The ACIT, Circle-2, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. M/s Raghuvanshi Industries, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 973/RJT/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62794 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N R SONI
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. . .. . . . . . , , , , . .. . . . . . , , , , $ $ $ $ BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA, JM AND SHRI D. K. S RIVASTAVA, AM. ITA NO.973/RJT/2010. / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07.. THE ASSTT. C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT. ( */ APPELLANT) VS. M/S. RAGHUVANSHI INDUSTRIES, SURVEY NO.319, JAMNAGAR HIGHWAY, AT: TARAGHADI, TAL: PADDHARI, DIST.: RAJKOT. PAN: AACFR4534J. +,*/ RESPONDENT - / REVENUE BY SHRI N. R. SONI, D. R /- / ASSESSEE BY NONE. - / DATE OF HEARING 26-03-2012 - / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27 - 04-2012 / / / / ORDER . .. . . . . . , , , , / T. K. SHARMA, J. M. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25-03-2010 OF CI T (A)-I, RAJKOT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF COTTON, CO TTON SEEDS ETC.. FOR THE ASSESSMENT UNDER APPEAL, IT FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30-12-2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.19,93,210/-. THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESS MENT U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT ON 30/12/2008 AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,46,85,350 /- WHEREIN, HE MADE THE FOLLOWING TWO ADDITIONS:- ITA NO 973/RJT/2010. 2 (I)ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT (DISCUSSED AT PARA.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) 79,02,139/-. (II)ADDITION U/S.68 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 47,90, 000/-. (DISCUSSED AT PARA.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) 3. ON APPEAL, BEFORE LD. CIT(A), IN RESPECT OF G.P. ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS:- 1) THE LEARNED AO HAS INCORRECTLY WORKED OUT THE Y IELD OF COTTON AND COTTON SEEDS SUCH THAT WHERE AS THE YIELD OF COTTON (ROOT) WOULD RANGE IN BETWEEN 30 TO 35 % THE AO HAS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER WORKED OUT THE YIELD OF COTTON AT 65% OF ROOT (FINISHED PRODUCT) A ND THEREFORE THIS EXERCISE OF THE AO IS INCORRECT AND IS ALSO WITHOUT ANY BASI S. 2) THE FACT IS THAT THE OP FOR ANY BUSINESSMAN CAN NEVER BE THE SAME, IT VARIES FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND NUMBER OF FAC TOR AFFECTS THE GP LIKE THE PRODUCTION OF THE CROP IN A PARTICULAR YEAR, NU MBER OF OPERATORS/GINNERS AND THE COMPETITION FACED FROM TH E OTHERS IN INDUSTRY, PRICES AT WHICH THE GOODS COULD BE SOLD I.E REALIZA TION OF THE PRINCE IN THE MARKET AT WHICH THE SALES ARE MADE ON WHICH THE ASS ESSEE HAS NO CONTROL (WHICH I TURN IS DEPENDENT UPON THE INTERNATIONAL P RICE OF THE MATERIAL ALSO) AND A HOST OF SUCH FACTORS AFFECT THE G.P. THUS NO TRADER CAN FIX THE GP WHILE DOING THE BUSINESS. THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND A TR ADER IS MORE CONCERNED WITH THIS PROFITS RATHER THAN THE PERCENTAGE OF THE G.P. 3) THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AUDITED U/S.44AB. REGARDING THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE AUDIT REPORT THE AUDITOR HAS GIVEN THE CLARIFICATORY CERTIFICATE WHICH HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HONOUR. IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE LEARNED AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT THE AUD ITORS CERTIFICATE IS AN AFTER THOUGHT. WITH RESPECT IT IS SUBMITTED THAT TY POGRAPHICAL AND CLERICAL ERRORS DO OCCUR EVERY WHERE AND THEY HAVE TO BE CLA RIFIED AND RECTIFIED. AUDITORS REPORT IS NO EXCEPTION TO IT AND THERE CA N BE FLAW IN AUDITORS REPORT ALSO. THEREFORE WHAT THE AUDITOR HAS DONE I HIS CERTIFICATE IS TO CLARIFY THE TYPING / CLERICAL ERRORS WHICH CRAPT IN HIS REPORT U/S.44AB. YOUR HONOUR WILL APPRECIATE THAT THERE ARE RECTIFICATION PROVISIONS IN THE INCOME TAX ACT ALSO TO CORRECT SUCH MISTAKES. 4) THE LEARNED AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECTS I N THE BOOKS OR THE RECORDS OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS REGULA R ITEM WISE DAY TO DAY QUANTITY ACCOUNT FOR PURCHASE, SALES AND PRODUC TION AND STOCK THE ITA NO 973/RJT/2010. 