The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Surat V. Shri Madanlal F. Jain, Surat

ITSSA 317/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0982 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Loose papers; Document seized; Onus to prove; Retraction; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 68; 132; 143(3); 142(1); 133A; 153A; 143(2); 73; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./IT(SS)A No.317/AHD/2016 (Ǔनधा[रणवष[ / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Surat. Vs. Shri Madanlal F. Jain, 207, Photon Plus, Nr. Bhagyodai Society, Panchayat, Adajan, Surat. èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABHPJ0567F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Shaunak Zaveri, AR Revenue by : Shri H.P.Meena, CIT(DR) स ु नवाईकȧतारȣख/ Date of Hearing : 05/08/2022 घोषणाकȧतारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CAS- 4/554 to 558/2015-16 dated 01.09.2016 which in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”]. The grievances raised by the revenue are as follows: “[1] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.13,33,80,000/- made by the AO on account of alleged income from undisclosed sources without considering the facts that Shri Madanlal F. Jain himself admitted on oath during the statement recorded u/s 132(4) and 131 of the Act that the transactions reflecting in the page no.44 of loose paper file pertain to the ‘Western Hills Project’. Moreover, retraction made later on in respect of previous statements is without any tangible/concrete evidence to disbelieve his previous statements and thus the retraction is clearly an after though with a deliberate intention of evading tax liability. [2] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. Page | 2 IT(SS)A No.317/AHD/2016 Assessment Years.2014-15 Shri Madanlal F Jain [3] It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) may be set aside and that of Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent. [4] The appellant craves to add, modify or alter any grounds during the course of appellate proceedings.” 2. Brief facts qua the issue are that a survey action u/s. 133A of the IT Act, 1961 was carried out on 23.12.2013 at the office premises of Shri Madanlal F Jain at 207, Proton Plus, L.P Savani Road, Surat since cash amounting to Rs.60,40,900/- was found from the premises and Shri Madanlal F Jain was not in a position to explain the cash found, the survey action was converted into search action u/s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961 on 24.12.2013 which was completed on 21.02.2014. During the search proceedings pocket diaries and loose papers were seized. Evidences in the form of diaries BS-1 to BS-50 and loose paper file no BS 51 relating to 5 firms were seized during the course of search proceedings and disclosure was made on the basis of seized documents by Shri Madanlal F Jain. Being the previous year in which search was conducted notice u/s. 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2015 and served on him on 26.03.2015. 3. In response to the said notice, the assessee furnished the copy of the return of income on 28.03.2015 declaring total income at Rs.10,62,790/- which included offered undisclosed income of Rs.22,00,000/-. During the year the assessee has income from business, house property and income from other sources. A notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 30.03.2015 and duly served upon the assessee on 30.03.2015. Subsequently, a questionnaire and notices u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee. Vide AO’s letter dated 17.06.2015, the assessee was requested to furnish explanation with respect to the page no-44 of loose papers found which was inventorised and seized as annexure BS-51 found, during the course of search proceedings at his office premises, at 207, Proton plus L.P. Savani Road, Surat. In reply to Q.No-36 asked during the course of recording of statement with regards to page no-44, the assessee stated that said transactions pertained to the Project 'Water Hills' and that Shri Kanayialal or Shri Ashish Kanayialal Shah, partners of the firm would be able to explain the same. However in the statement Page | 3 IT(SS)A No.317/AHD/2016 Assessment Years.2014-15 Shri Madanlal F Jain recorded u/s.131, dated 06.02.2014, Shri Kanayialal Nathulal Shah, stated that the page no-44 was not relating to him. Consequently a summons was issued to Shri Madanlal Jain and once again asked to explain the contents of page no-44 of loose papers file inventorized as Annexure BS-51. 4. In response to the same, assessee stated that he was under the misconception that page no.44 pertains to 'Water Hill' project, since all the other pages from Page 6 to Page 70 of the said loose paper file pertain to Water Hill' project. Further assessee stated that the transactions mentioned in the page no-44 of the loose paper file pertain to some rough working/calculation which was made to ascertain the approximate financial projection for probable execution of project to develop and sale plots/row houses. Further the transactions mentioned in the page no.44 reflected approximate collection of Rs.67,53,00,000/- and total expenses of Rs.54,19,20,000/-. With regard to above assessee was requested to explain the following: a) Please explain the natures of transactions and every entry show in page no.44 of loose paper file as Annexure BS-51 with supporting and relevant documents. Please state as to which individual/firms same pertains to. b) Please file complete details regarding collection of Rs.67,53,00,000/- with supporting documents. And also file complete details of the source from which the same is received (like name, address, PAN, mode of payment and the copy of the same highlighting the transaction). c) Please file details of the source with complete supporting documents in respect of expenses incurred reflected at Rs.54,19,20,000/-. Also state the nature of these expenses and also file details of the land cost, construction cost, details of ownership and also details of approval plan if any with supporting documents. 5. When the assessee did not furnish any reply to the above letter a final show cause was issued by AO on 12.01.2016, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: “Please file details of the source with complete supporting documents in respect of expenses incurred reflected at Rs.54,19,20,000/-. Also state the nature of these Page | 4 IT(SS)A No.317/AHD/2016 Assessment Years.2014-15 Shri Madanlal F Jain expenses and also file details of the land cost, construction cost, details of ownership and also details of approval plan if any with supporting documents. Till date no reply/submission/explanation has been received from your end with regard to the nature of these transactions as to what and whom does it pertain to. You were given another opportunity by this office to explain the page no 44 of the loose paper file inventorized as BS 51. Since considerable time has elapsed and the assessment in the above mentioned case is getting time bared by 31.03.2016 and your noncompliance in this case has left the under signed with no option but to issue a show cause in this regard as to why the amount of Rs.67,53,00,000/- should not be added to your total income as income from "other sources" u/s 68 of the IT act and assessed accordingly.” 6. In reply to the same the assessee filed his submissions reiterating his statement recorded during the course of search proceedings. The gist of the reply of the assessee is as under:- “i. That the paper is purely in the nature of an estimation and no such actual transactions has taken place and there is not supporting or relevant document. ii. No such deal had ever taken place and there is no point that the paper being pertinent to any individual/firm. iii. Since the land was not actually brought by me or my group and since no such project was executed, there is no even a distant possibility of having collection like Rs.67,53,00,000/- and hence there is no question of providing supporting documents or submitting of source from which the said sum was received (like name, address, PAN, mode of payment and copy of same highlighting the transactions). iv. Since the land was not actually brought by me or my group and since no such project was executed, there is not even a distant possibility of incurring expenses to the tune of Rs.54,19,20,000/-. Hence there is no question of providing details such as nature of expenses as well as of filling the details of land cost, construction cost, details of ownership and details of approval plan with supporting documents.” 7. Then AO noted that a perusal of the statement recorded u/s 131 on 13/3/2014 showed that in reply to Q.11 when Mr. Madanlal Jain was asked to explain the transactions mentioned on page 44 of loose paper file he stated that the page contains details of some estimation work in the peace of land was being offered to them for purchase by on broker Mr. Manubhai Patel and in connection with the said proposal they have made certain workings for projections relating to the land and the working was made to ascertain the approximate financial projection for probable execution of project to develop and sale plots/ raw houses Page | 5 IT(SS)A No.317/AHD/2016 Assessment Years.2014-15 Shri Madanlal F Jain and he further given the description of the land and the contact number of the broker. Subsequently, Assessing Officer ascertained the address of the broker and summons u/s. 131 was issued to him. In the statement recorded on oath Shri Manubhai Patel admitted that he had approached Shri Madanlal Jain with the plans of the said land located at Palanpur bearing 9000 Sq.Yards and he also stated that the contents of the page number 44 would be relating to the land at Palanpur though he has not seen the said page. A detail regarding the land was also sought from the sub-registrar Rander. Further in order to ascertain the veracity of the contentions of Shri Madanlal Jain and the broker Shri Manubhai Patel a letter was sent to DDIT (Inv) Surat seeking further information if available so as to enable to the Assessing Officer to examine the issue properly. The reply of the DDIT (Inv)-III Surat in response to the said letter has been forwarded by Addl. Director (Inv) Surat. A careful perusal of the contents of the said letter and looking in to the facts and circumstances of the issue, the AO noted that the contentions of the assessee cannot be accepted and the same is rejected because of the following reasons: a) It is very pertinent to note that the assessee Shri Madanlal Jain has been inconsistent in his statements recorded during the search proceedings both with respect to the seized diaries belonging to M/s. Amar developers as discussed at length in the afore said paras as well with respect to the contents of page no 44 of seized loose paper file inventorised as BS-51. First his denial to own up the document then subsequently accepting the same stating that it was just a projection analysis in respect of a probable project which did not fall through cannot be accepted. b) During the course of search proceedings, Vide questions no 34 and 36 of the statement recorded on oath on 26/12/2013, Shri Madanlal Jain was specifically asked to explain the contents of page no 44 in Annexure BS-51 in response to which he reiterated the fact that the transactions reflected on the said page pertained to the project “Water hills” and Shri Kannaiyalal shah and his son would be able to explain the same. Page | 6 IT(SS)A No.317/AHD/2016 Assessment Years.2014-15 Shri Madanlal F Jain c) During the post search proceedings, once again the statement of Shri Madanalal Jain was recorded u/s 131 dated 15/2/2014 and once again he was asked to explain the details mentioned on page no 44 of Annexure -BS-51. He maintained his stand that the transactions reflected on the said page pertained to the project "water hills' which was handled by shri Kannaiyalal Nathulal Shah and Ashir Kannaiyalal shah and only they would be able to furnish the details regarding the same. d) In view of the same the statement of shri Kanaiyalal shah was recorded u/s 131 of the I.T. Act dated 10/3/2014. During the course of his statement he was confronted with the statement of Shri Madanal F Jain regarding the contents of the said page no 44 of Annexure BS-51. In response to the same, he chose to deny the fact that the transactions pertained to his “Water Hills” project. e) Subsequently the statement of Shri Madanlal Jain was recorded on 13/3/2014; u/s.131 after a gap of 2 months and it was at this point that the assessee for the first time deviated from his earlier statements recorded twice. He stated that he was under the misconception that the said page belonged to the project “Water hills” project since all the pages from 6 to 70 in Annexure BS-51 pertains to “water hills” projects and then he stated that the said page reflects certain rough working calculations-and approximate financial project for a probable execution of a project. It is not possible to believe the statement of the assessee in the light of the fact that though he was a partner in the firm which developed the “water hills project” he was under the misconception that the page no 44 belonged to him. f) As regards the assessee's claim in the statement that the page no 44 of the seized loose paper file relates to rough estimation or working with regard to a proposed purchase of a land namely F.P 69 TP no 8 having an area of 7565 sq mtrs (i.e. 9047square yards) with broker Shri Manubhai also does not hold water as the said specifications as per the contents of page no44 does not match with the copy of the land documents sought from the sub registrar, as it is seen that the said land was purchased by several persons in the year 2013 along with FP no 73 having an area of 6095 sq mtr as part of the one block no 107. And hence it is Page | 7 IT(SS)A No.317/AHD/2016 Assessment Years.2014-15 Shri Madanlal F Jain amply clear that it's a desperate attempt of the assessee to escape from the tax liability which forced to come up with a made up story to explain the document. The statement of the broker cannot be relied upon as he also was not sure that the content of the document was about the same land in respect of which he had discussed with the assessee. Further the size of the land on which the "water hills project was constructed has been examined by the DDIT(inv)–III, Surat and the area of the land on which the said project was completed was 9628 square yards which is closer to the specifications of the seized document after providing common amenities than the land which has been deliberately brought in to the argument by the assessee to suit his interests. 8. In the light of the aforesaid facts it was concluded by AO that the assessee's retraction from the statement given twice is a mere afterthought and a deliberate attempt to evade tax liability and his failure to discharge the burden of proof in view of the presumption of section 132(4A) from the very seizure of the said page 44 of loose paper file BS-51 from his office premises. Accordingly the said difference amount of Rs.l3,33,80,000 (67,53,00,000 - 54,19,20,000) was added to the total income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by Assessing Officer. The ld CIT(A) held that Assessing Officer has failed to establish any case of actual construction of a project represented by the document. The ld CIT(A) further held that addition was based solely on surmises and conjectures. 10. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 11. Learned Departmental Representative (in short “the ld. DR”) for the Revenue, at the outset, argued that ld CIT(A) has not verified and did not recognize the facts examined by Ld. DDIT(Inv)-III. The ld DR has invited our Page | 8 IT(SS)A No.317/AHD/2016 Assessment Years.2014-15 Shri Madanlal F Jain attention towards para no.(f) of order of assessing officer at page no.12, which reads as follows: “f).......Further the size of the land on which the "water hills project” was constructed has been examined by the DDIT(inv)–III, Surat and the area of the land on which the said project was completed was 9628 square yards which is closer to the specifications of the seized document after providing common amenities than the land which has been deliberately brought in to the argument by the assessee to suit his interests.” Therefore, Learned Departmental Representative (in short “the ld. DR”) for the Revenue submitted, Ld CIT(A) has not dealt with the facts examined by Ld DDIT(inv)-III wherein it was stated that size of the land on which the "water hills project” was constructed has been examined by the DDIT(inv)–III, Surat and the area of the land on which the said project was completed was 9628 square yards which is closer to the specifications of the seized document. That is, how and why the findings of DDIT(inv)-III is wrong has not been adjudicated by ld CIT(A), hence matter may be remitted back to the file of the assessing officer to adjudicate the same. 12. The ld DR also relied on the statement of facts prepared by the assessing officer and pointed out that, ld CIT(A)’s decision is not acceptable in view of the following facts: (i) That during the course of recorded statement u/s.132(4) on the date of search, Shri Madanlal F Jain, the key person of Western Group, at the first instance denied to own up the seized documents and subsequently had admitted the contents of loose paper no 44 seized and made part of loose paper file and inventorised as BS-51 represent a projection only. However, Shri Madamnlal F Jain during the course of statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, subsequently on 26/12/2013 admitted that the contents of page no 44 of the loose paper file inventorised as BS-51 pertains to Water Hills Projects of Western Group. Page | 9 IT(SS)A No.317/AHD/2016 Assessment Years.2014-15 Shri Madanlal F Jain (ii) Further during the course of post search proceedings also his statement was recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 15/02/2014 wherein he reiterated that the contents of Page no. 44 pertained to 'Water Hills' project of western group and Shri Kanhaiyalal Nathulal Shah would be able to furnish the details thereof. The statement u/s 131 of the Act had been recorded on 10/03/2014 in respect of Shri Kanhaiyalal Nathulal Shah and during the course of recording statement u/s 131 of the Act on 13/03/2014 of Shri Madanlal F Jain was confronted with the statement of Shri Kanhaiyalal Nathulal Shah. At this time, Shri Madanlal F Jain denied that the transactions contained in paper no. 44 pertain to Water Hill Project and deviated from the statements recorded twice earlier. Had the loose paper under question been piece of paper produced by a broker, it would have spoken of the cost of land not the construction expenses and details number of plots of different size and rate for each of such plots cannot be the proposal by a broker. 13. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the findings of ld. CIT(A) and stated that assessing officer has made addition based on estimation/projection contained in the seized loose paper, such addition is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, ld Counsel submitted that order passed by ld CIT(A) is a reasoned and speaking order, hence it should be upheld. 14. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. Learned DR for the Revenue stated that assessee (Shri Madanlal F. Jain) has given his statements two times viz: (i) During search proceedings under section 132(4) of the Act, statement recorded on oath on 26.12.2013, vide questions Nos. 34 to 36 of the statement, Shri Madanlal F. Jain was specifically asked to explain the contents of page no. 44 in Annexure BS-51, in response to which he explained the fact that the transactions Page | 10 IT(SS)A No.317/AHD/2016 Assessment Years.2014-15 Shri Madanlal F Jain reflected on the said page pertained to the project “Water Hills” and Shri Kanayilal Shah and his son would be able to explain the same. (ii) During the post search proceedings, once again the statement of Shri Madanalal Jain was recorded u/s 131 dated 15/2/2014 and once again he was asked to explain the details mentioned on page no 44 of Annexure -BS-51. He maintained his stand that the transactions reflected on the said page pertained to the project “Water Hills” which was handled by Shri Kannaiyalal Nathulal Shah and Ashir Kannaiyalal shah and only and they would be able to furnish the details regarding the same. (iii) Subsequently, the statement of Shri Madanlal Jain, under section 131 of the Act, was recorded on 13/03/2014 and it was at this point that the assessee for the first time deviated from his earlier statements recorded twice. We note that first statement was recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, on 26.12.2013, vide questions Nos. 34 to 36, thereafter the second statement was recorded under section 131 of the Act, on 15/2/2014, wherein assessee has maintained the stand taken by him while giving statement under section 132(4) of the Act, dated 26.12.2013. However, the assessee has deviated from his statement on 13/03/2014, that is, after a period of two and half Months. While retracting the statement, the assessee did not explain that why his earlier two statements were wrong. That is, assessee has failed to provide any documentary evidence to prove that his earlier two statement was wrong. For that reliance can be placed on the judgment of Jurisdictional Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mukesh R. Shah,[2004] 134 TAXMAN 265 (GUJ.), wherein Hon`ble Court held as follows: “50. That apart, for a retraction to be effective so as to dislodge the admission made earlier in point of time, the retraction has to be supported by contemporaneous evidence and the onus is on the person making such admission and retraction. In the present case, admittedly, the respondent has not been able to show even on the basis of preponderence of probabilities that the statements recorded on different dates, and more particularly recorded on 21-4-1993, were made under coercion or threat or inducement of any nature. The Disciplinary Committee has taken note of the fact that the respondent has categorically accepted that he has no animosity against any of the officers of the department and similarly, none of the officers of the department have any personal bias, Page | 11 IT(SS)A No.317/AHD/2016 Assessment Years.2014-15 Shri Madanlal F Jain grudge or animosity against the respondent. In these circumstances, it is not possible to find any infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the Disciplinary Committee and the Council for rejecting so-called retractions made on 8-6-1993 and 1-3-1995.” 15. We note that about retraction of statement, the assessing officer was of the view that the statement which are recorded by administering oath are presumed to be carrying truth in view of provisions of section 181 and section 193 of the Indian Penal Code which provides for imprisonment if the false statement is given. When it is so, no one like to be punished knowingly and hence, it is but logical to accept a sworn statement or the statement taken on oath as revealing the truth. Burden to prove the statement as incorrect is on the assessee and in case of failure of the assessee to prove that earlier stated facts were wrong, his earlier statements are sufficient to conclude a matter. Merely because a statement is retracted, it cannot become as involuntarily or unlawfully obtained. For any retraction to be successful in the eyes of law, the assessee has to show as to how earlier recorded statements do not state the true facts or that there was coercion, inducement or threat while recording his earlier statements. We note that ld CIT(A) mentioned in para no.7.1.2 (d) of his order that “An addition cannot be made solely because during the course of search, an erroneous or wrong statement was made” However, we note that ld CIT(A) has failed to explain that how and why both earlier statements were wrong? To reach such conclusion, what are the supporting evidences/documents, the ld CIT(A) has used, is not clear? Just to say that explanation of the assessing officer is not acceptable, is not sufficient, the ld CIT(A) has to mention the reasons that why he is not accepting the explanation of the assessing officer. Therefore, based on these facts, we note that earlier two statements retracted by Shri Madanlal Jain, is not in accordance with law, as stated by us above. Hence, we are of the view that matter may be remitted back to the file of the ld CIT(A) with the direction to examine the earlier two statements and adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. Page | 12 IT(SS)A No.317/AHD/2016 Assessment Years.2014-15 Shri Madanlal F Jain 16. Now we deal with other arguments made by Learned Departmental Representative, to the effect that ld CIT(A) has not verified and did not recognize the facts examined by Ld. DDIT(Inv)-III. At the cost of repetition, we reproduce para no.(f) of order of assessing officer at page no.12, which reads as follows: “f).......Further the size of the land on which the "water hills project” was constructed has been examined by the DDIT(inv)–III, Surat and the area of the land on which the said project was completed was 9628 square yards which is closer to the specifications of the seized document after providing common amenities than the land which has been deliberately brought in to the argument by the assessee to suit his interests....” 17. From the above, we note that findings of the Ld DDIT(inv)-III Surat, mentioned above, has not been dealt with by ld CIT(A). There is only a passing reference in para no.7.1.2(d) of order of ld CIT(A), about assessing officer`s logic and nothing has been mentioned about ld DDIT(inv) Surat. The ld CIT(A) did not give any reasons that why findings of Ld DDIT(inv)-Surat is wrong. Thus, we note that, ld CIT(A) has not adjudicated the findings of ld DDI(inv)-Surat, that is, nothing has been mentioned in the appellate order about the findings of ld DDIT(inv)-Surat. Hence, we note that ld CIT(A), nowhere mentioned that how and why these findings of DDIT(inv)–III, Surat, were wrong. When certain facts were examined by Income Tax Authorities ( DDIT(inv)–III, Surat), it is the duty of ld CIT(A) to verify these findings. Therefore, we note that ld CIT(A) has not refuted or discredited these findings of DDIT(inv)–III-Surat, on the contrary, the ld CIT(A) has just brushed aside these findings, without even a word on why these findings of DDIT(inv)–III, Surat, are not acceptable. Therefore, based on this facts, we have to remit the issue back to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed. Page | 13 IT(SS)A No.317/AHD/2016 Assessment Years.2014-15 Shri Madanlal F Jain 18. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 12/10/2022 by placing result on Notice Board. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER lwjr /Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 12/10/2022 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