SAMRAT REMEDIES LIMITED,MUMBAI V. .PCIT, VALSAD

ITA 449/SRT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Samrat Remedies Limited appealing against an order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad. The order was based on the grounds that the original assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue concerning four sundry creditors amounting to Rs.7,27,25,524. The Tribunal examined whether the Assessing Officer had adequately investigated the transactions with these foreign creditors during the scrutiny assessment and whether the subsequent order under section 263 was justified. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer had indeed made a proper inquiry and had sufficient grounds to accept the transactions as genuine, leading to the setting aside of the section 263 order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473292 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. DCIT, CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., CIT vs. Nirav Modi, CIT vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd., CIT vs. Jaykumar B. Patil, CIT vs. Century Plyboards (I) Ltd., PCIT vs. R. K. Jain Infra Projects Ltd., CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers, CIT vs. Reliance communication Ltd., CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan, CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Aggarwal, PCIT vs. Attire Designers Pvt. Ltd., CIT vs. Panchamdas Jain, Manoj Agarwal vs. DCIT, Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narangji, Ojas Tarmake (P.) Ltd., Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd., Rajhans Construction (P.) Ltd., Mega Construction (P.) Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVIKANT GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK SHARMA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Transfer pricing; Revision of order; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 119; 263; 251; 48; 68; 205; 133(6); 113; 92CA

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.449/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Samrat Remedies Limited, 208, 2nd Floor, De Elmas, Pahadi Village, Sonawala Cross Lane No.2, Goregaon East, Mumbai – 4000063 Vs. The PCIT, Valsad èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM1444G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Ashok Sharma, CA Respondent by Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date of Pronouncement 17/12/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad [in short, ‘Ld. PCIT’], dated 16.03.2024 for assessment year (AY) 2018-19. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. [A] On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Principal CIT erred in holding the order u/s 143(3) to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue by invoking the provisions of section 263 of I.T. Act, 1961 with respect to four sundry creditors amounting to Rs.7,27,25,524/-. (B) The learned Principal CIT erred in not appreciating the fact that during the course of scrutiny proceedings the AO issued a notice dt 16/03/2021 calling for transaction with the parties outside India. The appellant responded to the notice 2 ITA No.449/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Samrat Remedies Ltd. on 19/03/2021 and submitted all the relevant details in connection with import purchases i.e., transaction with foreign parties. (C) The appellant submits that since all the details in connection with transaction with foreign parties were submitted and verified by the AO there is no justification for invoking the provisions of section 263 of I.T. Act, 1961. (D) The appellant therefore submits that the order u/s 263 of I.T. Act, 1961 needs to be cancelled. 2. The appellant craves leaves to add, alter or amend any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed its return of income for AY.2018-19 on 26.09.2018, declaring total income of Rs.44,67,520/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS on the reasons of (i) verification of duty drawback and (ii) quantitative details of principal items of goods traded or raw material as well as finished goods not submitted. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued in response to which assessee has filed various details. Additions on account of suppression of duty drawback of Rs.14,424/- and bogus sundry creditors of Rs.2,63,74,869/- were made by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Subsequently, the PCIT called for the records and examined the same. He observed that the AO had found large foreign liabilities under the head outstanding payable to sundry creditors of Rs.13,45,58,644/-. To verify genuineness of the sundry creditors, the AO asked the assessee to provide confirmations from sundry creditors from whom outstanding balance payable were more than Rs.25,00,000/- as on 31.03.2018. The assessee provided list of 12 such parties having outstanding of more than Rs.25,00,000/- as on 31.03.2018 and the total amount of the 12 parties was 3 ITA No.449/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Samrat Remedies Ltd. Rs.11,73,59,467/-. The assessee provided confirmations from 8 parties out of the 12 parties. The AO issued notices u/s 133(6) to 8 parties and after receiving the reply and verification thereof, he added Rs.2,63,74,869/- to the total income u/s 68 of the Act, mainly due to non-submission of confirmations and difference between the ledger accounts and the accounts of creditor. In respect of the 4 remaining parties, no confirmations were received till the date of passing the assessment order. The total amount shown as payable in respect of these 4 parties was Rs.7,27,25,524/-. According to the PCIT, the assessee failed to prove the identity of the lender, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the 4 parties. These should have been added u/s 68 and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. Hence, the PCIT held that the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of revenue. He issued a show cause notice asking the assessee to explain as to why the said assessment order be not set aside by invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act. The show cause notice is at page 3 and 4 of the order u/s 263 of the Act. 3.1 In reply to the notice u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee filed reply which is at page 5 to 8 of the revision order u/s 263 of the Act. In the said reply, the assessee submitted that the AO had asked assessee to furnish details of sundry creditors exceeding Rs.25,00,000/- as on 31.03.2018. The assessee had submitted the details called for. Thereafter, AO issued another notice u/s 142(1) calling for confirmations in respect of transactions with parties outside India and prove the genuineness of the transactions. In response thereto, assessee had furnished 4 ITA No.449/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Samrat Remedies Ltd. details of transactions with all 4 foreign parties by reply dated 19.03.2021. In the said reply, assessee had submitted the following: (i) statement comprising of name of the party, address, e-mail address, amount outstanding as on 31.03.2018 and the dates of subsequent payments made to the parties and (ii) bill of entry, challan of custom duty payment, clearing agents’ invoice, foreign parties’ invoice and bank advice for payment to foreign parties. After considering the details, the AO has not made any addition in respect of transactions with the 4 foreign parties. The assessee submitted that AO has applied his mind and taken a conscious decision not to add the impugned sums. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd., 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC), Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. DCIT, 301 ITR 407 (SC), CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Mumbai) ad CIT vs. Nirav Modi, 390 ITR 292 (Bombay). The assessee further submitted that subsequently full payments were made to the above parties. Therefore, the genuineness of the transactions is fully established, and AO being fully satisfied, did not raise any further query and accepted the transactions. It was also submitted that the ITAT has restored the matter of addition of Rs.2,63,74,869/- in respect of sundry creditors to the file of the AO. Hence, the addition made in the original assessment order has also been cancelled. Therefore, assessee requested to drop the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. 3.2 The PCIT was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee. He observed that in respect of the 4 parties, assessee has not provided confirmation till date of the 5 ITA No.449/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Samrat Remedies Ltd. assessment order. Therefore, assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the 4 parties as well as the genuineness of the transactions. The AO should have added the outstanding amounts of these 4 parties and taxed the same u/s 115BBE of the Act. He observed that mere furnishing of the copies from the books of account is not sufficient to establish the 3 ingredients of the sundry creditors. The AO failed to make proper enquiry in case the 4 parties and computed the assessment without application of mind. He further stated that the subject matter of appeal before the ITAT was in respect of sundry creditors listed in the assessment order to the extent of Rs.2,63,74,869/-. Since no addition had been made in respect of the 4 parties, therefore, the question of creditors of Rs.7,27,25,524/- was not the subject matter of appeal. Hence, doctrine of merger is not applicable as per clause (c) of Explanation 1 of section 263(1) of the Act. Following the decision in case of CIT vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd., 231 ITR 50 (SC) and CIT vs. Jaykumar B. Patil, 236 ITR 469 (SC), the PCIT held that proceedings u/s 263 of the Act could be initiated in respect of issues not touched upon by the CIT(A). Hence, he held the assessment order to be erroneous. He also held that the order was prejudicial because there was short levy of tax to the extent of Rs.5,61,80,467/- due to under assessment of Rs.7,27,25,524/- on account of 4 sundry creditors discussed above. Thereafter, he has relied on the decision in cases of Malabar Industries Ltd. (supra), CIT vs. Pushpa Devi, 164 ITR 639 (SC), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd., 242 ITR 490 (Mad.), Gee vee Enterprise vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 240 Taxman 221 (SC). 6 ITA No.449/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Samrat Remedies Ltd. The PCIT accordingly set aside the assessment order u/s 263 of the Act with a direction to the AO to frame fresh assessment order to the extent discussed by him in his order u/s 263 of the Act. He also directed to make proper and meaningful inquiry on the issues discussed above and pass order after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing to assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of PCIT, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) filed two paper books including the details and written submissions before the lower authorities and various case laws. The ld. AR submitted that assessee had furnished list of creditors of more than Rs.25,00,000/-. Out of the local purchases, the AO added Rs.2.63 Crore which is not the issue before the Tribunal. The issue before the Tribunal is import purchases from 4 parties in respect of which all details were given barring the confirmations. After receiving the initial reply, the AO had issued another specific query u/s 142(1) of the Act which is at page 49 of the paper book. In reply to the said notice, assessee had filed reply on 19.03.2021 which is at pages 50 and 51 of the paper book. The assessee had submitted import invoice, import bill realization advice, shipping bill, CFS invoice, impot duty payment receipt, invoice and receipt freight charges of the 4 foreign parties, i.e. (i) Central Chemicals INC, (ii) Sinopharm International Hong Kong Ltd., (iii) Marubeni Corporation and (iv) Attache Trading FZE. After verifying the details submitted as above and after application of mind, the AO has not made any addition in respect of the above 4 foreign parties though he has made