M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

68 11,802.94 60,14,350 2013-14 33 5,715.12 32,39,123 Total 249 44,328.29 2,21,59,393 On perusal of details submitted by the assessee it is observed that the average area of each plot works out to 212.91 sq. yard. The working is shown as under - Total are of Plots Area of Each Plot

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

68 11,802.94 60,14,350 2013-14 33 5,715.12 32,39,123 Total 249 44,328.29 2,21,59,393 On perusal of details submitted by the assessee it is observed that the average area of each plot works out to 212.91 sq. yard. The working is shown as under - Total are of Plots Area of Each Plot

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISES,, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

68 11,802.94 60,14,350 2013-14 33 5,715.12 32,39,123 Total 249 44,328.29 2,21,59,393 On perusal of details submitted by the assessee it is observed that the average area of each plot works out to 212.91 sq. yard. The working is shown as under - Total are of Plots Area of Each Plot

THAKORDAS PAREKH & SONS,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, NAVSARI

In the result, ground No. 2 & 3

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.167/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Thakordas Parekh & Sons Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Bazar Street, Chikhli, Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Vs Navsari-396530 Income Tax Office, Pan No: Aabft 4593 J Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 30.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 23.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Thakordas Parekh & Sons Of Assessing Officer In Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The Act.

68 of the Act and taxed under section 155BBE of the Act. The assessing officer recorded in the show cause notice that assessee-firm has failed to furnish complete details of parties to whom sales were made leading to cash generation. Further assessee failed to justify the abrupt 4 Thakordas Parekh & Sons cash sales just before demonetization period. Thus

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) (1),, SURAT vs. ANUSHREE SAREES PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue ( In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1680 To 1682/Ahd/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.61/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. M/S. Anushree Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Surat. D-5409, Raghukul Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagca5772J (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

129 Rounded off 9,45,47,130 Deemed Total Income u/s 115JB 58,65,676 8.1 The ground no. 1 of the appeal is regarding rejection of books of accounts. On detailed perusal of the assessment order, it is found that the Id assessing officer has not given a categorical finding that he is rejecting books of accounts. Even though

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) (1),, SURAT vs. ANUSHREE SAREES PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue ( In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1680 To 1682/Ahd/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.61/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. M/S. Anushree Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Surat. D-5409, Raghukul Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagca5772J (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

129 Rounded off 9,45,47,130 Deemed Total Income u/s 115JB 58,65,676 8.1 The ground no. 1 of the appeal is regarding rejection of books of accounts. On detailed perusal of the assessment order, it is found that the Id assessing officer has not given a categorical finding that he is rejecting books of accounts. Even though

DY. C.I.T.CIR., 1(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S ANUSHREE SAREES PVT.LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue ( In ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1680 To 1682/Ahd/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.61/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. M/S. Anushree Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Surat. D-5409, Raghukul Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagca5772J (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

129 Rounded off 9,45,47,130 Deemed Total Income u/s 115JB 58,65,676 8.1 The ground no. 1 of the appeal is regarding rejection of books of accounts. On detailed perusal of the assessment order, it is found that the Id assessing officer has not given a categorical finding that he is rejecting books of accounts. Even though

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, SURAT vs. M/S. TRANSIT GEO SYSTEMS INTEGRATORS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3330/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) D.C.I.T., Circle-2(1)(1), M/S Transit Geo Systems Integrator Pvt. Ltd., 13-C-404, 1St Floor, Room No.223, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Parshvanath Complex, Above Bhakti Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Automobiles, Udhna, Magdalla Road, Surat-395017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadct 4158 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) of the Act. Therefore, ld Counsel prays the Bench that order passed by ld CIT(A) is just and proper and the same may be upheld. ITA No.3330/AHD/2016 A.Y. 12-13 M/s Transit Geo Suystems Integrators Pvt. Ltd. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that assessee has submitted

SHIVAM RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,VALSAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shivam Residential Construction Principal Commissioner Of (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Civil Income-Tax-Valsad, Palak Vs. Hospital Road, Nanakwada, Valsad Arcade, Pali Hill, Santinagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapcs 3137 G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Milin Mehta, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-D.R

68 including the loan confirmation and copy of bank statement of the lenders. However, the perusal of the assessee’s reply filed vide letter dated 12.02.2016 shows that the assessee has filed invalid loan confirmations as the same do not contain the bank account number of the lenders. The AO has not bothered to examine the validity of loan confirmations

SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

129 & 175 Plot No. Z & E, Jolva Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Aaykar RS No.120 & 120/1, Surat- Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 394305 395002 PAN : AABCD 8894 P Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Tax-Circle-2(1)(2), Aayakar Ltd. Block No.129 & 175, Plot Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- No.Z & E,RS No.120 & 120/1, Surat

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT vs. M/S. SHREE DURGA SYNTEX PVT. LTD, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

129 & 175 Plot No. Z & E, Jolva Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Aaykar RS No.120 & 120/1, Surat- Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 394305 395002 PAN : AABCD 8894 P Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s Shree Durga Syntex Pvt. Tax-Circle-2(1)(2), Aayakar Ltd. Block No.129 & 175, Plot Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- No.Z & E,RS No.120 & 120/1, Surat

ITO WARD 2(1)(4), SURAT vs. M/S VESTA EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED., SURAT

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court) The Ito, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. M/S. Vesta Exim Private Limited, Surat. Victoriya Palms, Opp. Unnati Gas Godown, Dumas Road, Surat- 395002, Gujarat. Revenue Assessee

3. On appeal before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed written detailed submission. The detailed submission recorded by Assessing Officer within para no.6 of ld. CIT(A). In the written submission, the assessee submitted that the assessee purchased land at Dumas Road, Surat, developed in the project of Victoria Palms by dividing the some plots and bungalows. During the survey

ITO, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT vs. MAHESHCHAND G. PATEL (HUF), SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., Maheshchandra G. Patel (Huf), Ward-2(2)(3), 22, Vrajbhumi, Tirumala Society, In Vs. Surat. Front Of Balaji Nagar, Piplod, Surat. Pan No. Aajhm 2315 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

68,000/- for purchase of 9 ITO Vs Maheshchandra G. Patel (HUF) agricultural land in survey No. 104 and sold his share and received Rs. 19,80,000/- in return. The amount of addition added by Assessing Officer was never earned by assessee. The purchaser of land is not agriculturists. In the alleged seized material, there is no distribution

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. MITSU LIMITED,, DAMAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

68. Ground No. 3 states that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that expenditure incurred of Rs.1,43,200 on registration of trademark and reviewing the draft technology agreement was revenue in nature though the same was giving enduring benefit. 69. The assessee has incurred trademark expenses of Rs. 1,54,200 and Rs. 40,400 for consultancy charges

M/S. MITSU PRIVATE LIMITED,,VAPI vs. THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

68. Ground No. 3 states that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that expenditure incurred of Rs.1,43,200 on registration of trademark and reviewing the draft technology agreement was revenue in nature though the same was giving enduring benefit. 69. The assessee has incurred trademark expenses of Rs. 1,54,200 and Rs. 40,400 for consultancy charges

JINESH RAMESHCHANDRA SHETH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), BHARUCH

In the result, ground No. of the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.513/Srt/2019 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Jinesh Rameshchandra Income Tax Officer, Sheth, 72, Princess Street, Ward-2(2), Bharuch, Vs Chapsey Building, Room Bharuch-392001 No.35, 3Rd Floor, Mumbai- 400002 Pan No: Ahzps 5778 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajiv Chanda, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23.02.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 28.04.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara [For Short To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 02.08.2019 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Officer-Ward-2(2), Bharuch /Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.03.2015. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “ Jinesh R Sheth “I. Addition On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 – Rs.21,57,500/-: 1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.21,57,500/- To The Income Of The Assessee By Confirming The Following Amounts As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act. Name Relationship Pan Amount 1 Shri Chimanlal Sheth Grand Father Bcaps7685D 11,50,000/- 2 Utkarsh V Sheth Nephew Cxbps0158K 25,000/- 3 Medha Sheth Wife Bawps2706J 3,99,500/- 4 Chintak Sheth Son-17 Yr. Cwfps3715P 4,82,000/- 5 V R Sheth Brother Ahzps5785J 1,01,000/- Sub Total: 21,57,500/-

section 68 of the Act. There is no dispute about the identity of the lenders, who are either relative or family members. Against the addition of loan from Chimanlal Sheth, the ld AR for the assessee submits that he was grandfather of assessee, who is passed away on 11.06.2015. Late Chimanlal Sheth had given loan

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, SURAT vs. M/S. BALAR EXPORTS,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No’S.3188 & 3189/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 1.M/S. Balar Exports, Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Balar Building, Opp. Surat. Panchratna Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aacfb 4703 H] 2.M/S. Balar Exports, 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Balar Building, Opp. Income Tax, Central Panchratna Tower, Lambe Circle-1, Surat. Hanuman Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aacfb 4703 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah - Ca Shri Srinivas T. Bidari - Cit(D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 11.12.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 04.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Cross Appeals By The Revenue & Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Ahmedabad (In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 19.10.2011 For The Assessment Year 2008-09, Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Dated 31.12.2010 Of Balar Exports V. Dcit-Cc-1-Surat & Vice- Versa /I.T.A.No’S. 3189 & 3188/Ahd/2011/A.Y.2008-09 Page 2 Of 49

section 37 of the Act. In view of above facts and circumstances, we dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and allow the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 of revenue is dismissed and Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 22. Ground No.4: is against the deletion of unaccounted income from unaccounted manufacturing

M/S. BALAR EXPORTS,,SURAT vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT. CIRCLE-1,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No’S.3188 & 3189/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 1.M/S. Balar Exports, Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Balar Building, Opp. Surat. Panchratna Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aacfb 4703 H] 2.M/S. Balar Exports, 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Balar Building, Opp. Income Tax, Central Panchratna Tower, Lambe Circle-1, Surat. Hanuman Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aacfb 4703 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah - Ca Shri Srinivas T. Bidari - Cit(D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 11.12.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 04.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Cross Appeals By The Revenue & Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Ahmedabad (In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 19.10.2011 For The Assessment Year 2008-09, Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Dated 31.12.2010 Of Balar Exports V. Dcit-Cc-1-Surat & Vice- Versa /I.T.A.No’S. 3189 & 3188/Ahd/2011/A.Y.2008-09 Page 2 Of 49

section 37 of the Act. In view of above facts and circumstances, we dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and allow the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 of revenue is dismissed and Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 22. Ground No.4: is against the deletion of unaccounted income from unaccounted manufacturing