ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 3(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI V. THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 1970/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves cross-appeals by The Shipping Corporation of India Limited and the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, against the same order pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. The primary legal contention revolved around the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer based on a mere change of opinion without any new tangible material. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of whether the Assessing Officer was justified in not treating reimbursement of overheads for managed vessels as profit from core activities and in directing the addition of a mark-up on these reimbursements. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the reassessment was significantly influenced by procedural lapses in handling the assessee's objections.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36646 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO, Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax-10(3), KSS Petron Private Limited vs. ACIT, Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KISHOR DHULE; DR
• Assessee Lawyers: NITESH JOSHI; NEHA VIKAM; ARS; REVIVING STALE OLD MATTERS; REVIVING STALE
• Keywords: Set aside; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Revised return; Transfer pricing; Reassessment proceedings; Question of law; Period of limitation; Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Tangible material
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 153; 139(1); 13; 115JB

Judgement Text

"| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ा यपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & BEFORE SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 The Shipping Corporation of India Limited 245 Shipping House Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Maharashtra [PAN: AAACT1524F] Vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assist ant Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीला थ\u0016/ (Appellant) \u0017\u0018 यथ\u0016/ (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assist ant Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Vs The Shipping Corporation of India Limited 245 Shipping House Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Maharashtra [PAN: AAACT1524F] अपीला थ\u0016/ (Appellant) \u0017\u0018 यथ\u0016/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Neha Vikam, A/Rs Revenue by : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 09/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 & I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024, are cross-appeals by the assessee and the revenue against the very same order dated 09/02/2024 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter ‘the ld. CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2016-17. I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 2 2. The cross-appeals were heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Grievance of the assessee reads as under- “1.0 GROUND NO. 1 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of reassessment proceedings, despite the same having been initiated on the basis of mere change of opinion, without any new tangible material/ information coming to the possession of the assessing officer subsequent to completion of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). GROUND NO. 2 The CIT(A) has erred in not treating reimbursement of overheads for managed vessels as profit from core activities. 3.0 GROUND NO. 3 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the assessing officer to make addition towards mark-up calculated @ 2.50% on reimbursement of overheads for managed vessels. The appellant craves leave to add and/or to amend and /or to delete any ground out of the foregoing grounds of appeal, at any time before the hearing or during the course of hearing.” 4. The grievance of the revenue reads as under:- “1. Whether on the facts of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the mark-up on reimbursement of overheads for managed vessels form the total income of the appellant? 2. Whether on the facts of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the foreign fluctuation gain from the total income of the appellant? 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend and/or vary the grounds of Appeal before or during the course of hearing.” 5. Vide application dated 26/07/2024, the assessee sought permission to raise the following additional ground of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Id. AO has erred passing the Assessment order without disposing the objections filed by the appellant which is in violation of the procedure as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KN Driveshafts (India) Ltd and hence the reassessment proceedings are invalid and bad in law.” 6. Since the additional ground mentioned hereinabove, goes to the root of the matter, we decided to adjudicate it first. I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 3 7. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused and the relevant documentary evidence brought on record along with judicial decisions referred, duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules, 1963. 8. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee electronically filed its return of income on 29/11/2016 declaring total income of Rs.1,79,14,88,584/- under normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs.1,65,32,24,597/- u/s 115JB of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and vide order dated 11/12/2018, framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the returned income was assessed at Rs.2,23,10,90,360/- under the normal provisions of the Act and book profit at Rs.1,88,11,20,919/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Vide notice dated 27/03/2021 issued u/s 148 of the Act, the AO proposed to assess/re- assess the income of the assessee asking the assessee to file its return of income. Vide letter dated 19/04/2021, the assessee asked the AO to treat the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act as the return filed pursuant to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The AO gave following reasons for re-opening of assessment:- ***This space has been left blank intentionally. P.T.O.*** I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 4 I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 5 9. Vide submissions dated 30/11/2021, the assessee objected the reopening of the assessment strongly contending that reopening is invalid in absence of any new material on record to establish that income has escaped assessment. The objections raised by the assessee read as under:- I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 6 I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 7 I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 8 I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 9 I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 10 I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 11 10. Without disposing off the objections raised by the assessee, the AO proceeded with the re-assessment proceedings. The assessee repeatedly pointed out to the AO that he has strong objections on the re-assessment proceedings. Specific instances are, submission dated I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 12 06/01/2022 which is placed at pages 86 to 88 of the paper books, submission dated 24/03/2022 which is placed at pages 76 to 79 of the paper book, submissions dated 30/11/2021 exhibited at pages 70 to 75 of the paper book. 10.1. In spite of several reminders during the course of assessment proceedings itself, the AO did not consider the submissions of the assessee insofar as, specific objections were concerned. The AO finally framed the assessment order dated 30/03/2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act without disposing the objections raised by the assessee. The entire quarrel revolves around this action of the AO. 11. The ld. D/R vehemently stated that the proposed draft assessment order is nothing but the disposal of the objections raised by the assessee. 11.1. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the impugned draft assessment order dated 24/03/2022. We do not find any whisper in respect of disposal of any objection in the said draft assessment order which is placed on record. 12. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax-10(3) reported in 382 ITR 333 (Bombay) had the occasion to consider a similar quarrel and held as under:- “11. In the present facts, we find that the draft Assessment order was passed on 30th March, 2015 without having disposed of the Petitioner's objections to the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice. The reasons were supplied to the Petitioner only on 19th March, 2015 and the Petitioner had filed the objections to the same on 25th March, 2015. This passing of the draft Assessment order without having disposed of the objections is in defiance of the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra). Thus, the draft Assessment order dated 30th March, 2015 is not sustainable being without jurisdiction. This for the reason that it has been passed without disposing of the objections filed by the Petitioner to the I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 13 reasons recorded in support of their impugned notice. Accordingly, we set aside the draft Assessment order dated 30th March, 2015. We are not dealing the validity of the reasons in support of the impugned notice in the present facts as the time limit to pass the Assessment order as provided under 4th Proviso to sub-section(2) of Section 153 of the Act has already expired when the petition was filed. 13. In the case of KSS Petron Private Limited vs. ACIT in Income Tax Appeal No. 224 of 2014, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was seized with the following substantial question of law:- “ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer after having quashed/ set aside the order dated 14th December, 2009 passed by the Assessing Officer without having disposed of the objections filed by the appellant to the reasons recorded in support f the reopening Notice dated 28th March, 2008.?” 13.1. And the Hon’ble High Court, interalia held as under:- “7 On further Appeal, the Tribunal passed the impugned order. By the impugned order it held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in finalizing the Assessment, without having first disposed of the objections of the appellant. This impugned order holds the Assessing Officer is obliged to do in terms of the Apex Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., v/s. ITO 259 ITR 19. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer were quashed and set aside. However, after having set aside the orders, it restored the Assessment to the Assessing Officer to pass fresh order after disposing of the objections to reopening notice dated 28 th March, 2008, in accordance with law. 8 We note that once the impugned order finds the Assessment Order is without jurisdiction as the law laid down by the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (supra) has not been followed, then there is no reason to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer to pass a further/fresh order. If this is permitted, it would give a licence to the Assessing Officer to pass orders on reopening notice, without jurisdiction (without compliance of the law in accordance with the procedure), yet the only consequence, would be that in appeal, it would be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after following the due procedure. This would lead to unnecessary harassment of the Assessee by reviving stale/ old matters. 9 In fact, to ensure that reopening notices are disposed of, expeditiously the parliament itself has provided in Section 153(2) of the Act a period of limitation within which the Assessing Officer must pass an order on the notice of reopening i.e. within one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice was issued. In fact, Section 153 (2A) of the Act as in force at the relevant time itself provides that an order of fresh Assessment, consequent to the order of Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act, would have to be passed within one year from the end of the financial year I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 14 in which the order under Section 254 of the Act, was passed by the Tribunal and received by the Commissioner of Income Tax. 10 The Director of the appellant has filed an affidavit dated 19th September, 2006. In the affidavit, it is stated that consequent to the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 14th August, 2013, the Assessing Officer has not passed any order of reassessment. Time was granted on the last occasion to enable the Respondent to respond to the affidavit dated 19th September, 2006 of the Director of the Appellant Company. The Respondent is unable to dispute the facts stated in the affidavit dated 19th September, 2016 filed by the Director of the Appellant Company. The time to pass a order on the notice dated 28th March, 2008, even consequent to the impugned order of the Tribunal, has lapsed. 11 Therefore, on the above facts and law, the substantial question of law is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Appellant Assessee and against the Respondent Revenue.” 14. In yet another case of Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. vs. ACIT, in Tax Appeal No. 63 of 2007, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay was seized with the following question of law:- “(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have held that since the respondent did not furnish to the appellant the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 1997-98 and did not comply with the mandatory preconditions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft vs. ITO 259 ITR page 19, the reassessment order was bad in law as being opposed to the principles of natural justice ?” 15. And the Hon’ble High Court held as under:- “9. Rival contentions now fall for determination. 10. As noted by us above, should the first substantial question of law be answered in favour of the Appellant-Assessee, and against the Respondent-Revenue, then, there will be no necessity to advert to the second substantial question of law framed by us in our order dated 20th November, 2007. 11. In this case, the Assessing Officer, vide notice dated 13th March, 2003, sought to reopen the assessment by invoking the provisions of Section 11 of the said Act. At the reverse of this notice, the Assessing Office, had stated the reason for reopening. Accordingly, it cannot be said that no reasons were furnished to the Appellant for reopening of the assessment or that there is breach of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra), at least, in so far as requirement of furnishing of the reasons for reopening of the assessment is concerned. To that extent, therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Dada that I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 15 this is a matter where the Assessing Officer failed to furnish the reasons for reopening of assessment whilst invoking the provisions of Section 11 of the said Act. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) has, however, further held that once reasons are furnished, the Assessee is entitled to lodge his objections and the Assessing Officer is duty bound to dispose of such objections, by passing a speaking order. 13. In the present case, the Appellants did lodge their objections vide letter dated 14th April, 2003. By a further letter dated 25th March, 2004, the Appellants requested the Assessing Officer to dispose of such objections by passing a speaking order before proceeding with the reassessment in respect of the Assessment Year 1997-98. However, the Assessing Officer, without proceeding to dispose of the objections raised by the Appellants by passing a speaking order, straight away proceeded to make the assessment order dated 26th March, 2004, bringing to charge taxable expenditure on ₹10,22,73,987/-. The assessment order dated 26th March, 2004, no doubt, deals with the objections raised by the Appellant and purports to dispose of the same. Ms. Linhares contends that this is a sufficient compliance with the procedure set out in GKN Driveshafts (India) 10 txa63-07dt. 30-08-19 Ltd. (supra), assuming that the same is at all applicable to the proceedings under the said Act. Mr. Dada, however, submits that such disposal in the assessment order itself does not constitute the compliance with the mandatory conditions prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra). In support, as noted earlier, Mr. Dada relies upon Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd. (supra) and KSS Petron Private Ltd. (supra). 14. The contention of Ms. Linhares that the decisions relied upon by Mr. Dada relate to the provisions of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, are not applicable to the proceedings under the Expenditure Tax Act, cannot be accepted. In the first place, the provisions relating to reopening of assessment are almost pari materia. Secondly, in so far as Assessment Year 1995-96 is concerned, the Respondent applied the very same ruling in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) to hold that the notice of reopening of assessment was ultra vires Section 11 of the said Act. This view, in the specific context of the said Act and incidentally in the specific context of this very Appellant, was upheld not only by this Court, but also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This was in ETA No.1 and 5/PANJ/01 decided by the Tribunal on 4.4.2006. 15. The aforesaid decision of the ITAT was appealed by the Respondent vide Tax Appeal No.71/2006. This appeal was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27th November, 2006, which reads thus : “ Heard the learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. This appeal is filed against the Order dated 4-4-2006 of the ITAT wherein in para 7 the learned ITAT has come to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer is required to give reasons, when asked for by the Assessee. Giving of reasons I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 16 has got to be considered as implicit in Section 11 of the Expenditure Tax Act, 1987. It is now well settled that giving reasons in support of an order is part of complying with the principles of natural justice. In the light of that, no fault could be found with the order of the learned ITAT and as such no substantial question of law arises as well. Appeal dismissed.” 16. The Respondent, instituted a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.5711/2007 which was, however, dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 16/7/2007, by observing that there were no merits. 17. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to accept Ms. Linhares’s contention based upon the any alleged variance between the provisions of the said Act and the provisions of the Income Tax Act, in so far as applicability of the principles in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) is concerned. 18. The moot question is, therefore, the disposal of the objections by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order dated 26th March, 2004 constitutes sufficient compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) or, whether it was necessary for the Assessing Officer to have first disposed of the Appellant’s objections by passing a speaking order and only upon communication of the same to the Appellants, proceeded to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 1997-98. 19. Virtually, an identical issue arose in the cases of Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd. (supra) and KSS Petron Private Ltd. (supra) before the Division Benches of our High Court at Bombay. 20. In Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd. (supra), by a notice dated 6/2/2013, the Revenue sought to reopen the assessment in the year 2007-08. The Assessee filed a revised return of income and sought for reasons recorded in support of the notice dated 6.2.2013. The reasons were furnished only on 19.3.2015. The Assessee lodged objections to the reasons on 25th March, 2015. The Assessing Officer, without disposing of the Petitioner’s objections, made a draft assessment order dated 30th March, 2015, since this was a matter involving transfer pricing. In such circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court, set aside the assessment order by observing that the Court was unable to understand how the Assessing Officer could, at all, exercise the jurisdiction and enter upon an inquiry on the reopening notice before disposing of the objections on the reasons furnished to the Assessee. This Court held that the proceedings initiated by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), on the basis of such a draft assessment order, were without jurisdiction and quashed the same. 21. Similarly, in the case of KSS Petron Private Ltd. (supra), this Court was concerned with the following substantial question of law : “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer after having I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 17 quashed/set aside the order dated 14th December, 2009 passed by the Assessing Officer without having disposed of the objections filed by the appellant to the reasons recorded in support of the re-opening Notice dated 28th March, 2008?” 22. In the aforesaid case, the Assessing Officer had purported to dispose of the objections to the reasons in the assessment order, consequent upon reopening of the assessment. This Court, however, held that the proceedings for reopening of assessment prior to disposing of the Asessee’s objections by passing a speaking order, was an exercise in excess of jurisdiction. 23. KSS Petron Private Ltd. (supra), this is what the Division Bench has observed at paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Judgment : “7. On further Appeal, the Tribunal passed the impugned order. By the impugned order it held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in finalizing the Assessment, without having first disposed of the objections of the appellant. This impugned order holds the Assessing Officer is obliged to do in terms of the Apex Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., v/s. ITO 259 ITR 19. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer were quashed and set aside. However, after having set aside the orders, it restored the Assessment to the Assessing Officer to pass fresh order after disposing of the objections to reopening notice dated 28th March, 2008, in accordance with law. 8. We note that once the impugned order finds the Assessment Order is without jurisdiction as the law laid down by the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (supra) has not been followed, then there is no reason to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer to pass a further/fresh order. If this is permitted, it would give a licence to the Assessing Officer to pass orders on reopening notice, without jurisdiction (without compliance of the law in accordance with the procedure), yet the only consequence, would be that in appeal, it would be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after following the due procedure. This would lead to unnecessary harassment of the Assessee by reviving stale/ old matters.” 24. According to us, the rulings in Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd. (supra) and KSS Petron Private Ltd. (supra) afford a complete answer to the contentions raised by Ms. Linhares in defence of the impugned order. 25. Since, in the present case, the Assessing Officer has purported to assume the jurisdiction for reopening of the assessment, without having first disposed of the Assessee’s objections to the reasons by passing a speaking order, following the law laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra), Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd. (supra) and KSS Petron Private Ltd. (supra), we are constrained to hold that such assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was ultra vires Section 11 of the I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 18 said Act. The first substantial question of law will, accordingly, have to be answered in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent-Revenue. 26. As noted earlier, in view of the aforesaid, there is no necessity to advert to the second substantial question of law, at least, in so far as this Appeal is concerned. The Appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned orders dated 26th March, 2004 made by the Assessing Officer, 30th November, 2004 made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and 12th January, 2007 made by the ITAT are set aside on the ground of want of compliance with jurisdictional parameters by the Assessing Officer, and without going into the second substantial question of law framed in this Appeal. Accordingly, we clarify that the second substantial question of law, raised in this Appeal, is not to be treated as decided in this Appeal, one way or the other.” 16. Considering the facts of the case in totality, in light of the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC), followed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in three decisions mentioned hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the assessment order dated 30/03/2022 framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act is without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. We accordingly set aside the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act thereby setting aside the impugned assessment order. The additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Since we have quashed the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act, we do not find it necessary to delve into the merits of the case. 17. In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 9th January, 2025 at Mumbai. Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 09/01/2025 *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs I.T.A. No. 1752/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 1970/Mum/2024 19 आदेश की \u0015ितिलिप अ\u001aेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. \u0015 थ / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\" / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु\" ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \u0015ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 6. गाड& फाई/ Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Mumbai "