PANCHSHEEL SOLVENT PVT. LTD, RAJANANDGAON,RAJANANDGAON V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL-2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 343/RPR/2024

AI Insights

Panchsheel Solvent Pvt. Ltd., engaged in manufacturing rice bran oil, faced scrutiny following a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on September 17, 2014. Subsequent assessments revealed discrepancies in purchase transactions amounting to Rs.46,00,000 from M/s. Chhattisgarh Enterprises, deemed a bogus entity involved in issuing fictitious bills. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) added this amount as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) and contested in the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the lower authorities that the transactions were not genuine and constituted an attempt to evade tax by inflating purchase expenses.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36563 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Reena Jain vs CIT, N.K Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Question of law; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained expenditure; Bogus purchase; Accommodation entries; Wrong claim; Bogus
• Section: 147; 144; 132; 153A; 68; 69C; 72

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 342 & 343/RPR/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Panchsheel Solvent Pvt. Ltd. Baldeo Bagh, Nearby Old SP Office, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) PAN : AAECP8898A .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vimal Kumar Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 28.10.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 29.10.2024 2 Panchsheel Solvent Private Limited Vs. ACIT (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 342 & 343/RPR/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The captioned appeals filed by the assessee company are directed against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Raipur-3, dated 20.05.2024 & 21.05.2024, which in turn arises from the orders passed by the A.O under Sec.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 09.12.2019 for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14. As the facts and issues involved in the captioned appeals are common, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off by way of a consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No.342/RPR/2024 for assessment year 2012-13, wherein the assessee company has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. That the order of the Learned Commissioner (appeals) is arbitrary and illegal and against the principal of natural justice. 2. For the reason that the learned commissioner has not granted sufficient time for effective written submission for persuing appeal after requesting for 3 month time due to bulk nature of supporting evidences, however only 5 days given instead of 3 month. 3. For the reason that learned commissioner has already made to decide to dismiss the appeal hastily, without necessary care and application of mind. 3 Panchsheel Solvent Private Limited Vs. ACIT (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 342 & 343/RPR/2024 4. For the reason that by observing the fact of the case the order passed by learned commissioner is bad in law as well as on the fact and circumstances of the case. 6. For the reason that the lumpsum ad-hoc addition of Rs.46,00,000/-on account of purchase made by assessee and treating the same as bogus purchase by the Hon Assessing officer and justified the order of ld AO by learned commissioner without application of mind is not proper and justified. 7. That the Appellant reserves the right to raise any other legal grounds and supporting evidences at the time of arguments.” 3. Shri Vimal Kumar Agrawal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee company at the threshold submitted that the captioned appeals involved a delay of 6 days. After hearing the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR) in the backdrop of the “affidavit” dated 02.08.2024 of Shri Amin Lalani, director of the assessee company, we find that there were justifiable reasons leading to the impugned delay which is not found to be inordinate. Accordingly, the delay involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee company is condoned. 4. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of rice bran oil was subjected to search and seizure proceedings u/s. 132 of the Act on 17.09.2014. Subsequently, assessment was framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 16.12.2016, wherein income of the assessee company was determined at Rs.4,92,32,780/-. 4 Panchsheel Solvent Private Limited Vs. ACIT (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 342 & 343/RPR/2024 5. Thereafter, the A.O based on information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee company was involved in booking bogus purchases, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee company on 29.03.2019. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O observed that the assessee had claimed to have made purchases of Rs.46 lacs from M/s. Chhattisgarh Enterprises (Proprietor: Shri Mahendra Sharma). The A.O observed that Shri Mahendra Sharma, proprietor of M/s. Chhattisgarh Enterprises had opened a current account No.930320110000270 on 04.04.2011 with Bank of India, Branch: Rajnandgaon, declaring his activities as railway catering and hotel business. However, the A.O observed that the transactions in the aforesaid bank accounts were different from the nature of business that was declared by Shri Mahendra Sharma while opening his current account, i.e. business of railway catering and hotel business. The statement of Shri Mahendra Sharma (supra) was recorded on 16.08.2018, wherein he had admitted of having issued bogus sale bills to various parties as per their requirements. Shri Mahendra Sharma had, inter alia, stated in his statement that all the transactions/activities made in his bank account were, in fact, transactions of the assessee company viz. M/s. Panchsheel Solvent Pvt. Ltd. and he had merely signed on the bank papers, cheques etc. as per its directions. The A.O after considering the aforesaid facts called upon the 5 Panchsheel Solvent Private Limited Vs. ACIT (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 342 & 343/RPR/2024 assessee company to substantiate the authenticity of its claim of having made genuine purchases from the aforementioned tainted party. As the assessee had failed to substantiate its claim of having made genuine purchases from the aforementioned party, viz. M/s. Chhattisgarh Enterprises (supra), therefore, the A.O held the entire amount of Rs.46 lacs as bogus and added the same u/s. 69C of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 09.12.2019, determined the income of the assessee company at Rs.5,38,32,780/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as under: “3.1 Ground No.1: - Through this ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged that by observing the facts of the case the order passed by the learned assessing officer is bad in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Id. AO has made addition on following grounds. As per information received from the investigation wing that the assessee company has been found to be involved in bogus transactions on account of bogus purchases during FY 2011- 12. The modus operandi of the said bogus transaction also involves two proprietorship concerns Chhattisgarh Enterprises and M/s. M M Sales Corporation. Such bogus dealers were also examined by the investigation wing Raipur and found that such dealers were issuing only bills without delivering any good. Thus, the beneficiaries have suppressed their total income by way of debiting bogus purchases. The assessee is among the one of the beneficiaries who has received such bogus bills. The details of transaction with the assessee and the bogus dealers is as under: 6 Panchsheel Solvent Private Limited Vs. ACIT (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 342 & 343/RPR/2024 The assessee company Panchsheel Solvent Plant Pvt. Ltd. opened a bank account (A/c No.930320110000270) at Bank of India, Rajnandgaon in the name of M/s Chhattisgarh Enterprises Prop. Shri Mahendra Sharma. All the transaction activities are made in this account are in fact the transactions of Panchsheel Solvent Pvt. Ltd. Shri Mahendra Sharma use to sign on banking papers cheques etc. as per direction of the assessee company. Mahendra Sharma is the proprietor of M/s, Chhattisgarh Enterprises who is engaged in the business of a commission agent for sale and purchase of rice, rice bran. The statement of Mahendra Sharma was recorded on 16.08.2018 that on oath has stated and accepted that he used to issue bogus sale bills to the different concerns on getting of commission 0.4%. Further, it is found during the investigation that Chhattisgarh Enterprises opened a current account on 04.04.2011 declaring its activity as Railway Catering and Hotel Business. The bank account no. 930320110000270 is operated M/s. Chhattisgarh Enterprises and its proprietor is Shri Mahendra Sharma. The activity in the above bank account of the assessee is different from nature of business as the credits from the cash credit account are not justified considering the nature of activity declared by the assessee. The statement Shri Mahendra Sharma was recorded on oath 16.08.2018 and he has accepted that he used to issue bogus sale bills to the different parties as per their requirements. The relevant portion of the statement of Shri Mahendra Sharma is reproduced in assessment order page no.4 to 7. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has not produce any documentary evidences regarding the genuineness of transaction. Therefore, the assessing officer has no option except to assess the income of assessee u/s 144 of the Income 7 Panchsheel Solvent Private Limited Vs. ACIT (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 342 & 343/RPR/2024 Tax Act, 1961 for the relevant assessment yea4i on the basis of document available on record. Since the assessee had bogus purchase with the above party at Rs.46,00,000/- in the bank transaction through Bank of India, Rajnandgaon and not offered any explanation, the whole amount of transaction to the tune of Rs.46,00,000/- is treated as unexplained and added back the total income of the assessee u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure of Income tax Act, 1961. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that the assessee has accounted for goods in purchases and there was no actual purchase of goods has been taken place. Therefore, total amount of transaction of Rs.46,00,000/- is unexplained expenditure u/s 69C and added to total income of the assessee. Since the assessee has concealed its income during the. A.Y. under consideration and furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated separately. During the course of appeal proceedings, I have gone through the facts and findings of the assessing officer and find that Shri Mahendra Sharma has already accepted in his statement dt.16.08.2018, that he used to issue bogus sale bills to the different parties as per their requirements. Mere payment made through banking channel does not prove that the transaction is genuine. On the above facts and findings, it is well established that there was no actual business activity done and total amount of purchase of goods should be treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. From the above this case is fit for applying section 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961. \"69C — Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation, if any, offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the amount covered by such expenditure or part thereof, as the case may be, may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year\" Section 69C of the Act and pointed out that once it is established that the expenditure is unexplained/bogus, the entire amount of bogus expenditure shall be added to the total income of the assessee and I have also relied on the following decision Order of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Reena Jain vs CIT on 12.10.2006 for justifying the addition u/s 69C for bogus expenditure. 8 Panchsheel Solvent Private Limited Vs. ACIT (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 342 & 343/RPR/2024 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that the assessee has accounted for goods in purchases and there was no actual purchase of goods has been taken place. Thus, the assessee have suppressed their total income by way of debiting bogus purchases. Therefore, the addition of Rs.46,00,000/- is hereby confirmed and grounds of appeal dismissed. 4. In the result, appeal is dismissed. 8. The assessee company being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 9. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. 10. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that Shri Mahendra Sharma, proprietor of M/s. Chhattisgarh Enterprises, had in his statement record on oath on 16.08.2018, admitted that he was engaged in the activity of providing bogus/accommodation bills without delivery of goods. Also, Shri Mahendra Sharma, had in his statement stated that the current account No.930320110000270 with Bank of India, Branch: Rajnandgaon in the name of his proprietary concern, viz. Chhattisgarh Enterprises was opened on 04.04.2011 by the assessee company, viz. M/s. Panchsheel Solvent Pvt. Ltd. Apart from that, it was stated by him that all the transactions/activities in his bank account were, in fact, transactions of the assessee company and he used to sign all the 9 Panchsheel Solvent Private Limited Vs. ACIT (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 342 & 343/RPR/2024 banking papers, cheques etc. as per its direction. Ostensibly, a perusal of the statement of Shri Mahendra Sharma (supra), as culled out by the A.O in the body of the assessment order, revealed that he had admitted that all the transactions in his bank account were carried out by Shri Lucky, i.e. accountant of M/s. Panchsheel Solvent Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the assessee company. In fact, he had further stated that he had only signed the account opening form, and thereafter, as per the directions of Shri Amin Lalani, director of the assessee company, had provided to the concerned persons of the said company his blank signed cheques. Further, it was stated by him that he had not issued any sale bills and the same as per requirements of the assessee company were prepared either by the latter’s accountant or other concerned persons. 11. Shri Vimal Kumar Agrawal, Ld.AR for the assessee at the threshold had assailed the addition made by the A.O by treating all the purchases made by the assessee company from M/s. Chhattisgarh Enterprises (supra), which, thereafter, had been upheld by the CIT(Appeals). However, the Ld. AR failed to place on record any material which could either substantiate the claim of the assessee company of having made genuine purchases from the aforementioned tainted party, viz. M/s. Chhattisgarh Enterprises (supra) nor led any such evidence which could dislodge the view taken by the lower authorities. The Ld. AR, submitted that as the assessee company during the year had carried out substantial sales of 10 Panchsheel Solvent Private Limited Vs. ACIT (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 342 & 343/RPR/2024 Rs.92.52 crore (approx.), therefore, there was no justification for the A.O to have held the subject purchases of Rs.46 lacs as bogus. 12. Shri S.L Anuragi, Ld. Departmental Representative ( for short ‘DR’) submitted that as the assessee company had not made purchases at all but had booked bogus expenditure for scaling down its profit/income, therefore, no infirmity did emerge from the orders of the lower authorities who had rightly disallowed its said claim of bogus expenditure. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. DR submitted that the fact that the assessee company had merely booked bogus expenditure and had not made any purchases of goods could safely be gathered from the statement of Shri Mahendra Sharma, proprietor of M/s. Chhattisgarh Enterprises, wherein he had admitted that the bank account of his proprietary concern was opened and thereafter, operated by the assessee company. 13. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue in the backdrop of the orders of the lower authorities. As observed by us hereinabove, it is a matter of fact borne from the statement of Shri Mahendra Sharma, proprietor of M/s. Chhattisgarh Enterprises, that the bank account No.930320110000270 on 04.04.2011 with Bank of India, Branch: Rajnandgaon of his name sake proprietary concern, viz. M/s. Chhattisgarh Enterprises was opened and thereafter, operated by the assessee company. As is discernible from the orders of the lower 11 Panchsheel Solvent Private Limited Vs. ACIT (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 342 & 343/RPR/2024 authorities, the transactions/activities in the bank account of Shri Mahendra Sharam were in fact, transactions of the assessee company. Also, it transpires that Shri Mahendra Sharma (supra) used to sign the bank papers/cheques etc. as per the direction of the assessee company. Shri Mahendra Sharma in his statement, had stated that blank signed cheque books of his proprietary concern were delivered by him to Shri Lucky, i.e. accountant of the assessee company who, thereafter, had operated the said account. Apart from that, we find Shri Mahendra Sharma (supra), had admitted that bogus bills of M/s. Chhattisgarh Enterprises were issued to various parties as per their requirements without delivery of goods. Further, we find that though the current account No. 930320110000270 on 04.04.2011 with Bank of India, Branch: Rajnandgaon of M/s, Chhattisgarh Enterprises (supra) was opened disclosing his business as that of railway catering and running a hotel business, which was totally different from the nature of activities appearing in the said bank account. 14. Although the Ld. AR had tried to impress upon us that as the goods mentioned in the sale bills of M/s. Chhattisgarh Enterprises (supra) were actually purchased by the assessee company, therefore, there was no justification for the A.O to have disallowed the entire amount of purchases, we are unable to concur with the same. At this stage, we may herein observe that it is a case where the bogus/accommodation entry provider, 12 Panchsheel Solvent Private Limited Vs. ACIT (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 342 & 343/RPR/2024 i.e. M/s. Chhattisgarh Enterprises (supra) was a bogus/sham concern which had been brought into existence by the assessee company itself. As observed by us hereinabove, the current bank account NO.930320110000270 of M/s. Chhattisgarh Enterprises (supra) with Bank of India, Branch: Rajnandgaon was opened by the assessee company, and thereafter, the said account was operated by Shri Lucky, i.e. accountant of the assessee company. Also, it transpires that the sale bills of the aforementioned concern, viz. M/s. Chhattisgarh Enterprises were prepared and issued by the personnel of the assessee company. Considering the aforesaid peculiar facts, wherein the assessee company in the garb of the aforesaid bogus/sham concern was in itself engaged in providing accommodation entries, we find substance in the view taken by the lower authorities that the assessee had only booked a bogus expenditure to reduce its income and had not made any corresponding purchases of goods. As the Ld. AR had failed to place on record any material which would point out any perversity in the view taken by the lower authorities, therefore, we uphold the addition/disallowance of Rs.46 lacs made/sustained by them. Our aforesaid view that the entire amount of bogus purchases of Rs.46 lacs had rightly been disallowed by the lower authorities is supported by the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of N.K Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2016) 72 taxmann.com 289 (Gujarat.). In the aforesaid case, search proceedings 13 Panchsheel Solvent Private Limited Vs. ACIT (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 342 & 343/RPR/2024 were conducted on the assessee company, in the course of which certain signed blank cheques and vouchers of the parties from whom the assessee had claimed to have made purchases were found. As the entire purchases shown by the assessee on the basis of fictitious invoices were debited in the trading account, therefore, the A.O disallowed the entire amount of purchase amounting to Rs.2,92,93,288/-. On appeal, the Tribunal retained the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases @25% i.e. Rs.73,23,322/- (out of total purchases of Rs.2,92,93,288/-). The revenue assailed the order of the Tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of N.K Industries Vs. DCIT, Tax Appeal No.261 of 2003 by, inter alia, raising the following substantial question of law: “Tax Appeal No.261 of 2003 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in retaining the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases @25% i.e. Rs.73,23,322/- of the total purchases amounting to Rs.2,92,93,288/-?” The Hon’ble High Court in the backdrop of the facts in the case before them, observed that now when the Tribunal had categorically held that the assessee had shown bogus purchases of Rs.2,92,93,288/-, therefore, taxing only 25% of the said bogus claim was against the principles of Section 68 & 69C of the Income Tax Act. The Hon’ble High Court observed that the Tribunal having once come to a categorical finding that the amount of Rs.2,92,93,288/- represented alleged purchases from bogus 14 Panchsheel Solvent Private Limited Vs. ACIT (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 342 & 343/RPR/2024 suppliers on the basis of fictitious invoices, it was, thus, not incumbent on it to restrict the disallowance to only Rs.73,23,322/-. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon’ble High Court are culled out as under : (relevant extract) “On consideration of the matter, we find that the facts of the present case are identical to those of M/s.Indian Woollen Carpet Factory (supra) or M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd. In the present case the Tribunal has categorically observed that the assessee had shown bogus purchases amounting to Rs.2,92,93,288/- and taxing only 25% of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading account since the transaction has been found to be bogus. The Tribunal having once come to a categorical finding that the amount of Rs.2,92,93,288/- represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent on it to restrict the disallowance to only Rs.73,23,322/-.” (emphasis supplied by us) 15. As in the present case before us, Shri Mahendra Sharma (supra) had admitted that he had provided his blank signed cheques, blank bill books etc. to the assessee company, which, thereafter, had issued bogus/accommodation bills as per its requirements and operated his bank account, therefore, we are of a firm conviction that the facts involved in the present case falls within the four corners of the facts of the case as were there before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of N.K Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2016) 72 taxmann.com 289 (Gujarat.). Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals), we 15 Panchsheel Solvent Private Limited Vs. ACIT (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 342 & 343/RPR/2024 uphold the same. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.6 raised by the assessee company is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 16. As the assessee had not only failed to come forth with any contention which would substantiate its claim that the CIT(Appeals) had disposed off the appeal without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee company nor any fact supporting the said claim had been placed on record, therefore, the same is rejected. Thus, the Grounds of appeal No.1 to 4 raised by the assessee company are dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations. 17. Ground of appeal No.7 being general in nature is dismissed as not pressed. 18. In the result, the appeal of the assessee company in ITA No.342/RPR/2024 for A.Y.2012-13 is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. ITA No.343/RPR/2024 A.Y.2013-14 19. As the facts involved in the captioned appeal filed by the assessee company remains the same as were there before us in the aforementioned ITA No.342/RPR/2024 for assessment year 2012-13, therefore, our order therein passed while disposing off the said appeal shall apply mutatis- mutandis for disposing off the captioned appeal, i.e., ITA No. 16 Panchsheel Solvent Private Limited Vs. ACIT (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) ITA Nos. 342 & 343/RPR/2024 343/RPR/2024 for A.Y. 2013-14. In this case also, we uphold the addition of Rs.11,00,000/- on similar lines as were recorded by us in ITA No.342/RPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14. 20. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.343/RPR/2024 for A.Y.2013-14 is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 21. Resultantly, both the appeals filed by the assessee company are dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 29th day of October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 29th October, 2024. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "