Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, , Vapi V. M/s. DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd., Valsad

ITA 90/SRT/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2469 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-12-2021
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; Deemed dividend; Agreed addition
• Section: 143(3); 2(22)(e); 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 90/SRT/2018&C.O. No.3/SRT/2021 (a/o ITA No.90/SRT/2018)(AY 2013-14) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle- Fortune Square-III, 7 th Floor, Room No. 704, Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 Vs M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd., 251-1 & 251-2, GIDC, Umbergaon, Valsad- 395007 PAN : AACCD4546M Appellant / Revenue Respondent-Co-objector Assessee by ShriRajeshUpadhyay, A.R Revenue by Shri H.P. Meena, CIT-DR Date of hearing 30.12.2021 Date of pronouncement 23.02.2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by Revenue and Cross Objection (CO) therein by assessee are directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) Valsad [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 07.06.2017for assessment year (AY) 2013-14, which in turn the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 26.12.2016. The Revenue in its appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 2 Rs.5,74,45,129/- made on account of deemed dividend U/s 2(22)e of the I.T Act which is in contravention of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Travel Services vs Commissioner of income Tax, Delhi, VIIII- Civil Appeal No. 2068 of 2071 of 2012.” The assessee in its C.O. has raised the following grounds:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, appeal order of CIT(A) is prayed to be upheld as there are two decision of Honorable Apex Court in our favour and judgment on which the AO relied on is a prima facie views of the judges of the honourable SC in which appeal has been placed before the honourable chief justice of India in order to constitute bench of three Ld. Judges for final judgment. 2.On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, if addition in respect of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the IT Act is upheld, then it should be restricted to the accumulated profit of M/s Joy International Ltd. (JIL) as on 31-03-2012 to the extent of Rs.,1,92,31,440/- as current year profit cannot be considered for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the Act ” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Guar Gum products. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment year (AY) 2013-14 on 28.09.2013 declaring income of Rs.12.87 crores. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 26.12.2016. During assessment from the audit report, the Assessing Officer noted ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 3 that in column No. 24(a) regarding details of loan and advances received by assessee. The name of M/s Joy International (I) Pvt. Ltd., (‘JIIPL’ in short) appears at No.3 alongwith address at 211, Nimbus Centre, Oberoi Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai. As per the details, in the said column, the assessee has taken a loan of Rs.12 crores from JIIPL. On further perusal of audit report of JIIPL furnished by assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that in the list of shareholders of more than 5% shareholdings, the name of Shri Devji N Palani, appears, whose holding 33.33% in JIIPL. Shri Devji N Palani is also having shareholding in assessee (M/s DNP Foods Ltd.) at 21.74%. Thus, Shri Devji N Palani holds substantial interest in JIIPL as well as in M/s DNP Foods Ltd.,(assessee). The JIIPL is shown advance of Rs.12 crores. Therefore, the assessee was issued show cause notice as to why the amount of Rs.12 crores representing as unsecured loan availed by assessee should not be treated ad deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) in the hand of assessee and be added back to the income of assessee. ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 4 3. The assessee filed its reply on16.12.2016. The contents of reply filed by the assessee is extracted by Assessing Officer in para-4.2 of the assessment order. The assessee in its reply submitted that as per the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bagmane Construction Pvt.Ltd. And Others vs. CIT And Others (2015) 277 CTR 338 (Kar) held that loans and advances given to sister concern as a consideration for acquiring goods which will be beneficial to the company, advancing loan cannot be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). The JIIPL has lend the idle surplus to assessee as intention to earn interest instead of paying to outsider. Thus, benefiting the Revenue of the company in case of loan money is advanced “generally” on payment of interest. In the case of an advance, the element of repayment is there but such a repayment may be given the interest without interest. The assessee also relied upon other certain decisions and explained that assessee-company has transaction of purchase to the volume of Rs.127.43 crores during the year from JIIPL. Hence, there was continuous transaction between both the companies. Further, there is no transaction which ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 5 reveals direct benefit to the shareholders and the assessee- company. Therefore, the transaction is not covered under the ambit of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 4. The reply filed by assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had held that assessee accepted loan from JIIPL of Rs.12 crores and Shri Devji N Palani holds 21.74% shares in M/s DNP Foods Ltd. (assessee) and 33.33% shares in JIIPL. Therefore loan transaction falls within the preview of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 5. The assessing officer further recorded that during the assessment, the assessee pointed out from the balance of reserve & surplus of JIIPL stood at Rs.5,74,45,129/- and the disallowance of deem dividend should be restricted to that extent. The Assessing Officer further recorded on verification of contention of assessee the balance of reserve & surplus in the balance-sheet of JIIPL was of Rs.5,74,45,129/- and accordingly the disallowance of deem dividend was restricted to that extent only. The Assessing Officer again recorded that the Authorized Representative of assessee has given his no objection to the proposed addition of Rs.5.74 crores under ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 6 section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition under section 2(22)(e) of Rs.5.74 crores. 6. Aggrieved by the addition, assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed written submission as recorded in para-3.2 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). The assessee, in its submission, submitted that assessee- company is not a shareholder in JIIPL. Hence, provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act is not applicable to assessee. 7. The assessee further explained that reasons for Inter Corporate Deposits; M/s ACE Gum Ind. And Nitcherry Ind. of Rajasthan are suppliers of raw materials to the assessee- company. Both the suppliers are buying goods from JIIPL. Hence, JIIPL have to recover sums (receivable) from ACE Gum Ind. and Nitcherry Ind. Likewise, both these entities are creditors for the assessee-company. In February, 2013, financial position of ACE Gum Ind. and Nitcherry Ind. had become weak. Therefore, JIIPL had recovered their payment directly from assessee-company as debt of JIIPL with the consent of both the suppliers. Thus, in order to overcome the situation, financial transactions were carried out between ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 7 JIIPL and assessee-company. Accordingly, both the companies i.e., assessee and JIIPL have taken decision for Inter Corporate Deposits being a prudent businessman in the interest of the business, which does not come within the ambit of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. To support their contention, assessee relied on case law of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ambassador Travels P. Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 376 (Del). 8. In alternative plea, assessee submitted that reserve and surplus fund as per in the balance sheet of JIIPL’s balance- sheet as on 01.04.2012 is to be taken at Rs.1.92 crores. Further, statutory liability of JIIPL in respect of service tax of Rs.21,435/- as well as DDT of Rs.4,86,675/- for dividend declaration in AY 2012-13 of Rs.30 lakhs @ 10% is also to be deducted while computing accumulated profit under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The relevant information showing huge losses as well as loss for depreciation for earlier years was also furnished. The assessee shown surplus in JIIPL of Rs.1.92 crores. On the conclusion of the assessing officer that the assessee agreed during assessment for proposed addition of Rs.5.74 crores, the assessee explained that the Assessing ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 8 Officer hurriedly passed the assessment order without allowing sufficient time and draft order was served on 23.12.2016 and consent of their Chartered Accountant (CA) was obtained on 23.12.2016 and completed assessment on 26.12.2016. The assessee further explained that there was no consent from assessee-company and that their CA missed some important case law of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court as well as ITAT. The assessee specifically contended that agreement on legal issue is not relevant and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Balasubramaniam, R.T. Vs. ITO (1994) 50 ITD 513 (Madras). The assessee also filed copy of income tax return, audit report, list of shareholders, ledger account, and copy of draft assessment final assessment in case of JIIPL. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee observed that there is no dispute that Shri Devji N Palani holding 33.33% share in JIPPL and also holding 21.74% in assessee-company. The first condition of deem dividend was existing in this case. But for second condition that recipient should be shareholder of company does not exist as recipient ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 9 should be shareholder of the company is not in existent as the assessee-company is not shareholder of JIIPL and payment of JIIPL has been treated as deemed dividend in the hand of assessee because of common shareholding substantial interest in both the companies. The Assessing Officer has not only treated the transaction on receipt of amount from JIIPL as deemed dividend but also treated the assessee-company as deemed shareholder of JIPPL. The assessee also relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Seasons Hotels Pvt. Ltd. [ITA Nos 2502, 2503 & 2504/AHD/2010] dated 30.11.2011, wherein it was held that assessee not being a shareholder, cannot be taxed under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that assessee is neither registered nor beneficial shareholder of JIIPL. Thus, the action of the Assessing Officer to tax deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The provision of section 2(22)(e) for taxing deem dividend is always meant for the registered and beneficial shareholder of the payer company. 10. On the contention of assessee about the purchase of Rs.127.43 crores from JIPPL during the year and the receipt ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 10 was pertaining to the business transaction, is not subject to the fiction of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) held that Assessing Officer has not controverted this contention of the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The assessee also filed copy of ledger account with JIIPL and also filed copy of TPO order under section 92CA(3) pertaining to a specified domestic transactions with JIIPL. To support its contention, that received of fund from JIIPL was pertaining to business transactions. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the contention of assessee is supported by the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shripac Concrete Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 56 ITCL 177 (Guj), wherein the Hon'ble court held that advance on account of business transaction cannot be categorized as loans and advance so as to attract deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 11. On the concession of CA, the representing assessee during assessment, who gave non-objection for the proposed deemed dividend, the Ld. CIT(A) recorded that assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Balasubramnium R.T. (supra) and also on the decision of ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 11 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gauri Sahai Ghisaram vs. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 338 (All) wherein it was held that the assessee cannot be denied to file appeal in case of agreed addition. Aggrieved by the deleting the addition under section 2(22)(e), Revenue has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 12. We have heard the submissions of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax-Departmental Representative (CIT-DR) of the Revenue and Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of assessee. With their active assistance, we have also gone through the orders of authorities below. We have also deliberated on the various case laws relied by the assessee or by the lower authorities in their order. 13. Perusal of record we find that there is delay of 162 days in filing the present appeal. We find that vide order dated 25.05.2021, the delay was condoned as the Ld. AR of the assessee raised no objection, in case the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Thus, vide order sheet dated 25.05.2021, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. Thus, the submission of Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue and AR for the ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 12 assessee was heard on merit. The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that it was apparent from the column-24(a) of audit report that assessee accepted loan & advance from JIIPL during the year. The assessee-company was show caused as to why the said amount should not be treated as deemed dividend income, as one of the director, Shri Devi N Palani was having substantial shareholding in both the companies. Shri Devi N Palani is director in the assessee-company having holding of 21.74% of share and also holds share to the extent of 33.33% in JIIPL. The assessee has received a loan of Rs.12 crores during the year under consideration. After considering the show cause and on furnishing finance of JIIPL, the Assessing Officer found that JIPPL having surplus of Rs.5.74 crores which was treated as deemed dividend. The Assessing Officer made addition with the consent of representative of assessee, who accepted that Rs.5.74 crores was accumulated profit of JIIPL. The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that the decision of Ld. CIT(A) is in conflict with the provision of section 2(22)(e)of the Act. The relief granted by the ld CIT(A) is in contravention with the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 13 National Travel Services VS CIT in Civil Appeal No. 2068 to 2071 of 2012 14. On the other hand, Ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of Ld. CIT(A), the ld AR for the assessee submits that the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue and the Ground No. 1 in assessee’s CO are interconnected. The Ld. AR of the assessee on the objection the Form 3CD that addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Act was made on the admission of representative of assessee, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that there cannot be any estoppels against the order and that no tax can be levied of the authority of law as mandated by Article 265 of the Constitution. The admission made on mistake of law or mistake of fact is not binding on the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee while accepting the legal position. 15. On the merit of the addition, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Department in its appeal have strongly relied upon the decision of Hon'ble apex court in the case of National Travel Services vs. CIT (supra) dated 18.01.2018. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that order / decision of Hon'ble apex ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 14 court is placed on record, wherein the Hon'ble Judges has merely referred the matter/ appeals for placing before Hon'ble Chief Justice of India in order to constitute an appropriate Bench of three learned judges to have a relook at question “being a person who is a beneficial owner of shares” and that there is no finding which is said to be against the assessee in the present reference. As such, deemed dividend is decided in favour of assessee by various decisions of Hon'ble Apex court, Hon'ble High Courts and various Tribunals. The issue was decided by Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of various binding decisions. The transaction between assessee and JIIPL are in the nature of Inter Corporate Deposits which is in the form of group companies transactions in current account transaction to the interest is also paid considering the credit and debit balance- sheet. There was a business consideration as the assessee made purchases of Rs.127.47 crores from JIIPL. To support his submission, Ld. AR of the assessee also relied upon the following decisions:-  CIT vs Shutz Dishman Bio Tech Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 70(I) ITCL 2017 ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 15  ITO vs Seasons Hotels Pvt. Ltd., [ITA No.2502/AHD/2010]  Miric Commercial Pvt. Ltd., vs. PCIT [ITA No.1059/KOL/2016]  Exotica Housing & Infrastructure Co. Ltd.,  ACIT vs. Shri Gurdeep Singh [ITANo.170/CHD/2018] 16. In alternative submissions, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that similar transactions were made by assessee in AYs 2012- 13 and2 014-15 respectively i.e., one year prior to the year under consideration and one year subsequent to the year under consideration and not addition was made in the assessment orders passed under section 143(3). 17. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that issue is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble apex court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 282 ITR 273; 201 CTR 346 (SC), wherein it was held that where facts and law in subsequent assessment year are same, no authority quasi or judicial can generally be permitted to take different view. 18. In support of ground No.2 raised in assessee’s C.O., the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that in alternative and without prejudice it was argued before Ld. CIT(A) and is being urged before this Bench (at the time of hearing) that accumulated ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 16 profit for the purpose under section 2(22)(e) of the Act does not include current year profit. The current year profit accumulated in JIIPL at Rs.1.92 crores and in any case the Tribunal came to the conclusion that transaction is covered by fiction under section 2(22)(e), it should be restricted to the accumulated profit of JIIPL on 31.03.2012 to the extent of Rs.1.92 crores only. 19. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below carefully. We find that the revenue has also filed short written submissions on record dated 01.02.2018, under the heading “condonation of delay”. We have also deliberated on such written submissions. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5.74 crores under section 2(22)(e) by taking view that the director, Devji N Palani is having 33.33% shareholding in JIIPL and also having shareholding of 21.74%. The assessee received advance of Rs.12 crores during the year and that JIIPL was having accumulated profit of Rs.5.74 crores. The Assessing Officer further recorded that during the assessment CA of assessee agreed for addition to the extent of Rs.5.74 crores. ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 17 Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed detailed written submission as recorded in para-3.2 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) on the concession of representative of assessee for making addition to the extent of accumulated profit in JIIPL, held that the admission is not binding on the assessee in view of the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gauri Sahai Ghisaram (supra) and in the case of Rani Anand Kunwir Vs. CIT 8 ITR 126 (Oudh). In our view it is settled law that admission on the mistake of fact or mistake of law is not binding on the assessee. Moreover, no tax can be collected without the authority of law as mandated by Article-265 of the Constitution. Therefore, we affirm the view of Ld. CIT(A) on this aspect. 20. So far as deleting the addition under section 2(22)(e) is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that it is not in dispute that Shri Devji N Palani is holding 33.33% of share in JIIPL and also shareholding of 21.74% in assessee-company. Thus, the first condition for deemed dividend is completed in this case. So far as second condition that recipient should be shareholder of the company does not exist as assessee-company is not shareholder of JIIPL. The payment by JIIPL to the assessee-company is ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 18 treated as deemed dividend only on the basis that there is some common shareholder holding substantial interest in both the companies. The Assessing Officer not only treated the transaction of receipt of amount of Rs.5.74 crores from JIIPL as a deemed dividend but also treated assessee as deemed shareholding of JIIPL. The Ld. CIT(A) by referring the order of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Seasons Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that assessee not being a shareholder cannot be taxed under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The order of Tribunal is based on Special Bench Bombay Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. 118 ITD 1 (Mumbai- Tri.), wherein it was held that shareholder should be registered as well as beneficial shareholder. The Ld. CIT(A) held that assessee is neither registered nor beneficial shareholder of JIIPL. Thus, the deeming provision of section 2(22)(e) is for taxing deemed dividend is always meant for registered and beneficial shareholder of the JIIPL company. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) also examined the contention of assessee made purchases to the tune of Rs.127.24 crores from JIIPL during the year under consideration and that transaction with JIIPL was ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 19 pertaining to business transaction and not liable to be covered by the ambit of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) held that Assessing Officer has not controverted this contention of assessee in the assessment order. 21. The Ld. CIT(A) further held that during appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished copy of ledger account of transaction with JIIPL and filed copy of transfer pricing officer (TPO) under section 92(CA)3, pertaining to specific domestic transaction with its associates companies. To support his contention, Ld. CIT(A) find the fund from JIIPL was pertaining to the business transaction. The Ld. CIT(A) by referring the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shripac Concrete Pvt.Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble court held that advance on account of business transaction cannot be categorized as loans so as to attract deeming fiction under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 22. We also find merit in the submission that on similar transaction in earlier and subsequent year no such addition was based on similar transaction. In our view, the Ld. CIT(A) is after considering the entire fact and legal position took a legaly plausible view which we affirm. ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 20 23. So far as reliance in case of National Travel Services (supra) by Ld. CIT-DR, we find that in the said decision the Hon'ble apex court merely referred the case before Hon'ble Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger bench and no finding which may be said to the adverse to the assessee is made. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal discussion, we affirm the order of Ld. CIT(A). 24. Considering the fact that we have dismissed the appeal of Revenue, therefore, specific adjudication on the alternative submissions of the assessee and the grounds in assessee’s CO, have become academic and dismissed as infructuous. 25. In combine result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and assessee’s C.O. have become infructuous and dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/02/2022 in open court and result was also placed on the Notice Board. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 23/02/2022 Dkp. Out Sourcing P.S ITA No.90/SRT/2018 & C.O. 3/SRT/2021 (A.Y.13-14) M/s DNP Foods Pvt. Ltd. 21 Copy to: 1. Appellant- 2. Respondent- 3. CIT(A)-Valsad 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File True copy/ By order // True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Surat