS. VIJAY TOTARAM SHARMA, PROP OF M/S. SUN TEX TILE ENGINEERS 9 (B) VOLTAMP TRANSFORMERS PRIVATE LIMITED V/S CIT (1981) 129 ITR 105(GUJ.) (C) CIT V/S M.K. BROTHERS 163 ITR 244 (GUJ.) 12. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THIS ADDITION. 13. BEFORE US LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO WHIL E LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 14. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD INCLUDING THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES MADE BY ASSESSEE FROM M/S MONIKA METAL INDUSTRIES, WE FIND THAT AO HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS. 11,71,569/- BY TREATING THE PU RCHASES OF THIS AMOUNT FROM M/S MONIKA METAL INDUSTRIES AS BOGUS DESPITE T HE FACT THAT THESE PURCHASES WERE SUPPORTED WITH RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQU E OF THESE PURCHASES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, STATEMENT OF PRO PRIETOR OF M/S MONIKA METAL INDUSTRIES WAS ALSO RECORDED BY AO WHEREIN HE HAD CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS THOUGH THIS STATEMENT WAS NEVER SHOWN TO ASSESSEE NOR OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS PROVIDED SINC E ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO FURNISH ALL THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO S HOW THAT THE PURCHASES, TRANSACTIONS WITH MONIKA METAL INDUSTRIES WERE GENU INE AND AUTHENTIC, LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THIS ADDITION AND THEREF ORE WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. SO THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. I.T.A NOS.827/AHD/2013&863/AHD/2013 A.Y.2009-1 0 PAGE NO DCIT VS. VIJAY TOTARAM SHARMA, PROP OF M/S. SUN TEX TILE ENGINEERS 10 15. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AN D ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (T.R. MEENA) ( D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 23/08/2013 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,