Rukshana Makhani, Rajkot V. The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Cen.Cir.-1, Rajkot

ITSSA 134/RJT/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1782 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 13; 147; 148

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ IT(SS)A NO. 134/RJT/2017 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2012-2013 SMT. RUKSANA SAMIR MAKHANI, 104-VRAJ BHUMI APARTMENT, MARUTI NAGAR, RAJKOT. PAN: AMBPM6371K VS. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT. ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPON D ENT ) REVENUE BY : SHRI RANJIT SINGH, CIT.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MEHUL RANPURA , A.R / DATE OF HEARING : 02/12/2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09/12/2020 +,/ O R D E R MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE INSTANT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DAT ED 19.09.2017 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-4, A HMEDABAD (IN SHORT LD.CIT(A))ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2015 PASSED BY THE A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') RE LEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF A PPEALS: 1.0 THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MENTIONED HEREUNDER ARE WITHO UT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. IT(SS)A NO.134/RJT/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 2 2.0 THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN DIS MISSING THE GROUND OF APPEAL THAT ADDITION MADE WAS WITHOUT GIVING PRIOR AND SPECIFIC SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. THOUGH, IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT NO SPEC IFIC NOTICE FOR MAKING SUCH HIGH PITCHED ADDITION WAS EVER GIVEN BY THE AO, THE REFORE ONLY ON THIS GROUND ALONE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY KINDLY BE QUA SHED. 3.0 THE ID. CIT(A) GRIEVOUSLY ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN (I) REJECTING VARIOUS FACTUAL ASPECTS AND CONTENTIONS OF THE APPE LLANT WHICH WERE SUPPORTED BY THE SEIZED / IMPOUNDED MATERIALS AND S TATEMENTS RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT AND (II) TWISTING THE MATTER WITH OUT AND BASE AND THEREBY SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.7,15,255/-, WHICH MAY KIN DLY BE DELETED. 4.0 THE ID. CIT(A) GRIEVOUSLY ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ANGADIA / SHROFF AND HAS EARNED PR OFIT /INCOME @ 25% OF TOTAL TURNOVER AND THEREBY RETAINED ADDITION OF RS. 5,96,046/-. THE ADDITION MADE IS ARBITRARY WITHOUT ANY BASE THEREFORE THE SA ME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 5.0 THE ID. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW I N ESTIMATING THE INITIAL INVESTMENT @ 5% WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND THEREBY RETAINING AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,19,209/-. THE ADDITI ON MADE IS ARBITRARY AND MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 6.0 YOUR HONOR'S APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD , AMEND, ALTER OR WITHDRAW ANY OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE CASE IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE HUGE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NO.1011000202264 MAINTA INED WITH THE HDFC BANK LYING IN HER NAME. THE ASSESSEES CASE IS THIS THAT THE SHE WAS DERIVING COMMISSION INCOME BY THE CERAMIC MANUFACTURERS OF M ORBI, WHOSE SALE PROCEEDS WERE DEPOSITED IN CASH AT THE RESPECTIVE S TATION BY HER DEALERS WHICH THE ASSESSEE WOULD WITHDRAW AND HAND IT OVER TO THE MANUFACTURERS. THE COMMISSION SO RECEIVED BY HER WAS RANGING FROM RS.2 0 TO RS.50 PER LACS. SHE, THEREFORE, REQUESTED TO TREAT THE SAID COMMISSION A S HER INCOME AND NOT THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSIT. HOWEVER, THE SAID PROCEEDINGS U/S.15 3A OF THE ACT, IN PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH CONDUCTED U/S.132 OF THE ACT ON 17/01/20 13 WAS ULTIMATELY FINALIZED BY THE LD.AO BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.23,84,583/ - TREATING THE ENTIRE CASH IT(SS)A NO.134/RJT/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 3 DEPOSIT AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME WHICH WAS IN TURN CON FIRMED BY THE ''LD.CIT (A)''. HENCE, THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AT THE VERY THRESHOLD OF THE MATTER LD. ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE IDENTICAL ISS UES IN RESPECT OF SAME SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WERE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY LD. TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING MATTERS. SR. NO. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IT(SS)A /ITA NO. 1. SHRI SAMIR KAMRUDDIN MAKHANI NOS.138 & 119/RJT/2 017 A.Y. 2011-12 2. -DO- NO.S139 & 129/RJT/2017 A.Y.2012-13 3. -DO- NOS.439 & 423/RJT/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 4. SHRI KAMRUDDIN R. MAKHANI ITA NOS.140 & 110/RJT/ 2017 A.Y. 2007-08 5. -DO NOS.141 & 113/RJT/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 6. -DO- NOS.142 & 114/RJT/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 7. SHRI RUKSANA SAMIR ITA NOS.436 & 422/RJT/2017 A.Y. 2013-14) A COPY OF EACH OF THE ORDER PASSED THE LD. TRIBUNAL AS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE HAVE ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE US. HE, THERE FORE, PRAYS FOR SIMILAR RELIEF OF DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. D.R. FAILED TO CONTROVERT S UCH FACTUAL POSITION AND ARGUMENT MADE BY THE LD. A.R. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, PERUSED TH E RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT RELIED UP ON BY THE LD. A.R. THE RELEVANT PORTION IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED I N THIS PARTICULAR CASE HAS IT(SS)A NO.134/RJT/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 4 ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN THE MATTERS INCLUDING THAT OF THE APPELLANT FOR A.Y. 2013-14 AS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE IS REPRODUCED BEL OW:- 24. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THERE WE RE HUGE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME THERE WERE HUGE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK IN CASH. THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IF THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THEN AT THE SAME TIME CASH W ITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK SHOULD BE TREATED AS EXPENSES. AS SUCH THE AO CANNOT TAKE A VIEW WHICH IS BENEFITING THE REVENUE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT FOR THE WITHDR AWAL OF CASH. IN THIS REGARD WE HAVE PERUSED THE HANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WHI CH IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FINE FROM THE SAME THAT THERE WERE CONTINUOUS CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS. 25. WE ALSO NOTE THAT AS PER THE ACCOUNTING RULE AL L THE WITHDRAWAL OF CASH GOES INTO CASH BOOK AND IF IT IS UNSPENT IT WOULD BEAR T HE CHARACTER OF CASH IN HAND SO THAT IF ANY AMOUNT IS DEPOSITED INTO THE BANK IT WO ULD UNDOUBTEDLY CORRESPOND TO THE AVAILABLE CASH IN HAND. MOREOVER, THE INCOME TA X LAW DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY PROVISION TO MAINTAIN RECORD OF REASON OR PURPOSE O F EACH WITHDRAWAL IN CASH FROM THE BANK. THUS THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN A BENEF IT OF DOUBT TO RELATE THE DEPOSITS IN CASH OUT OF PREVIOUS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANKS. 26. WE ALSO FIND THAT THERE IS NO IOTA OF EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ANY INVESTMENTS OR INCURRED ANY EXPENDITUR E OF PERSONAL NATURE OUT OF THE CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK. THUS WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT THE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS ALONE CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE. THUS THE ACTION OF THE AO OF MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNTS OF ALL DEPOSITS M ADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT IS WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION AND RESULTIN G TO THE HIGH PITCH ASSESSMENT. 27. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT , HAS DISCLOSED THE NAME OF CERTAIN/MAJOR PARTIES OF THE CERAMIC MANUFACTURERS ON WHOSE BEHALF HE WAS ACCEPTING THE MONEY FROM THE DEALERS WHICH WAS FINA LLY RETURNED TO SUCH MANUFACTURERS. THE RELEVANT QUESTION RAISED TO THE ASSESSEE AND ITS ANSWER BY THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: Q-3 PI. EXPLAIN YOUR MAIN PROFESSION/SERVICE. ANS. THE MANUFACTURERS OF MORBI WHO SELLS ITS GOODS IN GUJARAT AS WELL AS OUTSIDE GUJARAT, THE PAYMENT THEREOF ORE COLLECTED THROUGH MY ACCOUNT. THIS MEANS THE CASH ARE DEPOSITED IN MY ACCOUNT AND ON THIS AMOUNT I COLLECT RS. 50 TO RS. 100/ LACS AS COMMISSION AND B ALANCE IS PAID TO THE SELLER IN CASH. Q-4. AS STATED BY YOU THAT YOU ARE ASSOCIATED WITH CERAMICS COMPANIES OF MORBI ON COMMISSION, PI. STATE THE FOR WHICH COMPAN IES YOU ARE DEALING ANS. I AM ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING CERAMICS CO MPANIES OF MORBI. 1).HEM CERAMICS, 2}SLOGAN CERAMICS, 3) ASHAR TRADIN G, 4) SET ME CERAMICS, 5) CENTRE CERAMICS, 6) ORIGIN, 7) SUN CITY, 8) CEND ROSA, 9) SHANTIBHAI, 10) WINNER, 11) SUBH MARKETING. IT(SS)A NO.134/RJT/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 5 Q-5 YOU ARE ASSOCIATED WITH ABOVE COMPANIES ON COMM ISSION ON SALE, WHAT IS YOUR DAILY AND MONTHLY TURNOVER. ANS. MY DAILY TURNOVER IS ABOUT RUPEES SEVEN LACS A ND MONTHLY IS ABOUT 1.75 CRORES. Q-6 WHAT IS YOUR MONTHLY INCOME? ANS. MY MONTHLY INCOME IS ABOUT RS. 1700/- TO RS. 1 800/-. 28. HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY VERIFICATION FROM SUCH PARTIES DESPITE HAVING SUFFICIENT POWERS WITH THEM GRANTED UNDER THE STATUTE. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED HIS ONUS BY FURNIS HING THE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND THE ONUS WAS SHIFTED UPON THE R EVENUE TO DISPROVE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS NOT WORKING ON BEHALF OF SUCH CERAMIC MANUFACTURERS. 29. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UNDER THE INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE BASIS OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY DDIT (INV), AH MEDABAD DATED 4-3-2013 AFTER RECORDING THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED I N THE ACTIVITY OF SHROFF. THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW SUCH REASON RECORDED BY THE REV ENUE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ALSO SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT HE IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF MONEY TRANSFER. INDEED, THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING SUCH BUSINESS WITHOUT OBTAINING ANY LICENSE FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY'.' ACCORDI NGLY IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT SUCH BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WITHOUT OBT AINING THE LICENSE FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY BUT WHAT IS MANDATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS TO TAX THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHETHER IT WAS FROM LEGAL OR ILLEGAL SOURCE. THEREFORE, THE PRINCIPLES FOR DETERMINING THE INCOM E WILL REMAIN THE SAME EVEN THE SOURCE OF INCOME IS ILLEGAL IN NATURE. IN THIS REGA RD WE FIND SUPPORT, AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN C ASE OF CIT VS. K. THANGAMANI REPORTED IN 309 ITR 15 WHERE IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF THE ACT IS TO BRING THE INC OME OF VARIOUS KINDS INTO THE TAX NET. THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES ARE NOT CON CERNED ABOUT THE MANNER OR MEANS OF ACQUIRING INCOME. THE INCOME MIGHT HAVE BEEN EARNED ILLEGALLY OR BY RESORTING TO UNLAWFUL MEANS, ILLEGALITY TAINT ED WITH THE EARNING HAS NO BEARING ON ITS TAXABILITY. INCOME GENERATED BY ENGA GING IN LIQUOR TRADE, GENERALLY CALLED AS RES EXTRA COMMERCIUM, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS TRADE IN CRIME, OR INCOME EARNED BY WAY OF SELLING KHADHI PR ODUCTS, ARE ONE AND THE SAME FOR THE TAX AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSES, HAVING ACQUIRED INCOME BY UNETHICAL MANNER OR BY RESORTING TO ACTS FORBIDDEN BY LAW, CANNOT BE HEARD TO SAY THAT THE STATE CANNOT BE A PARTY TO SUCH SHA RING OF ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH. ALLOWING SUCH INCOME TO ESCAPE THE TAX WOULD BE NOT HING BUT A PREMIUM OR REWORD TO A PERSON FOR DOING AN ILLEGAL TRADE IN TH E EVENT OF TAXING THE INCOME OF ONLY THOSE WHO HAD ACQUIRED THE SAME THRO UGH LEGAL MANNER, THE TENDENCY OF THOSE WHO ACQUIRE INCOME BY ILLEGAL MEA NS WOULD INCREASE. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES TO ACT LIKE POLICE TO PREVENT THE COMMISSION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE TAX MACHINERY TO TAX IT(SS)A NO.134/RJT/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 6 SUCH INCOME. DURING SUCH PROCESS, STRICT RULES OF E VIDENCE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. THOSE PIE CES OF EVIDENCE, WHICH ARE NOT SUFFICIENT IN ORDINARY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS TO PROVE A PARTICULAR FACT, WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE TAX OFFICIALS TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF AN INDIVIDUAL. 30. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GIVEN CONTRADICTORY FINDING IN HIS ORDER. AS SUCH THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS OBSERVED THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME WITHOUT CONSIDE RING THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK. SUCH RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER; THERE IS CONTINUOUS CASH DEPOSIT AND WITHDRAWAL ON DAILY BASIS FROM THESE ACCOUNTS. THE A.O. HAS MADE ADDITION OF TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS IN THESE BONK ACCOUNTS BY CONSIDERING ONLY THE CREDIT SIDE OF THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE DEBIT SIDE I.E. WITHDRAWAL HAS BEEN IGNORED ALTOGET HER. THIS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED JUSTIFIED BECAUSE, IT IS LEGALLY SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE RELIED UPON IN TOTAL AND NOT IN PIECE-MEA L MANNER. IT IS ALSO LEGALLY SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT IF THERE ARE WITHDRA WAL FROM THE SAME ACCOUNT IN CASH PRIOR TO THE DEPOSIT IN CASH, IT IS CONSIDE RED THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWN HAS BEEN UTILIZED TO DEPOSIT IN THE SAME ACCOUNT, I F THAT HAS NOT BEEN FOUND INVESTED IN OTHER ASSET OR INCURRED AS EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSES. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT ED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN IN CASH FROM THE SAME BANK ACC OUNT, THE ADDITIONS OF TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS MODE BY THE A.O. ARE NOT FOU ND JUSTIFIED. IF THESE CASH DEPOSITS WOULD HAVE REMAINED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OR FOUND BY THE A O AS INVESTED BY THE APPELLANTS IN OTHER ASSETS OR INCUR RED EXPENDITURE, ADDITIONS TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH INVESTMENT EXPENDITURE COULD HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO SUCH FINDINGS, HAVE BEEN GI VEN BY THE A.O. THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ADDITIONS OF TOTAL C ASH S DEPOSITS MADE BY THE A.O. ARE FOUND EXCESSIVE. 31. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (A) WITHOUT COGENT REA SON HAS CHANGED HIS STAND BY CONCLUDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT OF CASH RE PRESENTS THE TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, HE ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE RATE OF 25% OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. S UCH FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS NOT BASED ON ANY SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION. AS SUCH THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ASSUMED THE PROFIT OF THE PARTIES ENGAGED AS DEALER OF CERAMIC MANUFACTURER AT THE RATE OF 25% OF THE TURNOVER WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MA TERIAL ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO SUCH F INDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). 32. THERE WAS NO MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH PROCEEDINGS SUGGESTING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ACTING AS A DEALER OF CERAMIC MANUFACTURER. THEREFORE, THE QUESTION OF MAKING ANY INVESTMENT IN SUCH BUSINESS DOES NOT ARISE. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 13,53,224/- IN SUCH UNDISCLOSED B USINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 33. THE NEXT QUESTION ARISES WHAT SHOULD BE THE RAT E TO BE APPLIED DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS ACTIVITIES OF M ONEY TRANSFER. AS SUCH, NONE OF THE AUTHORITY BELOW HAS BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD SUGG ESTING THE RATE TO BE APPLIED IT(SS)A NO.134/RJT/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 7 FOR DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS ACTIVITIES. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ACCEPT THE RATE OF THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN. 34. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ACTING AS MONEY TRANSFER AGENT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES ENGAGED IN CERAMIC MANUFACTURERS. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE GR OUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 35. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE A/SE SSEE IS ALLOWED WHEREAS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS STATED ABOVE AND THE JUDGMENT RELIED UPON WE DO NOT HESITATE TO GRANT RELIEF IN THE MANNER AS ALREADY G RANTED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AS NARRATED ABOVE. THUS, RESPECTFULLY RELIED UPON THE SAID HOLDING THE ASSESSEE WAS ACTING AS MONEY TRANSFER AGENT ON BEHA LF OF THE PARTIES ENGAGED IN CERAMIC MANUFACTURES, ACCEPTING THE RATE OF INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL BY DELE TING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 09/12/2020 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (MS MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 09/12/2020 MANISH/TANMAY TRUE COPY +, - ./01 2+1/ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : +, 3 4 / BY ORDER, 5/4 67 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! / CONCERNED CIT 4. ! ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. $ %& '' , / DR, ITAT, 6. &)* + / GUARD FILE.