PRAMUKH METAL QUARRY,VADODARA V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA

ITA 394/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Pramukh Metal Quarry, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the disallowance of certain expenses claimed by the firm. The primary contention was regarding the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which the assessee argued was based on a previous year's order and lacked new material. The Assessing Officer had disallowed a sum of Rs. 22,75,000 claimed as contractual payments to Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithiya, citing that the expenses were not genuinely incurred for business purposes. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and the previous assessment for A.Y. 2011-12, decided to restrict the disallowance to 15% of the claimed expenses, similar to the earlier assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473690 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Other Referred Cases: Dhruv Parulbhai Patel vs. ACIT, CIT vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVINDRA
• Assessee Lawyers: KINJAL SHAH
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; TDS; Wrong claim; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 154; 143(1); 131

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.394/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Pramukh Metal Quarry (Firm), Anil R. Shah (C.A.), Shreeji House, 4th Floor, B/h. M.J. Library, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad-380006 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara [PAN No.AAJFP5189N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Kinjal Shah, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, Visakkapatnam vide order dated 31.01.2024 passed for A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “On Legality of Order. 1. The CIT(A) has erred both in Law and in Fact in passing his Order dated 31- 1-2024 in respect of Appeal filed on 7-4-2016 upholding the Reopening of the Assessment u/s.148 of the Act and passing Order u/s.147 of the Act of Rs.26,80,400/-. 2. Your Appellant submits that Reopening of the assessment based on order of AO of A.Y. 11-12 is bad in Law and Void and also order of AO merged with IT AT & therefore lost its existence & CIT(A) confirmed 15% on Adhoc can not be to relied on for A.Y. 2008-09. ITA No. 394/Ahd/2024 Pramukh Metal Quarry vs. ITO Asst.Year –2008-09 - 2– 3. It is also submitted that proceedings initiated of Reopening u/s 148 was for making fishing inquiries and the AO had not satisfied himself about any escapement of Income. AO did not find any new material to reopen the case. On Merits of the Case; 1. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.22,75,000/- being payment made by the Appellant to Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithia for contractual payment made for transportation of material from the mines to the crushing plant which is during course of business of your Appellant. (a) Your Appellant submits that at the time of finalizing the assessment for A.Y.08- 09 all information and details regarding Carting payment was available and was on record and was verified by the AO and (b) It is therefore submitted the expenditure of Rs.22,75,000/- being incurred for business and during course of business and not being personal or of capital nature the entire disallowance be deleted. 2. The CIT(A) also erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.4,799/- being interest paid in following Account. (a) Interest on TDS Rs.3,060/- (b) Interest on VAT Rs. 1,352/- (c) Interest on Royalty Rs.387/- Your Appellant submits that the entire expenditure referred above is not Penalty and it is also not personal expenditure and that the interest paid cannot be termed in the nature of Penalty as held by various authorities therefore the interest expense ought to be allowed in computing Total Income and disallowance be deleted. 3. The CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the applicability of Sec.40A(3) and confirming disallowance of Rs.42,879/- being payment made in cash to MGVCL Village, Vejpur Your Appellant submits that the expenditure is not liable to be disallowance since the payment is made to Government Body and is covered by Rule 6DD. Further the payment of Electricity Expenses is to be made in the Office of the local area of MGVCL Village Vejpur, Tal. Dessar where the Appellant is not carrying any business and therefore not maintaining the Account and therefore under circumstances he was required to make payment in cash and hence it is exempt from operation of Sec.40A(3) and the disallowance of Rs.42,879/- be deleted. 4. (a) The CIT(A) has erred both in Law and in fact in upholding disallowance of Rs.1,76,102/- made by the AO u/s.40(a)(ia) being interest paid to following. (a) GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. Rs.1,55,682/- (b) Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Rs.20,420/- ITA No. 394/Ahd/2024 Pramukh Metal Quarry vs. ITO Asst.Year –2008-09 - 3– (b) The Appellant submits that the expenditure was paid to persons from which loan was taken by one of the partner Shri Vinodbhai L. Pithia in his personal capacity but for purposes of business of the firm and hence the interest was paid by Shri Vinodbhai L. Pithia directly to the above two firms as referred against their name. (c) Your Appellant had reimbursed Rs.1,76,102/- to the said Partner Shri Vinodbhai L. Pithia towards his interest payment made on behalf of firm and therefore Sec.40(a)(ia) does not apply to the facts of the case and no disallowance is called for. (d) Alternatively and Without Prejudice, the above referred both the Companies and Limited Company duly assessed to tax having PAN No. filing Return of Income and the Income of Interest earned by them is subjected to payment of Income-tax by them respectively and therefore also sec.40a(ia) does not apply.” 3. The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds of appeal: “1. The CIT(A) has erred both in Law and in Fact in confirming the order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.148 and that no income has escaped assessment or under assessed. 2. Since no income has escaped assessment or under assess the reopening is the case of change of opinion and/or facts and details regarding Total Income were duly before AO in assessment proceedings and after verification the order was passed. It is therefore submitted that Reopening is bad in Law and Void. 3. CIT(A) has erred both in Law and in Fact the upholding the Reopening of the Assessment u/s. 148 of the Act though the Assessing Officer while issuing notice u/s. 148 and Reasons Recorded for Reopening has not taken mandatory permission of Pr. CIT / CIT u/s.151 of the Act and he has also not supplied to the Appellant copy of such permission. The CIT(A) ought to have held that the proceeding u/s. 148 are bad in Law and Void. 4. Your Appellant submits that CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Order of the AO since there is a vast and clear-cut variation between Reasons Recorded and the Assessment Order and in view of binding judgement of Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhruv Parulbhai Patel vs. ACIT 367 ITR P.234 the Assessment Order being null and void the CIT(A) should have allowed the Appeal 5. Without prejudice to your Appellant also submits that the Reasons Recorded was to make addition of Rs.17,76,340/- but since the said amount was not added in Asst. Order and other various items totalling to Rs.26,77,077/- which are not eligible for addition has been added which makes Asst. Order Bad-in-Law and void as per binding judgement of Hon.Guj. High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani 30 taxmann.com 1. ITA No. 394/Ahd/2024 Pramukh Metal Quarry vs. ITO Asst.Year –2008-09 - 4– 6. The CIT(A) has erred passed Order u/s. 154 u/s.250 on 12-9-2024 with regard to Rectification Application of your Appellant of 29-3-2024 to correct mistake apparent on the record. Which is required for consideration and to correctness. In view of above the order of CIT(A) be cancelled as relief claimed above be allowed and the order of the Assessing Officer be modified accordingly. Your Appellant reserves right to add, alter, amend to withdraw any or all Ground of Appeal.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2008 declaring total loss at Rs. 5,140/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, accepting the total income as returned by the assessee. Thereafter, the case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act, after recording the reasons for reopening the assessment. The reasons for reopening the assessment were that during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2011-12, it was noticed that the assessee had made payments of Rs. 21.76 lakhs to Shri Kapil Bhimsinhbhai Pithiya during F.Y. 2010-11 as contractual payment for contract work. In A.Y. 2011-12, it was held by the Assessing Officer that neither Shri Kapil Bhimsinhbhai Pithiya had worked for the assessee either in F.Y. 2010-11 or in any of the earlier or succeeding years. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 21.76 lakhs to the total income of the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessing Officer noticed that for A.Y. 2008-09, the assessee had made contractual payment for contract work to Shri Kapil Bhimsinhbhai Pithiya. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer had “reasons to believe” that income of the assessee had escaped assessment under Section 147 of the Act. During the course of 147 proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that assesseee had debited a sum of Rs. 23,63,436/- towards mining expenses. On verification of tax audit report, Assessing Officer observed that payment of Rs. 22,75,000/- was paid to Shri Kapil Bhimsinhbhai Pithiya towards contract charges and the said person happened to be the younger brother of one of the ITA No. 394/Ahd/2024 Pramukh Metal Quarry vs. ITO Asst.Year –2008-09 - 5– partners of the assessee firm. The Assessing Officer observed that for A.Y. 2011-12, on the same issue the Assessing Officer had recorded the statement of Shri Kapil Bhimsinhbhai Pithiya, wherein it was found that the claim of contract expenses relating to Shri Kapil Bhimsinhbhai Pithiya is a false claim since he had not rendered any services to the assessee firm. Further, for A.Y. 2011-12, the assessee refused to cross-examine Shri Kapil Bhimsinhbhai Pithiya, despite having been given an opportunity of doing so. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that since the facts of the case for A.Y. 2008-09 are identical to the facts of the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2011-12, he held that assessee firm had wrongfully claimed expenses as contractual payment to Shri Kapil Bhimsinhbhai Pithiya. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 22,75,000/- was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09. While passing the order, the Assessing Officer made the following observations: “6.3 The submissions of the assessee as reproduced above has duly been taken into consideration. In this regard, if is pertinent to mention here that in the ca.se of the assessee's own case for the Asstt. Year 2011-12 on the same issue the then Assessing Officer had recorded the statement of Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithiyal, wherein after recording the statement, the Assessing Officer had categorically stated that the claim of the assessee firm of carting expenses in relating to Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithiyal is a fale and wrong claim because Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithiya was found to have been tutored to stick to his claim of rendering carting work for Pramukh Metal Quarry. It is also worthwhile to mention here that for the Asst. Year 2011-12, the assessing officer had given an opportunity to cross examine the witness Shri Kapil Bhimshinbhai Pithiya but the assessee has refused to cross examine the witness. If was, therefore, held by the Assessing Officer that the truthfulness of the sworn statement of Shri Kapil Bhimshibhai Pithiya is acceptable to the assessee. In view of the above, it was held by the Assessing Officer that whatever has been claimed by the assessee firm as contractual payments to Shri Kapil Bhimshibhai Pithiya is nothing but a wrong and false claim. Since the facts of me case are identical to the facts of the assessee's own case for the Asstt. Year 2011-12, wherein the Assessing Officer after discussion the issue at length in the assessment order, passed for the Asstt. Year 2011-12, he has held that the assessee firm has wrongfully claimed expenses as contractual payments to Shri Kapil Bhimsinhbhai Pithiya. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the contractual payment of Rs.22,75,000/- made to Shri Kapil ITA No. 394/Ahd/2024 Pramukh Metal Quarry vs. ITO Asst.Year –2008-09 - 6– Bhimsinhbhai Pithiya, has wrongfully claimed as expenses by the assessee firm as contractual payments with a sole motive to reduce the tax liability of the assessee firm. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the statement recorded on oath u/s. 131 of the I.T. Act dated 12.03.2014 of Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithiyal, during the course of assessment proceedings for the Asstt. Year 2011-12, I hold that the entire expenses claimed as contractual payment to the said party amounting to Rs.22,75,000/- for the assessment year under consideration is considered as a wrong claim as contractual payment and accordingly the sum of Rs. 22,75,000/- is hereby disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act has also been separately on this point for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer with the following observations: “4.1.2 The AO recorded statement on oath u/s 131 of the act dated 12.03.2014 from Shri Kapil Bhimshibhai Pithiyal, during the course of assessment proceedings for the AY 2011-12 on the same issue. After recording the statement, the AO had categorically stated that the claim of the assessee firm of carting expenses in relating to Shri: Kapil Bhimshibhai Pithiyal is a false and wrong claim. For the AY 2011-12 the AO had given an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the witness Shri. Kapil Bhimshibhai Pithiyal. However, the assessee has refused to cross examine the witness. In view of the above, the AO held that the claim made by the assessee towards contractual payments to Shri. Kapil Bhimshibhai Pithiyal is nothing but wrong and false claim. 4.1.3 Since the facts of the case are identical in nature the AO had disallowed the claim of contractual payment made to Shri. Kapil Bhimshibhai Pithiyal of Rs.22,75,000/- for the AY under consideration. Thereby, this ground raised by the appellant is dismissed.” 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A). 7. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee took a legal ground that the 148 notice is liable to be set-aside on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not take mandatory permission of PCIT/CIT at the time of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page 7 of the Paper Book and contended that since, in the instant case ITA No. 394/Ahd/2024 Pramukh Metal Quarry vs. ITO Asst.Year –2008-09 - 7– permission was obtained from JCIT, notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is liable to be set-aside, as being non-est. 8. However, on going through the relevant statutory provisions, as they stood at the relevant time, we are of the considered view that the legal contention of the Counsel for the assessee has no legs to stand on. It would be useful to reproduce the Section 151 of the Act for the relevant Financial year for ready reference: “151.(1) In a case where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 147 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no notice shall be issued under section 148 [by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner [or Deputy Commissioner], unless the [Joint] Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice] : Provided that, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer aforesaid, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. (2) In a case other than a case falling under sub-section (1), no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of [Joint] Commissioner, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the [Joint] Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice.]” 9. We observe that the case of assessee falls under Section 151(2) of the Act which provides that in case a regular assessment under Section 143(3) has not taken place, then notice can be issued with the authority of JCIT, after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years. In the instant case, admittedly the return of the assessee was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and no regular assessment of the assessee was carried out under Section 143(3) of the Act, prior to the present proceedings. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the notice issued under Section 148 of ITA No. 394/Ahd/2024 Pramukh Metal Quarry vs. ITO Asst.Year –2008-09 - 8– the Act and the legal challenge to the issuance of 148 notice raised by the Counsel for the assessee is hereby rejected. 10. On merits, the Counsel for the assessee pointed out that even for A.Y. 2011-12, Ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s own case after having considered the entire facts of the case, restricted the disallowance to 15% of the cartage expenses. Accordingly, it was requested that appropriate orders may be passed for this assessment year as well since the present re-assessment proceedings were opened on the basis of observations made by the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order for A.Y. 2011-12. 11. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) while passing the assessment order for A.Y. 2011-12 dated 12.06.2015 (which has been placed on record before us) and the relevant extracts of such order are reproduced below for ready reference: “From the submissions of the appellant, it is also clear that the business activity of the appellant firm consisted of four activities namely:- i) Excavation of rubble by drilling and blasting ii) Transportation of rubble to the crushing unit iii) Crushing of rubble into various size of stone aggregates Kapchi, Metaland Grit and iv) Transportation of the finished products i.e. kapchi grit etc. to various customers on sales made to them. There cannot be any doubt that owing to the peculiar nature of the business activity of the appellant, it requires movement of material which is bulk in weight which cannot be moved manually without the help of machines. It is stated by the Authorized Representative that the crushing unit is located at a distance from the mining unit for safety purpose since the blasting operations have to be carried out for excavation of rubble thus it is by compulsion that the crushing unit are located at distance from the mines and therefore the transportation /carting is required from the mines to the crushing unit. ITA No. 394/Ahd/2024 Pramukh Metal Quarry vs. ITO Asst.Year –2008-09 - 9– There is also no dispute that the fern did not have any transportation which is evident from the Audited Accounts enclosed in the paper book except the tractor, which is used for the lighter works and is not sufficient for transportation of huge quantity of raw material from the mines. The Authorized Representative has submitted that the tractor cannot be used for the purpose of transportation of rubbles from the mines to the crushing unit since the quantity to be transported by these tractors is very small and it is not feasible to transport rubble from the mines to the crushing plant at the mines are about 100 Mtrs below the surface of the land and the tractor is of low capacity. This is an acceptable preposition. Thus, admittedly, the appellant firm had to depend on external services for the purpose of movement of rubble from the mines to the crushing unit. The appellant firm had excavated rubble of 1,34,450 MT during the year under reference which has not questioned by the Assessing Officer as no addition on this account is made. The said quantity had to be moved from the mines to the crushing unit for which the appellant firm had availed the services of Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithia who had transported the material through the machines of various other parties located in an around the mines. A chart showing dale wise details of excavation and production which is nothing but the production carried out by the crushing unit on daily basis is submitted by the appellant which is placed in the paper book. A perusal of the same reveals that on an average production of the appellant firm is around 400 MT which could not have been carried out without movement of material. I agree with the Authorised Representative that the mere fact that Shri Kapil Bhimsibhsi Pithia is relative of one of the partner of the appellant firm and had given a statement which was not acceptable to the Assessing Officer, cannot made a basis for rejection of the contractual payment which is evidenced by the actual business activity having been done for the appellant firm during the year under reference. This fact was also submitted before the Ld. Assessing Officer who rejected the contention of the appellant firm referring it and comparing it with the contractual payment made to Shri Dhamik G Vadhar and Shri Ishwarlal Jat which as submitted by the appellant are blasting expenses and not contractual payment for \"carting or movement of material from mines to the unit\". Appellant also contended that the carting expanses of Rs. 5,43,129/- incurred in respect of sales effect for certain parties and not for the purpose of movement of materials from mines to plant. Here, it is noteworthy that no enquiry from Shri Dharmik G Vadhar and Shri Ishwarlal Jat was ever conducted to verify the exact nature of work undertaken by them. At this place, Assessing Officer has not indicated that some other person carried out the job of blast etc. if Shri Dharmik G Vadhar and Shri Ishwarlal Jat were in transportation work. Under these circumstances, it cannot be stated that the stated that the appellant has claimed bogus expenses under the head “carting expenses” 5.4. The more fact that Shri Kapil Bhimsinhbhai Pithiya could not produce evidences or the replies given by him were not convincing, cannot be made a reason for disallowance of the expenses without which the appellant firm could not have effected production and sales which have been accepted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. No iota of evidence have been found to establish the fact that the appellant firm had with it man or machine which could have carried out the work done by Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithia. ITA No. 394/Ahd/2024 Pramukh Metal Quarry vs. ITO Asst.Year –2008-09 - 10– There is heavy reliance by the Assessing Officer on the discrepancies in the statements of Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithia. The relevant portion of the English version of the sworn statement dated 11.03.2014 of Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithiya which was recorded u/s 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in vernacular Gujarati is re-produced in assessment order itself. Specific questions were asked by the Assessing Officer and in response, Shri Kapii Bhimsibhal Pithiya admitted that he had done carting expenses for Pramukh Metal Quarry during the year relevant to the AY under appeal. The same can be summarized in answer as under:  In answer to the Question No. 15, Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithiya submitted that as per his knowledge he started the business of carting somewhere in December 2009 or January 2010.  In answer to the Question No. 17, on being asked how he tarried his carting business without having any vehicles, Shri Kapit Bhimsibhai Pithiya submitted that he hired others' vehicles tor his carting business.  On being asked to tell the name of the parties for whom he did carting work, in answer to the Question No. 20, Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithiya submitted that he did carting work only for one time for Pramukh Metal Quarry.  On being asked what he meant by “only for one time for Pramukh Metal Quarry” in answer to the Question No. 21, Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithiya submitted that he did carting work somewhere in 2010-2011. He further submitted that he did not remember the months during which. he did carting work.  On being asked how long he did carting work during 201Q-2011, in answer to the Question No. 23 it was submitted by Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithiya that he did carting work approximately for six to seven months.  In answer to the Question No.25, he replied that in that point of time [on 12.03.2014] he was not doing carting work for Pramukh Metal Quarry.  On being asked as to whether he did any other work for Pramukh Metal Quarry during the period 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2013, in answer to the Question No, 27 it was submitted by Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithiya that no other work was done.  On being asked when he did carting work for the last time for Pramukh Metal Quarry, in answer to the Question No. 28 it was submitted by Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithiya that he did carting work for last time only in 2010-2011. 5.5 Considering aforementioned facts of the case and detailed submissions made by the Authorized Representative, I hold that the disallowance of Rs.21,76,000/- paid by the assessee to Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithia for carrying out the carting work for transportation of rubbles to the crushing unit, is not fully justified. However, excessive payment to the said person cannot be ruled out as ITA No. 394/Ahd/2024 Pramukh Metal Quarry vs. ITO Asst.Year –2008-09 - 11– payments are made in cash. Under these circumstances, I consider it appropriate to restrict the disallowance to 15% of expenses claimed i.e., Rs. 3,26,400/- and balance addition of Rs.18,49,600/- is deleted. This Ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 12. On going through the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2011-12, and considering the arguments placed by the Counsel for the assessee to the effect that since identical facts are involved for the impugned assessment year as well, in the interest of justice, the disallowance with respect to cartage expenses paid to Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithiya are hereby directed to be restricted to 15%. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. This Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 21/03/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 21/03/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 19.03.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 20.03.2025 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 20.03.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 21.03.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 21.03.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 21.03.2025 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… "