Soni Kikabhai Narandas & Sons, Surat V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Navsari Circle, Navsari

ITA 89/SRT/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8153 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPAMA SINGLA
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 191

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM ./ITA NO.89/SRT/2018 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: (2014-15) (VIRTUAL COURT HEARING) SONI KIKABHAI NARANDAS & SONS, SONIWAD, BILLIMORA, SURAT 396321. V S. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVSARI CIRCLE, NAVSARI. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO.: AAXFS 3673 G (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HIREN R. VEPARI - CA RESPONDENT BY : MS. ANUPAMA SINGLA SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 03/08/2021 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/08/2021 / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), VALSAD DATED 01.12.2017, WHICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, DATED 30.12.2016. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS: (I) DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(3) OF THE ACT OF RS.23,22,676: (1) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(3), PARTICULARLY WHEN NO PAYMENT IN A SINGLE DAY EXCEEDED THE LIMIT LAID DOWN U/S.40A(3). (2) CONSIDERING THE FACT THE APPELLANT DEMONSTRABLY EVIDENCING THAT NOT ONLY WERE THE PAYMENTS BELOW RS.20,000 ON A SINGLE DAY, BUT ITS NATURE OF BUSINESS NECESSITATED CASH PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF USED ORNAMENTS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION. (3) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IT IS NOBODYS CASE THAT BONA FIDE OR GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE QUESTIONED AND THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE IS EVEN OTHERWISE UNCALLED FOR. PAGE | 2 ITA NO.89/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 SONI KIKABHAI NARANDAS & SONS, SURAT (4) WITHOUT ALSO PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT POSTING ENTRY OF CASH INTO THE CASH BOOK WAS ONLY IN ERROR OF RECORD AND NOT AN ERROR OF TRANSACTION. (II) MISCELLANEOUS: THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR VARY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. BRIEF FACTS AS DISCERNABLE FROM THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WERE NUMEROUS INSTANCES OF CASH PAYMENTS ABOVE RS.20,000/- AGAINST PURCHASES OF OLD GOLD JEWELLERY, WHICH WAS IN CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT ASSESSEE WAS MAKING CASH PAYMENT ABOVE RS.20,000/- IN VARIOUS CASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT IN ORDER TO DEFEAT THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, ASSESSEE INTENTIONALLY WROTE TWO SEPARATE AMOUNTS ON THE COPY OF BILL BREAKING THE AMOUNT IN TWO FIGURES BELOW RS.20,000/-. HOWEVER, THE CASH BOOK SPEAKS THE TRUTH SHOWING THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS PAID IN A SINGLE STROKE IN CASH AND ACCORDINGLY RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOKS AS SINGLE ENTRY. THIS ASPECT GETS STRENGTH FROM THE FACT THAT AS PER THE CASH BOOK FULL PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON THE VERY FIRST DAY ITSELF I.E THE DAY OF PURCHASE. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY DISALLOWANCE SHOULD NOT BE MADE. 4. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT CASH PAYMENT RELATES TO PURCHASE OF OLD ORNAMENTS FROM PUBLIC. WHEN PEOPLE COME TO SELL THEIR ORNAMENTS, AFTER EXAMINING THE ORNAMENTS AND NEGOTIATING THE PRICE PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO THEM IN CASH. THE SAID CASH PAYMENT IS MADE BECAUSE CUSTOMERS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE CHEQUES AS MOST OF THE CUSTOMERS DO NOT HAVE BANK ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE MAKES PAYMENT TO THEM SEPARATELY ON TWO DATES SO THAT ASSESSEE DOES NOT COME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. 5. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISALLOWED THE SUM OF RS.23,22,676/- U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT BEING CASH PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ABOVE RS 20,000/- IN A SINGLE DAY. PAGE | 3 ITA NO.89/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 SONI KIKABHAI NARANDAS & SONS, SURAT 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 7. SHRI HIREN R. VEPARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, BEGINS BY POINTING THAT ASSESSEE IS A BUSINESSMAN IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF GOLD JEWELLERY. THE LD COUNSEL ARGUES THAT CASH PAYMENT RELATES TO PURCHASE OF OLD ORNAMENTS FROM PUBLIC. WHEN PEOPLES COME TO SELL THEIR ORNAMENTS, AFTER EXAMINING THE ORNAMENTS AND NEGOTIATING THE PRICE, THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO THEM. GENERALLY, CUSTOMERS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE CHEQUES BECAUSE MOST OF THEM DO NOT HAVE BANK ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE MAKES PAYMENT TO THEM SEPARATELY ON TWO DATES SO THAT ASSESSEE DOES NOT COME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THUS, THERE IS NO PAYMENT MADE ON ONE DAY EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- SO AS TO ATTRACT DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD.COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE PURCHASES OLD ORNAMENTS FROM LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLES, THEREFORE, IN HIS TRADE CASH PAYMENT IS NECESSARY TO MAKE THE PAYMENT TO CUSTOMERS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED OLD ORNAMENTS. THE LD.COUNSEL ALSO POINTED OUT THAT BILL NO.2608, WHICH RELATES TO PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMER BUT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED AS PAYMENT MADE, TO THE TUNE OF RS.68,625/- VIDE PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.57. THEREFORE, LD.COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT A SUM OF RS.68,625/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH FROM THE CUSTOMERS, THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT ATTRACT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT, HENCE IT SHOULD BE DELETED. THE LD.COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITS THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COMPLETE SET OF BILLS RELATING TO PURCHASES OF OLD ORNAMENTS AGAINST WHICH PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/-. THE LD.COUNSEL ALSO CONTENDED THAT OLD ORNAMENTS ARE SOLD BY HOUSEHOLDS, IN EMERGENCY TO MEET THEIR EMERGENCY EXPENSES OF HOSPITAL AND MEDICINES AND THESE OLD ORNAMENTS ARE NOT SOLD BY BUSINESSMAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CASH TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE PRESSING CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT, HENCE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) MAY BE DELETED. PAGE | 4 ITA NO.89/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 SONI KIKABHAI NARANDAS & SONS, SURAT 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, MS. ANUPAMA SINGLA, SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE, CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY VOUCHERS RELATED TO CASH PAYMENTS ON DIFFERENT DATES. IT HAS SIMPLY WRITTEN ON PURCHASE INVOICES. NO SIGNATURE OF RECIPIENTS IS AVAILABLE ON THE SELF- MADE BILLS. THE ASSESSES ITSELF HAS RECORDED SINGLE TRANSACTION OF CASH PAYMENT IN EXCESS OF RS 20,000/- IN CASH BOOK THOUGH SEPARATE RECORDING ON PURCHASE BILLS IS FOUND. IT IS A CASE THAT SELLER HAS BEEN PAID CASH IN EXCESS OF RS 20,000/- AT ONE TIME BUT JUST TO COME OUT OF RIGOURS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT, DATES HAVE BEEN RECORDED ONLY WHEN THE BOOKS WERE CALLED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE CASH BOOK PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONTAINED A SINGLE ENTRY. SHE FURTHER ARGUED THAT CASH BOOK IS PRIME PART OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REFLECTING TRUE AFFAIRS. THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE SAKE OF ITS CONVENIENCE, HAS MENTIONED ON THE BILLS TO SEPARATE FIGURES OF BELOW RS.20000/-. THUS, SHE STATED THAT IT IS A KIND OF COOKED STORY TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE SUSTAINED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON, AND PERUSED THE FACT OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) AND OTHER MATERIALS BROUGHT ON RECORD. WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD DR FOR THE REVENUE, AS SHE POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY VOUCHERS RELATED TO CASH PAYMENTS ON DIFFERENT DATES. IT HAS SIMPLY WRITTEN ON PURCHASE INVOICES. NO SIGNATURE OF RECIPIENTS IS AVAILABLE ON THE SELF- MADE BILLS. THE ASSESSES ITSELF HAS RECORDED SINGLE TRANSACTION OF CASH PAYMENT IN EXCESS OF RS 20,000/- IN CASH BOOK THOUGH SEPARATE RECORDING ON PURCHASE BILLS IS FOUND. IT IS A CASE THAT SELLER HAS BEEN PAID CASH IN EXCESS OF RS 20,000/- AT ONE TIME BUT JUST TO COME OUT OF RIGOURS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT, DATES HAVE BEEN RECORDED ONLY WHEN THE BOOKS WERE CALLED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE CASH BOOK PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONTAINED A SINGLE ENTRY. WE NOTE THAT CASH BOOK IS PRIME PART OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REFLECTING TRUE AFFAIRS. THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE SAKE OF ITS CONVENIENCE, HAS MENTIONED ON THE BILLS TO SEPARATE FIGURES OF BELOW RS.20000/-. THE LD COUNSEL HAS ARGUED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT OLD ORNAMENTS ARE PAGE | 5 ITA NO.89/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 SONI KIKABHAI NARANDAS & SONS, SURAT SOLD IN DIRE NEED AND NECESSITY. WE NOTE THAT WHEN OLD ORNAMENTS ARE SOLD IN DIRE NEED THEN WHY AN UNKNOWN PERSON (CUSTOMER) WILL KEEP HIS MONEY WITH THE ASSESSEE, AS THE ASSESSEE MAKES PAYMENT IN CASH TO THE SAME CUSTOMER ON NEXT DAY, (AGAINST THE OLD ORNAMENTS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE). FURTHER, IT IS BEYOND IMAGINATION THAT SO MANY PERSONS WILL BEHAVE IN THIS MANNER ON SO MANY DIFFERENT DATES. THUS, WE NOTE THAT ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD COUNSEL IS AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID THE DISALLOWANCE. WE NOTE THAT NO CONVINCING REPLY HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD BY LD COUNSEL AND WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD COUNSEL IS CERTAINLY NOT BASED ON EXCEPTION GIVEN IN RULE 6DD OF THE RULES. THE ARGUMENT OF LD COUNSEL IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN SO FAR, BILL NO.2608 AMOUNTING TO RS.68,625/- , IS CONCERNED, AS THE SAME WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 22,92,113/-, AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, VIDE PARA 4.3 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 4.3 ASSESSEE'S ARGUMENT IS ACCEPTABLE IN RESPECT OF BILL NO. 2617. ACCORDINGLY AMOUNT OF RS. 23,437/- IS REDUCED FROM THE LIST. IN SO FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF RS.68,625/- AS PER BILL NO.2608 IS CONCERNED, THE SAME WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF _RS. 22,92,113/-. HOWEVER, TWO MORE ENTRIES WERE FOUND IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF LABOUR JOB WORK WHICH WAS ALSO DISCUSSED IN THE ORDER SHEET NOTING. ACCORDINGLY AMOUNT OF RS.54,000/- IS ADDED TO THE QUANTUM UNDER CONSIDERATION. FINALLY, THE TOTAL SUM TO BE DISALLOWED COMES TO RS.23,22,676/- (22,92,113 + 54,000 - 23,437). 10. WE NOTE THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: VIDE THIS GROUND, THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.23,22,676/- U/S.40A(3) OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AO HAS GIVEN DETAILED FINDINGS WHEREBY IT IS BROUGHT OUT THAT THE PAYMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 23,22,676/- WAS MADE BEYOND THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT AND THE APPELLANT'S CASE ARE NOT COVERED IN THE EXCEPTIONS UNDER RULE 6DD. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE PAYMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 18,93,668/- DID NOT EXCEED THE CASH LIMIT OF RS. 20,000/- ON ONE DAY TO ONE PARTY AS THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE ON TWO DIFFERENT DATES BELOW RS.20,000/- BUT WHILE ENTERING IN THE CASH BOOKS, THE SYSTEM TOOK CASH PAYMENT ON ONE DAY TO ONE PARTY. THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO SUBMITTED ORIGINAL COPIES OF BILLS OF OLD ORNAMENTS PURCHASES WHEREIN PAYMENTS ON DIFFERENT DATES ARE CLEARLY NOTICEABLE. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT THIS WAS DELIBERATELY DONE ON THE SAME BILL MENTIONING TWO DIFFERENT DATES OF CASH PAYMENTS TO KEEP THE FIGURE BELOW RS. 20,000/-. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE COPY OF BILLS FURNISHED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO AND IT IS APPARENT THAT ONE TYPICAL BILL NO. 2627 DATED 24.10.2013 INDICATE PURCHASE OF RS. 22,830/- WHEREAS THE PAYMENT DATE IS PAGE | 6 ITA NO.89/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 SONI KIKABHAI NARANDAS & SONS, SURAT MENTIONED AS RS. 18,000/- ON 24.10.2013 AND RS. 4,830/- ON 25.10.2013. SAME IS THE CASE IN OTHER BILLS WHEREIN THE BILL DATE IS SAY, 14.08.2013 BUT CASH PAYMENT DATE ON THE SAME BILL IS MENTIONED AS 14.08.2013 AND 15.08.2013 SPLITTING THE AMOUNTS IN A WAY THAT THE PAYMENT IN ONE DAY IS BELOW RS.20,000/-. THUS, THE PATTERN OF BILLS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE PAYMENTS DATES ARE MENTIONED ON THE BILLS DELIBERATELY TO BRING THE CASH PAYMENT BELOW RS. 20,000/- TO ONE PARTY IN ONE DAY OTHERWISE, IN REALITY THE DATES COULD HAVE BEEN THE BILL DATE AND ANY OTHER DATE ON WHICH THE BALANCE PAYMENT IS MADE. EVEN THE CASH BOOK ENTRY INDICATE CASH PAYMENT ABOVE RS.20,000/- TO ONE PARTY ON ONE DAY AND THE APPELLANT HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THIS BY MENTIONING THE SAME AS MISTAKE OF THE ACCOUNTANT. THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS INTAKE COULD HAPPEN IN ONE OR TWO BILLS BUT NOT IN ALL THESE BILLS PAYMENTS. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE AO'S FINDINGS REGARDING PAYMENTS ABOVE RS. 20,000/- IN ONE DAY TO ONE PARTY. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS REFERRED TO THE DECISIONS OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ATTAR SINGH GURMUKH SINGH 191 ITR 667, THE DECISIONS OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT ANUPAM TELE SERVICES 366 ITR 122 AND THE DECISIONS OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT OF NATHALAL JETHLAL 199 ITR 757, IN THE CASE OF NATHALAL JETHALAL, THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT SEC. 40A(3) WOULD NOT BE ATTRACTED TO PAYMENTS MADE FOR ACQUIRING 'STOCK IN TRADE' AND OTHER MATERIAL. AFTER GOING THROUGH THESE DECISIONS, I FIND THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF ATTAR SINGH GURUMUKH SINGH.' EVEN THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NATHALAL JETHALAL WAS IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE AND AGAINST ASSESSEE AS PAYMENT FOR STOCK IN PURCHASE WAS HELD AS WITHIN PURVIEW OF SEC. 40A(3). EVEN THE ADVANCES MADE FOR PURCHASE OF GOODS WERE HELD AS COVERED U/S 40A(3) BY HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KEJRIWAI IRON STORE VS. CIT. THUS, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS MISLED IN QUOTING THESE DECISION BEING IN FAVOR OF APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITIONS, I FIND THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO DIFFER WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE AO ON THE GROUND OF DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.23,22,676/- U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2, IS DISMISSED. 11. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ABOVE NOTED FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A), AND WE OBSERVE THAT LD CIT(A) HAS CONCLUDED THE ISSUE AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ENTIRE FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PAYMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 23,22,676/- WAS MADE BEYOND THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE'S CASE ARE NOT COVERED IN THE EXCEPTIONS MENTIONED UNDER RULE 6DD OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. BESIDES, THE JUDGMENTS, CITED BY THE LD COUNSEL HAVE BEEN DISTINGUISHED BY THE LD CIT(A) IN HIS FINDINGS, AS NOTED BY US IN ABOVE PARA, HENCE WE OBSERVE THAT NONE OF THE JUDGMENT IS FAVORING TO THE ASSESSEE`S CASE. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE PLEA OF THE LD COUNSEL DOES NOT MERIT LEGAL ACCEPTANCE, THUS, WE SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT THE PLEA OF THE LD COUNSEL MUST BE REJECTED. PAGE | 7 ITA NO.89/SRT/2018 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 SONI KIKABHAI NARANDAS & SONS, SURAT 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 25/08/2021 BY PLACING RESULT ON THE NOTICE BOARD. SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (DR. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SURAT / / DATE: 25/08/2021 / SGR COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. PR.CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, SURAT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // // / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/SR. PS/PS ITAT, SURAT