Pratik Rameshbhai Savaliya, Surat V. ITO, Ward-1(3)(8), , Surat

ITSSA 3/SRT/2022

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Rameshbhai Bhemjibhai Savaliya and his son Pratik Rameshbhai Savaliya against the orders of the CIT(A) confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 143(3) and 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The additions pertained to undisclosed income and investments related to the sale of bungalows in Surat. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including a Satakhat agreement and statements from involved parties, and found sufficient grounds to uphold the CIT(A)'s decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 302232 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Anilkumar Gopikishan Agrawal vs. ACIT, Circle 2(3) Ahd, Malik Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, CIT v. P.M. Aboobackei, CIT v. Jai Pal Aggarwal, CIT v. K. Dadakhan
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Loose papers; Document seized; Opportunity of cross examination; Documents seized
• Section: 132; 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./IT(SS)A No.02/SRT/2022 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rameshbhai Bhemjibhai Savaliya 43/44 Lalji Nagar, B/h Vishal Nagar, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(3)(8), Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 ̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ADOPS 3294 B (अपीलाथŎ /Appellant ) (ŮȑथŎ /Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./IT(SS)A No.03/SRT/2022 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Pratik Rameshbhai Savaliya 43/44 Lalji Nagar, B/h Vishal Nagar, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(3)(8), Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 ̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: CNTPS 6046 J (अपीलाथŎ /Appellant ) (ŮȑथŎ /Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से /Assessee by : Shri V.I. Rudalal, C.A & Shri Rushi Parekh, C.A राजèव कȧ ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Ashok B. Koli– CIT-.DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 22/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 15/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned two appeals filed by two assessees, pertaining to same assessment year i.e., 2011-12, are directed against the separate order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (‘AO' for short) u/s Page | 2 IT(SS)A No.02 & 03/SRT/2022 A.Y. 11-12 Rameshbhai B Savaliya & Pratik R Savaliya 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are common and identical except variance of amounts, therefore, both the appeals have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. The grounds as well as facts narrated in IT(SS)A No.03/SRT/2022 for assessment year 2011-12 have been taken into consideration for deciding both the appeals en masse. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by assessee in “lead” case in IT(SS)A No.03/SRT/2022 are as follows: “1. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.14,66,000/- which may kindly be deleted. 2.That the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.5,92,400/- which may kindly be deleted. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the statement of father of purchaser was not given to assessee, thereby denial of right of cross-examination. 4. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the advance payment of Rs.2,50,000/- as per satakhat was also not fulfilled by the purchaser hence it was treated as cancelled. Further there was no mention of Satakhat in final sale deed, 5. The CIT(A) erred in appreciating that sale deed was not of undervaluation but it was made as per jantri value. 6. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the seized noting from purchaser without seller’s name & of total payments mistake. 7. The CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.5,92,400/- for bungalow No. 49 as part of sale consideration. 8. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the seized notings which were not “belonged to” the assessee. 9. That both the additions of Rs.14,66,000/- and Rs.5,92,400/- may kindly be deleted. 10. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.” 4. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The assessee before us is an Individual and has filed original return of income for Page | 3 IT(SS)A No.02 & 03/SRT/2022 A.Y. 11-12 Rameshbhai B Savaliya & Pratik R Savaliya assessment year (A.Y.) 2011-12 on 21.03.2012 declaring total income at Rs.3,88,580/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee derives income from construction labour income. A search action was carried out by the Investigation wing Ahmedabad on 04.12.2014 in the Barter Group. During the course of search at the office of Barter group at B-406, Wall Street-II, some papers related to the purchases of Bungalow No.65 and 66 at Surat have been found and seized. As per the noting on the papers, cash payment aggregating to Rs.38,75,000/- (FY 2010-11) and cheque of Rs.24,00,000/- have been made for purchases of Bungalow No. 65 and 66 at Laljinagar Society, Surat from Shri Pratik R Savalia and Ramesh B Savalia. In this regard, Shri Atul Hiralal Shah, in his statement has stated that he has purchased the Bungalow No, 65 and 66 at Laljinagar Society, Surat in the name of his daughter Darshi A Shah in the F.Y. 2009-10 and the payment was made in the F.Y. 2010-11 as recorded in page No.5 of Annexure-24 seized by the department. He has admitted that the payment of Rs.38,75,000/- was made in cash and out of his unaccounted income. Therefore, notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued and duly served upon the assessee on 27.03.2018 requiring to file a return of income for A.Y 2011-12 within 30 days of receipt of the notice. 5. In response to the above notice, the assessee has filed his return of income for A.Y 2011-12 on 25.04,2018 declaring total income at Rs.3,88,580/-. As noted above that there was a search carried out in Bartar Group of cases u/s 132 of the Act on 04.12.2014. During the course of said search the evidences relating to purchase of Bungalow No. 65 and 66 at Lalji Nagar Society at Surat from the assessee were found and seized. As per the noting in the seized material cash payment aggregating to Rs.38,75,000/- was made by the members of the Bartar Group to the assessee during the FY 2010-11 alongwith cheque amount of Rs.24,00,000/- for the said bungalows. During the course of search, statement of Shri Atul Hiralal Shah was recorded and he confirmed that Bungalow No. 65 and 66 at Lalji Nagar Society, Surat were purchased in the name of his daughter Ms. Darshi A. Shah in FY 2009-10 and payments were made in FY 2010-11 as Page | 4 IT(SS)A No.02 & 03/SRT/2022 A.Y. 11-12 Rameshbhai B Savaliya & Pratik R Savaliya recorded on page 5 of Annexure-24 which is seized by the department. Mr. Atul Shah admitted that the payment of Rs.38,75,000/- was made in cash out of his unaccounted income to the assessee. On the basis of this information, the notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee on 27.03.2018. In response to the said notice the assessee filed the return on 25.04.2018 declaring the same income as returned in the original return. The Assessing Officer on the basis of information in the seized material found that the assessee had 40% ownership of the bungalows sold and accordingly, brought to tax and made addition at Rs.14,66,000/- (40% of Rs. 38,75,000/-) as the undisclosed income of the assessee. We noticed that there is a typographical error committed by the Assessing Officer, hence, the figure of Rs. Rs.14,66,000/-, should be read as Rs.15,50,000/- (40 % of Rs. 38,75,000/-). These are the two appeals of son and father, therefore Assessing Officer, is directed to correct this typographical error in the facts of the assessee`s father in IT(SS) No.2/SRT/2022. 6. The Assessing Officer also taxed the undisclosed investment made by the assessee in Bungalow No. 49 at Lalji Nagar Society Surat amounting to Rs.5,92,400/- and made addition in the hand of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the action of Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 8. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee`s case was taken up for scrutiny u/s 153C of the Act, on the basis of paper seized from the searched group viz. Barter Group Ahmedabad related to the sale of bungalow No.65& 66 at Laljinagar, Adajan, Surat wherein the searched person Atul Hiralal Shah in a statement confessed to have given Rs.38,75,000/- by cash and Rs.24,00,000/- (Rs.14,00,000 + Rs.10,00,000) by cheque to two co-owners viz Rameshbhai Bhimjibhai Savaliya (assessee’s father’) share 60% and Pratik Rameshbhai Savaliya (assessee’s share 40%) for purchase of bungalow no. 65 & 66 in the Page | 5 IT(SS)A No.02 & 03/SRT/2022 A.Y. 11-12 Rameshbhai B Savaliya & Pratik R Savaliya name of his sister. But AO, on the basis satakhat for cash amount of Rs.32,75,000/- and as per sale deed cheque amount of Rs.24,00,000/- arrived at total sale consideration of Rs.62,75,000/- (Rs.24,00,000 +Rs.32,75,000) and worked out the assessee’s share of sale proceeds at Rs.25,10,000/- being 40% of Rs.62,75,000/-. The assessee has shown Rs.10,44,000/- in his return of income hence the addition of Rs.14,66,000/- (Rs.25,10,000-Rs.10,44,000) was made in his hand. The statement of searched person viz. Atul Hiralal Shah being the third party was not shown or provided to assessee inspite of repeated requests by assessee to Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. In the course of search proceedings, one satakhat dated 24.04.2010 was found showing cash payment of Rs.32,75,000/- plus bungalow No.49 given to assessee and his father as a sale consideration against purchase of their bungalow No.64 & 65. The Assessing Officer estimated and added on-money payment of Rs.15,50,000/- and also added jantri value of bungalow No.49 at Rs.5,92,400/- (40% of Rs.14,81,000/-) thus made both the addition of Rs.15,50,000/- & Rs.5,92,400/-. 9. The ld Counsel submitted that assessee has made sale deed of Rs.10,44,000/- only and no on-money or cash money was taken over & above the said sum of Rs.10,44,000/-. The assessee consistently refused to have taken the amount of Rs.15,50,000/- over and above the sale deed value of Rs.10,44,000/- being jantri value as per the jantri of Gujarat Government. It was also emphatically contended that the assessee has neither any connection with the Barter Group nor any knowledge about the activities of said group. The search on Barter group has nothing to do with the assessee’s sale of bungalow No.65 & 66 and it is totally independent transaction of sale of immovable property via execution of registered sale deed with sub-registrar office Nanpura, Surat on 17.06.2010. The ld Counsel also contended that opportunity of cross examination has not been provided by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, ld Counsel contended that addition made by Assessing Officer may be deleted. Page | 6 IT(SS)A No.02 & 03/SRT/2022 A.Y. 11-12 Rameshbhai B Savaliya & Pratik R Savaliya 10. The ld Counsel also argued that CIT(A) erred in confirming the seized notings which were not “belonged to” the assessee. The ld Counsel stated that crux of the matter is that the seized documents do not belong to the assessee and the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act, in respect of assessee is not sustainable in terms of the pre-amended provision of Section 153C of the Act. The ld Counsel stated that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of Hon`ble Guj. High Court in case of Anilkumar Gopikishan Agrawal vs. ACIT, Circle 2(3) Ahd (2016) 106 taxmann.com 137 (Gujarat). Based on this factual and legal position, ld Counsel contended that addition made by the Assessing Officer may be deleted. 11. On merits, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submitted that documents and evidences found during the search were belonged to the assessee. The satakhat contains photograph of assessee and the name of the counter party and the property which is mentioned in the satakhat was sold to the same party, hence satakhat is not a dump document. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment order by narrating actual facts of the assessee, therefore, such detailed findings of the Assessing Officer may be sustained. 12. The Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue further submitted, that the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act is sustainable in law, as the satisfaction recorded u/s 153C of the Act is in accordance with law and the documents and material mentioned in the satisfaction note belongs to assessee. 13. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. We note that assessee and his father have sold bungalow no. 65 & 66 to Ms. Darshi A. Shah, daughter of Mr. Atul Shah. The recorded consideration which is received in cheque has been admitted by the assessee in his return of income. The Satakhat which is found during the course of search dated 24.04.2010 which contains the total sale consideration for both the Bungalows at Rs. 62,75,000/- which further clarifies that Rs.24,00,000/- by cheque and Rs. 38,75,000/- by cash. The said Page | 7 IT(SS)A No.02 & 03/SRT/2022 A.Y. 11-12 Rameshbhai B Savaliya & Pratik R Savaliya Satakhat has the signatures of the assessee and his father and even the purchasers. If the Satakhat is cancelled as claimed by the assessee, the entire transaction would have been cancelled. However, that is not the case here. Both the bungalows have been transferred to the same persons i.e. Ms. Darshi shah and for the consideration of Rs.24,00,000/- which is the cheque consideration mentioned in the Satakhat. Thus, the circumstantial evidences prove beyond doubt that assessee and his father received Rs.38,75,000/- in cash as mentioned in the Satakhat which is confirmed by Mr. Atul Shah in his statement before the DDIT. Thus, it is an admitted position that the agreement to sell had been executed between the assessee and his father as sellers and Ms. Darshi Shah as the purchaser. Mr. Atul Shah, father of Ms. Darshi Shah in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act has clearly stated that on-money had been paid by him to the extent stated in the agreement to sell to the assessee and his father. Under the circumstances, the statement of the purchaser recorded under section 132(4) of the Act has gone unrebutted as the assessee has not challenged the same either before the Assessing Officer or during the appellate proceedings. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Malik Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 162 Taxman 43, for the proposition that when the assessee is afforded reasonable opportunity, despite which he does not ask for any documents for cross- examination, it goes to show that the assessee had nothing to explain. The statement made by Mr. Atul Shah under section 132(4) of the Act was voluntary and there was no allegation that there was any undue influence or coercion had been used by the Income Tax Authorities. Mr. Atul Shah having clearly stated in his statement under section 132(4) of the Act that the on-money to the extent stated in the agreement to sale had been paid to the assessee and his father was sufficient evidence that has been produced on record by the Assessing Officer. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. P.M. Aboobackei [2014] 363 ITR 447/45 taxmann.com 172/225 Taxman 178 (Mag.), wherein the court found that no such evidence was adduced by the assessee to support his case and it was held that the revenue has to prove the existence of a fact that undervaluation was made by the assessee and that the Page | 8 IT(SS)A No.02 & 03/SRT/2022 A.Y. 11-12 Rameshbhai B Savaliya & Pratik R Savaliya assessee had paid more amounts for the purchase of property. When that fact is proved, the burden shifts to the assessee to prove otherwise. The Assessing Officer has clearly, on the basis of the seized documents and the statement of Mr. Atul Shah proved the existence of the fact that the payments for purchase of bungalows were made as per the Satakhat found during the course of search and the sale deeds came to be executed as per the Jantri rates for which payments were made by cheque in addition to the payments made in cash as stated in the Satakhat. 14. We have examined the above stated facts narrated by ld CIT(A) and case law relied by him and noted that agreement to sell (Satakhat) dated 24.04.2010 is a valid document and a precise one giving specific dates of payment made to the assessee and his father, therefore the same should be relied. We note that ld CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Jai Pal Aggarwal [2013] 212 Taxman 1/28 taxmann.com 269, for a similar proposition of law and ld CIT(A) also placed reliance upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K. Dadakhan [2003] 133 Taxman 732. The evidence which has been brought on record viz., the agreement to sell (Satakhat) dated 24.04.2010 is a valid document and a precise one giving specific dates of payment made to the assessee and his father. The assessee's claim of having cancelled the agreement (Satakhat) is not supported by any further cancellation agreement which should normally have been available with the assessee and the buyer and should have been found during the search; the fact of cancellation had not been accepted by the purchaser Mr. Atul Shah on behalf of his daughter Ms. Darshi Shah. The overall documentary evidence found during the course of search corroborates each other and proves the veracity of the agreement dated 24.04.2010. Therefore it is evident that the AO has clearly established receipt of the amounts referred to in the agreement to sell. It was further found that the purchaser has filed returns of income declaring the payment of the amount mentioned in the agreement to sell in cash and have paid tax thereon, which shows that the transactions have gone through on the higher amount as per the agreement and not on the petty amount shown in the sale deed as claimed by the assessee. Page | 9 IT(SS)A No.02 & 03/SRT/2022 A.Y. 11-12 Rameshbhai B Savaliya & Pratik R Savaliya Therefore, ld CIT(A) noted that AO has clearly made out a case that the assessee had received consideration from the purchaser in terms of the agreement to sell, whereas the assessee had failed to discharge the onus of rebutting this evidence. 15. The ld CIT(A) observed that assessee has merely raised some technical objections during the course of appellate proceedings that actual cash payment as per seized material is Rs.29,15,000/- and not Rs. 38,75,000/-. Here, the assessee is contradicting himself as he has submitted that copies of the seized documents which were not given to him. Therefore, ld CIT(A) noted that as Satakhat is the reliable document for the parties to the agreement and as Mr Atul Shah has confirmed the payment of Rs. 38,75,000/- in cash which is evident from Satakhat as well, this technical objection will not help the assessee. The assessee has referred to the decision on dumb document which are not relevant to the assessee's case for the reason that the Satakhat is not a dumb document and it contains all the details about the property, about the parties, the dates and the amounts. Therefore, the Satakhat cannot be called as a dumb document by any stretch of imagination. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee has stated that the loose papers are rough estimates and hence, should not be relied upon. The seized Satakhat is not a loose paper and hence, his submissions including the judicial pronouncements will not come to his rescue. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.14,66,000/- being 40% of Rs. 38,75,000/- made by the AO being the assessee's share (balance 60% is that of assessee's father Mr. Ramesh Savalia) was confirmed by ld CIT(A). 16. About the addition of Rs.5,92,400/- being investment in Bungalow no. 49, the ld CIT(A) noted that as per the Satakhat dated 24.04.2010, the assessee sold two Bungalows no. 65 & 66 to Ms. Darshi Shah and purchased Bungalow no. 49 from Nilesh Kumar Mangaldas Shah. The investment in the said bungalow has not been disclosed by the assessee in the return of income. As the Bungalows no. 65 & 66 and 49 are of the same size, AO treated the investment in the said bungalow at Rs. 14,81,000/- applying the same rate as received by the Appellant for bungalow No. 65 & 66. Appellant's share of 40% was taken as Rs.5,92,400/- which was Page | 10 IT(SS)A No.02 & 03/SRT/2022 A.Y. 11-12 Rameshbhai B Savaliya & Pratik R Savaliya treated as undisclosed investment in purchase of the bungalow no. 49 and brought to tax. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee has not produced any relevant details to disprove that the said investment was not made. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 5,92,400/- made by the AO which is on the basis of evidence found in the Satakhat dated 24.04.2010 was sustained by ld CIT(A). We have gone through the above findings of ld CIT(A) on factual aspect and noted that there is no infirmity in the findings of ld CIT(A). We have also gone through the paper book filed by the assessee and observed that above facts narrated by ld CIT(A) are correct. Hence, these appeals deserve to be dismissed by upholding the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and so far merits of the case are concerned, they are dismissed. 17. Before us, ld Counsel argued that satisfaction note under section 153C of the Act is not in accordance with law. We have gone through the satisfaction note under section 153C of the Act and observed that it is in accordance with law. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia [2023] 149 taxmann.com 123(SC) held that amendment in section 153C by the Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06-2015, with respect to incriminating material pertaining to third party, shall apply to searches conducted before 01.06.2015. The Hon`ble Supreme Court further held that object and purpose of Section 153C is to address the persons other than the searched person. Even as per the unamended section 153C, the proceeding against other persons (other than the searched person) was on the basis of the seizure of books of account or documents seized or requisitioned "belongs or belong to" a person other than the searched person. However, it appears that as in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court interpreted the words "belong to" restrictively and/or narrowly and which led to a situation where, though incriminating material pertaining to a third party / person was found during search proceedings under Section 132, the Revenue could not proceed against such a third party, which necessitated the Legislature / Parliament to clarify by substituting the words "belongs or belong to" to the words "pertains or pertain to" and to remedy the mischief that was Page | 11 IT(SS)A No.02 & 03/SRT/2022 A.Y. 11-12 Rameshbhai B Savaliya & Pratik R Savaliya noted pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Therefore, if the submission on behalf of the respective respondents –assessees that despite the fact that the incriminating materials have been found in the form of books of account or documents or assets relating to them from the premises of the searched person, still they may not be subjected to the proceedings under Section 153C solely on the ground that the search was conducted prior to the amendment is accepted, in that case, the very object and purpose of the amendment to Section 153C, which is by way of substitution of the words "belongs or belong to" to the words "pertains or pertain to" shall be frustrated. Any interpretation, which may frustrate the very object and purpose of the Act / Statute shall be avoided by the Court. Therefore, we reject the contention raised by the ld Counsel to the effect that satisfaction note u/s 153C of the Act is not in accordance with law, in fact we observed that it is as per the scheme of the Act. 18. About the opportunity to cross examine of the other party from whose premises the incriminating material was found, we note that no evidence was brought before us that the assessee had requested the Assessing Officer for an opportunity of cross examination and the Assessing Officer denied it. At this juncture, ld DR for the Revenue submitted that, for the sake of arguments, even if the opportunity of cross examination is provided to the assessee, in that situation also, the material facts narrated by the Assessing Officer are against the assessee, hence addition should be sustained. The material facts which is established with cogent evidence against the assessee, cannot be over ruled by providing opportunity of cross examination. We note that the opportunity of cross examination was not asked by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, therefore we reject this plea raised by the ld Counsel. 19. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 20. Since, we have adjudicated the issue by taking lead case in IT(SS) no. 3/SRT/2022 and the facts and grounds of appeal in IT(SS) No.2/SRT/2022 are Page | 12 IT(SS)A No.02 & 03/SRT/2022 A.Y. 11-12 Rameshbhai B Savaliya & Pratik R Savaliya identical and similar as both these appeals pertain to son and father, therefore our instant adjudication shall apply mutatis mutandis to the aforesaid other appeal in IT(SS) No.2/SRT/2022 also. 21. In combined result, both assessee’s appeals are dismissed. A copy of the instant common order be placed in the respective case file(s). Order pronounced on 15/05/2023 by placing the result on the notice board. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER स ू रत /Surat/िदनांक/ Date: 15/05/2023 Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr.CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // True Copy // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat rue copy/