addition of 7 ITA No.449/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Samrat Remedies Ltd. Rs.2,63,74,869/- in respect of bogus sundry creditors of the local purchases. The list of such addition is at page 16 and 17 of the assessment order. The ld. AR also submitted a statement showing the details of payments of outstanding amounts made to foreign parties subsequently. He, therefore, submitted that the AO has duly considered the issue and has not made any addition. Therefore, the basic conditions for invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act are not satisfied. He has relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Century Plyboards (I) Ltd., 103 taxmann.com 179 (SC), (ii) PCIT vs. R. K. Jain Infra Projects Ltd., 464 ITR 584 (SC), (iii) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Gujarat), (iv) CIT vs. Reliance communication Ltd., 396 ITR 217 (Bombay), (v) CIT vs. Nirav Modi, 390 ITR 292 (Bombay) and (vi) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bombay). The ld. AR also submitted that addition cannot be made in respect of sundry creditors u/s 68 of the Act. For this, he relied on the decision in cases of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Aggarwal, 2 taxmann.com 134 (Delhi), PCIT vs. Attire Designers Pvt. Ltd., 455 ITR 697 (Delhi), CIT vs. Panchamdas Jain, 205 CTR 445 (All) and Manoj Agarwal vs. DCIT, 113 ITD 37 (Delhi - Trib). 5. On the other hand, learned Commissioner of Income-tax – Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) relied on the order of the PCIT. He submitted that in absence of confirmation of the foreign parties, the AO should have added the amounts outstanding in their names as on 31.03.2018. 6. We have heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated the case laws relied upon by both sides. The appellant 8 ITA No.449/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Samrat Remedies Ltd. has submitted that the PCIT erred in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by holding that order of AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Before deciding the ground, it would be proper to reproduce section 263 of the Act to appreciate scope and admit of the said section: “263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or] Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the [Assessing] Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, [including,- (i) An order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment; or (ii) An order modifying the order under section 92CA; or (iii) An order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section]. ********* Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.” 6.1 It is clear from a plain reading of section 263 of the Act that the PCIT or the CIT may call for and examine the records of any proceedings under the Act. If he considers that any order passed by the AO or the TPO is erroneous in so far as it 9 ITA No.449/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Samrat Remedies Ltd. is prejudicial to the interests of revenue, he is required to give assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary, he may pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify including enhancing or modifying the assessment order, cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. Explanation 2 was inserted below sub-section (1) with effect from 01.06.2015 to declare as to what shall be deemed to be “erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue”. The instances which would fall in the above category are: (i) the order is passed without making inquiries and verification which should have been made; (ii) the order is passed allowing the relief without inquiring into the claim; (iii) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction, or instruction issued by the Board u/s 119 of the Act; or (iv) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessees, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. 6.2 Let us examine the assessment order in the background of the statutory provisions discussed above. The impugned assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.04.2021 for AY.2018-19. As mentioned by the AO, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to “verify duty drawback” and “quantitative details of principal items of goods traded or raw material as well as finished goods not supplied.” It is seen from record that AO had called for the confirmation of sundry creditors from whom outstanding balance payable was 10 ITA No.449/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Samrat Remedies Ltd. more than Rs.25,00,000/- as on 31.03.2018. The assessee had submitted list of 12 parties whose outstanding amounts were more than Rs.25,00,000/- as on 31.03.2018. It had given confirmations from 8 parties and did not give the confirmations of 4 outside parties. The total amount shown as received from these 4 parties was Rs.7,27,25,524/- out of Rs.11,73,59,467/- of the 12 parties. Subsequently, the AO has issued another notice u/s 142(1) on 16.08.2021 which is at page 48 and 49 of the paper book. In the said notice, at point No.2 of the Annexure, the AO asked assessee as to why the outstanding should not be added back to the total income. For ready reference and appreciation, the same is reproduced below” “2. With regard to the details submitted in respect of sundry creditors, it is seen that no confirmations have been produced in respect of the transactions with parties outside India. In the absence of confirmations, the genuineness of the transactions remain unproved. You are therefore requested to state why the amount shown as outstanding as on 31.03.2018 from the said parties should not be disallowed and added back to total income.” 6.3 In response to the above, the assessee filed reply on 19.03.2021 giving details of the following parties: (1) LOT NO-24-Marubeni Corporation - (i) Import Invoice, (ii) Import Bill realization advice, (iii) Shipping Bill, (iv) CFS Invoice, (v) Receipt for payment of custom duty (corporation bank), (vi) Invoice and receipt freight charges; (2) LOT NO-26-Attache Trading FZE - (i) Import Invoice, (ii) Import Bill realization advice, (iii) Shipping Bill, (iv) CFS Invoice, (v) Import duty payment receipt, (vi) Invoice and receipt freight charges; (3) LOT NO-27-Sinopharma International Hongkong Ltd - (i)Import Invoice, (ii) Import Bill realization advice, (iii) Shipping Bill, (iv) CFS Invoice, (v) Bank draft copy of Import duty payment, (vii) 11 ITA No.449/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Samrat Remedies Ltd. Invoice and receipt freight charges; (4) LOT NOs-28 & 29-Central Chemicals INC - (i) Import Invoice, (ii) Import Bill realization advice, (iii) Shipping Bill, (iv) CFS Invoice, (v) Import duty payment receipt, (vii) Invoice and receipt freight charges. 6.4 During the hearing before us, the ld. AR has submitted that payments of all outstanding amounts to the foreign parties were made in the first quarter of the next financial year (FY). The details of such payments are as under: 7. Against the above factual background, let us see whether the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. A bare reading of the section reveals that the PCIT can call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and if he considers that any order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may after giving opportunity of hearing and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order as the circumstances of the case justify. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 12 ITA No.449/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Samrat Remedies Ltd. Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) held that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of revenue. When an AO adopts one of the courses permissible in law and it results in loss of revenue or when two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of revenue unless the view taken by the officer is unsustainable in law. In the subsequent decisions, the same principles have been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Court in case of CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation, 314 ITR 81 (SC) held that the jurisdiction u/s 263 can be exercised only when both the following conditions are satisfied i.e., (i) the order of the AO should be erroneous and (ii) it should be prejudicial to the interests of revenue. These conditions are conjunctive. An order of assessment passed by the AO should not be interfered with only because another view is possible. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Max India Ltd. vs. CIT 295 ITR 282 (SC) held that the Commissioner has to be satisfied of the twin conditions as stated above. If one of them is absent, recourse cannot be had to Section 263 of the Act. We find that the impugned issue of “foreign sundry creditors” was duly considered by the AO at the time of assessment proceedings. He has certainly examined the above issue by calling for the details from the assessee and after examination of the initial details, he called for further details from the assessee vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on 16.03.2021. After receipt of the reply from assessee, vide letter dated 19.03.2021, he has accepted the 13 ITA No.449/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Samrat Remedies Ltd. explanation of the assessee and not made any addition on the impugned issue though he has added Rs.2,63,74,869/- on account of the creditors for local purchases. Thus, the AO has duly considered the issue, applied his mind and taken a considered view. Hence, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industries Ltd. (supra), the decision of the PCIT to invoke provisions of section 263 of the Act cannot be sustained. 8. The impugned issue can be analysed from another angle. In the instant case, as stated above, the AO had called for the explanation on the subject issue from the assessee and assessee had furnished its explanation, which clearly shows that the AO had undertaken the exercise of examining as to whether any addition is called for in respect of transactions with parties outside India. It is clear that the AO was satisfied with the assessee’s explanation and therefore, he accepted same. The grievance of the PCIT is that the AO should have made further inquiry in respect of the impugned issue in the light of provisions of section 68 and 115BBE of the Act, rather than accepting the assessee’s explanation. Therefore, it could not be said that it was the case of “lack of inquiry”. There is a distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequate inquiry”. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that could not, by itself, give occasion to the PCIT to pass order u/s 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of lack of inquiry that such a course of action could be opened. In the present case, the AO has duly examined the facts and formed an opinion that no addition is necessary in view of the reply 14 ITA No.449/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 Samrat Remedies Ltd. of the assessee on the subject-issue. We also find that the assessee has subsequently paid all the considerations to the foreign parties in the subsequent year, i.e., in the month of April to June, 2018. Since payment of the credit was made in the next year, the addition is not sustainable in view of decisions in cases of Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narangji, 42 taxmann.com 251 (Guj.), Ojas Tarmake (P.) Ltd., 156 taxmann.com 75 (Guj.), Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd., 145 taxmann.com 27 (Guj.), Rajhans Construction (P.) Ltd., 140 taxmann.com 370 (Surat – Trib.) and Mega Construction (P.) Ltd., 151 taxmann.com 403 (Surat – Trib.). In view of the above facts and decisions cited supra, the decision of PCIT that the order passed by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue is not correct. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the PCIT. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced on 17/12/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 17/12/2024 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) / PCIT 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat "