The ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari V. M/s. Sahjanand Exports, Navsari

ITA 92/SRT/2019

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the assessee, M/s. Sahjhanand Exports, for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2011-12, and 2013-14. The primary issues revolved around the treatment of alleged bogus purchases and sales, and the corresponding additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 143(3) r.w.s 147 and 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal examined the evidentiary value of sworn statements, the burden of proof regarding the genuineness of transactions, and the appropriateness of the additions made by the Assessing Officer, ultimately deciding to sustain a reduced addition rate for bogus purchases and uphold the deletions of certain additions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 301944 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Kantiial C Shah Vs. ACIT, B Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT, M. L. Sachdeva Vs ITO, Pankaj K. Chaudhary Vs. ITO, Mayank Diamond Private Limited Vs. ITO, Shakti Karnawat Vs. ITO, Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT, PCIT, Surat Vs. Tejua Rohit kumar Kapadia, The PCIT-5 vs. M/s. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd., ShilpiJewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors., CIT in Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Bogus purchase; Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure; Business income; Accommodation entries; Retraction; Reason to believe; Set aside
• Section: 131; 68; 148; 143(3); 143(1); 191; 73; 13; 153

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.92 & 93/SRT/2019 Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari. Vs. M/s. Sahjhanand Exports, 2/1, 3231/3, Sahjanand Anand Nagar, Shantadevi Road, Navsari. (Appellant) (Respondent) èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AATFS9138E आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.202/SRT/2017 Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Year: (2008-09) The ACIT, Navsari Circle, Navsari. Vs. M/s. Sahjhanand Exports, 2/1, 3231/3, Sahjanand Anand Nagar, Shantadevi Road, Navsari. (Appellant) (Respondent) èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AATFS9138E Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22/12/2022 Date of Pronouncement 10/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned three appeals filed by the Revenue, pertaining to Assessment Years (AYs) 2008-09, 2011-12 and 2013-14, are directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by Assessing Officer, under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Page | 2 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports 2. Since the issue involved in these three appeals, are common and identical, therefore these appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts as well as grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, in ITA No.202/SRT/2017 for AY.2008- 09, have been taken into consideration for deciding these appeals en masse. 3. Although, these three appeals filed by the Revenue, contain multiple ground of appeals. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue. We find that most of the grounds raised by the Revenue are either academic in nature or contentious in nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of the Revenue. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as follows: “(1) The main grievance of the Revenue is Ld. CIT(A) was erred in restricting the addition made on account of bogus purchases to only 2% and not treating the whole purchases, as bogus, considering the fact that the concerns from which the assessee has claimed to make these purchases, are just paper companies / non- existent entities as confirmed in statement on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act, by Shri Dharmichand Jain/Rajendra Jain. Ground No.1 of Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.93/SRT/2019 for AY.2013-14 and Ground No.1 of Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.202/SRT/2017 for AY.2008-09 and ground no.1 in ITA No.92/SRT/2019 for assessmet year 2011-12, are similar and identical grounds. Therefore, we adjudicate these grounds together. (2) Ground No.2 in ITA No.202/SRT/2017, Revenue’s appeal, the grievance of the Revenue is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.2,18,92,916/- which was claimed by assessee as sale proceeds. (3) Ground No.3 in ITA No.202/SRT/2017, Revenue’s appeal, the grievance of the Revenue is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.16,366/- made by AO on account of unrecorded commission.” 4. We shall take these summarize and concise grounds raised by the Revenue, one by one. 5. Now we shall take summarized ground no.1, which is, reproduced below for ready reference: “(1) The main grievance of the Revenue is Ld. CIT(A) was erred in restricting the addition made on account of bogus purchases to only 2% and not treating the whole purchases, as bogus, considering the fact that the concerns from which the assessee has claimed to make these purchases, are just paper companies / non- existent entities as confirmed in statement on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act, by Shri Page | 3 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports Dharmichand Jain/Rajendra Jain. Ground No.1 of Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.93/SRT/2019 for AY.2013-14 and Ground No.1 of Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.202/SRT/2017 for AY.2008-09 and ground no.1 in ITA No.92/SRT/2019 for assessmet year 2011-12, are similar and identical grounds. Therefore, we adjudicate these grounds together.” 6. Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee is a partnership form engaged in the business of export of diamond. The assessee filed its return of income on 25.09.2008 declaring total income of Rs.30,91,550/-. The return so filed was processed under section 143(1) without any alternation to the returned income. A search & seizure operation was conducted on 03.10.2013 in the case of one Shri Rajendra Jain at his premises located at Mumbai and Surat and it was found that concerns floated and operated by Shri Jain are nothing more than mere entry providers for bogus purchases and unsecured loans to beneficiaries across the country. Further investigation of accounts revealed the names of beneficiaries and it was intimated to this office that our assessee M/s. Sahjanand Exports has also been one of the beneficiaries during FY.2007-08 for two accommodation entries of ‘purchase’ worth Rs.89,45,568/- and Rs.1,97,91,196/- respectively from Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd and Sparsh Exports Pvt. Ltd being companies controlled by Shri Rajendra Jain. The information so received was, analysed and evaluated by Assessing Officer vis-a-vis the details of assessee's case and after due consideration of all aspects of the case, a well-reasoned belief was formed that income to the tune of the bogus entries of purchases arranged from the companies of Shri Jain has escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2015 after taking due approval from the Additional CIT vide his office letter dated 31 st March, 2015. The reasons to believe so formed were duly communicated to the assessee on 20.07.2015 and its objections thereto dated 10.08.2015 were also duly disposed of vide order dated 19.08.2015. 7. Bogus Purchases: During the course of search action on Shri Rajendra S. Jain, he had not only unequivocally admitted the fact of his involvement in operating paper concerns engaged in in providing merely accommodation entries without any actual delivery of goods but also elaborately explained the detailed modus operandi of such activities. Shri Rajendra Jain, in his statement, has Page | 4 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports specifically identified Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd and Sparsh Exports Pvt. Ltd as mere entry providing entities. These two companies were found to have provided entries of purchase to the assessee during the FY.2007-08. 8. Cross-examination of Shri Rajendra S. Jain: It was noticed that the assessee had, inter alia, filed an Affidavit given by Shri Rajendra Jain, the director of the two companies of the assessee claimed as suppliers for diamond. In the said Affidavit, Shri Rajendra Jain was seen to have confirmed the transaction of sale of diamonds to the assessee. Now, since the contentions of Shri Rajendra Jain stood in complete contradiction with his statement on oath given during the course of search and post-search proceedings, it was found necessary to cross-examine Shri Rajendra Jain as a witness in the case. Accordingly, the assessee was requested to produce Shri Rajendra S Jain as its witness for cross-examination before Assessing Officer on 23.12.2015. The assessee produced Shri Rajendra Jain, director of Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd and Sparsh Exports Pvt. Ltd on 23.12.2015 and he was cross-examined on the force of summons issued by Assessing Officer u/s 131 of the Act. Oath was duly administered to him and his statement was recorded. Noticeably, during the course of cross-examination proceedings, Shri Vitthalbhai Godhani, the partner of the assessee was present throughout and enjoyed unfettered opportunity to cross- examine Shri Rajendra Jain but did not. During the course of cross-examination, it was seen that Shri Rajendra Jain cold not substantiate even the actual involvement of his concerns in the business of diamond trading, much less the contents of the Affidavit and claim of sale to the assessee. 9. After going through the reply of the assessee and statement of Shri Rajendra Jain, the Assessing Officer analysed the facts as follows: (i) Issue – 1: Evidentiary value of the statement of Shri Rajendra Jain u/s 132(4) of the Act. The statement of Shri Rajendra Jain is a sworn statement. Moreover, the admission of Shri Jain is also supported by other evidences and surrounding circumstances. For instance, the factum of running merely paper concerns as admitted by Shri Jain is also supported by the finding of fact that not even a single carat of diamond was found at any of the premises covered by the Page | 5 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports search action. Statement recorded on oath, corroborated by findings, holds impeachable evidentiary value. This is not only in the fitness of things but also has legal sanction. Time and again, different judicial pronouncements have affirmed the evidentiary value of a sworn statement. For instance, in the case of Kantiial C Shah Vs. ACIT (2011) [14 taxmann.com 108], Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT has held that a sworn statement that is not conclusively proved to have been obtained under duress, coercion or misconception of facts, is a valid evidence in the eyes of law and can very well form the basis of making necessary additions. Similarly, in a recent decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT (2015) [62 taxmann.com 215 (SC)], while dismissing assessee's SLP, it has been held that where the assessee himself states about an undisclosed income and such statement is a sworn statement, it would be a valid evidence and needs no buttress from available documents. (ii) Issue 2: Whose onus is it actually as regards the claim of purchases? 10.5 The onus of proving the validity of a claim of deduction/expenditure is on the person who makes it. The legal maxim - "Qui sentit Commodumsentire debut et Onus"- says it all, meaning ‘He who derives the advantage ought to sustain the burden’. None other than the Hon'ble Apex Court, has already settled this aspect in landmark judgments in the cases of CIT Vs Calcutta Agency Limited (SC) 19 ITR 191 and CIT Vs R. Venkataswamy Naidu (SC) 29 ITR 529, wherein it has been stipulated that in order to justify a claim or deduction, it is the duty of assessee to substantiate it with records and evidences. (iii) Issue 3: When the onus shift on the Revenue: The question as to when does such onus of the assessee stands discharged and shifts onto Revenue is one of facts. Nature of business, practice of maintenance of business accounts, availability of independent evidences, prevalent business practices etc. are the factors that determine the extent of onus of the assessee in a particular case. It is a well understood position of law that mere furnishing of such evidences, which are in the controlled domain of the assessee, would not serve as unimpeachable evidences. There has to be an element of independent verifiability in the Page | 6 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports evidences relied upon. Only after adducing evidences that are reliable and sufficient, the onus shifts from the assessee to Revenue. (iv) Issue 4: What, inter alia, Constitutes, The Onus The Assessee: What can be treated as direct evidence and what as indirect/circumstantial is essentially a question of facts variable with the circumstances of each case. However, certain general categorizations may help in comprehending the point at hand: Direct evidences Day- To-Day Inward Receipts, Evidences As To Mode of Travel of Goods, Stock Movement Slips (Jaangad), Books of account, Bills, Stock Register, Proof Of Payment etc. Indirect evidences Challans of delivery, Confirmation from broker, if applicable Proof As To The Sales Of The Goods In Question; Registers Mandatory Under Other Applicable Statutes; Payment of Duties/Taxes etc.. What needs to be appreciated is that the assessee cannot play the entire adjudication merely on the force of indirect evidences, much less when such 'evidences' are not even completely reliable. There has to be-direct evidence first and then only, if there is any doubt left, indirect or circumstantial evidences can be assigned weightage to buttress the direct evidences. Where there is no structural strength of direct evidences, the edifice of assessee cannot survive the test of evidentiary scrutiny merely on the cosmetic embellishments of indirect/circumstantial evidences. As can be understood, submission of unverified Affidavits and evasive deponents cannot serve any purpose, more so in light of the fact when there already is a prima fade adverse case against a claim of the assessee. Thus, the assessee has, on facts and circumstances of the present case, failed to discharge its onus associated with direct evidences and hence his indirect/circumstantial evidences partake the character of self-serving recitals and hardly anything more. It may be noted as a pure finding of fact that the assessee has never been able to adduce any material evidence, which can show that the goods in question, ever came into the hands of the assessee from the alleged parties. Page | 7 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports (v) Issue 5: Whether disregarding sales is sine quo non for disallowing bogus purchases: It is also necessary to discuss briefly the often cited theory that ‘purchases cannot be disallowed if sales are accepted’. Once a transaction of purchase is found to be bogus / unverifiable, the factum of challenging or accepting challenge should not be weighed. On this issue, Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in a Third Member decision in the case of Asst. CIT vs Amar Mining Co. (2009) 121 TTJ 273 (Ahd.) has held that it was not justified of the first appellate authority to have deleted the disallowance of bogus purchases on the ground that production/sale could not have been possible in absence of purchases. Thus, any argument as to challenging/accepting of sales cannot be allowed to weigh in evaluation of question of genuineness of purchases in question. In view of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the current position of law, the assessee has been found to fail in adducing evidence of actual purchase of goods and their physical movement from the alleged parties to the assessee. Therefore, Assessing Officer made addition to the tune of Rs.1,08,40,112/-. 10. Unexplained sums credited in the Books of Account as sales: The Assessing Officer noted that it is true that when there is an entry in assessee's books, there is a reasonable presumption that such entries represent business receipts/sales of the assessee from its regular activities. However, as soon as the entities, from which sales have been shown, turn out to be bogus, the transaction claimed as 'sales' assumes the form of unexplained sums credited in the books of account of the assessee. This is so because the genuineness of source of such transactions fails. It is well settled that unless the assessee furnishes a satisfactory explanation as to the genuineness of a transaction, the transaction cannot escape the rigours of Section 68 of the Act. It needs to be appreciated that the nature and actual source of the sums that have been credited in the books of the assessee as sales stands unexplained as soon as the parties to whom such sales are shown turn out to be bogus parties. Sums received from those are not sale proceeds since noting has actually been sold thereto. Thus, since the third pillar of Section 68 i.e. the genuineness of these transactions is not proved, such sums are liable to be Page | 8 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was on these lines that the following show-cause notice was issued to the assessee firm - "....you are also requested to please show cause as to why not the claim of "sales" worth Rs.1,97,91,196/- and Rs.21,01,720/- shown from the said companies, which represent credits in your books of account, be treated as unexplained cash credits in line with the scheme of Section 68 of the Act, since the source of such credits has been found to be bogus and the transaction proves to be non-genuine ..." 11. In response, the assessee has furnished its reply. The Assessing Officer has gone through the reply of assessee and observed that assessee has merely reiterated that the sales are genuine and payments have been received. The reply of the assessee is however not acceptable since mere routing of payments through banking channels is of no evidentiary value when the transaction itself has been discovered to be bogus. When credit entries in the books of account of the assessee fails on account of genuineness of the transaction, the provisions of Section 68 of the Act come into play and the entire sum is liable to be deemed to be the income of 'the assessee. It may be pertinent to borrow contextual relevance from the case of M. L. Sachdeva Vs ITO (P & H) 45 taxmann.com 224[2014] wherein the facts were that assessee claimed certain credits in his bank account to be sales of diamond jewelry. However, the said transaction was not proved as genuine. Under these circumstances, it has been held that where the assessee fails to prove the genuineness of a transaction claimed as sales, the said sums may be deemed as the income of the assessee from unexplained sources. In view of these facts and findings, the credits claimed by the assessee as sales, having found to be from unexplained, are deemed to be its income for AY.2008-09 from unexplained sourced. Hence, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,18,92,916/-. 12. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, observing as follows: “3.3: Decision: After considering the findings of the assessing officer and submissions of the appellant, I find that the following emerge: Page | 9 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports (I) The AO has treated purchases of rough diamonds from M/s. Maulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Sparsh Exports Pvt. Ltd. as bogus purchases on the basis of statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act dated 05.10.2013 of Sh. Rajendra S. Jain (one of the directors of both these companies) wherein Shri Jain admitted that he was engaged in the business of bill shopping for a commission. He further stated that accommodation entries of bogus purchases were provided to the beneficiaries by his concerns. The AO asked for the documentary evidences of movement of diamond in the form of delivery challan which the appellant could not furnish during the re-assessment proceeding. The appellant had stated that in diamond trade, deliveries are mostly in person/by hand and no delivery challan are generated. AO did not accept the appellant’s contention and cross-examined Sh. Rajendra Jain u/s.131 of the Act at the time of re-assessment. The issue of retraction of statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act by Sh. R.S. Jain was discussed by the AO. AO finally concluded that the transactions with the concern of Rajendra Jain were bogus-as Rajendra Jain was not really involved In diamond trade and accordingly disallowed purchases of rough diamond worth Rs.1,08,40,112/- and added the same to the total income, AO also held the sales of polished diamond to these parties as bogus and added Rs. 2,18,92,916/- as unexplained credits u/s. 68 of the Act. As against the above findings of the AO, appellant has contended that its books of account were not rejected by the AO by pointing out any discrepancies, whatsoever. From the copy of audit-report in form 3CB for A.Y.2007-08, it was pointed out that the closing stock of polished diamond as on 31.03.2007 was 6871.07carats, Which was sufficient enough for first lot of sale of 1027.67 carats to M/s.; Maulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd. on 10.05,2007. Other lot of sales to M/s. Maulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Sparsh Impex Pvt. Ltd was also explained from day to day stock of polished diamond received from own factory production. These quantitative details, on the basis of audit reports of A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09, cannot be rejected out rightly merely because of statement of third party and non-availability of deliver challans. Search in the case of Sh. Rajendra Jain took place 01 03.10.2013 whereas the audit reports of appellant for A.Y.2007-08 2008-09 and later A.Yrs do not show any discrepancy with regard to quantitative details put forth by the appellant. Thus, appellant contention gets support from its own books of account. The question which needs to be answered is that where from the rough diamond claimed to have been purchased by the appellant came. This puzzle is solved from the modus operandi of bill shopping business explained by Sh. Rajendra Jain in statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act. Shri R.S. Jain had stated that rough diamonds imported by his concerns are, in real taken by the 'cash market players' and his concerns end having fictitious stock in the books which are sold, to the beneficiary as accommodation entry. The payments to fore suppliers are also arranged by the 'cash market players'. If appellant happens to be purchaser of rough from third party the cash/grey market, it will end up getting bills from the concern of R.S. Jain. Thus, even the statement u/s. 132(4) of R.S, Jain does not point out abnormality as regards appellant's purchases vis-a-vis the statement of admission of accommodation entry. It is well established law that the statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act is binding on the person making such statement and not on the third party unless further corroborated by other evidences. In the case of the appellant, eventhough Rajendra Jain has admitted accommodation entries, the appellant's books of Page | 10 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports account and audit reports do not show any discrepancy whatsoever as noted at Sr. no. (11) hereinabove. The appellant has shown day to day stock register indicating ; purchases of rough diamond, production of polished diamond and sale of the same. Further, the chart of yield percentage out of cutting & polishing of rough diamonds for A.Y. 2006-07 to 2011-12 indicate average yield at 24.35% and yield in the current A.Y. is at Rs. 28.69 %. Thus, this data also do not support the other possible view that the appellant could have generated excess rough diamond stock by manipulating yield percentage. Thus, appellant's claim of purchase cannot be rejected merely on the statement of R.S. Jain and non- availability of delivery challans. In such a case the only possible situation can be that the appellant purchased rough diamond from third party in the cash/grey market and ended up getting bills for purchase from the concerns of R.S. Jain. In this case, there can be a case of over-Invoicing of purchases only to some extent.' Appellant has shown GP chart of A.Y. 2006-07 to 2009-10 which is in the range of 5.46% to 5.54% except current A.Y. GP which is at 3.55%. Thus, considering the statement of R.S. Jain regarding accommodation entry, a maximum of 2% disallowance out of so called bogus purchases can be sustained to take into account the over-invoicing involved in such purchases. In view of the above facts and discussion, 2% of purchases of rough diamond from the concerns of R.S. Jain i.e. Rs.2,16,802/- (2% of Rs.1,08,40,112/0 is hereby sustained out of total purchase disallowances of Rs.1,08,40,112/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the AO had not drawn any adverse inference with regard to purchases of rough diamond from M/s. Sparsh Exports Pvt. Ltd. in A.Y. 2007-08 on the basis of submissions made during re-assessment on the same set of facts. (2) As regards the bogus sales and addition as unexplained credits, the same cannot be sustained as sales are very well explained from the quantitative details evidenced from the audit reports of A.Y.2007-08 and current A.Y. 2008-09 as explained at Sr. no. (ii) hereinabove. The AO's conclusions of additions are mainly based on one sided view of statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act and cross- examination u/s. 131 of the Act, Thus, the addition of Rs.2,18,92,916/- is hereby deleted. Ground, of appeal no. 1 is partly allowed and ground of appeal no. 2 gets fully allowed. (3) As regards ground of appeal no. 3 pertaining to unexplained commission of payment of Rs.16,366/-, the appellant has 'claimed that this additions has been made merely on presumption that the assessee must have paid commission to accommodation entry provider. As the appellant has been granted major relief in respect of accommodation entry additions vide ground no. 1 & 2, the addition on account of unexplained commission of Rs.16,366/-cannot be sustained and the same is hereby deleted. However, it is noted from the computation of the total income in the assessment order that the AO forgot to include this addition and therefore at the time of appeal effect order, this amount of Rs.16,366/- should not be reduced from the total income. 4. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed.” 13. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. Page | 11 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports 14. The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) for the Revenue pleads that during the search operation, Shri Rajendra Jain, in his statement, had specifically identified Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd and Sparsh Exports Pvt. Ltd in which he was director, as mere entry providing entities. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted an affidavit from Shri Rajendra Jain stating that the transactions with the assessee were made on actual basis. Thus, Shri Rajendra Jain stood in complete contradiction with his statement on oath given during the course of search and post-search proceedings as in the affidavit given by him to the assessee; he had confirmed the transaction of sale of diamonds to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was requested to produce Shri Rajendra S. Jain as its witness for cross-examination by issuing summons u/s 131 of the Act. During the course of cross-examination, it was seen that Shri Rajendra Jain cold not substantiate even the actual involvement of his concerns in the business of diamond trading, much less the contents of the Affidavit and claim of sale to the assessee. He completely failed to furnish replies regarding the finer details of the place of business, basic traits of diamond industry and modus operandi of trading of diamonds etc. The factum of running merely paper concerns as admitted by Shri Jain was also supported by the finding of fact that not even a single carat of diamond was found at any of the premises covered by the search action. It may be noted as a pure finding of fact that the assessee had never been able to adduce any material evidence, which could show that the goods in question ever came into the hands of the assessee from the alleged parties. The primary onus to substantiate a claim is, therefore, on the assessee and this onus has to be discharged to the best of abilities to establish the claim by adducing unimpeachable evidences. In view of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the current position of law, the assessee failed in adducing evidence of actual purchase of goods and their physical movement from the alleged parties to the assessee. 15. About unexplained cash credit, Ld. DR submits that on verification of records, it was found that the assessee had claimed sales of Rs.1,97,91,196/- made to Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd and Rs.21,01,720/- to Sparsh Exports Pvt. Page | 12 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports Ltd. which had been discovered as bogus. It was held that when there is an entry in assessee's books, there is a reasonable presumption that such entries represent business receipts/sales of the assessee from its regular activities. However, as soon as the entities from which sales have been shown turn out to be bogus, the transaction claimed as 'sales' assumes the form of unexplained sums credited in the books of account of the assessee. This is so because the genuineness of source of such transactions fails. It is well settled that unless the assessee furnishes a satisfactory explanation as to the genuineness of a transaction, the transaction cannot escape the rigours of Section 68 of the Act. The nature and actual source of the sums that have been credited in the books of the assessee as sales stands unexplained as soon as the parties to whom such sales are shown turn out to be bogus parties. In view of these facts and findings, the credits claimed by the assessee as sales, having found to be from unexplained, were deemed its income for A.Y. 2008-09 from unexplained sources. Therefore, he pleads that order of Assessing Officer order may be upheld. 16. About addition account of commission given for obtaining entries, Ld. DR pointed out that in lieu of the bogus accommodation entry provided by the alleged supplier, the assessee had incurred revenues in the name of commission. The range of such commission normally varies from 0.05% to 0.5% of the value of the bill procured, as evidenced by investigations carried out with entry providers operating in and around Mumbai. In view of the nature of activity, the quantum of entry obtained and the prevalent rates of commission for this kind of favour, a rate of 0.05% was adopted and accordingly Rs.16,366/- was added back to the total income of the assessee as unexplained expenditure. Therefore, Ld. DR prays the Bench that addition made by Assessing Officer may be sustained. 17. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it is not a case of bogus purchase, it is a case of sale also so. Out of the purchases, the assessee made sale also. Therefore, Purchases and Sales should be set off and addition may be made on the net amount. The ld Counsel further submitted that assessee submitted bills, vouchers, stock records and transactions were through Page | 13 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports banking channel therefore entire addition made by the assessing officer may be deleted. 18. On technical ground, on the validity of reassessment under section 147/148 of the Act, the Ld. Counsel submits that under Rule 27 of ITAT, Rules, the assessee can argue the issue relating to reopening of assessment which was there before the lower authorities. Therefore, Ld. Counsel took us through the paper book and the reasons for reopening of the assessment and stated that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are not in accordance with the provision of the Act. Therefore, order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act may be quashed. 19. However, on the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue submits that addition made by the Assessing Officer should be confirmed as the assessee has engaged in getting the bogus purchase bills and sales bills. 20. On technical ground of reopening of assessment, the Ld. DR for the Revenue states that assessee has not made any formal application under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Therefore, assessee cannot argue on the issue of validity of reopening of assessment. 21. 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 note that assessee has not made an application under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, hence the arguments made by Ld. Counsel on the issue of validity of reopening of assessment is not considered and thus hereby rejected. 22. On merits, we note that issue of summarized ground no.1 of Revenue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Honourable Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Surat in the case of Pankaj K. Chaudhary, in ITA No.1152/AHD/2017, dated 27.09.2021, wherein the Tribunal has sustained the addition at the rate of 6% on the bogus purchase. The findings of the co-ordinate Bench are as follows: Page | 14 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports “12. We have heard the submission of ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue and the ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee. We have also gone through the various documentary evidences furnished by assessee. The ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported the order of AO. The ld. CIT-DR submits that Investigation Wing, Mumbai made a search on Bhanwarlal Jain Group. During the search and after search, the Investigation Wing made a thorough investigation and concluded that Bhanwarlal Jain Group and his associates including his sons were indulging in managing about 70 benami concerns. The benami concerns were engaged in providing accommodation entries. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries of such accommodation entries. In the transaction of accommodation entries, the documentary evidences are created in such a way, so that the bogus transaction is looks like genuine transaction. In bogus transaction, the fabricated evidences are always maintained perfectly. The assessee has obtained accommodation entry only to inflate the expenses and to reduce the ultimate profit. No stocks of diamonds were found at the time of search on Bhanwarlal Jain Group. The assessee has shown a very meagre gross profit (GP) @ 0.78% and not net profit (NP) at 0.02%. The ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% which is on the lower side. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue prayed that disallowance made by the AO may be upheld or in alternative submitted that it may restricted at least @ 25%, keeping in view that the NP declared by the assessee is extremely on lower side. 13. On the validity of reopening, the ld.CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the AO received credible information about the accommodation entry provided by Bhanwarlal Jain Group. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries, who had availed accommodation entries from such hawala trader. At the time of recording reasons, the mere suspicious about the accommodation entry is sufficient as held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in various cases. To support his submissions, the ld.CIT-DR relied upon the decision;  Pushpak Bullion (P) Ltd Vs DCIT [2017] 85 taxmann.com 84(Gujarat High Court),  Peass Industrial Engineers (P) Ltd Vs DCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 185 (Gujarat High Court),  ITO Vs Purushttom Dass Bangur [1997] 90 Taxman 541 (SC) and  Mayank Diamond Private Limited (2014) (11) TMI 812 (Gujarat High Court).  AGR Investment Vs Additional Commissioner 197 Taxman 177 (Delhi) and  Chuharmal Vs CIT [1998] 38 Taxman 190 (SC). 14. On the other hand, the ld.AR of the assessee submits that he has challenged the validity of reopening as well as restricting the addition to the extent of 12.50% of the alleged bogus purchases. The ld.AR of the assessee submits during the assessment, the AO has not made any independent investigation. The AO reopened the case of the assessee on the basis of third party information without making any preliminary investigation. The AO received vague information about providing accommodation entry by Bhanwarlal Jain Group. No specific information about the accommodation entry obtained by assessee was received by AO. There is no live link between the Page | 15 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports reasons recorded qua the assessee. Therefore, the re-opening is invalid and all subsequent action is liable to be set aside. 15. On account of additions of bogus purchases, the ld.AR submits that in the original assessment, the assessee filed its complete details of purchases to prove the genuineness of expenses. The AO accepted the same in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) on 10.03.2009. During re-assessment, the assessee again furnished complete details about the genuineness of purchases. The assessee filed confirmation purchases invoices, accounts of the parties, bank statement of assessee showing transaction to the banking channel. The AO has not made any comment on the documentary evidence furnished by assessee. The AO solely relied upon the statement of third party and the report of Investigation Wing. The report of wing and the statement of Bhanwarlal Jain were not provided to the assessee. The AO has not disputed the sales of assessee. No sale is possible in absence of purchase. The books of accounts were not rejected. The AO made the disallowance of entire purchases. The assessing officer not provided cross examination of the alleged hawala dealers. The disallowances sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) @ 12.5% of the impugned purchases, is on higher side and deserve to be deleted in total. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that entire purchases shown by assessee are genuine. In without prejudice and alternative submissions, the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that in alternative submission, the disallowance may be sustained on reasonable basis. To support his various submission, the ld.AR for the assessee is relied upon case laws: 1 M/s Andaman Timber industries VsCommissioner of Central Excise, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4228 OF 2006 (Supreme Court) 2 CIT vs. Indrajit Singh Suri [2013] 33 taxmann.com 281 (Gujarat) 3 Albers Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO 1(1)(1), Surat I.T.A. No.776 &1180/AHD/2017 4 The PCIT-5 vs. M/s. Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. TTANO. 1297 OF 2015 (Bombay High Court) 5 ShilpiJewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors. WRIT PETITION NO. 3540 OF 2018 (Bombay High Court) 6 CIT in Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani 355 ITR 172 (Gujarat) 7 Micro Inks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 153 (Gujarat) 8 Shakti Karnawat Vs. ITO - 2(3)(8), Surat ITA 1504/Ahd/2017 and 1381 /Ahd/2017 9 Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2008] 296 ITR 90 (Bombay) 10 PCIT, Surat 1 Vs. Tejua Rohit kumar Kapadia [2018] 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC) 11 The PCIT-17 vs. M/s Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. ITA NO. 1004 OF 2016(Bombay High Court) 12 Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain HUF Vs. ITO 2(3)(8) Surat ITA.No.269/SRT/2017 16. In the rejoinder submissions the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that that rigour of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act is not Page | 16 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports applicable before the tax authorities. It was submitted that the ratio of various case laws relied by the ld. AR for the assessee is not applicable on the facts of the present cases. The ratio of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Mayank Diamond Private Limited (supra) is directly applicable on the facts of the present case. 17. We have considered the submissions of the parties and have gone through the order of the lower authorities. We have also deliberated on each and every case laws relied by both the parties. We have also examined the financial statement of all the assessee(s) consisting of computation of income and audit report. We have also gone through the documentary evidences furnished in all cases. Ground No.1 in assessee’s appeal relates to the validity of reopening. The ld AR for the assessee vehemently argued that the AO reopened the case of the assessee on the basis of third party information, and without making any preliminary investigation, which was vague about the alleged accommodation entry by Bhanwarlal Jain Group. And that there was no specific information about the accommodation entry availed by the assessee. There is no live link between the reasons recorded qua the assessee. We find that the assessee has raised objection against the validity of the reopening before the AO. The objections of the assessee was duly disposed by AO in his order dated 09.02.2015. The assessee raised ground of appeal before ld CIT(A) while assailing the order of AO on reopening. The ld CIT(A) while considering the ground of appeal against the reopening held that the AO has received report from investigation wing Mumbai, which indicate that the assessee is beneficiary of the accommodation entry operators. The accommodation entry provider admitted before investigation wing that he has given such entry to various persons; based on such report the AO has reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment and thus the action of AO in reopening is justified. 18. We find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Peass Industrial Engineers (P) Ltd Vs DCIT (supra) while considering the validity of similar notice of reopening, which was also issued on the basis of information of investigation wing that they have searched a person who is engaged in providing accommodation entries, held that where after scrutiny assessment the assessing officer received information from the investigation wing that well known entry operators of the country provided bogus entries to various beneficiaries, and assessee was one of such beneficiary, assessing officer was justified in re- opening assessment. Further similar view was taken by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Pushpak Bullion (P) Ltd Vs DCIT (supra). Therefore, respectfully following the order of Hon’ble High Court, we find that the assessing officer validly assumed the jurisdiction for making re-opening under section 147 on the basis of information of investigation wing Mumbai. So far as other submissions of the ld AR for the assessee that there is no live link of the reasons recorded, we find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Peass Industrial Engineers (P) Ltd clearly held that when assessing officer received information from the investigation wing that two well known entry operators of the country provided bogus entries to various beneficiaries, and assessee was one of such beneficiary, assessing officer was justified. Hence, the ground No. 1 in assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Page | 17 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports 19. Ground No. 2 in assessee’s appeal and the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are interconnected, which relates to restricting the disallowance of bogus purchases to the extent of 12.5%. The AO made of 100% of purchases shown from the hawala dealers/ entry provider namely Bhanwarlal Jain. We find that the AO while making additions of 100%, of disputed purchases solely relied on the report of the investigation wing Mumbai. No independent investigation was carried by the AO. The AO has not disputed the sale of the assessee. The AO made no comment on the evidences furnished by the assessee. We further find that ld CIT(A), while considering the submissions of the assessee accepted the lapses on the part of the AO and noted that no sale is possible in absence of purchases. The Books of the assessee was not rejected by the AO. The ld CIT(A) on further examination of the facts and various legal submissions find that Ahmedabad Tribunal in Bholanath Poly Fab Private Limited (supra) held that in the such cases the addition of bogus purchases was sustained to the extent of 12%, on the observation that the assessee may have made purchases from elsewhere and obtained the bills from impugned supplier to inflate Gross Profit Rate. The ld CIT(A) by considering the overall facts, concluded that the 100% disallowance of purchase is not justified. We also find that the ld.CIT(A) also considered the decision of jurisdictional High Court in Mayank Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and compared the fact of the present case with the facts in Mayank Diamonds Pvt Ltd (supra) and noted that assessee in that case was also engaged in the trading of polished diamonds. The ld CIT(A) noted that in that case the AO made disallowance of entire bogus purchase and on first appeal before CIT(A) the disallowances were maintained. However, the Tribunal gave partial relief to the assessee directing to sustain the addition @12% of such bogus purchases. And on further appeal, the Hon'ble High Court sustained Gross Profit Rate @ 5% being average rate of profit in industry. 20. Now adverting to the facts of the present case, the ld.CIT(A) held that in some other similar cases; though he had sustain 5% of Gross Profit Rate, considering the fact that where Gross Profit shown by those assessee’s are more than 5%. However, in the present case, the assessee has merely shown Gross Profit Rate only at 0.78% of turnover, accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) was of the view that disallowance of 12.5% of impugned purchases/bogus purchases would be reasonable to meet the end of justice. 21. We have seen that during the financial year under consideration the assessee has shown total turnover of Rs. 66,09,62,458/-. The assessee has shown Gross Profit @ .78% and net Profit @ .02% (page 11 of paper Book). The assessee while filing the return of income has declared taxable income of Rs.1,81,840/- only. We are conscious of the facts that dispute before us is only with regard of the disputed purchases of Rs, 4.34 Crore, which was shown to have purchased from the entity managed by Bhanwarlal Jain Group. During the search action on Bhanwarlal Jain no stock of goods/ material was found to the investigation party. Bhanwarlal Jain while filing return of income has offered commission income (entry provider). Before us, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue vehemently submitted that the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Mayank Diamond Private Limited (supra) is directly applicable on the facts of the present case. We find that in Mayank Diamonds the Hon’ble High Court restricted the additions to 5% of GP. We have seen that in Mayank Diamonds P Ltd (supra), the assessee had declared GP @ 1.03% on turnover of Rs. 1.86 Crore. The disputed transaction in the said case was Rs. 1.68 Crore. However, in Page | 18 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports the present case the assessee has declared the GP @ 0.78%. It is settled law that under Income-tax, the tax authorities are not entitled to tax the entire transaction, but only the income component of the disputed transaction, to prevent the possibility of revenue leakage. Therefore, considering overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that disallowances @ 6% of impugned purchases / disputed purchases would be sufficient to meet the possibility of revenue leakage. In the result the ground No. 2 of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed and the grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed. 22. In the result the appeal of revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.” 23. We note that concise and summarized ground no.1 of Revenue is covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Pankaj K. Chaudhary (supra). Hence, respectfully following the judgment of co-ordinate Bench, we direct the Assessing Officer to sustain the addition at the rate of 6% of bogus purchases. 24. In the result, summarized and concise ground no.1 raised by the Revenue (Ground No.1 of Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.93/SRT/2019 for AY.2013-14 and Ground No.1 of Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.202/SRT/2017 for AY.2008-09 and ground no.1 in ITA No.92/SRT/2019 for assessmet year 2011-12) is partly allowed. 25. The summarized and concise ground no.2 is reproduced below for ready reference, as follows: “(2) Ground No.2 in ITA No.202/SRT/2017, Revenue’s appeal, the grievance of the Revenue is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.2,18,92,916/- which was claimed by assessee as sale proceeds.” 26. We have heard both the parties. The facts of the issue has already been narrated in para nos. 6 to 10 of this order, therefore we do not repeat them for the sake of brevity. The Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. On the other hand ld Counsel for the assessee defended the order passed by the ld CIT(A). We note that ld CIT(A) has adjudicated the said issue observing as follows: “(2) As regards the bogus sales and addition as unexplained credits, the same cannot be sustained as sales are very well explained from the quantitative details evidenced from the audit reports of A.Y.2007-08 and current A.Y. 2008-09 as Page | 19 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports explained at Sr. no. (ii) hereinabove. The AO's conclusions of additions are mainly based on one sided view of statement u/s 132(4) of the Act and cross- examination u/s 131 of the Act, Thus, the addition of Rs.2,18,92,916/- is hereby deleted. Ground, of appeal no. 1 is partly allowed and ground of appeal no. 2 gets fully allowed.” 27. We have gone through the above findings of ld CIT(A) and noted that there is no infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A). That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid additions. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 28. In the result, Concise and summarized (Ground No.2 in ITA No.202/SRT/2017) ground no.2 of the Revenue is dismissed. 29. The summarized and concise ground no.3 is reproduced below for ready reference, as follows: “(3) Ground No.3 in ITA No.202/SRT/2017, Revenue’s appeal, the grievance of the Revenue is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.16,366/- made by AO on account of unrecorded commission.” 30. We have heard both the parties. The facts of the issue has already been narrated in para nos. 6 to 10 of this order, therefore we do not repeat them for the sake of brevity. The Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. On the other hand ld Counsel for the assessee defended the order passed by the ld CIT(A). We note that ld CIT(A) has adjudicated the said issue observing as follows: “(3) As regards ground of appeal no. 3 pertaining to unexplained commission of payment of Rs.16,366/-, the appellant has claimed that this additions has been made merely on presumption that the assessee must have paid commission to accommodation entry provider. As the appellant has been granted major relief in respect of accommodation entry additions vide ground no. 1 & 2, the addition on account of unexplained commission of Rs.16,366/-cannot be sustained and the same is hereby deleted. However, it is noted from the computation of the total income in the assessment order that the AO forgot to include this addition and therefore at the time of appeal effect order, this amount of Rs.16,366/- should not be reduced from the total income.” Page | 20 ITA 92 & 93/SRT/2019 & 202/SRT/2017/AY.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2008-09 M/s. Sahjanand Exports 31. We note that findings of ld CIT(A) states that such additions has been made merely on presumption that the assessee must have paid commission to accommodation entry provider. The assessing officer has not proved with cogent evidence that assessee has paid commission, hence such addition is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, we note that conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) are, therefore, correct and admit no interference by us. We, approve and confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue. 32. In the result, Concise and summarized Ground No.3, in ITA No.202/SRT/2017, raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 33. In combined result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Registry is directed to place one copy of this order in all appeals folder / case file(s). Order pronounced on 10/01/2023 by placing the result on the Notice Board. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER lwjr /Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 10/01/2023 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat