Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.197/SRT/2020 (�नधा�रणवष� / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The ACIT, Central Cir.-3, Vs. Naresh Nemchand Shah, Surat. Abhishek House, Bh. Jeevan Bharti School, Kadampali Society, Nanpura, Surat �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACRPS 0182 J (Assessee)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)
Cross Objection No.16/SRT/2021 [Arising out of ITA No.197/SRT/2020] (�नधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Naresh Nemchand Shah, Vs. The ACIT, Central Cir.-3, Surat. Abhishek House, Bh. Jeevan Bharti School, Kadampali Society, Nanpura, Surat �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACRPS 0182 J (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Kiran K. Shah, AR Assessee by Respondent by Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 02/06/2022 29/07/2022 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the Assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AYs) 2012-13, are directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat (in short “ld. CIT(A)”], in Appeal No. CIT(A)-4/10174/2017-18 dated 13.02.2020 which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 30.11.2017.
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah 2. First, we shall take CO No.16/SRT/2021 for AY.2012-13 wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1) The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition on account of LTCG of Rs.2,49,54,750/- on sale of shares of Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. 2) The assessee reserves right to add, alter and withdraw of any grounds of appeal.”
Succinct facts are that during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the assessing officer that return of income filed by the assessee shown Exempted income to the tune of Rs.2,49,54,750/- on account of exempted long term capital gain on listed securities u/s 10(38) of the Act. Details of the same are as under: Name of the Sales Price Purchase Transfer Exempt u/s.10(38) Company /year Cost/year Expenses Bakra Pratisth an 26454750 1500000 0 24954750 Limited The assessing officer observed that trading done by the assessee in the scripts of Bakra Pratisthan Limited who has poor fundamentals and is not doing any significant business activities since its inception. Moreover, trading in the above mentioned scripts has been done by the assessee through a broker namely, Shri Ashok Kumar Kayan who has been found to be engaged in giving bogus LTCG entries by rigging of shares of scripts. Therefore, the assessing officer was of the view that transactions in these scripts have been proved bogus. Therefore, assessing officer issued a show cause notice dated 14.11.2017 on the assessee, asking the assessee as to why claim of the assessee, as exempted income through trading in scripts of Bakra Pratisthan Limited should not be disallowed and an addition of Rs.2,49,54,750/- be made in this case as ultimate recipients of unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act.
In response, the assessee submitted written submission before the assessing officer which is reproduced below: “The assessee had earned long term capital gain of Rs.2,49,54,750/- on sale of shares of Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. Originally he had purchased shares of Dhanlabh Merchandise Ltd. & Twinkle Merchants Ltd.; later on these two amalgamated with Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. Sale of shares was through registered and approved broker
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah with Calcutta Stock Exchange. Sale of shares was subject to payment of STT and routed thorough payee cheques. Confirmation regarding transaction were filed by the parties in response to the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act in A.Y. 2013-14. Proof regarding trade verification from Calcutta Exchange Ltd on the relevant date by the registered broker Ashokkumar Kayan filed by the assessee. The assessee stated that Mr. Ashok kumar Kayan is an approved and registered broker. The assessee also contested that no reference in his statement with reference to him to whom he had given long term capital gain.”
However, assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee and observed that assessee had purchased and subsequently sold shares of Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. Accordingly, LTCG claimed was to be earned from the sale of scripts of M/s Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. Further on the perusal of the contract notes submitted by the Assessee, it was noticed that broker who has transacted on assessee`s behalf is Mr. Ashok Kumar Kayan, who is based in Kolkata and a member of Calcutta Stock Exchange. Enquiries regarding the above stated concerns were made with Inv. Wing Kolkata and data related to Shri Ashok Kumar Kayan was gathered; from which it prominently appears that he acted as the controller of large number of Bogus concerns. Moreover, he had himself accepted to be engaged in the business activities of providing various types of bogus entries to help people to escape their tax liability and routing black money into the books by various means like Bogus LTCG, Share Capital, unsecured loans etc. Statements had been recorded various times by the Investigation Wing wherein they accepted the same facts and thus, proved as Entry Providers. A survey action u/s.133A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was carried in the case of broker of the assessee, Shri Ashok Kumar Kayan, at Kolkata in his office. During survey proceedings Shri Ashok Kumar Kayan has accepted that he and his business concerns are engaged in providing bogus LTCG entries to a large no of clients through a syndicate of brokers and entry operators. Statement of Shri Harshvardhan Kayan son of Shri Ashok Kumar Kayan was also recorded under section 133A for the Act on 27.1.2015 wherein he had also accepted that they provided bogus LTCG entries through Bakra Prathisthan listed at Kolkata Stock Exchange with the help of Shri Sunil Dokania, controller/manager of scripts. The assessing officer noted that said shares of Bakra Prathisthan were heavily used in providing bogus LTCG entries through market price manipulation mainly by Mr
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah Ashok Kayan and his various allies. The said person was detected by the investigation wing Kolkata as a bogus entry provider and his statement has been recorded at various times whereby he has himself admitted to be involved in giving bogus LTCG through the network of similar share Brokers. The modus operandi of this Nexus of entry providers is to take legitimate channels like banking transactions and online share market trading to make things look very legitimate upfront as genuine transaction, but in the background these shares broker are secretly rigging the price through inter broker selling and buying of shares. The mere existence of transactions through banking channel, trading through stock exchange and any routine communication which a stock exchange does transaction can't be used as an alibi for hiding the bogus nature of the LTCG and to justify the sudden and huge price spikes in share script. Apart from the investigation wing and the income tax department, the same fact has been corroborated by findings of SEBI. During the year under consideration Shri Ashok Kayan along with other brokers were issued warning by SEBI vide SEBI's order No.WTM/RKA/ERO/68/2012 dated 31.12.2012 for rigging of shares of BakraPratisthan Ltd and who has at various times debarred (Shri Ashok Kaynan) from trading. Moreover, during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2013-14, a notice u/s.133(6) of the Act was issued to Shri Ashok Kayan to ascertain mode of transaction between N.N. Shah & Bakra Pratisthan. In response to the same, Shri Ashok Kayan replied that all that he had to state regarding nature and intention of transactions has been noted by Inv. Wing Kolkata. Hence, even he did not state clearly about genuineness of his transactions with the assessee and reiterated on the fact that it must be treated as the way it had been stated before Investigation wing Kolkata. Hence, the crux of his reply is that even this transaction with the assessee is in the nature of providing bogus LTCG. Therefore, in view of the above facts, assessing office made addition Rs.2,49,54,750/-.
Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the judgment of Hon`ble Supreme Court in
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah the case of Suman Poddar u/s ITO in SPR No.26684 of 2019 dated 22.11.2019 and has confirmed the findings of assessing officer.
Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted written submission before the Bench, which is reproduced below: “1) The learned DCIT had made additions of Rs. 2,49,54,750/- disallowing the claim of exemption in respect of sale of shares of the listed company viz. Bakra Pratisthan Ltd merely because Shri Ashokkumar Kayan, the approved broker of Calcutta Stock Exchange had given statement u/s 131 of the Act on 27.01.2015 during the proceedings u/s. 133A of the Act admitting having involved in providing long term capital gain on shares of the said company. 2) The learned DCIT also observed that the said Ashokkumar Kayan, approved broker and member of Calcutta Stock Exchange was involved in providing long term capital gain with the help of one Shri Sunil Dokani and in response to notice u/s. 133 (6) of the Act which was issued in the assessment proceedings, the Ashokkumar Kayan had reiterated his statement which was given by him before the Investigation Wing, Kolkata. Regarding purchase of shares 3) The assessee strongly urges that he had originally purchased shares of Dhanlabh Merchandise Ltd and Twinkle Merchants Ltd from other parties wherein Ashokkumar Kayan was not involved. 4) The assessee also urges that notice u/s. 133 (6) of the Act were issued to the parties from whom the shares were bought and they had confirmed the transactions in the A. Y. 2012-13. 5) The assessee strongly urges that the shares were purchased through account payee cheques in the year 2010. The assessee, therefore, urges that the genuineness of purchase has not been doubted. The purchase of shares of the said two companies were in the demat account with Edelweiss Stock Bracking Ltd. Amalgamation with Bakra Pratisthan Ltd 6) The assessee strongly urges that the said two companies viz. Dhanlabh Merchandise Ltd and Twinkle Merchants Ltd were amalgamated with Bakra Pratisthan Ltd and copy of order of amalgamation of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court was also filed. The assessee was allotted shares of Bakra Pratisthan Ltd on amalgamation in the ratio as approved by the Court and that is how he had acquired the shares of Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. Purchase was not at throw away price 7) The assessee strongly urges that the shares of Dhanlabh Merchandise Ltd and Twinkle Merchants Ltd were acquired at Rs. 200/- per share (face value of Rs. 10/-) and, therefore, it was not purchase of penny scripts. Sales of Bakra Pratisthan Ltd 8) No sale through Ashokkumar Kavan group cases - The assessee strongly urges that the shares of Bakra Pratisthan Ltd were sold by DB & Co. of Kolkata and the transactions are supported by contract of sales which were subject to payment of
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah STT. The assessee strongly urges that there is no sale through Ashokkumar Kayan and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the addition is justified on the base of his statement. 9) The assessee therefore, urges that the sales transactions are through approved and registered share broker, the contracts are subject to STT payment, the trade of transactions was duly registered with the Calcutta Stock Exchange and the payments were issued by account payee cheques and, therefore, the sale transactions ought to be held as genuine one. Regarding statement recorded on 20.04.2015 of Ashokkumar Kavan 10) The assessee strongly urges that, in the statement of Ashokkumar Kayan as recorded on 20.04.2015, there is no reference of Shri Naresh Shah and he never stated that he was involved in providing long term capital gain to Shri Naresh Shah in 2012-13. 1) The assessee further urges that he had not done any transactions through his son Harshvardhan Kayan and the alleged helper Shri Sunil Dokani. 12) The assessee strongly urges that, Shri Ashokumar Kayan also gave details in the form of annexure "A" which contains details of alleged beneficiary to whom long term capital gain was provided and in that list, the name of Mr. Naresh Shah is not included. Cross examination not allowed 13) The assessee strongly urges that he had requested to cross examine the said Ashokkumar Kayan and no cross examination was allowed and, therefore, his statement has no evidential value in this case as held by the Apex Court in the case of Kishanchand Chelaram V/s. CIT(125 ITR 713)(SC). Reliance on statement of Mr. Harshvardhan Kavan recorded U/s. 133A of the Act on 28-01-2015 14) The learned ACIT, grossly erred in relying upon the statement of Mr. Harshvardhan Kayan, S/O Ashokumar Kayan recorded on 28-01-2015 u/s. 133A of the Act. The assessee strongly urges that he had not done any transactions through Harshvardhan Kayan. The assessee also urges that there is no evidential value of any statement recorded u/s. 133A of the Act. The assessee also urges that no statements were confronted in the assessment proceedings and no opportunity was made available for cross examination. The assessee therefore, urges that no addition is justified on the base of such statement. No evidential value of the statement recorded in the proceedings u/s. 133A of the Act 15) The assessee strongly urges that the learned assessing officer had relied upon the statement of Ashokkumar Kayan which were recorded u/s. 131 of the Act. The assessee strongly urges that there is no evidential value of statements recorded u/s. 131 of the Act as recorded in the survey proceedings u/s. 133A of the Act. This is so held in the case of CIT V/s. S. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC). The Hon'ble Madras High Court had observed as under in this particular case (CIT V/s. S. Khader Khan Sons (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.). "In contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132 (4) enables the authorized officer to examine a person on oath and any statement made by such person during such examination can also be used in evidence under the Act. On the other hand, whatever statement is recorded u/s. 133A is not given any evidentiary value obviously for the reason that the officer is not authorized to administer oath and to take any sworn statement which alone has evidentiary value as contemplated under law.
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah Held, dismissing the appeal that in view of the scope and ambit of the materials collected during the course of survey action u/s. 133A shall not have any evidentiary value. It could not be said solely on the basis of the statement given by one of the partners of the assessee firm that the disclosed income was assessable as lawful income of the assessee". 16) The assessee further urges that there was a case by SEBI in the year 2010 (Adjudication order No. BM/assessing officer-40/2010) against Bakra Pratisthan Ltd and certain brokers including Ashokkumar Kayan and they were not found involved in ragging price of the Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. The assessee had filed the copy of order in the assessment proceedings for A. Y. 2012-13. 17) The assessee strongly urges that no addition is justified on the base of general modus operand! as discussed in the assessment order. The assessee strongly urges that, many a times, there is boom in the prices of listed companies and merely because the prices of listed company was shut-up within a short period, the addition is not justified. 18) The assessee strongly urges that there is absolutely no evidence as to earning of undisclosed income and giving unaccounted cash to Ashokkumar Kayan in lieu of selling shares of Bakra Pratisthan Ltd through him. 19) The assessee had also purchased shares of several other listed companies and he was in the habit of investing monies in the shares. 20) The assessee strongly relies on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pankaj Enca V/s. CIT (Tax Appeal No. 976 of 2015). The assessee strongly urges that, even if the entry operator or any third party admitted in the business of providing entries, no addition is justified merely on the base of such statement unless an opportunity to cross examine is available. 21) The assessee relies on decision of Hon'ble CIT (A), Central Circle in his own case in the A. Y. 2012-13, Appeal No. CAS-4/631/2015-16 dated 20.06.2016 wherein the identical issue was involved and the additions were deleted. The relevant part of the assessment order is as under. "To sum up fhe departments case is based on just statements of Kayan Group, who as discussed above have never stated that all the transactions are bogus nor the case of the assessee is alleged to be appearing in the list of bogus transactions entered into by them as per the record found with them. In such as case, even if the assessing officer has information that the transactions are likely to be bogus; his work started from here. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Umarchand Saha & Bros. V/s. CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) has held that suspicion. The assessee has conclusively proved the purchase of shares of two concerns, payment through banking channels, confirmed to the department in independent enquiries, holding of the original shares in Demat form with reputed concern, acquisition of shares of M/S. Bakra Pratishthan Ltd. through order of amalgamation passed by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, holding of converted shares in Demat form and consequent sales through the stock exchange after payment of SIT and receipt of payment through banking channels. None of the evidences submitted by the assessee have been proved bogus or concocted. It is not the case that the earning of unaccounted money or routing it to Shri Ashok Kayan has been evidenced or established. In these circumstances, the addition made by the department treating the entire transactions shown, as bogus is totally unjustified. The addition made by the assessing officer is therefore, directed to be deleted. The first two grounds of appeal are therefore, allowed." Financials of Bakra Pratisthan Ltd
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah 22) The assessee urges that the said company i.e. Bakra Pratisthan Ltd had huge gross revenue from operation of Rs. 303 lacs in F.Y.2010-11 and Rs.82.90 lacs in F.Y. 2011-12 and, therefore, it was not a paper company.”
The Ld. Counsel also submits before us the decision of Coordinate Bench Kolkata in the case of ACIT Vs Swati S. Ghuwalewala (In ITA No. 91/Kol/2012) wherein the addition made by assessing officer in respect of scrip of M/s Bakra Pratisthan Ltd, was deleted. The relevant observations of the Coordinate Bench are reproduced below: “5. It was submitted by Ld. DR that the assessee had purchased 14000 shares of Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. at a cost of Rs.5.87 per share on 14.02.2003 and had sold the same on two days being on 12.03.2004 and 25.03.2004 @ Rs.184/- and Rs. 314/- per share respectively. It was the submission that consequently the assessee had disclosed Long Term CapitalGain. It was the submission that the assessing officer had in the course of assessment observed that the broker who was the member of Stock Exchange through whom the shares have been transacted have been suspended by CSE and SEBI for share manipulation. Consequently, the assessing officer had treated the gains disclosed by the assesee as LTCG as unexplained cash credit. It was the submission that on appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) had directed the assessing officer to treat the profit out of the sale proceeds in the share transactions as LTCG by following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Jagdish Prasad Goel (HUF) in ITA Nos. 541 & 542/K/2010 for AY 2005-06 as also the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal in ITA No. 22 of 2009 dated 29.04.2009. It was the submission that the transactions were fraudulent and the order of the CIT(A) was liable to be reversed. 6. In reply, the Ld. AR submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was liable to be upheld. It was the submission that the assessee had purchased 14000 shares on 14.02.2003 through M/s. Mukesh Dokania & Co. It was the submission that out of the same 7000 shares were sold on 12.03.2004 and the balance 7000 shares were sold on 25.03.2004 at Rs.184/- and Rs.314/- respectively through broker M/s. Basant Periwal. It was the submission that the copy of the demat account as also the contract note have been produced before the assessing officer alongwith the bank account of the assessee. The Ld. AR drew our attention to pages 8 and 9 of the paper book, which is a copy of the contract note for the purchase of shares. Further, the Ld. AR drew our attention to page 10 of the paper book, which was the copy of the demat account of the assessee and page 11, which is the copy of the sale note and consequential transfer from the assessee’s demat account as also at page 12 the bank account extract of the assessee. It was the submission that the brokers were registered brokers. It was further submitted that the assessing officer has recognised that Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. was a Z category share traded in the stock exchange. It was the submission that as the transactions are bonafide and supported by documents just because the assessee has made substantial profits, the transaction should not be treated as bogus. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court at Calcuttta in the case of Bhagwati Prasad
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah Agarwal, supra which have been extracted in the order of CIT(A). He vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has treated the sale consideration of the shares in the hands of the assessee as unexplained cash credit only on the basis of presumptions. There is no evidence contrary to the evidence of the purchase and sale of shares and the transactions as disclosed by the assesee. Assessments cannot be done on the basis of presumptions. A perusal of the order of CIT(A) clearly shows that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta while granting the relief. In these circumstances, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal, referred to supra, as the assesee has substantiated his case for purchase and sale of shares with the necessary documents, we are of the view that the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is on a right footing and does not call for any interference. 8. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed.”
Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that the scrip of M/s Bakra Prastisthan Ltd. was considered as a genuine scrip and therefore the Tribunal has deleted the addition. Hence, Ld. Counsel contended that addition made by the Assessing Officer is not justified and may be deleted.
We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that solitary grievance of the assessee is the addition of Rs.2,49,54,750/- made by the assessing officer considering long term capital gain (LTCG) as non-genuine. The assessee has declared long term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.2,49,54,750/-on sale of shares of Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. (BPL). The assessee originally purchased shares of Dhaslabh Mercrendise Ltd and Twinkle Merchants Ltd. Later on, both these companies were merged with Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. The assessing officer stated that BPL was found controlled by one Shri Ashok kumar Kayan, who admitted before the authorities of Inv. Wing Kolkota that he is into providing accommodation entries of various types through several companies controlled by him. The assessing officer held that this is general modus oparendi adopted by such entry providers and narrated the same in
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah the assessment order. The assessing officer did not find the explanation offered by the assessee satisfactory, he made addition to the tune of Rs.2,49,54,750/-. We note that the issue under consideration is covered against the assessee by the Judgment of Hon`ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj and others, in IA No.GA/2/2022, order dated 14.06.2022, wherein the Hon`ble Court held as follows:
“It was argued by the learned Advocates for the assessees that their clients are ordinary people who have made meagre investments and they cannot be branded as scamsters when big players in the market have been left scot free and in certain other cases, the big players who were also branded as scammers were allowed to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. In fact, similar argument was advanced when we heard the applications filed by the revenue to condone the delay in filing in some of the present appeals. The argument on behalf of the assessee was that on account of not filing the appeals by the revenue within the period of limitation, their vested right to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme was taken away. We have rejected such an argument firstly by holding that there is no vested right for an assessee to come under the Scheme and this finding was rendered by us after examining the provisions of the V.S.V. Act, secondly we have held that cases cannot be decided based on hypothesis nor can the Court read the mind of the assessee that in the event, the revenue had filed appeal on time, the assessee may have availed the benefit under the V.S.V. Scheme. In fact, we find that the Comptroller and Auditor General has also severely commented upon the action taken by the Income Tax Department on such issues and that no uniform procedure had been followed by the various Income Tax Officers and in certain cases the assessments were not even reopened. Therefore, merely because in certain cases, appeals were preferred within the relevant time enabling, those assessees to avail the benefit of the V.S.V. Scheme can in no manner advance the case of the assessees before us. As has been argued before us by the learned Senior Standing Counsels, in the chain of events, there are three main person who are involved, the first of which is the entry operator who is said to have managed the overall scam as the entry operator controls several paper companies which have been utilized for routing the cash. The operator is also in control of some penny stock companies whose shares are listed on recognized stock exchanges. It is true that “penny stock” is not an offensive word or comes with a stigma. Penny stock is a stock which trades at a relatively low prices and market capitals. These stocks are highly speculative and they are categorized as high risk stocks largely due to lack of liquidity. Furthermore, the shares of the penny stock are closely held as the general public is not interested in these stocks due to the poor financials of the listed companies. It is for such reasons the entry operators are said to have chosen these penny stocks. In certain cases before us it has been established that the promoters/ Directors of the penny stock companies are also involved and they allowed the entry operators to manage the affairs of the company in return of a commission paid to them. The third set of persons involved, are the share brokers. As submitted by Mr. S.N. Surana, learned Senior Counsel, the brokers are required to comply with very stringent KYC norms before registering any entity as their client. The SEBI Regulations cast very onerous responsibilities on the share brokers. However, the
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah trend appears that the penny stock companies have no business or very little business got involved with the stock brokers and it is stated that the share brokers receive commission for allowing the paper entities to trade through their terminal and some of the brokers have also stated to be performing the trading activity themselves on behalf of the paper companies. The report states as to why the department has taken an investigation as a project, largely due to huge syndicate of the entry operators, share brokers and money launderers. The report states that Kolkata is a very distinctive place among the cities of India, so far as the accommodation entry is concerned and action has been initiated against more than thirty share broking entities and more than twenty entry operators working in Kolkata. The report states that almost everyone has accepted its activity, participation in providing accommodation entry of LTCG. The investigation has also indicated as to how the scheme of merger is being misused. Though the scheme of merger is approved by the Company Court, in the event it is found that such merger was done/ obtained by playing fraud, the Company Court is empowered to revoke the order and it appears that the Income Tax Department has not taken any steps in this regard to approach the Company Court or the Tribunal with such a prayer. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the orders passed by the CIT(A) affirming the orders passed by the Assessing Officers as well as the orders passed by CIT under Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain to the assessee- Gupta Agarwal. We have gone through the memorandum of appeal as well as the substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue and find the same to be not relatable to the assessee. This is on account of non-application of mind both by the Income Tax Department as well as the Officers of the Ministry of Law and Justice. More often we have stated that due care and caution has to be taken when appeals are drafted and filed before this Court and this is not the first case which has come up before us where the pleadings were irrelevant to the facts of the case. However, the substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue is with regard to the correctness of the order of the Tribunal in interfering with the order of the CIT(A) who affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer making the addition under Section 68 of the Act. Furthermore, we have to note that more than 90 appeals were allowed by the Tribunal in a single order and the facts of the 89 assessees were not noted by the Tribunal. In any event, the assessee, Mr.Gupta was quite happy with the result and he made no attempt to request the Tribunal to note his facts which according to him may have been unique as was submitted before us. If the assessees could take shelter under an order passed by the Tribunal which has not discussed even the basic facts of the assessees’ case, we are not inclined to non-suit the revenue on the ground that some of the questions suggested in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 may not be relatable to the assessee- Gupta Agarwal. Therefore, though the grounds are not relatable to the assessee, this will not vitiate the appeal in its entirety as the core is the substantial questions of law which is required to be decided. For all the above reasons, we hold that the Tribunal committed a serious error in setting aside the orders of the CIT(A) who had affirmed the orders of the Assessing Officer and equally the Tribunal committed a serious error both on law and fact in interfering with the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act. In the result, these appeals are allowed and the
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah substantial questions of law framed/suggested are answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee restoring the orders passed by the respective Assessing Orders as affirmed by the CIT(A) as well as the orders passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act. No costs.” 12. We note that issue is squarely covered against the assessee by judgment of the Hon`ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj and Others(supra). We also note that during the appellate proceedings, the ld CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Suman Poddar u/s ITO in SPR No.26684 of 2019 dated 22.11.2019. The head note of the said order is reproduced below: "Section 10(38) of the Income tax Act 1961- Capital gains Income arising from transfer of long term securities (shares)- Assessment year 2014-15- For relevant year, assessee filed her return claiming exemption under section 10(38) in respect of capital gain arising from sale of shares - Assessing Officer took a view that share transactions were bogus because company 'C' whose shares were allegedly purchased, was a penny stock - He thus rejected assessee's claim - Tribunal upheld order passed by Assessing Officer - High court also took a view that finding arrived by Tribunal was based on material on record and, thus, same did not require any interference - Whether on facts, SLP filed against order of High Court was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 1] [In favour of revenue]"
Based on the facts and circumstances, as narrated above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A). The conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) are, therefore, correct and admit no interference by us. We, approve and confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the cross objection of the assessee. 14. In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee in CO.No.16/SRT/2021, are dismissed. 15. Now, we shall take Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.197/SRT//2020 for AY.2012-13 wherein grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as follows: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.12,14,13,015/- (after rectification u/s 154 of the Act, which originally was of Rs.13,75,13,015/-) made on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act without appreciating the fact that one of the directors of the company M/s GCSL had admitted on oath in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the I.T. Act that he had provided accommodation entries for loans and advances by providing cheques in lieu of cash received from Shri Naresh Nemchand Shah.
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuineness of loan transactions was proved without considering the surrounding circumstances of the transactions and the fact that even during the assessment proceedings, the said Director of M/s GCSL has submitted in writing on 07.10.2017, that he stood by the statement given before the Income Tax Department officials during Search & Survey en 03.03.2016. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Surat may be set aside and that of the assessing officer may be restored to the above extent. 4. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground(s) of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”
The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: The assessee before us in an individual and filed its return of income u/s 139 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2012-13 on 27.09.2012, declaring total income of Rs.2,38,60,560/-. During the course of survey u/s 133A of the Act on Gujarat Computer Software Ltd, (GCSL) at G-5, Ashray building, opp. Govindji Parle, Umra, Surat, Shri Tammal Roy, director of the company admitted during the course of recording of statement, that he had provided accommodation entries for loans and advances by providing cheques and received back cash from the beneficiaries. The assessee received loan of Rs. 12,14,13,015/- from Gujarat Computer Software Ltd, ( in brief “GCSL”) and therefore, the assessing officer issued show cause notice starting that why this loan amount should not be considered as non-genuine. The contents of the show cause notice are reproduced below: “……..during the course of survey action u/s. 133A of the act in the case of M/s. Gujarat Computer and Software Limited at G-5, Aashray Building, Opp. Govindji Park-a, Umra, Surat, the director of the company Shri Tammal Roy admitted on oath in his statement u/s. 131 of the Act that he has provided accommodation entries for loans and advances by providing cheques and received back the cash from the beneficiaries. You are one of the beneficiaries of these accommodation entries for bogus loans and advances. Details of bogus loans and advances reflected in the books of M/s. Gujarat Computer and Software Limited is as under As on 31.03.2012 1 NARESH ACRPS0182J "Abhishek House", Nr. Rs.13,75,13,015/- NEMCHAND JeevanBharti School, SHAH Kadampalli Road, Nanpura, Surat
The ledger copies of Shri Naresh Nemchand Shah in the books of M/s. Gujarat Computer and Software Limited established these facts. Therefore you are required
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah to show cause as to why the amount of Rs.13,75,13,015/- received from the above mentioned parties during the year should not be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and be added to your total income for A.Y.2012- 13." 17. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee has furnished his reply to the Assessing Officer. The relevant portion of the reply is reproduced below: “4.1 Your Goodself has proposed to make an addition of Rs.13,75,13,015/- u/s. 68 of the Act being the amount of loans received from Gujarat Computer & Software ltd. the addition is proposed merely because one of the Director Tamaal Roy admitted in his statement u/s 131 of the Act during the survey action u/s 133A of the Act, the transactions as accommodation entries. 4.2 It is submitted that various documents relating to the loan from said company were filed vide letter dated 10.10.2017. The copy of the same is gain filed for ready reference. 4.3 It is submitted that Shri Tamaal Roy, Director of Gujarat Computer & Software Ltd. had given two statements during the survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act one on 03.03.2016 and the other on 11.03.2016. In the first statement dated 03.03.2016. It is apparent that the investigation was going on in respect of huge payment of Rs.119/- crores to M/s HAH Global Enterprise & Services for help in development of new version of “Pechchan Placed reliance on the decision of ” Software on behalf of the company. This is evident from Q No. 12 to 18. When the investigation Officer concerned him and established that the payment was not genuine, he diverted the entire issue forwards the stay of accommodation entries. He finally, submitted that he had given cash to angadias who had arranged foreign exchange for him. 4.4 It is strongly submitted that the said Shri Tamaal Roy had simply diverted the burning issue of huge payment of bogus expenditure for Rs.119/- crores to HAGH Global Enterprise & Service. It is therefore submitted that the issue of loan is wrongly accepted as alleged accommodation entries in his statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act during the survey action. 4.5 It is further submitted that the said company has been doing business for development export of software of last several years. It is further submitted that he entire loan was given by account payee cheques, the huge interest was charged, tax was deducted of source and the monies were returned by account payee cheques. It is therefore, submitted that the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness was proved. 4.6 It is strongly submitted that there is no legal status of statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act and therefore, no addition is justified merely on the base of such statement. 4.7 It is further submitted that the said company had recently confirmed transactions is respect of loans given to them in response to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. It is therefore, submitted that the loan may be treated as genuine and no addition is called for u/s 68 of the Act.”
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah 18. As the assessee filed written submission before the Assessing Officer, as noted above, however, the same was not found satisfactory by the assessing officer. Shri Tammal Roy clearly stated the name of the assessee as beneficiary as, mentioned by the assessing officer on page no.13 and 14 of the assessment order. The assessing officer summoned to Sri Tammal Roy during assessment proceedings for further statement, but he did not attend and re-iterated that statement given during the survey on 03.03.2016. Along with the letter dated 07.10.2017, Shri Tammal Roy enclosed the documents sought by the assessing officer showing transaction with Shri Naresh Shah, the assessee. On the basis of the statement of the Shri Tammal Roy during survey u/s 133A and his confirming the statement vide letter dated 07.10.2017, the assessing officer, made the additions to the tune of Rs. 12,14,13,015/- considering the loan obtained from GCSL as non-genuine. 19. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us.
Shri H. P. Meena, Learned CIT(DR) for the Revenue, argues that as per statements investigation was going on in respect of huge payment of Rs.119/- crores to M/s HAH Global Enterprise & Services and when confronted by the Investigation Officer regarding genuineness of the payments, Shri Tamal Roy diverted the issue towards the story of accommodation entries. On perusal of the Question/Answer No.20 of the statement, it is very much clear that Shri Tamaal Roy had not diverted the issue though he had expressed modus operandi adopted by him wherein he used to pay cash to the Angadiya who in turn arranged foreign remittances to his company M/s GCSL. He was required to pay Angadiya in cash to keep the cycle running so to get cash, he used to pay cheques, and received cash from them. Following this modus operandi, he came to know to augment this income by way of giving "entries" to people who wanted to pay black money (cash) in exchange of receipts of white money i.e. cheques. Then he started providing cheques to such parties either from the account of his company M/s GCSL or from the account of M/s Logic-House. Thus, he had not diverted the issue but explained and
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah distinguished his way into giving accommodation entries. Same facts are corroborated from the statement recorded on oath u/s 131 of the Act dated 03.03.2016. Further, in reply to Question no.33 of the statement. Shri Tamaal Roy has clearly stated that Shri Naresh Nemchand Shah was one of the parties to whom he had given cheques and received back the cash. Further, this office has also issued summon u/s 131 of the Act to Shri Tamal Roy to furnish explanation in respect of the transactions made with the assessee i.e. Shri Naresh Nemchand Shah. In response to the summon, Shri Tamaal Roy stated that he would not be able to attend personally on the date fixed for hearing and stated that he stayed with his statement provided to Income Tax authorities during survey proceedings on 03.03.2016. Thus in view of the above facts, it is crystal clear that the assessee has taken accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 12,14,13,015/-in the form of unsecured loan from Shri Tamal Roy's company i.e. M/s Gujarat Computer and Software Limited. In the light of the above facts, ld DR prays the Bench that addition made by the assessing officer may be sustained.
On the other hand, Shri Kiran K. Shah, Learned Counsel for the assessee pleads that loan was received through regular banking channels, interest was regularly paid and TDS was deducted and deposited in government account as per the provision of the I.T. Act. The ld Counsel also relied on several judgements of Hon'ble jurisdictional High court of Gujarat. The ld Counsel also states that complete amount of loan has been repaid in subsequent years through regular banking channel. Therefore, ld Counsel contended that ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contention. We have perused case file as well as paper books furnished by assessee. We note that to prove the identity genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan, the assessee filed confirmation signed by the director of the company, copy of bank statement of creditor, copy of return of income of creditor, PAN number, Name and address and copy of audit report of creditor. All these documents were also filed by Shri Tammal Roy, director of the company before the assessing officer along with letter dated
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah 07.10.2017, which confirm the contention of the assessees. The ld Counsel contended that Rs.l.61Crore is the opening balance and Rs.12,14,13,015/- is the correct amount of loan taken during the year. The assessing officer passed the order u/s 154 of the Act on bringing this mistake to notice. The ld Counsel argued that the survey upon GCSL was conducted for the transactions entered into with HAH Global Enterprise & Services. Most of the statement was recorded during the survey on this issue only, therefore, the transaction related to the assessee was not the subject matter of survey and Shri Tammal Roy raised story of providing accommodation entry to the assessee to divert the attention of the survey team. The ld Counsel stated that Shri Tammal Roy's statement that 'angadias' was used to send money abroad for the transaction with HAH Global Enterprise & Services is also factually incorrect as Angelis do not work for transfer of money overseas, but within country only, thus, statement of Shri Tammal Roy is not reliable.
We note that during the survey on GCSL, no corroborative evidence was found, which support the statement of Shri Tammal Roy. The ld Counsel also contended that statement recorded during the course of survey does not have an evidentiary value even in the case of the assessee upon whom survey has been conducted in absence of any corroborative evidence. Therefore, relying upon third party statement without any corroborative evidence is against the settled principle of law on this issue. We note that there is no written evidence, against the assessee except statement of Shri Tammal Roy. The statement of third party cannot be used against the assessee without giving opportunities of cross examination. The ld Counsel stated that during the course of assessment proceedings, cross examination of Shri Tammal Roy was sought by the assessee by making specific request in this regard. Shri Tamal Roy was summoned by the assessing officer, but instead of appearing for cross examination, he sent reply in writing on 07.10.2017.These facts clearly prove that in spite of specific request made by the assessee, opportunity of cross examination was not provided to the assessee, hence addition made by the assessing officer relying upon such statement is clearly in violation of the principle of natural justice. We note that confirmation from the creditor was filed before the
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah assessing officer, along with copy of ITR, copy of bank account and audit report of the auditor. Survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted by the Department on the creditor, which prove identity beyond doubt as statement of the director was recorded twice.
Regarding creditworthiness of the creditor, the ld Counsel stated that creditor had turnover in A.Y. 2011-12 of Rs.8.56 Crores and Rs.35.25 Crores, in 2012-13. There is no cash deposit found in the bank account of the creditor, prior to the cheque issued to the assessee. Regarding genuineness of transaction, the ld Counsel stated that loan was received through regular banking channels, interest was regularly paid and TDS was deducted and deposited in government account as per the provision of the I.T. Act. We note that that if the transaction is through regular banking channels and creditor has confirmed the transactions, such transactions are genuine and therefore, addition made by the assessing officer are not sustainable.
The assessee also stated that complete amount of loan has been repaid in subsequent years through regular banking channel. There have been no adverse findings by the assessing officer in this respect. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (2014) 42 taxmann.com 251 (Guj.), has held as under: "…it has also come on record that the said loan amounts been repaid by the assessee in the immediate next financial year and the Department has accepted the repayment of loan without probing into it. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when the /TAT has held that the matter is not required to be remanded as no other view would be possible, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the ITAT." Therefore, such transactions have been allowed by the Hon'ble High court of Gujarat. The assessee stated further that his premises have been covered u/s 132 of the Act on 19.10.2011 and u/s 133A of the Act on 03.09.2015, but no evidence of any cash payment to GCSL for obtaining accommodation entry and receiving cash on repayment of loan was found. The ld Counsel also argued that prior to the amendment u/s 68 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2013, it was not required to prove source of the source. The assessee`s case is of prior to the amendment, hence amended
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah provisions of section 68 are not applicable in the assessee's case. Therefore, we note that additions made by the assessing officer are not valid.
We note that actual loan amount taken from GCSL by the assessee during the year is Rs.12,14,13,015/-. The assessing officer made the additions considering this loan amount as non-genuine only on the basis of statement of Shri Tammal Roy, director of GCSL recorded during the course of survey and post survey enquiries. There was no documentary evidence found during the course of survey which remotely indicates that this transaction with GCSL is not genuine. The assessee filed confirmation from the creditor, audited accounts of bank account of the creditor to prove the identity, genuineness & creditworthiness of the creditor, as required to prove in the case covered u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee received the loan amount through various account payee cheques throughout year and by 12 cheques, which show that the transaction is through regular banking channel. The creditor was covered u/s 133A of the Act by the department and statement of director of GCSL was recorded. These facts clearly prove the identity of the creditor. The transaction was confirmed in the confirmation filed by the assessee as well as documents filed by the Tammal Roy, director of GCSL before the assessing officer, along with letter dated 07.10.2017. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Guiarat in the case of CIT Vs. Ranchodbhai Jivabhai Nakhava (2012) 208 Taxmann 35 held that if the transaction is confirmed by the creditor and transaction is through regular banking channel, additions u/s 68 are not justified. Further, our view is fortified by the Judgment of Hon'ble High court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders (256) ITR 360 (Guj.) wherein it has been held that assessee has discharged onus u/s 68 on providing PAN and complete address of the creditor. In the assessee case, identity of the creditor is established beyond doubt by the department itself by conducting the survey u/s 133A of the Act. The assessee provided bank account of the creditor with audited accounts.
The ld CIT(A) noted that assessee paid interest through regular banking channels to the creditor. The TDS was deducted upon such interest payments and deposited in the government account. Moreover, the full loan amount was repaid
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah through regular banking channels to the creditor in subsequent years. These facts further prove the genuineness of transactions beyond doubt. The ld Counsel submitted that statement recorded during the course of survey do not have evidentiary value, if these are not supported by some corroborative evidence. In the assessees case, additions have been made solely on the basis of statement recorded during the course of survey. One side Shri Tammal Roy, stated that he provided accommodation entries to the assessee, other side, he signed confirmation twice i.e. first was given to the assessee and second was directly filed before the assessing officer, along with the letter dated 07.10.2017. These facts prove that Shri Tammal Roy gave statement in contradiction of the documents signed by him even after post survey proceedings. Therefore, the statement of Sri Tammal Roy is not found reliable enough to made additions in the hands of the assessee. Moreover, the assessee sought cross-examination of Shri Tammal Roy, whose statement was relied upon for making the additions. Rather that is the only evidence against the assessee. The assessing officer, summoned Shri Tammal Roy but he did not appear for cross- examination. These facts prove that the assessee was not provided opportunity of cross examination of Shri Tammal Roy. It is legally settled principal as held by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Kishanchand Chelarama vs. CIT (125 ITR 713) (SC) and in the case of Andaman Timber Pvt. Ltd, vs. Commissioner of Central Excise that in absence of providing opportunity of cross examination of the person, whose statement is relied upon for making the additions, the addition made are against the principle of natural justice and cannot be made.
The ld CIT(A) noted that there is no cash deposit found in the bank account of the creditor prior to the date on which cheques were issued to the assessee. Even, no cash withdrawal was found from the bank account of the creditor repaid. The assessee was subjected to search & survey on 19.02.2011 & 03.09.2015 i.e. before & after the date of survey on GCSL, no document indicating any cash payment for obtaining accommodation entries or receiving of cash on repayment of loan was found. It is undisputed fact that no documentary evidence was found anywhere (at the premises of third party i.e. GCSL or at the premises of the assessee), which even
ITA.197/SRT/2020 & CO.16/SRT/2021/AY.2012-13 Naresh Nemchand Shah remotely suggests that the assessee paid any cash for there transactions with GCSL. We do not agree with the sweeping allegation of the Ld. AO that “Transactions were accommodation entries". This statement is totally unfounded and not based on any cogent evidence to back such high-voltage statement apparently based on conjectures and surmises. Based on these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there is no any infirmity in the order passed by ld CIT(A). That being so, we decline to interfere in the order passed by ld CIT(A), his order on this issue is upheld and grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
In combined result, Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed and Revenue appeal is also dismissed.
Registry is directed to place one copy of this order in all appeals folder / case file(s).
Order is pronounced in the open court on 29/07/2022 by placing the result on the Notice Board as per Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rule 1963.
Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat �दनांक/ Date: 29/07/2022 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat