The DCIT, Circle-1,, Surat v. Paras Dyg. & Printing Mills Pvt.Ltd.,, Surat

ITA 512/AHD/2007 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 51220514 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AABCP9880B
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 512/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant The DCIT, Circle-1,, Surat
Respondent Paras Dyg. & Printing Mills Pvt.Ltd.,, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 26-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 25-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 25-02-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 02-02-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA A M I.T.A. NO. 512/AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04) DY.CIT CIRCLE-1 SURAT VS PARAS DYG.&PRINTING MIL LS PVT LTD 293/4 GIDC PANDESARA SURAT [PAN : AABCP9880B] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SMT. NEETA SHAH DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAMESH GOYAL AR O R D E R A.N. PAHUJA : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST AN ORDER DAT ED 29-11-2006 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I SURAT RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROU NDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALL OWANCE / ADDITION OF RS.31 68 116/- BEING DEVISED LOSS RS.28 62 745/ - BEING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PRODUCTION OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT AND RS.3 43 532/- BEING UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOC K OF WORK-IN- PROGRESS MADE DULY AFTER REJECTING THE BOOK RESULT AND RESORTING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) R.W.S. 144 OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A)-1 SURAT OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THAT EXTENT. 3. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT.. 2. ADVERTING FIRST TO GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL FA CTS IN BRIEF AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.16.9 7 979/- FILED ON 28.11.2003 BY THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DYEING AND PRINTING OF ART SILK CLOTH ON JOB WORK BASIS AFTER BEING PROCESSED ON 22.12.2003 U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961[HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE ITA NO.512/AHD/2007 2 ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER[AO IN SHORT] NOT ICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GROSS PROFIT [GP] RATE OF 7.56% ON TOTAL RECE IPTS OF RS.6.04 CRORES. TO A QUERY BY THE AO SEEKING MONTHLY QUANTITATIVE DETAI LS THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS OF PRODUCTION DISPATCH AND MAJOR INPUTS IN TERMS OF VALUE THEY DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAIL IN TERMS OF QUANTITY NOR THE AUDIT REPORT MENTIONED QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF PRINCIPAL ITEMS OF RAW MATE RIAL IN COL.28(B). IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DETAILS THE AO OBSERVED THERE COUL D NOT BE QUALITY CONTROL AS WELL CHECK ON CONSUMPTION. THE AO FURTHER NOTICED FROM THE MONTHLY DETAILS OF PROCESSED CLOTH AND PURCHASE OF COLOUR CHEMICALS C OAL FUEL ETC AND WAGES THAT THE ASSESSEE FRAMED A DEVICE AND REFLECTED HUGE LOS S IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2003 THE ASSESSEE HAVING EARNED AVERAGE JOB CHARG ES OF RS.7.45 PER METRE AS AGAINST EXPENDITURE OF 4.58 PER METRE ON COLOUR AN D CHEMICALS RS.6.31 PER METRE ON COAL FUEL POWER AND GAS AND RS.1.33 PER METRE ON WAGES. THUS LOSS PER METER WORKED OUT TO RS.4.77EVEN WITHOUT CO NSIDERING THE OTHER MANUFACTURING EXPENSES. IF PRODUCTION OF SISTER CON CERNS WAS EXCLUDED LOSS INCURRED PER METER WORKED OUT TO RS.6.56 (RS.12.22 TOTAL EXPENSES LESS RS.5.66 AVERAGE PROCESSING CHARGES PER METER). IN THE LIGH T OF THESE FACTS ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH EVEN THE MONTHLY QUANTITATIVE DETAILS NOR PRODUCED THE RELEVANT RECORDS RELATING TO ACTUAL CO NSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL AND EVEN DATA REGARDING CONSUMPTION OF COLOUR CHEMICALS COAL FUEL MAN POWER ETC. RELYING UPON A DECISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SAM EER DIAMONDS EXPORTS LTD. 71 ITD 75(MUMBAI) THE AO REJECTED BOOK RESULT S HAVING RECOURSE TO PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145(3) OF THE ACT AND DETERMINE D INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SEC. 144 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSES SEE INCURRED LOSS PER METRE OF RS. 5.66 IN PROCESSING 4 61 074 METRES OF CLOTH TH E AO DISALLOWED THE SAID LOSS OF RS. 30 24 645/- IGNORING OTHER MANUFACTURING EX PENSES AND ADDED NET PROFIT OF RS.1 43 471/- ON 4 61 074 METERS OF CLOTH FOLLO WING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 3.52% SHOWN BY M/S AKRUTI DYEING & PRINTING MILLS P VT. LTD. RESULTING IN AN ADDITION OF RS.31 68 116/- . ITA NO.512/AHD/2007 3 2.1 THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TW O STENTERS COMPRISING EIGHT CHAMBERS AND SIX PRINTING MACHINES. AS PER CO MMON KNOWLEDGE BETTER QUALITY OF FABRIC COULD BE PRODUCED @ AT 35000 METRES PER DAY ON EACH OF THESE MACHINES AFTER CONSIDERING 2-3 TIMES PASS / ROTATI ON QUALITY OF COLOUR ETC.. IN CASE OF LOWER QUALITY THE PRODUCTION COULD BE EVEN 50000 METRES PER DAY ON EACH OF THESE MACHINES THE AO OBSERVED. TO A QUER Y BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 17.3.06 THAT THEY WERE MAINTAINING ALL THE RELEVANT REGISTERS UNDER CENTRAL EXCISE LAWS AND MONTHLY F IGURES OF PRODUCTION DISPATCH AND CENVAT AVAILED AND UTILIZED PLUS DUTY PAYMENT W ERE SUBMITTED TO THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT UNDER MONTHLY RT-12 FORM. SINCE THEY HA D REFLECTED GP @ 7.56% AND NET PROFIT @ 2.84% WHILE THE PROCESSING DEPENDE D UPON QUALITY OF CLOTH AND SIZE AND WEIGHT OF THE PROCESSING AS ALSO ON PR INTING THE PROCESSING VOLUME DEPENDED AND NUMBER OF COLOURS TO BE PRINTED ON FA BRICS NO ADVERSE INFERENCE COULD BE DRAWN WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS. MOREOVER THE LIFE OF THE STENTER MACHINE AND PRINT ING MACHINE WAS ALSO A KEY FACTOR AND THE MACHINERIES INSTALLED IN THEIR FACTO RY BEING 15-18 YEARS OLD THE OUTPUT COULD NOT BE COMPARED WITH THE OUTPUT ON NE W MACHINES. BESIDES PROCESSING OUTPUT ALSO DEPENDED UPON THE SKILL OF T HE TECHNICAL STAFF AVAILABLE IN THE FACTORY AND THE MARKET DEMAND. IT WAS STATED THAT THE DEMAND IS NOT CONSTANT ON ALL THE DAYS OF THE YEAR. THEREFORE O NE CANNOT GENERALIZE THE OUTPUT OF A PROCESSING HOUSE THE ASSESSEE ARGUED. HOWEVER THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THESE CONTENTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT PRODUCTION SHO WN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MUCH BELOW THE INDUSTRY NORMS WHILE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DEFECTIVE. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT NO PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WOULD ADD SECOND STENTER MACHINE WHEN THE FIRST STENTER HAD N OT ATTAINED FULL CAPACITY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GREY CLOTH PROCESSED O NLY AT 84 07 859 METRES FROM BOTH THESE STENTERS WHILE THE EXPECTED PRODUC TION WAS OF THE ORDER OF 1 09 20 000 METRES PER STENTER THE AO ESTIMATED TH E TURNOVER OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS UNDER: 2 STENTERS X 35000 METRES PER DAY = 70 000 METERS PER DAY ITA NO.512/AHD/2007 4 PER STENTER FOR 2 STENTERS PRODUCTION FOR 312 WORKING DAYS WILL = 2 18 40 00 0 METRES IN THE BE 70 000 X 312 WHOLE YEAR. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN ONLY 0.72 CRORES METR ES OF PRODUCTION AS AGAINST 2 18 40 000 METRES AND PRESUMING THAT THE MILL MUST HAVE WORKED WITH ATLEAST 75% OF ITS INSTALLED CAPACITY THE AO ESTIMATED THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION AT 1.64 CRORES METERS RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS.28 62 74 5/- ON ACCOUNT OF NET PROFIT ON THE PRODUCTION OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ADOPTIN G NET PROFIT RATE OF 3.52% IN THE CASE OF M/S AKRUTI DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PVT. LTD.. 2.2 THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSE E HAD TWO STENTERS AND SIX PRINTING MACHINES THE CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS SH OWN WAS MUCH LOWER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED COMPLETION OF PROCESS IN 5 DA YS THE AO ADOPTED PRODUCTION OF 26 948 METERS PER DAY AND COMPUTED THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS AS UNDER: 26948 METERS PER DAY X 5 DAYS = 134740 METERS 134740 METERS X RS.3.94 BEING HALF OF THE COST OF PROCESSING CHARGE = RS. 5 30 875/- AFTER DEDUCTING THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS SHOWN BY T HE ASSESSEE AT RS.1 87 343/- THE AO ADDED RS.3 43 532/- ESTIMATED WORK IN PROGRE SS TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 2.3 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING THE AO ADDED TOTA L AMOUNT OF RS.63 74 393/-. 3. ON APPEAL THE ASSESSEE RETITEATED THEIR CONTEN TIONS BEFORE THE AO WHILE RELYING UPON DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIKRA M PLASTICS 239 ITR 161(GUJ) PUSHPANJALI DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PVT. L TD. VS. JCIT 72 TTJ(AHD.) 886 EVERSHINE SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD VS. ACIT IN ITA N O.2785/AHD./2004 AND DISTINGUISHING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SAMEER D IAMNDS REIED UPON BY THE AO. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE ITA NO.512/AHD/2007 5 CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF REJECTION OF BO OK RESULTS IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: 2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E APPELLANT AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O. THE A.O. HAS MAINLY REJEC TED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURIN G BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINING QUANTITATIVE CONS UMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL ON DAY TO DAY BASIS OR EVEN MONTHLY BASIS. THE A.O. H AS STATED THAT IT IS DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO VERIFY THE CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL WITH RESPECT TO THE QUALITY OF CLOTH PROCESSED AND HENCE THE EXPENSES ARE NOT FULLY VERI FIABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE PRODUCTION. THE A.O. HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SAMEER DIAMONDS (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HONBLE ITAT HAS STATE D THAT AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE MAIN TAINING THE DETAILS AS IS REQUIRED BY THE A.O. AND SINCE THE SAME ARE NOT BEI NG GIVEN THE A.O. WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT SUCH DETAILS ARE NOT MAINTAINED AS THE COLOUR AND CHEMIC ALS ARE ISSUED IN SMALL QUANTITY AND HENCE IT IS DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN THE DETAILS. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO ARGUED THAT NO DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HENCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE REJECTED. 2.4 THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE CASE OF VIKRAM PLASTIC AND OTHERS (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT STATED THAT IF THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO GIVE TRUE PROF ITS THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(2) SHOULD NOT BE INVOKED. IN THE PRESE NT CASE IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MANUFACTURING COMPANY ALTHOUGH IT HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY QUANTITATIVE DETAILS AND HENCE IT IS DIFFICULT TO V ERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BUT STILL THE FACT REMAINS THA T BOTH N.P. RATE AND G.P. RATE ARE HIGHER THAN LAST YEAR. IN THE CASE OF PUSHPANJ ALI DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PVT LTD (SUPRA) THE HONBLE ITAT STATED THAT THE REASO NS FOR LOW G.P. AND EXCESS EXPENDITURE OF ELECTRICITY HAD BEEN SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED AND THEREFORE MERELY LOW YIELD DID NOT WARRANT REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS. THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AVDESH PRATAP S INGH ABDUL REHMAN AND BROTHERS VS. CIT [210 ITR 406] IS SQUARELY APPLICAB LE. IN THIS CASE THE HONBLE COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: IT IS DIFFICULT TO CATALOGUE THE VARIOUS TYPES OF DEFECTS IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE WHICH MAY RENDER REJECTION OF ACCOUNT BOOKS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACCOUNTS ARE NOT COMPLETE OR CORRECT FROM WHICH THE CORRECT PROFIT CANNOT BE DEDUCED. WHETHE R THE PRESENCE OR THE ABSENCE OF A STOCK REGISTER IS MATERIAL OR N OT WOULD DEPEND UPON THE TYPE OF THE BUSINESS. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ABSENCE OF A STOCK REGISTER OR CASH MEMOS IN A GIVEN SITUATION MAY NOT PER SE LEAD TO AN INFERENCE THAT THE ACCOUNTS ARE FALSE OR INCOMPL ETE. HOWEVER WHERE THE ABSENCE OF A STOCK REGISTER CASH MEMOS ETC. IS COUPLED WITH OTHER FACTS SUCH A THAT VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES AND PURCHASES MADE ARE NOT FORTHCOMING AND THE PROF ITS ARE LOW IT MAY GIVE RISE TO A LEGITIMATE INFERENCE THAT ALL IS NOT WELL WITH THE ITA NO.512/AHD/2007 6 BOOKS AND THE SAME CANNOT BE RELIED UPON TO ASSESSE E THE INCOME PROFITS OR GAINS OF AN ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE PROFIT OF THE CURRENT YEAR ARE COMPARABLE TO LAST YEAR AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. THE TURNOVER N.P. AND G.P. ARE A LL HIGHER THAN LAST YEAR. THE A.O. HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD ENOUGH MA TERIAL TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE QUANTITATIVE STOCK REGISTER IS IMPOR TANT FOR A MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY BUT SINCE THE G.P. AND N.P. ARE HIGHER TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE REJECTED UNLESS SOME SPECIFIC DEFECT IS BROUGHT ON RECORD LIKE UNACCOUNTED SALES OR EXPENDITURE. HENCE THE ACTION OF THE A.O. TO RE JECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS NOT CORRECT AND HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLO WED. 3.1 AS REGARDS ADDITION OF RS. 31 68 116/- THE LD. LD. CIT(A) FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 3.1 TO 3.9 OF HIS ORDER HELD IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS : 3.9 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE AO. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AO ARE NOT CORRECT AS EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT AND AS DISCUSSED IN THE ABOVE PARAGRA PHS THE CALCULATIONS OF THE A.O. ARE WRONG AND CANNOT BE MADE THE BASIS OF DISA LLOWANCE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- AS STATED BY THE APPELLANT THE RESULTS ARE BETTER THAN LAST YEAR. THE TURNOVER G.P. RATE AND N.P. RATE ALL ARE HIGHER TH AN LAST YEAR. THE TURNOVER IS RS. 6.04 CRORES COMPARED TO LAST YEARS TURNOVER OF RS. 4.5 CRORES I.E HIGHER BY 33%.GP RATE IS MARGINALLY LESS FROM 8.53% IN THE LAST YEAR TO 7.56% IN THE CURRENT YEAR WHICH HAS BEEN EXPLAINED DUE TO INCREASE IN TURNOVER. THE NP RATE IS BETTER THAN LAST YEAR BY 6 4.7% AT 2.8% COMPARED TO 1.7% IN THE LAST YEAR. THE LOSS COMPUTED IS WRONG BECAUSE THE A.O. HAS RED UCED THE RECEIPT FROM SISTER CONCERN BUT CORRESPONDING COST IS NOT R EDUCED. EFFECT OF OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK OF WORK IN PROGRESS AND R AW MATERIAL IS NOT TAKEN. IF THAT IS TAKEN THEN LOSS COMPUTED BY AO AT RS.30.24 LACS REDUCES TORS.7.33 LACS BY TAKING THE COST OF GOODS PROCESSE D FOR SISTER CONCERN ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS. SINCE THIS JOB CHARGES OF SIST ER CONCERN IS MUCH HIGHER AS ADMITTED BY AO AT RS.22 PER METRE COMPARE D TO AVERAGE OF RS. 7.45 PER METRE THE COST OF PROCESSING SAME CAN NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS. IF GP RATE IS TAKEN A T 8% THE COST OF SUCH PROCESSING FOR SISTER CONCERN WOULD BE RS. 20 AND T HERE WOULD BE NO LOSS FOR PROCESSING DNE FOR OTHER PARTIES. . NO DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN TERMS OF UNACCOUN TED SALES OR PURCHASES OR EXPENSES. ALTHOUGH NOT KEEPING THE QU ANTITATIVE STOCK REGISTER IS A SERIOUS DEFECT BUT AS STATED BY THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AVDHESH PRATAP SINGH (SUPRA) TOTALITY OF FA CTORS AS STATED ABOVE NEITHER WARRANTS REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NOR WARRANTS THE ABOVE ADDITION. ITA NO.512/AHD/2007 7 IN VIEW OF THESE REASONS THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELL ANT IS ACCEPTABLE AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. 3.2 FOR THE ADDITION OF RS. 28 62 745/- THE LD . CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT 4.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY T HE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAS MADE THIS ADDITION BY SAYING THAT IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE PRODUCTION PER STENTER PE R DAY OF A BETTER QUALITY FABRIC CAN BE ESTIMATED AT 35 000 METRES PER DAY AN D FOR LOWER QUALITY IT CAN BE ESTIMATED AT 50 000 PER DAY. THE A.O. HAS ESTIMATE D THE PRODUCTION AT THE RATE OF 35 000 METRES PER DAY PER STENTER. NO BASIS HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE A.O. FOR ADOPTING THE SAME EXCEPT SAYING THAT IT IS COMMON K NOWLEDGE. NO SUCH ADDITION CAN BE MADE UNLESS THERE IS A BASIS WHICH CAN STAND THE TEST OF LAW AND IT IS BASED ON SOME DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR IT IS BASED O N SURVEY CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE OR IT IS BASED ON ACTUAL F ACTS AND NOT SIMPLY ON THEORETICAL BASIS. THE A.O. HAS FURTHER ARGUED THA T THE MILL MUST HAVE WORKED AT LEAST 75% OF ITS INSTALLED CAPACITY. EVEN THIS C OMPARISON IS ADHOC WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE A.O. HAS NOT STATED AS TO WHY HE HAS TA KEN 75% AND NOT 70% OR 80%. THE FIGURE IS NOT BASED ON ANY SURVEY OR ANY TECHNICAL REPORT OR ANY DOCUMENTATION. THEREFORE THE PRODUCTION WORKED OUT BY THE A.O. OF 1.64 CRORE METRES IS HYPOTHETICAL AND ADHOC. FURTHER IT IS SE EN THAT THE A.O. HAS ESTIMATED THE N.P. AT 3.52% BASED ON THE PROFIT ESTIMATED IN THE CASE OF AAKRUTI DYEING & PRINTING MILLS LTD. WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING AS TO WHY SUCH METHOD CANNOT BE ADOPTED. THE A.O. HAS NOWHERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER COMPARED THE ENVIRONMENT / CIRCUMS TANCES / TYPE OF CLOTH PROCESSED / TYPE OF EXPENSES INCURRED / WAGES ETC. PAID BY OTHER ASSESSEES OR AAKRUTI DYEING AND PRINTING MILLS LTD. WITHOUT SUC H COMPARISON THE A.O. CANNOT ADOPT THE FIGURE FROM ONE ASSESSEE TO THE OTHER ASS ESSEE. THEREFORE THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.22 11 192/- MADE AS PRODUCTION OUTSI DE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS BASED TOTALLY ON HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY. IT IS NOT BASED ON ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR ANY SURVEY REPORT OR ANY MATERIAL FOUND FROM ANY SOURCES. HENCE THIS ADDITION IS DELETED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL I S ALLOWED. 3.3 REGARDING WORK IN PROGRESS THE LD. CIT(A) H ELD THAT 5.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O. THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN T HE FIGURES FROM RG-1 REGISTER OF FIRST FIVE DAYS OF PRODUCTION OF SUBSEQUENT YEAR . THE APPELLANT HAS ACCEPTED THE AOS CONTENTION THAT THE PRODUCTION OF FIRST FI VE DAYS OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WOULD GIVE THE CORRECT WORK IN PROGRESS. THE APPELL ANT HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE RATE OF RS. 3.94 PER METRE ADOPTED BY THE AO FOR WORKING OUT THE VALUE OF WORK IN PROGRESS. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE COMPUTATION OF 134740 METRES IS THEORETICAL AND IT IS ADOPTED BY TAKING A VERAGE OF THE WHOLE YEAR. THE ACTUAL SHOWN BY THE RG-1 REGISTER NEEDS TO BE ADO PTED. I AGREE WITH THE ITA NO.512/AHD/2007 8 APPELLANT THAT THE FIGURES TAKEN BY THE AO ARE BASE D ON AVERAGE AND HENCE IT IS THEORETICAL. THE AO HAS NOT EXPLAINED AS TO WHY WHE N THE RG-1 REGISTER IS AVAILABLE THE FIGURES WERE NOT ADOPTED FROM THE SA ME. IN VIEW OF THIS REASON THE FIGURE OF 47549 METRES SHOWN BY RG-1 REGISTER SHOUL D BE ADOPTED. IF THIS FIGURE IS ADOPTED THEN THE VALUE OF WORK-IN-PROGRSS AMOUNT S TO RS.1 87 347/- WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT. HENCE THE FIGURES O F WORK-IN-PROGRESS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IS CORRECT AND THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE A.O. IS DELETED. IN VIEW OF THESE REASONS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. N O DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN TERMS OF UNACCOUNTED SALES OR PURCHASES OR EXPEN SES. 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST T HE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. DR WHILE CARRYING US THROUG H THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(A) NOR SUBMITTED MONTH-WISE QUANT ITATIVE TALLY AND DETAILS OF CONSUMPTION. WHILE RELYING UPON DECISIONS IN THE C ASE OF OMAX SHOE FACTORY VS. CIT 281 ITR 268 (ALL) AND NARSINGHDAS RAMAKISHA N PUNGALIYA. VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 272 ITR 469 (RAJ) THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO RIGHTLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SHE FURT HER POINTED OUT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. R G-1 REGISTER IS FOR PRODUCTION OF GOODS AND NOT FOR CONSUMPTION OF ANY RAW MATERIAL. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THEIR UN IT WAS RUNNING 24 HOURS AND RAW MATERIAL BEING UTILIZED IN SMALL QUANTITY THE RECORDS WERE NOT POSSIBLE TO BE MAINTAINED. SINCE THEIR TURNOVER GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT RATE HAD INCREASED BOOKS COULD NOT BE REJECTED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF PURCHASES AND PRODUCTION IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2003. THEREFORE RELIANCE BY T HE LD. DR ON THE AFORESAID DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT WAS NOT CORRECT. MOREOVER NO PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO SISTER CONCERN RATHER THEY HAVE SHOWN RECEIPTS FROM SISTER CONCERN. REFERRING TO DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIKRAM PLASTICS 239 ITR 161(GUJ) PUSHPANJALI DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PVT. L TD. VS. JCIT 72 TTJ(AHD.) 886 EVERSHINE SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD VS. ACIT IN ITA N O.2785/AHD./2004 THE LD. AR SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE R ELIED UPON DECISION DATED 26- 10-2007 IN THE CASE OF AKRUTI DYEING & PRINTING MI LLS PVT LTD ITA NO.2551& 52 AS REGARDS ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF EXPECTED PROD UCTION FROM TWO STENTER MACHINES. AS REGARDS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF WIP T HE LD. AR WHILE CARRYING US ITA NO.512/AHD/2007 9 THROUGH PAGE 55 TO 60 OF THE PAPER BOOK POINTED OU T THAT THERE WERE NO DISCREPANCIES IN THE STOCK OR ACTUAL PRODUCTION AND SIMILAR METHOD IN THE CASE OF THEIR SISTER CONCERN HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROU GH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. UNDISPUTEDLY THE GP RATE YEAR IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS 7.56% AS AGAINST 8.56% IN THE IMM EDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR WHILE NET PROFIT RATE INCREASED TO 2.8% AS AGAINST 1.7% IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE ASSESSEE ATTRIBUTED INCREASE IN TURNOVER AND CO ST OF INPUTS AS THE REASONS FOR FALL IN GP RATE. THE AO REJECTED THE BOOK RESU LTS AND MADE ESTIMATED ADDITION SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING DA Y TO DAY CONSUMPTION RECORDS EVEN WHEN NO DEFECTS WERE NOTICED IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT B OOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO WE FIND FROM PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT BOOKS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND WERE ALSO TEST CHEC KED. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND RELYING UPON DECISION IN THE CASE OF AVDESH PRATAP SINGH ABDUL REHMAN AND BROTHERS (SUPRA) CONCLUDED THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD ENOUGH MATERIAL TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THOUGH TH E QUANTITATIVE STOCK REGISTER WAS IMPORTANT FOR A MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY BUT SINC E THE N.P. WAS HIGHER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE REJECTED UNLESS SOM E SPECIFIC DEFECTS WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD LIKE UNACCOUNTED SALES OR EXPENDI TURE THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED. THEREFORE THE ACTION OF THE A.O. TO REJE CT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS NOT UPHELD AND CONSEQUENTLY ADDITION OF RS. 31 68 1 16 WAS DELETED. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.22 11 192/- MADE AS PRODUCTION OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS BASED TOTALLY ON HYPOTHESIS AND NOT ON ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR ANY MATERIAL FOU ND FROM ANY SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY THIS ADDITION WAS ALSO DELETED ALONG WITH ADDITION ON ACCOUNT WIP BEING BASED ON AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF THE WHOLE YEAR AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL PRODUCTION FOR THE FIRST FIVE DAYS OF THE S UBSEQUENT ACCOUNTING YEAR. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT ITA NO.512/AHD/2007 10 IS DIFFICULT TO CATALOGUE VARIOUS TYPES OF DEFECTS IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE WHICH MAY RENDER REJECTION OF ACCOUNTS ON THE GROUND THAT ACCOUNTS ARE NOT COMPLETE FROM WHICH THE CORRECT PROFIT CANN OT BE DEDUCED. WHETHER PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF STOCK REGISTER IS MATERIAL O R NOT WOULD DEPEND UPON THE TYPE OF BUSINESS?. IT IS TRUE THAT ABSENCE OF STOCK REGISTER OR CASH MEMOS IN A GIVEN SITUATION MAY NOT PER SE LEAD TO AN INFERENCE THAT ACCOUNTS ARE FALSE OR INCOMPLETE. HOWEVER WHERE THE ABSENCE OF STOCK REG ISTER CASH MEMOS ETC. IS COUPLED WITH OTHER FACTORS LIKE PURCHASE AND SALES MADE WHICH NOT BEING PROVED TO BE GENUINE AND PROFIT BEING LOW OR LOSS MAY GIV E RISE TO LEGITIMATE INFERENCE THAT ALL IS NOT WELL WITH THE BOOKS AND THE SAME CA NNOT BE ALLOWED TO ASSESSEE THE INCOME PROFITS OR GAINS . SUCH IS NOT THE SITUATION IN THE INSTANT CASE . WE FIND FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDERS THAT THE AO DID NOT POI NT OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHILE IGNORING THE BOOK RESULTS NO R BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF COLOUR CHEMICAL POWER COAL GAS ETC.. HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COUR T IN ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. V. CIT (I.T.R. NO. 12 OF 1990) OBSERVED THAT A LOWER RATE OF GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS COMPARED TO THE PREVIOU S YEAR WOULD NOT IN ITSELF BE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY ANY ADDITION. THE MERE FAC T THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF LOSS OR GROSS PROFIT IS HIGH OR LOW IN A PARTICULAR YEAR DO ES NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO INFERENCE THAT THERE HAS BEEN SUPPRESSION. LOW PROF IT IS NEITHER A CIRCUMSTANCE NOR MATERIAL TO JUSTIFY ADDITION OF PROFITS. THE R ATIO OF THE JUDGMENTS IN DHAKESWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. V. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC); RAGHUBIR MANDAL HARIHAR MANDAL V. STATE OF BIHAR [1957] 8 STC 770 ( SC); STATE OF KERALA V. C. VELUKUTTY [1966] 60 ITR 239 (SC); STATE OF ORISSA V. MAHARAJA SHRI B.P. SINGH DEO [1970] 76 ITR 690 (SC); BRIJ BHUSAN LAL PARDUMAN KUMAR V. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 524 (SC); CHOUTHMAL AGARWALLA V. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 262 (ASSAM); R.V.S. AND SONS DAIRY FARM V. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 764 (MAD); INTERNATIONAL FOREST CO. V. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 721 (J & K) ; M. DURAI RAJ V. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 484 (KER); RAMCHANDRA RAMNIVAS V. STATE OF ORISSA [1970] 25 ST C 501 (ORISSA); ACTION ELECTRICALS V. DEPUTY CIT [2002] 258 ITR 188 (DELHI) AND KAMAL KUMAR SAHARIA V. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 217 (GAUHATI) INDICATE THAT THE AO IS NOT FETTERED BY ANY ITA NO.512/AHD/2007 11 TECHNICAL RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PLEADINGS AND HE I S ENTITLED TO ACT ON MATERIAL WHICH ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE IN EVIDENCE IN A COURT OF LAW BUT WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF BEST JUDGMENT T HE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE A PURE GUESS WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING MORE THAN A MERE SUSPICION TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT. LOW PROFIT IN A PARTICULAR YEAR IN ITSE LF CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR INVOKING THE POWERS OF BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT WIT HOUT SUPPORT OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. AMITBHAI GUNWANTBHAI 129 ITR 573 HELD THAT IF THER E WAS NO CHALLENGE TO THE TRANSACTIONS REPRESENTED IN THE BOOKS THEN IT IS NO T OPEN TO REVENUE TO CONTEND THAT WHAT IS SHOWN BY THE ENTRIES IS NOT THE REAL S TATE OF AFFAIRS. SECONDLY EVEN IF FOR SOME REASON THE BOOKS ARE REJECTED IT IS NOT O PEN TO THE AO TO MAKE ANY ADDITION ON ESTIMATE BASIS OR ON PURE GUESS WORK. N O SPECIFIC DISCREPANCIES OR DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HAV E BEEN POINTED OUT BEFORE US NOR WAS ANY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO ESTA BLISH THAT PURCHASES WERE INFLATED OR RECEIPTS SUPPRESSED. THOUGH THE LD. DR RELIED UPON TWO DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF OMAX SHOE FACTORY(SUPRA) AND NARSINGHDA S RAMAKISHAN PUNGALIYA(SUPRA) SHE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS TO HOW THESE DECISIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERA TION. THESE DECISIONS WERE RENDERED ON DIFFERENT FACTS AND CONSEQUENTLY ARE NO T RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. EVEN IT WAS NOT STATED AS TO HOW THE FACTS OBTAINING IN THE CASE OF M/S AKRUTI DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PVT . LTD. WERE PARALLEL TO THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE WHILE ADOPTING THEIR NET PROFIT RATE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OPINION THAT THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT [ VIKRAM PLASTICS 239 ITR 16 1(GUJ)]. IF THERE WAS NO CHALLENGE TO THE TRANSACTIONS REPRESENTED IN THE BO OKS THEN IT IS NOT OPEN TO REVENUE TO CONTEND THAT WHAT IS SHOWN BY THE ENTRIE S IS NOT THE REAL STATE OF AFFAIRS. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDIN G THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS . ITA NO.512/AHD/2007 12 5.1 AS REGARDS ADDITION OF RS. 31 68 116/- M ADE BY THE AO IN CONSEQUENCE OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WE FIND THAT BO TH THE TURNOVER AND NET PROFIT RATE HAD INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY WHILE THE GP DECLI NED MARGINALLY.THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE CALCULATIONS MADE BY THE A.O. WERE WRONG BECAUSE THOUGH THE AO REDUCED THE RECEIPT FROM SISTER CONCERN HE DID NOT REDUCE THE CORRESPONDING COST NOR CONSIDERED THE EFFECT OF OPENING AND CLOS ING STOCK OF WORK IN PROGRESS AND RAW MATERIAL .AFTER CONSIDERING THAT LOSS REDU CED TO RS.7.33 LACS BY TAKING THE COST OF GOODS PROCESSED FOR SISTER CONCERN ON P ROPORTIONATE BASIS. SINCE THE JOB CHARGES OF SISTER CONCERN WERE MUCH HIGHER AS A DMITTED BY AO AT RS.22 PER METRE COMPARED TO AVERAGE OF RS. 7.45 PER METRE TH E LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT COST OF PROCESSING SAME COULD NOT BE TAKEN ON PROP ORTIONATE BASIS. MOREOVER IF GP RATE WAS TAKEN AT 8% THE COST OF SUCH PROCESSING FOR SISTER CONCERN WOULD BE RS. 20 AND THERE WOULD BE NO LOSS FOR PROCESSING DO NE FOR OTHER PARTIES. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE UNDISPUTED FINDINGS ESPECIALLY WHE N THE LD. DR DID NOT POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NOR REFERRED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL FOR TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5.2 AS REGARDS E ADDITION OF RS. 28 62 745/- O N THE BASIS OF ESTIMATED PRODUCTION ON THE STENTER MACHINES WE FIND THAT T HE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR SUCH ADDITION. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD FOR ESTIMATING THE PRODUCTION NOR THERE IS ANY MATE RIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD ANY PRODUCTION OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCING THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY PRODUCED MORE MATERIAL THAN REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WE HAVE NO BASIS TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER. FOR THIS VIEW WE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION DATED 26-10-2007 OF A CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF AKRUTI DYEING & PRINT ING MILLS PVT LTD.(SUPRA) WHEREIN ON SIMILAR FACTS ADDITION WAS DELETED . LI KEWISE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF WORK IN PROGRESS HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED BY THE LD . CIT(A) BEING NOT BASED ON ACTUAL PRODUCTION. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO GROUND FOR REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS AND MAKING ANY ITA NO.512/AHD/2007 13 TRADING ADDITION. SINCE NO SPECIFIC DISCREPANCIES OR DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BEFO RE US NOR WAS ANY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO ESTABLISH THAT PURCHASES O R EXPENSES WERE INFLATED OR RECEIPTS SUPPRESSED THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT [ VIKRAM PLASTICS 239 ITR 16 1(GUJ). 5.3. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE I S NO MATERIAL BEFORE US FOR TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER WE ARE NOT I NCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE GROUND NOS. 1 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 IN THE APPEAL BEING GENERA L IN NATURE DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION AND ARE THEREFORE DISMISSED . 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26TH D AY OF FEBRUARY 2010. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.N. PAHUJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD DATED :26 TH FEBRUARY 2010 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. DY.CIT CIRCLE-1 SURAT 3. CIT(A)-I SURAT 4. CIT-CONCERNED SURAT BY ORDER 5. DR B BENCH (TRUE COPY) DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD