BASE INDUSTRIES LTD.,,U.T. OF DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 (A Y: 2011-12) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Base Industries Ltd., I.T.O., Behind Hanuman Mandir, Nr. Canal, Ward-1, Vs. Demni Road, Dadra, Silvasa. Vapi. PAN No. AACCR 6479 B Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue

Appellant represented by Shri Salil Kapoor-Advocate /AR Respondent represented by Ms. Anupma Singla, Sr. DR Date of hearing 05/04/2022 Date of pronouncement 08/06/2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 01/10/2015 for the Assessment year 2011-12 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee: “1. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer rejecting the books of accounts of the appellant company as per provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts of the case and law and deserves to be deleted. 2. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in estimating

ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 Base Industries Ltd Vs ITO the gross profit at 7.88% as against 0.81% a: disclosed by the appellant company in its return of income. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts of the case and law and deserves to be deleted. 3. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in enhancing the assessment by estimating the gross profit of the appellant company from 3% of the total turnover as determined by the learned assessing officer to 7.88% of the total turnover without giving an opportunity to the appellant company a; required under the provisions of Section 251(2) of the Act. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the law and deserves to be deleted. 4. The Appellant craves to add, amend, modify or alter the above grounds of appeal at any stage of appellate proceedings. 5. The Appellant humbly prays that the appeal be allowed in toto. 2. The assessee vide application dated 10/01/2021 has raised following additional grounds of appeal:

“6. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment completed and the additions made therein under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act "/are illegal, bad in law, void ah initio, without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. 7. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed dated 11.03.2014 for A.Y. 2011-12 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Vapi ("ITO, Ward-1") is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as the JTO, Ward-I lacked the jurisdiction to pass the said assessment order. 8. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in the absence of order u/s 127 of the Act, the assessment order passed dated 11.03.2014 for A.Y 2011-12 passed by the 1TO. Ward-1 is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as the assessment proceedings were initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Income

ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 Base Industries Ltd Vs ITO Tax. Circle, Vapi and therefore the assessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. The assessee vide another application dated 01/04/2022 has raised following additional grounds of appeal:

“9. That, without prejudice, the notice dated 25.09.2012 issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by the ACIT, Vapi Circle for initiating the assessment in the present case is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction, especially in view of the specific admission made in the letter dated 30.03.2022. That in the letter dated 30.03.2022 it has been admitted that ACTI, Vapi Circle had no jurisdiction in the case of the Assessee for the year under consideration as the returned income of the Assessee was less than Rs. 20,00,000/-. 10. That, without prejudice, the assessment order dated 11.03.2014 for A.Y. 2011-12 is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as the same has been passed without there being a valid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) within the stipulated time period. 11. That, without prejudice, since no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer having valid jurisdiction in the present case, within the stipulated time, the assessment order dated 11.03.2014 passed for A.Y. 2011-12 passed by the ITO, Ward-1 is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as the assessment proceedings were never initiated by the ITO, Ward-1 and therefore the assessment order is liable to be quashed. " 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of polyester yarn, bright yarn, oriented yarn, texturized yarn, knitting fabrics and also in trading of circulating knitted fabrics. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2011-12 on 29/09/2011 declaring total income of Rs.

ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 Base Industries Ltd Vs ITO 1,19,210/- after claiming carry forward loss declared NIL income. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) was issued by ACIT-Vapi, on 25/09/2012 and was duly served upon the assessee on 27/09/2012. Thereafter the case was transferred to the ITO, Ward-1, Vapi vide letter No. ACIT/Circle/Vapi/Scrutiny/Transfer/2013-14 dated 03/06/2013. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that from the details furnished with return of income, the assessee reported total turnover (sales of Rs. 72.24 crores) on which the assessee has earned (shown) net profit of Rs.1,19,210/-. The assessee in its trading account, claimed purchase of Rs. 63.38 crores and debited Rs. 8.26 crores on account of manufacturing expenses. The Assessing officer noted that no corroborative details were furnished, accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee to furnish copy of bank statement, details of payment made and received, copy of lorry receipt/transportation document of goods despatched and received and to furnish original receipt of octroi. The assessee was also asked to produce the books of account with all details of sales and purchases, bank statement, stock of opening and closing. The Assessing Officer recorded that in response to show cause notice, no details were furnished. The Assessing Officer issued another show cause notice. The contents of show cause notice is recorded in para 5 of assessment order. 4

ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 Base Industries Ltd Vs ITO The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice as to why, the books of account should not be rejected and gross profit @ 3% should not be estimated. The Assessing Officer directed that the reply of assessee must reach to his office on or before 28/02/2014. The Assessing Officer recorded that again no details were furnished. The assessing officer on the basis of details furnished with return of income, noted that the assessee has shown total sales of Rs. 72.25 Crore. Accordingly, he estimated 3% profit on sales thereby worked out estimated profit of Rs. 2,16,73,750/-. The assessee has already declared gross profit of Rs. 58,79,833/-. The Assessing Officer after granting set off of profit declared by assessee, made addition of Rs. 1,57,93,920/- (Rs. 2,16,73,750 – 58,79,833), while passing assessment order under section 143(3). 5. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed its written submissions which was recorded in para 5 of the impugned order. In its written submission, the assessee has stated that the assessment was framed after rejecting of books of account and estimating gross profit @ 3% of total turnover of Rs. 72.24 crores and thereby added Rs. 1.579 crores being the difference between the gross profit shown by the assessee and the working of estimation of gross profit. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of synthetics textiles and also 5

ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 Base Industries Ltd Vs ITO engaged in business of trading of circulating knitted fabrics. The assessee maintained books of account supported with purchase and sales. Account of assessee was duly audited. The assesse has not contingent or statutory liabilities. The assessee maintained almost same level of operation as done in earlier years. Party wise details of sales and purchases were furnished to the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings. Sales and purchases were also furnished vide letter dated 12/02/2014. It was also informed to the Assessing Officer that on 28/09/2013, there was a fire in the factory premises. The assessee’s store division, raw material, finished goods and entire record was destroyed. Despite that, almost all details were furnished before the Assessing Officer. The assessee furnished names and address of sales parties and purchase party’s alongwith their PAN numbers. The assessee claimed that the assessee was in possession of full details regarding purchase/sales, creditors/debtors pertaining to the business of assessee. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account without pointing any material or specific defect or to the genuineness of transaction on gross profit or marked up in this line of business is very nominal. The assessee prayed that estimated addition if accepted the quantity of purchases of trading such goods like knitted fabrics and yarn are also to be considered without which it is not possible to make the sale of such item. 6

ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 Base Industries Ltd Vs ITO 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee noted that during the assessment, neither the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer nor produced books of account alongwith other documents as called for. The Assessing Officer has no option except to reject the books of account and to estimate the gross profit @ 3% against gross profit of 0.81% shown by the assessee. Even against the show cause notice for estimating the gross profit, the assessee has not offered any objection or comments. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee claimed that the Assessing Officer wrongly estimated the profit @ 3% despite that return of income alongwith audit report alongwith quantity and value of sales and purchases were furnished. The assessee maintained almost same level of operation as in earlier years and party wise details furnished. The assessee claimed that fire took place in the factory of assessee. After considering all facts, the ld. CIT(A) held that as there was no compliance to the notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act issued with questionnaire for which books were not produced for verification of gross profit as well as other details. No reason for not furnishing such details, were given to the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings. Even in appellate proceedings, no reason with evidence in this regard was given with written submission. Only reason of incident of fire at business premises was claimed but no evidence was 7

ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 Base Industries Ltd Vs ITO provided. In such circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) concurred with the finding of Assessing Officer on rejection of books of account. 7. On estimation of gross profit, the ld. CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer after rejecting books of account, estimated gross profit @ 3% against the gross profit shown by the assessee as 0.81% of turnover. During the appellate stage, the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has no right in estimating the gross profit at higher percentage because it depends on demand and supply condition in the market. The ld. CIT(A) further noted that no response to the show cause notice issued by assessing officer. The ld. CIT(A) having regard to the details of gross profit in earlier years noted that in A.Y. 2009-10, the assessee had shown gross profit of 6.88% and only 15% of purchases were disallowed and gross profit was estimated by ld. CIT(A) at 7.88%. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee has not made any submission during the assessment proceedings to justify the gross profit shown in the return of income except the reasons that the gross profit depends upon condition of demand and supply in the market. The ld. CIT(A) book his views that the gross profit shown by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 was at 6.88% which was estimated at 7.88% by the ld. CIT(A), accordingly he enhanced the addition by applying gross profit rate of 7.88% instead of 3% applied/adopted by the Assessing

ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 Base Industries Ltd Vs ITO Officer. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the submissions of learned Counsel / authorised representative (AR) of the assessee and the learned senior departmental representative (Sr. DR) for the revenue and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. The ld AR of the assessee submits that vide application dated 10/01/2021, the assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal that in absence of order under Section 127, the assessment order passed by the ITO, Ward-1, Vapi is illegal as he has no jurisdiction to pass such assessment order. The jurisdiction in his case lies with ACIT, who issued notice under section 143(2). The ld. AR further submits that the additional grounds of appeal are purely legal in nature and no new facts are to be brought on record. The facts relating to adjudication of additional grounds of appeal are emanating from the assessment order itself. The ld. AR further submits that since the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order has no jurisdiction, therefore, the assessment order is liable to be quashed being bad in law. 9. At the time of hearing submission of ld AR for the assessee on 11.01.2022, the ld. Sr. DR was directed to file her comment as such additional grounds of appeal was raised for the first time. On the direction of this Bench, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue filed her reply dated 30/03/2022, copy of which 9

ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 Base Industries Ltd Vs ITO was sent through e-mail to the ld. AR of the assessee. The Revenue /Sr. DR in its reply submits that the Assessing Officer has forwarded copy of order/ letter about the transfer of the case to his office, and furnished copy of letter No.ACIT/ Circle/ Vapi/Scrutiny/Transfer/2013-14 dated 03/06/2012, wherein case was transferred by the order of CCIT, Surat under section 127 vide letter bearing No. SRT/CCIT/ITO/(OSD)/ Jurisdiction/2012-13 dated 23/07/2012. It is mentioned in the order of CCIT- Surat under section 127 of Act, the case was transferred considering the monetary limit of less than Rs. 20.00 lacs as per Board’s Instruction No.01/2011 [F No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)] dated 31/01/2011. The ld. Sr. DR furnished copy of letter for transferring the case of assessee from Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Circle-Vapi to Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-1, Vapi. 10. On receipt of such information/detailed reply, the ld. AR again filed application for raising further additional grounds of appeal vide his application dated 01/04/2022 as recorded in para 3 of this order (supra). The ld. AR for the assessee submits that in his further additional grounds of appeal, the ld. AR has raised the issue that notice under Section 143(2) was issued by the ld. ACIT, Vapi for initiating the assessment and the assessment order was passed by the ITO, Ward-1, Vapi without issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, therefore, the assessment order is 10

ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 Base Industries Ltd Vs ITO also liable to be quashed. The ld. AR submits that for admission of additional ground Nos. 9 to 11 of the appeal, no additional facts are to be brought on record and that the facts for adjudicating additional ground No. 9 to 11 are emanating from the record itself. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that after transfer of the case from the ACIT, Circle-Vapi to ITO, Ward-1, Vapi, no fresh notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. In absence of proper notice by the Assessing Officer/ ITO under Section 143(2), who ultimately passed assessment order, the order same is void ab-initio. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the following case laws:  Tata Sons Ltd. Vs ACIT (2016) 76 taxmann.com 126 (Mum-Trib)  Shri Kishore Vithaldas Vs JCIT ITA No. 7397/Mum/2016 dated 16/10/2019  Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Vs JCIT ITA No. 619/Del/2015 dated 17/09/2021,  Cosmat Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO ITA No. 457/Kol/2020 dated 21/04/2021,  Harvinder Singh Jaggi Vs ACIT order dated 12/02/2016.

ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 Base Industries Ltd Vs ITO factory premises of the assessee and in the fire all the records of assessee was destroyed. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the estimation made by the Assessing Officer is highly excessive as the margin the business of assessee is very nominal. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A) increased the gross profit at 7.88% without issuing any show cause notice. The ld. AR prayed that book profit offered by assessee may be accepted. 12. On the other hand, the ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue on the additional grounds submits that the case was transferred from ACIT, Circle-Vapi to ITO, Ward-1, Vapi under a valid transfer order issued by the CCIT, Surat under section 127, vide office order dated 23/07/2012, copy of which is already placed on record and was supplied to the assessee. Once the case was transferred from ACIT, Vapi to ITO, Ward-1, Vapi, due to monetary limit under valid transfer order passed under section 127, the ITO/AO completed the assessment after serving proper notice to the assessee. No fresh notice under section 143(2) was required to be served, otherwise it would have become time barred as there is statutory time limit for issueing such notice. Notice under section 143(2) was issued and served within the statutory period. The assessee neither raised objection before the Assessing Officer about the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer nor before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, the assessee has no right to raised such issue. The assessee all of a sudden, raised so much technical objection either on 12

ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 Base Industries Ltd Vs ITO issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act or on the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer for want of order under Section 127 of the Act. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue has already placed on record the order under Section 127 passed by the CCIT, Surat. The ld DR for the revenue retreated that that so far as issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is concerned, it was issued and served upon the assessee. It is not a case of assessee that no such notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued or served upon the assessee or the assessee was not aware about the scrutiny assessment. Thus, all the technical/legal/additional grounds of appeal are liable to the dismissed out rightly. 13. On merit, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that the assessee neither during the assessment filed its reply to the various show cause notices nor furnished any evidence to substantiate the books result. The Assessing Officer in absence of proper books of account or details of sales and purchase and manufacturing expenses, have no option but to reject the books of account which was not substantiate by any evidence. The rejection of books of account was affirmed by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has not made any submission against rejection of books of account. The ld. Sr. DR further submits that the assessee for the first time before the ld. CIT(A) raised a plea that there was fire in the factory premises of assessee on 28/09/2013 but no document or report of fire department or local 13

ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 Base Industries Ltd Vs ITO police or any evidence substantiating such plea was filed when this appeal is pending since 2015. Not a single document is filed by assessee either to substantiate books of account or to challenge the estimation of addition made by lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR submits that conduct of assessee right from the beginning was of non-cooperative and the assessee deserve no leniency and the appeal of assessee is liable to the dismissed. 14. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated upon the various case laws relied upon by the ld. AR of the assessee. The Assessing officer made addition of Rs. 1.579 crore by taking a view that during the assessment, from the details furnished with return of income, the assessee reported total turnover (sales) of Rs. 72.24 crores, on which the assessee has earned net profit of Rs.1,19,210/-. The assessee in its trading account, claimed purchase of Rs. 63.38 crores and Rs. 8.26 crores in the manufacturing expenses. On which, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee to furnish copy of bank statement of payment made and received, copy of lorry receipt/transportation document of goods despatched and received and to furnish original receipt of octroi and produced the books of account with all details of sales and purchases, bank statement, stock of opening and closing. On compliance 14

ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 Base Industries Ltd Vs ITO thereof, no details were furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer accordingly issued another show cause notice as to why, the books of account should not be rejected and gross profit @ 3% be not added. No details were furnished the Assessing Officer estimated @ 3% profit on sales thereby worked out estimated profit of Rs. 2,16,73,750/-. The assessee has already declared gross profit of Rs. 58,79,833/-. The Assessing Officer after granting set off of profit declared by assessee, made addition of Rs. 1,57,93,920/- (Rs. 2,16,73,750 – 58,79,833). The ld. CIT(A) not only confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer but made enhancement by taking a view that in A.Y. 2009-10, the assessee had shown gross profit of 6.88% and only 15% of purchases were disallowed and gross profit was made by ld. CIT(A) at 7.88%. The ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has not made any submission during the assessment proceedings to justify the gross profit shown in the return of income except the reasons that the gross profit depends upon condition of demand and supply in the market. The ld. CIT(A) took his view that the minimum gross profit shown by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 was at 6.88% which was estimated at @7.88% by the ld. CIT(A), thus he enhanced the addition by applying gross profit rate of 7.88% instead of 3% applied/adopted by the Assessing Officer.

ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 Base Industries Ltd Vs ITO 15. We find that in making enhancement by the ld. CIT(A) from 3% to 7.88%, he has not issued any show cause notice of such enhancement. Thus, the enhancement made by the ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with the mandate of Section 251(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the enhancement made by the ld. CIT(A) is quashed/deleted. So far as estimation of profit by assessing officer we find that the assessee has not filed any document or evidence that the estimation by ld CIT(A) is not justify or the profit margin in the line of business of assessee is not more than the profit shown by the assessee. The assessee has not file a single document to substantiate his working of profit or comparable instances in the region cum industry. The assessee claimed that fire took place in the factory of the assessee, not a single piece of evidence in the form of report from fire department or from Police station was filed. Thus, in absence of any evidence to substantiate the books profit, we do not find any reason to disturb the estimation of profit estimated by assessing officer. in the result the assessee gets part relief as we affirm the estimation of profit estimated by assessing officer. In the result, ground No. 2 &3 are partly allowed. 16. Now adverting to the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Ground No. 1 relates to rejection of books of accounts. We find that no submissions made by ld AR of the assessee. Thus, this ground of appeal is

ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 Base Industries Ltd Vs ITO treated as not pressed and as such dismissed. Ground No. 4 & 5 are general and needs no adjudication and thus dismissed. 17. Ground No. 5 to 8 (Additional Grounds of appeal) relates to the jurisdiction of assessing officer is concerned, we find that the ITO, Ward-1, Vapi/Assessing Officer assumed the jurisdiction on the basis of valid transfer order issued by the CCIT, Surat dated 23/07/2012 passed under section 127 of Income Tax Act. Thus, the additional grounds No. 6 to 8 fails. 18. So far as further additional grounds No. 9 to 11 of the appeal are concerned, we find that once the assessment order was initiated by a ACIT-Vapi by issuing notice under section 143(2). There is no dispute that the said notice under section 143(2) was duly served on the assessee. We find that notice under section 143(2) was issued by ACIT-Vapi, who had jurisdiction over the assessee and the jurisdiction over the assessee was transfer on of transfer order by ld CCIT- Surat, under Section 127, thus, the ITO-1 Vapi assumed the Jurisdiction to pass the assessment order. The ld CCIT- Surat is competent to transfer the case as per the monitory limit of assessment as clearly mentioned in the transfer order. We find that none of the case laws relied by the ld. AR of the assessee is applicable on the facts of the present case. In Tata Sons Vs ACIT (supra), the assessment was initiated by ACIT and in the middle it was taken over and 17

ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 Base Industries Ltd Vs ITO completed by Additional CIT and in absence of order under section 127, it was held that Additional CIT was not competent to pass assessment order. In case of Kishore Vithaldas Vs JCIT (supra) it was held that Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) has no authority and jurisdiction in absence of order under section 120(4)(b) of the Act. In Jindal Steel Vs JCIT (supra) there was no order from Commissioner of Income Tax for conferring power on JCIT to exercise jurisdiction and no order for transferring the case from one assessing officer to other officer. In ITO Vs NVS Builder ITA No. 3729 /Del/2012, first notice under section 143(2) was issued by ITO Faridabad on 23.10.2007, who was not the assessing officer having no jurisdiction of assessee in that case. The assessee informed the assessing officer that he has filed return of income at Delhi, then ITO- ward-10(1) New Delhi issed notice under section 143(2) on 23.07.2008 which was beyond the statutory period. In cosmat Trader Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (supra), the jurisdiction over the assessee was of ITO-ward -7(1) Kolkata and notice under section 143(2) was issued by ITO-ward-6(1) Kolkata, who has no jurisdiction over the assessee. Finally, in Harvinder Singh Jaggi Vs ACIT (supra) no order under section 127 was passed by CIT for transferring case to assessing officer/ Add CIT. Thus, facts of all the case laws cited by ld AR for the assessee is not help full to him. Therefore, additional ground of appeal being ground no. 9 to 11 is also dismissed. 18

ITA No. 3424/Ahd/2015 Base Industries Ltd Vs ITO 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08th June, 2022 and result was placed on the notice board.

Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 08/06/2022 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee – 2. Revenue - 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By order

Sr.Private Secretary, ITAT, Surat