3 DETAILS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN FURNISHED TO THE AO AND NO DEFECT THEREIN HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO. THUS GIVEN THE ABOVE FACT & THE EARLIER SUBMISSION NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW G.P. DESERVES TO BE MADE. IF AT ALL ANY ADD ITION BE MADE A TOKE DISALLOWANCE OF SAY RS.5000 TO 20000 OUT OF EXPENSE S AT THE MOST WOULD MEET ENDS OF JUSTICE. THE ADDITION THEREFORE FOR A LLEGED LOW G.P.DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION, THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED THE REMAND REPORT. IN THE REMAND REPORT, AO HAS MERELY STATED THAT THE ADDITION WAS CORRECTLY MADE. AFTER CONSIDERING THIS REMAND REPO RT, THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE G.P. ADDITION TO RS.25,000/- AND DELETED THE BALANC E ADDITION FOR THE DETAILS REASON GIVEN IN PARA-3.3 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 3.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND I F IND THAT THE A.OS WAY OF MAKING THIS ADDITION IS BOTH, WRONG AND BASELESS . HE HAS STARTED WITH THE HEADING PRODUCTION VIS--VIS CONSUMPTION OF EL ECTRICITY. BUT, IN HIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION, THERE IS NOT WHISPER ABOUT THE C ONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY. APART FROM THAT, THE A.O. HAS MENTIONED THAT THE RA TIO OF FINISHED COTTON IS BEING ADOPTED AT 65-35. EVEN THIS IS WRONG. BECAUSE , THE RATIO IS, IN FACT, IN THE REVERSE. THIRTY FIVE PER CENT FINISHED COTTO N IS PRODUCED OUT OF RAW COTTON. IN FACT, THE A.O. HAS WORKED OUT THAT THER E IS LESSER PRODUCTION OF COTTON SEED. BUT, HE HAS FAILED TO NOTE THAT IF TH ERE WAS LOWER PRODUCTION OF COTTON SEED, THEN IN FACT, THE PRODUCTION OF FIN ISHED COTTON WAS HIGHER, WHICH WAS, IN FACT, 36.8%/ THIS SHOWS THAT RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE, IN FACT, BETTER, AND IF, ACCORDING TO THE A.O., PRO DUCTION OF COTTON SEED SHOULD HAVE BEEN 65%, THEN THE ADDITION WAS TO BE A DJUSTED AGAINST EXCESS SALE OF COTTON. BECAUSE IF HIS WORKING IS AC CEPTED TO BE CORRECT, THEN THE YIELD OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE 65% COTTON SEEDS, 36.8% FINISHED COTTON, AND 2.17% HUSK ETC., WHICH TOTALS TO ABOUT 104%. APPARENTLY THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE. APART FROM THAT, THE RATES FOR ADDIT ION ADOPTED IS THE RATE OF SALE OF FINISHED GOODS. IN FACT, THE ENTIRE EXERCIS E HAS BEEN DONE INCORRECT, AND APPARENTLY, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THIS ADDITION , BECAUSE, BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, 65% COTTON COULD BE GENERATED OUT O F RAW COTTON, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE THE BASIS OF THIS ADDITION BY THE A.O ., WHERE HE HAS WORKED OUT THAT THE PRODUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MOR E BY 1172037 KGS. IF EARLIER YEARS POSITION IS SEEN, THEN IT IS NOTI CED THAT THE YIELD OF COTTON IS QUITE COMPARABLE AS COMPARED TO EARLIER YEAR, WHICH WAS 36.45% AND 35.50% IN TWO EARLIER YEARS. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE YIELD IS COMPARABLE TO EARLIER YEAR AND YIELD OF COTTON IS MORE THAN 35%. THERE MAY BE OTHER REASONS FOR FALL IN GP, BECAUSE IT WILL DEPEND ON P REVAILING MARKET RATE OF ITA NO 973/RJT/2010. 4 COTTON AND THE FINISHED GOODS. THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AUDITED. ALL QUANTITATIVE TALLIES ARE MAINTAINED, AND AS DIS CUSSED EARLIER, THE ENTIRE EXERCISE HAS BEEN MADE WRONGLY, AND EVEN THE FIGURE S OF YIELD HAVE NOT BEEN CHECKED. THEREFORE, SUCH TYPE OF ADDITION WAS NOT AT ALL REQUIRED, AND AS STATED BY THE LD. A.R. IN HIS SUBMISSION, OU T OF RELATED EXPENSES, NOMINAL ADDITION OF RS.25,000/- IS SUSTAINED, OUT O F THE TOTAL ADDITION, AND THE BALANCE ADDITION IS DELETED. 5. WITH REGARD TO OTHER ADDITION OF RS.47,90,000/- MADE U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF AO, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ROHINI BUILDERS. THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION IS CONTAI NED IN PARA-4.4 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 4.4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. I FIN D THAT ALL THE CREDITORS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX. THEY HAD FILED CONFIRMATIONS, WHI CH WERE SENT TO THE A.O. THEIR BANK STATEMENTS SHOW THAT THERE ARE NO C ASH DEPOSITS PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CHEQUES IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. ALL THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND ALL TH E AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN REPAID IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHE QUE. THUS, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CONFIRMATION O F ALL THE CREDITORS ALONG WITH THEIR ADDRESSES, PAN, BANK STATEMENTS, AND ACK NOWLEDGMENT OF THEIR RETURNS. TRANSFER OF FUNDS IS BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PA YEE CHEQUES. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJAR AT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ROHINI BUILDERS, REPORTED IN 256 ITR 360, T HE ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIED AND IS DELETED. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (I) THE LD. CIT(A)-III HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION UP TO RS.25,000/- DELETING RS.78,77,139/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.79,02,139/- MADE ON A/C. OF LOW GP. (II) THE LD. CIT(A)-III HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.47,90,000/- MADE U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 7. DESPITE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE, ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING, NONE WAS PRESENT FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFOR E, PROCEED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. D.R. AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ITA NO 973/RJT/2010. 5 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, ON BEHALF OF R EVENUE, SHRI N. R. SONI, D.R., APPEARED TOOK US THROUGH THE PARA-3 OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER AND CONTENDED THAT THE A.O. HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS AFTER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SEC.145(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. BECAUSE T IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PROCESSED THE RAW MATERIAL 117203 7 KGS. MORE AS REPORTED BY THE AUDITOR. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED GROSS PROFIT RATIO @ 1.45% IN THE YEAR UNDER REVIEW AS AG AINST THAT OF 2.49% OF THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THERE IS NO COGENT REA SON FOR SHORT-FALL OF GROSS PROFIT BY ALMOST 1.04%. CONTINUING HIS ARGUMENT, L D. D.R. POINTED OUT BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR SHOR TFALL IN RATIO OF GROSS PROFIT AS UNDER:- DURING THE YEAR WE HAVE INCREASED OUR TURNOVER BY REDUCING THE GROSS PROFIT MARGIN. MOREOVER, THE TOTAL TURNOVER INCLUDE S THE LARGE AMOUNT OF JOBWORK CHARGE FOR OUTSIDE GINNING AND PRESSING AND THAT DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR WE HAVE NOT PAID ANY JOBWORK CHARGES WHEREAS DURING THE CURRENT YEAR HE JOBWORK CHARGES OF RS.1,29,28,180/- HAVE BEEN PAID. MOREOVER, THE BUSINESS OF COTTON IS BEING DONE AS P ER THE MARKET TRENDS AND ANY SMALL MISTAKE WILL RESULT IN LOSS OR LOW PR OFIT. 9. FROM THE ABOVE EXPLANATION, THE LD. D.R. POINTED OUT THAT BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY CONCRETE SUPPORT ING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF AFORESAID CONTENTION.. THEREFORE, AO RIGHTLY ADOPTE D THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO OF 2.49% FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 78,77,139/-. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THIS ADDITION TO RS.25,000/- ONLY. THE LD. D.R. POINTED OUT THAT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED TO THE EXTE NT OF RS.25,000/- IS ON THE LOWER SIDE. 10. AFTER HEARING THE LD. D.R., WE HAVE CAREFULLY G ONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT G. P. DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER APPEAL IS ALMOST LOWER BY 1.04%. THE SOLE RE ASON GIVEN BEFORE THE AO FOR FALL IN GP IS THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS INCREASED ITS TURNOVER BY REDUCING THE GROSS PROFIT MARGIN. MOREOVER, THE TOT AL TURNOVER INCLUDES THE LARGE AMOUNT OF JOB-WORK CHARGE FOR OUTSIDE GINNING AND P RESSING AND THAT DURING THE ITA NO 973/RJT/2010. 6 PRECEDING YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID ANY JOB-W ORK CHARGES WHEREAS DURING THE CURRENT YEAR THE JOB WORK CHARGES OF RS.1,29,28 ,180/- WERE PAID. APART FROM THIS, THE BUSINESS OF COTTON IS BEING DONE AS PER T HE MARKET TRENDS AND ANY SMALL MISTAKE WILL RESULT IN LOSS OR LOW PROFIT. EVEN BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED GENERAL EXPLANATION WITHOUT GIVING SU PPORTING EVIDENCE. BE THAT IT MAY BE, THE YIELD OF COTTON IN THE EARLIER YEAR WAS 36.45% WHEREAS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS 35.50%. LOOKING TO THE ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25,000/- SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS ON THE LOWER SIDE. IN OUR OPINION, IT WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,00,000/- IS SUSTAINED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11.. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.2, AT THE TIME OF HEA RING BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. RELYING ON THE REASONING GIVEN BY AO IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER CONTENDED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME AND COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE CREDITORS. THUS, THE IDENTITY, CAPACITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF LENDING PARTIES WERE NOT PROVED . IT IS ONLY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RETURN OF THE CREDITORS. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT CAPACITY OF THE LENDER WAS N OT PROVED. THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT CONDUCTING THE INQUIRY ACCEPTED THE CREDITW ORTHINESS. THEREFORE, ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTE R BE RESTORED TO THE FINE OF AO FOR CONDUCTING NECESSARY INQUIRY AS ENVISAGED U/S.6 8 OF THE I.T. ACT,1961. 12. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AUT HORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT; THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO IS REQUIRED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO CONDUCT THE IN QUIRY. ADMITTEDLY, THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO. SECTION 68 PLACES THE BURDEN ON THE ASSESSEE TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND S OURCE OF AMOUNTS CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR. JUDICI AL AUTHORITIES ARE CONSISTENT IN THE VIEW THAT CASH CREDIT CANNOT BE TREATED AS SATI SFACTORILY EXPLAINED UNLESS THE ITA NO 973/RJT/2010. 7 ASSESSEE ESTABLISHES THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. PERUSAL OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT RELEVANT DETAILS WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THEY WERE FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS A RESULT OF WHI CH A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE AO. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED THE MATTER IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND IN CONFORMITY WITH LAW. HE HOWEVER, DID NOT DO SO. THE CIT(A), WHO HAD SIMILAR POWERS IN THE MATTER AS THOSE OF TH E AO, ALSO PREFERRED NOT TO DO SO. HE HOWEVER, DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO HAS NOT PERFORMED HIS DUTY. IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT T O HAVE RECORDED HIS FINDING ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THEIR CREDITWO RTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS BEFORE DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE MAT TER IS RESTORED TO HIM FOR AFRESH DECISION IN CONFORMITY WITH LAW AFTER RECORD ING CATEGORICAL FINDING AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED T HE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THEIR CREDIT WORTHINESS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHALL BE GIVEN TO BOTH THE P ARTIES. 13.. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( .. / D. K. SRIVASTAVA) ( .. / T. K. SHARMA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER 3/ ORDER DATE 27 -04-2012. /RAJKOT ITA NO 973/RJT/2010. 8 - -- - +4 +4 +4 [phone] / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. * / APPELLANT-THE ASSTT. C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT.. 2. +,* / RESPONDENT-M/S. RAGHUVANSHI INDUSTRIES, TARAGHAD I. 3. : / CONCERNED CIT, RAJKOT.. 4. :- / CIT (A)-I, RAJKOT.. 5. 4 +, , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , ASSTT. REGISTRAR , INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT.