M/s. Rajhans Construction Co.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 485/RJT/2012 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 48524914 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AADFR9681D
Bench Rajkot
Appeal Number ITA 485/RJT/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Rajhans Construction Co.,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT
Respondent The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 04-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 04-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 29-08-2013
Next Hearing Date 29-08-2013
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 28-08-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL: RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI T K SHARMA JM AND SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA AM ITA NO. 485/RJT/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S. RAJHANS CONSTRUCTION CO. V. ITO WARD-1(3) RAJKOT PEVAR KRUTI APPARTMENT SHRI RAM PARK MAIN ROAD KALAWAD ROAD RAJKOT PAN: AADFR 9681 D DATE OF HEARING : 29.08.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.10.2013 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D R ADHIA AR REVENUE BY : SHRI M K SINGH DR ORDER D. K. SRIVASTAVA: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) GANDHINAGAR AHMEDABAD ON 18.07.2012 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CO NFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.10 00 000/- MADE U/S 68. THE SAME NEEDS DELETION . 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CON FIRMING ADDITION OF RS.10 00 000/- MADE U/S 68 WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE LA W AS SETTLED BY THE HON. GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT THE SOURCE OF SOURCE I S NOT REQUIRED TO EB PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION NEEDS DELETION . 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.10 00 000/- WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE HONOURS DIS CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION NEEDS DELETION. 4. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE LEGAL AS WELL AS F ACTUAL ASPECT NO ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.10 00 000/- OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED. THE ADDITION NEEDS DELETION. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FA CTS IN CONFIRMING LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS.12446/- AT 20% IN RESPECT O F VEHICLE EXPENSES OF RS.62230/- TREATING THE SAME AS FOR PERSONAL USE A LL THOUGH THERE IS NO SCOPE OF ANY PERSONAL USE. THE DISALLOWANCE NEEDS D ELETION. 2 485-RJT-2012 RAJHANS CONSTRUCTION CO. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FA CTS IN CONFIRMING LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS.1060/- AT 20% IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE DEPRECIATION OF RS.5300/- TREATING THE SAME AS FOR PERSONAL USE AL L THOUGH THERE IS NO SCOPE OF ANY PERSONAL USE. THE DISALLOWANCE NEEDS D ELETION. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FA CTS IN CONFIRMING LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS.12309/- AT 20% IN RESPECT O F TELEPHONE EXPENSES OF RS.61543/- TREATING THE SAME AS FOR PERSONAL USE ALL THOUGH THERE IS NO SCOPE OF ANY PERSONAL USE. MOREVER TAKING INTO CONS IDERATION THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION NO ADDITION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE. THE DISALLOWANCE NEEDS DELETION. 8. ALL THE ABOVE ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES MADE IN ASSESSMENT ORDER OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN MADE BEING IN AGAINST OF LEG AL STATUTORY AS WELL AS FACTUAL POSITION NEEDS CANCELLATION. 9. WITHOUT PREJUDICES THE 3 DISALLOWANCES MADE AS MENTION AT GROUNDS NO.5 6 & 7 ARE ON HIGHER SIDE NEEDS SUITABLE REDUC TION. 10. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER/AMEND A ND/OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OR ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE ACTUAL HEARING TAKES PLACE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM. IT IS ENGAGED IN CONSTRU CTION BUSINESS. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.11.2006 RETURNING NIL INCOME . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT A CA SH CREDIT OF RS.10 00 000/- HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS IN T HE YEAR UNDER APPEAL IN THE NAME OF M/S. SHIV TRADERS. HE THEREFORE CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE AFORESAID CASH CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY REPLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING O FFICER THEREFORE TREATED THE IMPUGNED CASH CREDIT AS UNEXPLAINED AND CONSEQUENTL Y ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FOLLOWING OBS ERVATIONS:- 4. ADDITION ON A/C OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN T HE NAME OF M/S. SHIV TRADERS . 3 485-RJT-2012 RAJHANS CONSTRUCTION CO. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THREE CASH CREDITORS INCLUDING OF RS.10 00 000/- IN THE N AME OF M/S. SHIV TRADERS. AS PER QUESTIONNAIRE CUM NOTICE U/S 142(1) VIDE DAT ED 27/5/2008 ASSESSEE WAS CATEGORICALLY ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOU RCE OF CASH CREDITS INCLUDING THE CASH CREDITS OF RS.10 00 000/- FROM M /S. SHIV TRADERS. ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO FILE CONTRA ACCOUNT COP Y OF RETURN OF INCOME PAN OF THE DEPOSITORS. ASSESSEE NEVER FILED THE CON TRA A/C COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME AND PAN OF THE DEPOSITORS. A FINAL SHOW C AUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED VIDE NO.ITO/WD.1(3)/143(3)/08-09 DATED 4/11/2008 W AS ALSO ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE DID NOT CARE TO ATTEND THE NOTICE WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION OF CASH CREDITS OF RS.10 00 000/-. AS SUCH IT IS CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT A ND REQUIRES TO BE ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. ACCORDINGLY RS.10 00 000/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL I NCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 271 OF THE I.T. ACT IS ALSO ISSUED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY ONE SHRI SANDIP K. SHAH W AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). A COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEME NT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. SHIV TRADERS WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE TH E LD CIT(A) WHICH SHOWS THAT M/S. SHIV TRADERS HAS PASSED A JOURNAL ENTRY OF RS. 10 00 000/- ON 02.02.2006. THE LD CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS ALSO THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD CIT(A) THEREFORE C ONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 4.5 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO ALONG WIT H THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT OBSERVATIONS/DECISIONS ARE MADE ON THE ISSUE: 4 485-RJT-2012 RAJHANS CONSTRUCTION CO. I) THE AO HAD ASKED THE APPELLANT VIDE NOTICE DATE D 27/5/2008 TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CREDIT ALONGWITH CONFIRME D COPY OF ACCOUNT PAN ETC. NO DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED; NOT EVEN THE CO PY OF ACCOUNT OR PROOF OF IDENTITY ETC. A FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WA S ISSUED ON 4/11/2008 BUT NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE EVEN THEN. EVEN IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT AGAIN ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT; IT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLA INED WHY EVEN THE IDENTITY O THE CLAIMED CREDITOR WAS NOT PROVED AFTE R 6 MONTHS OF TIME WAS GIVEN. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE OF FILING A LETTER THROUGH POST AND NOT EVEN ATTENDING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS T O SEEK TIME / NOTE NEXT DATE OF HEARING IF ALLOWED SHOWS THAT THE ADJO URNMENT LETTER WAS NOT A SINCERE ATTEMPT OF COMPLIANCE. II) EVEN IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS; NO RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE CLAIMED CREDITOR AS REPORTED BY THE AO. EVEN THE A PPELLANT IN RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC 131 NOTICE CHOSE NOT TO ATTEND HEARINGS . CLEARLY THE APPELLANT WAS AVOIDING SCRUTINY OF THE TRANSACTION AND EVIDENCES SUBMITTED AND WAS NOT CO-OPERATING WITH THE AO TO D ISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROVING THE CASH CREDIT. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE PRIMARY ONUS OF PROVING THE CREDIT IS ON THE APPELLANT ONLY. III) EVEN WHEN THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO WAS FORW ARDED TO THE APPELLANT; IT HAS NOT OFFERED TO CO-OPERATE TO PROV E GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND JUST RELIED ON THE EARLIER SUBMISSI ONS:. IV) IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT EVEN THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAS NOT BEEN PROVED. THE TRANSACTION IS CLAIMED BY WAY OF A JOURNAL ENTRY. HOW AND IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES THE OTHER PARTY IS CLAIME D TO HAVE MADE PAYMENT TO A THIRD PARTY ON ITS BEHALF IS NOT EXPLA INED. BY AVOIDING GIVING ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN AFTER 5 MONTHS AND BY NOT ITSELF COMPLYING WITH 131 NOTICE ISSUED IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS; IT HAS PROVED THAT IT DOESNT W ANT THE TRANSACTIONS TO BE EXAMINED. 5 485-RJT-2012 RAJHANS CONSTRUCTION CO. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AS NARRATED ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TOTALLY FAILED TO PROVE THE NATURE AN D SOURCE OF THE RECEIPT CLAIMED. EVEN THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HA S NOT BEEN PROVED. EVEN THE BASIC ONUS U/S 68 HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED. THE ADDITION IS THEREFORE FULLY JUSTIFIED. THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ROSHAN DI HATTI 107 ITR 938 HAS HELD THAT WHERE NATURE AND SOURCE OF A RECEIPT WH ETHER IT BE OF MONEY OR OF OTHER PROPERTY CANNOT BE SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BY ASSESSEE IT IS OPEN TO REVENUE TO HOLD THAT IT IS INCOME OF ASSESSEE AND N O FURTHER BURDEN LIES ON REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THAT INCOME IS FROM ANY PARTIC ULAR SOURCE. SAME PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN MANY CASES INCL UDING HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANGILAL JAIN 315 ITR 105 AND HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRECISION FINANC E PVT LTD 208 ITR 465. WHERE THE TRANSACTION HAS NOT BEEN PROVED GENUINE THE RELIANCE OF THE APPELLANT ON THE CASE OF ROHINI BUILDERS 256 ITR 36 0 IS TOTALLY MISPLACED. HERE EVEN THE GENUINENESS HAS NOT BEEN PROVED NOR THE SOURCE. QUESTION OF SOURCE OF SOURCE HAS NOT EVEN BEEN RAISED. THE ADDI TION U/S 68 MADE BY THE AO IS FULLY JUSTIFIED AND IS CONFIRMED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUN AL. THE APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 03.12.2012. THE LD AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT SOME IMPORTAN T DETAILS WERE UNDER COMPILATION. THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 11.12.201 2. ON 11.12.2012 THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AGAIN SO UGHT ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS SUFFERING FROM CONJUNCTIVITIS. H E ALSO ASSURED THAT HE WOULD ENSURE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON THE NEXT DATE OF HE ARING. THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING WAS FIXED ON 21.08.2013. THE LD AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON 21.08.2013 ON THE GROUN D THAT THE DETAILS WERE UNDER ACTIVE COMPILATION. HEARING WAS ADJOURNED ONC E AGAIN WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT IT WAS LAST OPPORTUNITY BEING GIVEN TO THE ASS ESSEE. THE HEARING WAS ACCORDINGLY ADJOURNED TO 23.08.2013. THE ASSESSEE A GAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON 6 485-RJT-2012 RAJHANS CONSTRUCTION CO. THE GROUND THAT IMPORTANT DETAILS WERE UNDER ACTIVE COMPILATION. HEARING WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT THE NEXT HEARING WOULD BE THE LAST OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THAT IS HOW THE HEARIN G ULTIMATELY TOOK PLACE ON 29.08.2013. IT IS INTERESTING TO MENTION THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED NO DETAILS EXCEPT THOSE VERY DETAILS WHICH WERE EARLIER FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) NAMELY COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RETURN FILED BY SHRI SANDIP K. SHAH AND COPY OF ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF RAJHANS CONSTRUCTION CO. APPEA RING IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. SHIV TRADERS IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALL ALONG BEEN SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS RIGHT FROM 03.12.2012 ON THE GROUND TH AT RELEVANT DETAILS WERE UNDER ACTIVE COMPILATION. IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO FURTHER DETAILS TO ESTABLISH EITHER THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR OR THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE IMPUG NED CASH CREDIT WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER RELIED ON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). 5. IN REPLY THE LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUP PORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY CON SIDERED THEIR SUBMISSIONS. WE ARE DISTRESSED TO OBSERVE THAT THE JUDICIAL PROC ESS HAS LITERALLY BEEN ABUSED IN THIS CASE. ADJOURNMENTS HAVE BEEN SOUGHT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON ONE GROUND OR THE OTHER TO PROTRACT THE LITIGATION. NO DETAILS EXCEPT TWO PAPERS WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WERE FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT ADJOURNMENTS WERE SOUGHT SEVERAL TIMES OVER A PERIOD OF EIGHT MONTHS ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPILING RELEV ANT INFORMATION. 7. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECORD ED CASH CREDIT OF RS.10 00 000/- IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF M/S. SHIV TRADERS. IT WAS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF TH E IMPUGNED CASH CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER ESTABLISHED THE CREDITWORTHINE SS OF THE CREDITOR NOR THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS UNDER WHICH THE IMP UGNED SUM WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. SHIV TRADERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN F ILED CONFIRMATION OF M/S. SHIV TRADERS. THE MODE AND MANNER IN WHICH THE IMPUGNED SUM WAS RECEIVED BY THE 7 485-RJT-2012 RAJHANS CONSTRUCTION CO. ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AS REGARDS THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE IMPUGNED CA SH CREDIT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NO OPTION EXCEPT TO CONFIRM THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 8. THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSE E IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. SHIV TRADERS AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HARDLY OF ANY RELEVANCE IN AS MUCH AS IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS ON ACCO UNT OF WHICH THE IMPUGNED SUM WAS GIVEN BY M/S. SHIV TRADERS TO THE ASSESSEE. CREDITWORTHINESS OF M/S. SHIV TRADERS HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S. SHIV TRADERS HAS NOT BEEN FILED. IT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED AS TO WHE THER THE AFORESAID MONEY WAS GIVEN BY M/S. SHIV TRADERS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL OR NOT. MERE FILING OF COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME OF SHRI SANDIP K . SHAH NEITHER ESTABLISHES THAT THE MONEY WAS GIVEN BY M/S. SHIV TRADERS NOR O THERWISE EXPLAINS THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE IMPUGNED CASH CREDIT. IN THIS VIE W OF THE MATTER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. FIRST FOUR G ROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 9. REMAINING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING CERTAIN OTHER ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES. T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE FOLLOWING REASONS FOR CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED DISAL LOWANCES. 6. THE NEXT THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AGAINST DI SALLOWANCE OF 20% OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES VEHICLE EXPENSES AND PRO PORTIONATE DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLES. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THESE ARE EXCESSIVE AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% WOULD SUFFICE . 6.1 I OBSERVE THAT THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE IS OF RS. 25 814/-. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVED THAT THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM HAD AN Y OTHER VEHICLES AND TELEPHONE WHOSE EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN DEBITED TO B USINESS AND WHICH HAVE BEEN USED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES. THE TOTAL DIS ALLOWANCE IS THEREFORE VERY SMALL AND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNREASONABLE. T HE DISALLOWANCES ARE THEREFORE CONFIRMED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DIS MISSED. 8 485-RJT-2012 RAJHANS CONSTRUCTION CO. 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED NO MATERIAL BEFORE US T O REBUT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD CIT(A). ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS REASONABLE. HIS ORDER IN THIS BEHALF IS C ONFIRMED. GROUND NOS. 5 TO 9 ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 04.10.2013 SD/- SD/- (T. K. SHARMA) ( D. K. SRIVASTAVA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER RAJKOT: 04.10.2013 *BT COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT M/S. RAJHANS CONSTRUCTION CO. PEVAR KRUTI APPARTMENT SHRI RAM PARK MAIN ROAD KALAWAD ROAD RAJKOT 2. RESPONDENT- ITO WARD-1(3) RAJKOT 3. CONCERNED CIT AHMEDABAD 4. CIT (A) GANDHINAGAR AHMEDABAD 5. DR ITAT RAJKOT 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER TRUE COPY PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT RAJKOT