THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, JUNAGADH CIRCLE, JUNAGADH V. SHRI PETHALJIBHAI N. CHAVDA, JUNAGADH

ITA 200/RJT/2016

AI Insights

The case involves a series of appeals related to the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, where the primary issue was the treatment of agricultural income declared by the assessee, Shri Pethaljibhai Nathabhai Chavda, from teak sales. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially treated a significant portion of this income as undisclosed sources due to lack of credible evidence supporting the agricultural income claims. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal by estimating the agricultural income at 81% of the declared amount, leading to a partial confirmation of the income as undisclosed sources. Both parties appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed all appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 38960 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Rajesh Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (291 ITR 500), Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. (236 ITR 34)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIMAL DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRAMDEEP SINHA
• Keywords: Set aside; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Reopening of assessment; Capital Gains; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 142(1); 250; 143(1)

Judgement Text

" आयकरअपील\tयअ धकरण,राजकोट\u0011यायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.146 to 149 & 197 to 200/RJT/2016 (\u000eनधा\u0012रणवष\u0012/Assessment Years: (2004-2005 to 2007-08) Shri PethaljibhaiNathabhai Chavda (through legal heir Shri JawaharbhaiPethaljibhai Chavda)Dr. Shubha Bhavan, Khamdhrol Road, Junagadh Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Junagadh Circle, “Bhutnath Chambers”, College Road, Junagadh Shri PethaljibhaiNathabhai Chavda (through legal heir Shri JawaharbhaiPethaljibhai Chavda)Dr. Shubha Bhavan, Khamdhrol Road, Junagadh Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Junagadh, Ranje-1, Junagadh Shri Pethaljibhai N. Chavda Dr. Subhash Palace, Kham Dhrol Road, Junagadh The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax- Circle-1, Junagadh \u0016थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABFPC 9564 M (अपीलाथ\u001c/Appellant) (\u001d\u001eयथ\u001c/Respondent) \u000eनधा\u0012\u001fरतीक!ओरसे/Appellant by :Shri VimalDesai, A.R. राज\u0016वक!ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR. सुनवाईक!तार%ख/ Date of Hearing : 01/08/2024 घोषणाक!तार%ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29/10/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This set of four cross-appeals for assessment years (AYs) 2004-05 to 2007-08 filed by the assessee and Revenue are directed against separate orders passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Rajkot[in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”],under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 31.03.2016 and 28.03.216, which in turn arose Page | 2 ITA Nos. 146-149& 197-200/RJT/2016 AYs: 04-05 to 07-08 out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.12.2009 and 01.12.2008 respectively. 2. Since the issue involved in four set of consisting cross-appeals filed by e assessee as well as Revenue contained identical issues. Therefore, we have clubbed these cross-appeals heard together and are decided by a consolidated order to avoid the conflicting decisions. 3. For appreciation of facts, facts in AY 2004-05 are treated as ‘lead’ case. The assessee in its appeal ITA No.146/RJT/2016 has raised the following grounds of appeals:- “1. The grounds of appeal mentioned herein below are without prejudice to one another. 1. The order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is bad in law. 2. The reopening of the assessment is bad in law. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the reopening of assessment. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in treating the agricultural income of Rs.4, 34,99,218/- as income from undisclosed sources. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same to the extent of Rs.74,00,766/-. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in estimating the agricultural income at lower rate of 81% though the evidences justified higher estimation. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete or withdraw one or more grounds of appeal.” 4. The Revenue in its cross-appeal ITA No.197/AHD/2016 A. Y. 2004-05 has raised the following grounds of appeals: - “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,60,98,452/- out of addition made at Rs.4,34,99,218/- treating agriculture income as income from undisclosed sources. Page | 3 ITA Nos. 146-149& 197-200/RJT/2016 AYs: 04-05 to 07-08 2. Any other ground that the revenue may raise before or during the proceeding before the Hon’ble ITAT. 3. On the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment order of the AO. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the AO be restored to the above extent.” 5. The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of agriculture and other activities. The appellant has filed his original return of income for A.Y. 2004-05 on 06-08-2004 declaring total income of Rs.4,91,83,111/- including agricultural income of Rs. 4,59,99,218/-. 6. The original assessment was completed vide order u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 22.03.2005 by the D.C.I.T., Central Circle .- 2, Rajkot. The case was later on transferred to the D.C.I.T., Cir -1, Junagadh on the basis of the inquiries made in the subsequent assessment for A.Y. 2006-07, the AO formed belief that the claim of agriculture income was not correct. He therefore issued notice u/s. 148. He issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 26.03.2009. 7. In compliance with the above notice, the assessee vide his letter dated 04.04.2009 informed the A.O. that the original return filed by him may be treated as having been filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 8. The AO has stated following reasons for reopening the assessment in notice u/s. 142(1) dated 22.09.2009: ≥ Very negligible agriculture expenses in against of huge agriculture income ≥ The agriculture land is actually owned by some other persons and the appellant is only POA holder of the land. ≥ Non availability of evidence in support of such huge agriculture income. Page | 4 ITA Nos. 146-149& 197-200/RJT/2016 AYs: 04-05 to 07-08 9. With the above reasons the AO has asked the appellant to produce books of accounts and subsidiary records along with details about gross receipts and the expenses in relation to agriculture income and sales of stones. In response to the above notice the appellant has filed following details: > Details of agricultural income and expenditure > Chart showing details of land holding 10. Further the appellant has also stated that major income represent cutting and sale of teak wood grown on the land owned by him as well as in the name of other parties who have given him power of attorney and right to enjoy income derived from their land. The appellant has also filed following proof to prove that the appellant had in fact grown the said trees on the land: >. Copy of letter no. DM/THN/STUMPS/168 of 85/86 dated 23-06-1986 issued by the divisional manager, project division, Thane for purchase of 1 lac teaks stumps. > Copy of application filled by the appellant dated 30-05-2005 requesting for permission from the Deputy Conservator of Van Vibhag, Junagadh for cutting 14000 Teak wood trees. > Copy of order dated 02.05.2006 granting permission for cutting 14000teak trees from the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Junagadh Van Vibhag. > A chart showing details of permission for cutting teak wood granted inearlier years which was as under. S.N. Date of permission F.Y. Nos. of plant 1 15.11.2002 2002-03 2000 2 22.05.2003 2003-04 4000 3 15.12.2003 2003-04 3500 Page | 5 ITA Nos. 146-149& 197-200/RJT/2016 AYs: 04-05 to 07-08 4. 23.04.2004 2004-05 4500 5. 16.11.2004 2004-05 6500 6. 02.05.2006 2006-07 14000 Total 34500 > Forest Transit Passes issued by the Range forester, Ramnath, Taluka: - Bhikha were produced on sample basis as a proof that the teak wood was duly transported after cutting to different villages. > A chart showing complete details of the name of the person, name of the village, quantity of teak wood sold and total amount in each bill. > A copy of report on scientific method to grow teak by S.P. College of Forestry & Horticulture, Gujarat Krishr University, Navsari. 11. To challenge the genuineness of the sales shown by the appellant the AO investigated the villagers during the assessment proceedings of A.Y. 2007-08 and collected the following proofs. > In reply to summons, the bank manager stated that only one person had tendered the cash and demand drafts were issued from one branch of the bank. Statements from villagers for purchase of teak wood from the appellant before 7 to 8 years. > Inquiry report of the inspectors dated 13.11.2009 in respect of local inquiries made at Village Majethi, Taluka Upleta. > Copy of letter dated 12.11.2009 given by the R.F.O. Upleta confirming the no transit pass has been returned/surrendered in his office, in respect of alleged transportation of teak wood to Village Majethi. ^ Inquiry report of the inspectors dated 20.11.2009 in respect of local inquiries made at Village Bhidora, Taluka Manavadar. > Copy of letter dated 29.10.2009 given by the R.F.O. Manavadar. > Photocopy of application forms showing details of case tendered in respect of all Demand Drafts purchased on a day. Page | 6 ITA Nos. 146-149& 197-200/RJT/2016 AYs: 04-05 to 07-08 > A copy of letter dated 15.10.2003 received from the Branch Manager, The Co-op. Bank of Rajkot Ltd., Junagadh Branch. > Copy of letter dated 20.11.2009 received from Talati Cum Mantri, village :- Bhindora, containing the statistical details of Bhindora. > List of 1-11 persons of Village Majethi, who have no property in their name and to whom sales of teak wood of Rs. 2,18,43,9157- is shown. On the basis of the above evidences collected by him tor A. Y. 2007-08 at the back of the appellant, the A.O. proceeded to make the addition in the year under consideration. 12. The A.O. thereby estimated agricultural income of Rs. 25,00,000/- on ad hoc basis and made addition of balance amount of agricultural income shown by the appellant of Rs. 4,34,99,218/-treating the same as unexplained income from undisclosed sources. The appellant vide submission dated 21.12.2009 in the course of assessment proceedings submitted as under: 13. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO dated 29.12.2009, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 31.03.2016 partly allowed. The Ld.CIT(A) while passing appellate order, which reproduced below: “8.2 The appellant declared net agricultural income of Rs.4,59,99,218/- which included income from teak sales of Rs.3,89,51,401/-. The AO rejected the claim of teak sales and estimated the agricultural income of the appellant at an ad-hod figure of Rs.25,00,000/-. Besides teak sales, the appellant also declared agricultural income from bajara, juvar, vegetables, vans, groundnuts etc., and the AO has not found anything adverse in this regard. However, the estimation ad-hoc figure of Rs.25,00,000/- resulted into part denial of income from these produces also. The same is improper in my view. The agricultural income from teak sales has been declared by the appellant at Rs.3,89,51,401/-. The same is to be estimated at the rate of 81% as held hereinabove. Accordingly, the agricultural income from teak sales is estimated at Rs.3,15,50,635/- (3,89,51,401 x 81%) and balance amount of Rs.74,00,766/- (3,89,51,401 – 3,15,50,635) is directed to be taxed as income from undisclosed sources. In view of this, out of agricultural income of Rs.4,59,99,218/- addition of Rs.74,00,766/- is confirmed as income from undisclosed sources and the AO is directed to adopt the agricultural income of the appellant at Rs.3,85,9,452/- (4,59,99,218 – 74,00,766).” Page | 7 ITA Nos. 146-149& 197-200/RJT/2016 AYs: 04-05 to 07-08 14. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A) the assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal. 15. Ld.AR submitted re-opening is bad in law there are two reasons for reopening of assessment. The Ld.AR submitted re-opening is bad in law on account of huge agricultural income received and negligent agricultural expenses. Secondly issue in absence of new material facts and further; reopening vague and untenable and making for further enquiry investigation in respect of agricultural income claimed. 16. On the other hand, Ld.CIT-DR relied on the order of Ld. AO and further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of assessee whereby the agricultural income computed and the addition partly deleted. 17. We have heard both the parties and noted that below finding Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of reopening is correct and the same is reproduced below.: “7. I have duly considered the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. Reassessment order of the AO and submissions of the appellant in respect of challenging the reassessment proceedings. It is seen that in the years under assessment, there was only intimation u/s 143(1) and no regular assessment u/s 143(3)/147 were carried out. Hence,the proviso to Section 147 is not applicable. Further, there cannotbe any plea asto change of opinion. In the context of reassessment in cases covered u/s. 143(1), the Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (291 ITR 500) held that after 01.04.1989, the A.O. can reopen assessment for any valid reason to believe that income has escaped the assessment. In this background, the only question arises is whether the A.O. had any reason to believe that the income had escaped the assessment. For this, the reasons recorded by AO needs to be verified. The reasons as recorded by the A.O. are as under: \"It is seen from the records that the assessee has shown huge agriculture receipts, very negligible agriculture expenses and consequently huge net agriculture income as per the following details; Page | 8 ITA Nos. 146-149& 197-200/RJT/2016 AYs: 04-05 to 07-08 Sr. No. AY Gross agriculture receipt Agriculture expenses Net agriculture income % of expenses 1 2002-03 61143533 1044975 5098558 17.00% 2 2003-04 8489877 704558 7785319 8.3% 3 2004-05 46869979 870761 45999218 1.86% 4 2005-06 85678568 604184 85074384 0.70% 5 2006-07 52753917 472467 52281449 0.90% In this case I have completed the assessment for A. Y. 2006-07 on 01.12.2008 in which I have given detailed reasons to conclude that claim of such huge agriculture income is not acceptable. The summary of such reasons is as under; As discussed in Para - 9 of the above order, major portion of the agricultural land is actually owned by some other persons and the assessee is only a power of attorney holder. Consequently there is no question to accept such huge agriculture income in the hands of the assessee. As discussed in Para - 10 & 11 of the said order, the claim is not supported by any verifiable data or independent evidence in support of such huge agriculture income. As discussed in Para - 12 of the said order, assuming that there is remote possibilities of such huge agriculture income, still in view of the reasons discussed in said para, the income from cutting and sale of trees is required to be taxed as capital gains. In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that income shown by the assessee as agriculture income is not correct and consequently the same represents the assessee's unexplained income introduced in his books ofA/c., disguised as agriculture income.\" 7.1 I have held in appellant's case for A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04 that the above reasons do not confer valid jurisdiction as in those cases, the first proviso to Section 147 was applicable. The said proviso is not applicable in the years under appeal and hence there is no embargo on the powers of the A.O. The perusal of above reasons indicates a view taken by the A.O. in a case which was not previously assessed u/s. 143(3) based on assessment for subsequent year completed by him. In the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2006-07, the A.O. taxed agricultural income of the appellant and found that the same were not acceptable. He also took alternative view that the agricultural income of the appellant was taxable as capital gains. From the records, he found that identical issues were involved in A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06 and therefore, he believed that there was escapement of income. I find that a reasonably prudent person will form the same belief as the A.O. has formed and there is nothing vague or irrational in it. In my view, the reasons are definite and specific and therefore, they Page | 9 ITA Nos. 146-149& 197-200/RJT/2016 AYs: 04-05 to 07-08 deserve to be accepted as justified when the earlier assessment was framed u/s. 143(1). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. (236 ITR 34) held that sufficiency of reasons is not required to be examined and at the stage of issuance of notice u/s. 148, the A.O. is only required to have reason to believe and not the final conclusion. The various contentions raised by the appellant appear to be questioning the sufficiency of reasons which can not be accepted in view of the above mentioned Supreme Court judgment. I am of the view that the A.O. had reason to believe that the income has escaped and hence he was justified in issuing notice u/s 148. In view of this discussion, I uphold the reassessment for both the years and dismiss this ground of appeal of the appellant.” 18. we have gone through the appeal above the finding other hand by Ld. CIL(A) appeal on the issue of reopening of assessment and find that conclusion reached by the Ld. CIT (A) appeal is correct. Therefore, we uphold the reopening of assessment proceeding as valid. In view of the ground number 1 & 2 of ITA no. 146/Rjt/2016 147/Rjt/2016 are dismissed. 19. So far merit is concerned we have gone through the finding Ld. CIT(A) which is reproduced. “8.1. The appeals for the appellant for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08 have also been decided by me wherein all the contentions of both the parties have been dealt with and the issue was adjudicated upon by estimating the agricultural income of the appellant from teak sales on reasonable basis. The appellant and the AO both agreed for resolution of the issue through estimation of agricultural income from teak sales. The facts, circumstances, findings and contentions of the A.O. and submissions and arguments of the appellant are identical in the years under appeal and therefore, the present appeals can be decided on the same lines as per A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08. In A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08, after detailed analysis, I estimated the agricultural income of the appellant from teak sales at Rs.6,93,00,000/- as against Rs.8,55,62,897/- declared by him. The same comes to around 81% of declared income. In view of the similarity of facts and rival stands, I hereby estimate the agricultural income of the appellant from teak sales at the rate of 81% of what has been declared by him for the years under appeal. The appellant has stated that the quality of the teak sold in A.Y. 2005-06 was much superior as compared to teak sold in other years. It may be right but in the absence of any visible evidence in support thereof, I cannot accept this contention of the appellant for higher estimation of agricultural income. I am Page | 10 ITA Nos. 146-149& 197-200/RJT/2016 AYs: 04-05 to 07-08 estimating the income on percentage basis as the same will be independent of any variation in estimates which may arise on account of difference in rates and quality of products. Accordingly, the agricultural income for A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06 are determined as under: A.Y. 2004-05: 8.2. The appellant declared net agricultural income of Rs.4,59,99,2187- which included income from teak sales of Rs.3,89,51,401/-. The A.O. rejected the claim of teak sales and estimated the agricultural income of the appellant at an ad-hoc figure of Rs.25,00,0007-. Besides teak sales, the appellant also declared agricultural income from Bajara, Juvar, Vegetables, Vans, Groundnuts etc. and the A.O. has not ^ found anything adverse in this regard. However, the estimation ad-hoc figure of Rs.25,00,0007- resulted into part denial of income from these produces also. The same is improper in my view. The agricultural income from teak sales has been declared by the appellant at Rs.3,89,51,401/-. The same is to be estimated at the rate of 81% as held hereinabove. Accordingly, the agricultural income from teak sales is estimated at Rs.3,15,50,635/- (3,89,51,401 x 81%) and balance amount of Rs.74,00,7667- (3,89,51,401 - 3,15,50,635) is directed to be taxed as income from undisclosed sources. In view of this, out of agricultural income of Rs.4,59,99,2187-, addition of Rs.74,00,7667- is confirmed as income from undisclosed sources and the A.O. is directed to adopt the agricultural income of the appellant at Rs.3,85,98,452/- (4,59,99,218-74,00,766). 20. We heard both the party and perused the material available on record and gone through the submission made before us. We note that in respect of Agricultural income shown by the appellant of Rs. 4,59,99,218. The Ld. AO assessed agricultural income at Rs. 25 lakh and rest of Rs. 4,34,94,218/- are in the income of earned from income from undisclosed sources. We note that before the Ld. CIT (A) the appeal the appellant and revenue department both agreed for resolve the issue by relevant CIT (A). We further note that in the year of 2006-07, 2007-08 it was identical issue and other Ld. CIT(A) estimated 81 % income out of the declared agricultural income will be consider as Agricultural income and rest income from undisclosed sources. We note that both the appellant and revenue department agreed that the issue is to be settled by Ld. CIT (A) on the basis of estimation of agricultural income. Therefore, we confirm the finding Ld. CIT(A) on merit and idsmissed the grounds raised by the assessee. Ground number 3 to 7 raised by the assessee on merit are dismissed. Page | 11 ITA Nos. 146-149& 197-200/RJT/2016 AYs: 04-05 to 07-08 21. Based on the above finding on merit, we note that Revenue appeal in respect of assessment year 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 deserve to dismissed. Accordingly, we dismissed revenue’s appeals on merit for assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 22. However, in respect of ground number 2 of 2006-07 ITA no. 199/Rjt/2016, 2007-08 ITA no. 200/Rjt/2016 are in respect of deletion of Rs. 10 lakh by Ld. CIT(A). Wherein of Ld. CIT has decided. the issue observing as follows: “I have also confirmed the addition in respect of agricultural of Income in A. Y. 2006-07 of ITA no. 199/Rjt/2016 as well as in A. Y. 2007-08 of ITA no. 200/Rjt/2016. I am of the view that no separate addition in respect of mining income is required and it will be taken care of by the said addition. Accordingly the addition of Rs. 10 lakh each of A. Y. 2006-07 of ITA no. 199/Rjt/2016 and 2007-08 of ITA no. 200/Rjt/2016 is hereby deleted.” 23. We have gone through above finding of the Ld. CIT(A) noted that LD. CIT(A) reached the conclusion, based on facts, here We are agree with the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed ground number 2 in respect of this appeals. 24. Ground number 4, in respect of interest income of Rs. 7,40,487/- A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA no. 199/Rjt/2016 wherein the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) are as follows. “Since the appellant had sufficient interest free funds, the interest expenses cannot be disallowed on the ground interest fee advances in the absence of any nexus established by the AO. The decision relied upon by the appellant are squarely applicable to his case. The disallowance of Rs. 7, 40,487/- is hereby deleted.” 25. We have gone through the fact and heard both parties and noted that Ld. CIT(A) findings are correct. We are agree with the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed ground number 4 rate by the revenue’s in ITA no.. 199/Rjt/2016. 26. Ground number 3 of ITA number 200/Rjt/2016 related to disallowance of 1/5 depreciation on car. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that, “The appellant submitted that this allowance already been computed. The Ld. CIT (A) directed the AO to verify the same and if disallowance was already made by the appellant, the disallowance made by the Page | 12 ITA Nos. 146-149& 197-200/RJT/2016 AYs: 04-05 to 07-08 AO was to be deleted. I do not find any infirmity in this decision. I therefore, direct the AO to verify that the appellant has suo moto disallowed 1/5th of depreciation in computation of income. If it is to found the disallowance made by the AO is deleted.” 27. We are agree with the view taken by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, confirm the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and dismissed grounds raised by the revenue.. 28. In the combined result all appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed and all appeals filed by the revenue are also dismissed .In view of above the appeals filed by the assessee and appeals filed by the department are dismissed accordingly. Order is pronounced on 29/10/2024 in the Open Court. Sd/- Sd/-S (DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot TRUE COPY नांक/ Date: 29 /10/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File. By Order, Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot "