PRABHAKAR T. BHANDARY, MUMBAI V. DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI

CO 178/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3367 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 23-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Capital asset; Additional evidence
• Section: 2(14); 147; 54

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, C MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4458/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 DCIT-10(1), 455, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. SHRI PRABHAKAR T. BHANDARY, 10-B, MANEK L.D. RUPAREL MARG, MALABAR HILL, MUMBAI-400006 ( / REVENUE) ( !' # /ASSESSEE) PAN. NO.AABPB9427F C.O. NO.178/MUM/2014 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.4458/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI PRABHAKAR T. BHANDARY, 10-B, MANEK L.D. RUPAREL MARG, MALABAR HILL, MUMBAI-400006 / VS. DCIT-10(1), 455, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 ( !' # /ASSESSEE) ( / REVENUE) PAN. NO. AABPB9427F ITA NO. 4458/MUM/2013 & C.O. 178/MUM/2014 PRABHAKAR T. BHANDARY 2 $ % # & / DATE OF HEARING : 07/12/2016 % # & / DATE OF ORDER: 19/12/2016 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/03/2013 OF THE LD. FIRS T APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MUMBAI. THE REVENUE HAS PREFER RED APPEAL, WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED CROSS O BJECTION AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, WHEREIN, THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN TH E IMPUGNED ORDER HOLDING THAT DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ASSESSEES RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY, SITUATED AT KURLA , IS TO BE TAKEN 09/03/2016 I.E. THE DATE OF SIGNING OF DEVEL OPMENT AGREEMENT AND NOT 09/07/2007, ON WHICH DATE THE GI VEN AGREEMENT WAS REGISTERED. FURTHER, NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT AS PER THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT SAYS THAT IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED OTHERWISE, THEN BY A REGISTERED DOCUMENT. GRANTING OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 HAS ALSO BEEN CHALLENGED AS CONDITIONS ENSHRINED IN SECTION 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) WERE NOT FULFILLED. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, THE LD. DR, SHRI RAJAT MITTAL, ADVANCED ARGUMENTS, WHICH IS IDENTICA L TO THE GROUND RAISED. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI ASHO RAO, L D. !' # ! / ASSESSEE BY SHRI ASHOK RAI ! / REVENUE BY SHRI RAJAT MITTAL-DR ITA NO. 4458/MUM/2013 & C.O. 178/MUM/2014 PRABHAKAR T. BHANDARY 3 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION DR AWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IF THE OB SERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, LEADING TO ADDITION M ADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME, CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ASSERTIONS MADE BY TH E LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, IF KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND AN ALYZED, THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE C HAIRMAN- CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR IN M/S BHANDARY POWER LINES P VT. LTD. AND ALSO MANAGING DIRECTOR IN M/S BHANDARY CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD., AN INDIVIDUAL, DECLARED INCO ME OF RS.59,93,020/- ON 04/12/2008, BEING INCOME FROM SAL ARY, HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE EXAMINING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WITH RESPECT TO LONG TER M CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.7,50,00,000/-, WHICH WAS ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 COULD NOT APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REVERSIO NARY RIGHTS IN THE SAID PROPERTY, WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED AND FULL CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING T HE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, GIVING RISE TO CAPITAL GAINS, WHICH WAS TAXED. IT SEEMS T HAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPMEN T AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE SELLER OF T HE IMPUGNED PROPERTY HAVING BEEN ENTERED INTO ON 28/11/2005. WE FIND THAT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT W AS ITA NO. 4458/MUM/2013 & C.O. 178/MUM/2014 PRABHAKAR T. BHANDARY 4 ENTERED ON 09/07/2007 BETWEEN M/S FINE DEVELOPERS (HEREINAFTER DEVELOPER) AND M/S BHANDARY METALLURGI CAL CORPORATION LTD. (OWNER) AND MR. BIRMU T. BHANDARY (FIRST CONFIRMING PARTY), DR. PRABHAKAR T. BHANDARY (SECON D CONFIRMING PARTY), BHANDARY CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD.(TH IRD CONFIRMING PARTY) AND MR. DIVAKAR T. BHANDARY (FOUR TH CONFIRMING PARTY) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHT TO PU RCHASE THE REVERSIONARY RIGHTS TO THE PORTION OF THE PROPE RTY, WHICH WAS OCCUPIED BY THE BHANDARY CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD. A ND AS PER MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT DATED 28/11/2005. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CONSIDERATION TOWARDS THE RELINQUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY RIGHTS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND GOT CAPITAL GAIN, WHICH WAS COMPUTED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 09/07/2007 WAS ENTERED FOR ENTIRE PROPERTY, WHICH ALSO CONFIRMS THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DATED 28/11/2005. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER DENIED THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54, 54EC ON THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PREMISES LET OUT WAS CONSISTING OF TWO BUNGALOW PLOTS, WHERE WERE ME RGED TOGETHER AND A SINGLE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED/BUIL T THEREUPON YIELDING THE RENT. IT IS NOTED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) DULY CONSIDERED THE FACTUAL MATRIX, VARIOUS CASE LAWS (AS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER), THE AGREEMENT DATED 09/03/2006, WH ICH WAS ACCEPTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE RULES AND THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FORWARDED TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, SEEKING REMAND REPORT. THE LD. A SSESSING ITA NO. 4458/MUM/2013 & C.O. 178/MUM/2014 PRABHAKAR T. BHANDARY 5 OFFICER SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT VIDE LETTER DAT ED 20/11/2012, WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGN ED ORDER. THE COMMENTS ON THE REMAND REPORT, AS MENTIO NED IN THE ORDER ITSELF WERE DULY CONSIDERED AND THEN R EACHED TO A CONCLUSION. THE WHOLE ISSUE REVOLVES AROUND CAPIT AL GAIN FROM TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET. WE FIND THAT SECTI ON 2(14) OF THE ACT DEFINES CAPITAL ASSET, WHICH IS AS UNDER:- (14) ['CAPITAL ASSET' MEANS (A) PROPERTY OF ANY KIND HELD BY AN ASSESSEE, WHETH ER OR NOT CONNECTED WITH HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION; (B) ANY SECURITIES HELD BY A FOREIGN INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR WHICH HAS INVESTED IN SUCH SECURITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ACT, 1992 (15 OF 1992), BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE (I) ANY STOCK-IN-TRADE [OTHER THAN THE SECURITIES REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (B)]], CONSUMABLE STORES OR RAW MATERIAL S HELD FOR THE PURPOSES OF HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION ; (II) PERSONAL EFFECTS, THAT IS TO SAY, MOVABLE PROP ERTY (INCLUDING WEARING APPAREL AND FURNITURE) HELD FOR PERSONAL USE BY THE ASSESSEE OR ANY MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY DEP ENDENT ON HIM, BUT EXCLUDES (A) JEWELLERY; (B) ARCHAEOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS; (C) DRAWINGS; (D) PAINTINGS; (E) SCULPTURES; OR (F) ANY WORK OF ART. 6 [EXPLANATION 1].FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-CLAUS E, 'JEWELLERY' INCLUDES (A) ORNAMENTS MADE OF GOLD, SILVER, PLATINUM OR ANY OTHER PRECIOUS METAL OR ANY ALLOY CONTAINING ONE OR MORE OF SUCH PRECIOUS METALS, WHETHER OR NOT CONTAINING ANY PREC IOUS OR SEMI-PRECIOUS STONE, AND WHETHER OR NOT WORKED OR S EWN INTO ANY WEARING APPAREL; ITA NO. 4458/MUM/2013 & C.O. 178/MUM/2014 PRABHAKAR T. BHANDARY 6 (B) PRECIOUS OR SEMI-PRECIOUS STONES, WHETHER OR NO T SET IN ANY FURNITURE, UTENSIL OR OTHER ARTICLE OR WORKED O R SEWN INTO ANY WEARING APPAREL. 7 [EXPLANATION 2.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE (A) THE EXPRESSION 'FOREIGN INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR' SHALL HAVE THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO IT IN CLAUSE (A) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115AD; (B) THE EXPRESSION 'SECURITIES' SHALL HAVE THE MEAN ING ASSIGNED TO IT IN CLAUSE (H) OF SECTION 2 OF THE SE CURITIES CONTRACTS (REGULATION) ACT, 1956 (42 OF 1956);] (III) AGRICULTURAL LAND IN INDIA, NOT BEING LAND SI TUATE (A) IN ANY AREA WHICH IS COMPRISED WITHIN THE JURIS DICTION OF A MUNICIPALITY (WHETHER KNOWN AS A MUNICIPALITY, MUNI CIPAL CORPORATION, NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE, TOWN AREA COM MITTEE, TOWN COMMITTEE, OR BY ANY OTHER NAME) OR A CANTONME NT BOARD AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF NOT LESS THAN T EN THOUSAND; OR (B) IN ANY AREA WITHIN THE DISTANCE, MEASURED AERIA LLY, (I) NOT BEING MORE THAN TWO KILOMETRES, FROM THE LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN ITEM (A) AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF MORE THAN TEN THO USAND BUT NOT EXCEEDING ONE LAKH; OR (II) NOT BEING MORE THAN SIX KILOMETRES, FROM THE L OCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN ITEM (A) AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF MORE THAN ONE LAKH BU T NOT EXCEEDING TEN LAKH; OR (III) NOT BEING MORE THAN EIGHT KILOMETRES, FROM TH E LOCAL LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY OR CANTONMENT BOARD REFERRED TO IN ITEM (A) AND WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF MORE THAN TEN LAK H. EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-CLAUSE, 'POPULATION' MEANS THE POPULATION ACCORDING TO THE LAST PRECEDING CENSUS OF WHICH THE RELEVANT FIGURES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR ; (IV) 6 PER CENT GOLD BONDS, 1977, OR 7 PER CENT GO LD BONDS, 1980, OR NATIONAL DEFENCE GOLD BONDS, 1980, ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT; (V) SPECIAL BEARER BONDS, 1991, ISSUED BY THE CENTR AL GOVERNMENT ; (VI) GOLD DEPOSIT BONDS ISSUED UNDER THE GOLD DEPOS IT SCHEME, 1999 8 [ OR DEPOSIT CERTIFICATES ISSUED UNDER THE GOLD MONETISATION SCHEME, 2015 ] NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. ITA NO. 4458/MUM/2013 & C.O. 178/MUM/2014 PRABHAKAR T. BHANDARY 7 EXPLANATION.FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREB Y CLARIFIED THAT 'PROPERTY' INCLUDES AND SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAV E ALWAYS INCLUDED ANY RIGHTS IN OR IN RELATION TO AN INDIAN COMPANY, INCLUDING RIGHTS OF MANAGEMENT OR CONTROL OR ANY OT HER RIGHTS WHATSOEVER;] 2.2. IF THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE SECTION IS ANALY ZED, IT CLEARLY SAYS THAT, EXCEPT FOR SOME EXCEPTIONS, EVEN THE REVERSIONARY/RELINQUISHMENT RIGHTS IS A CAPITAL ASS ET. SECTION 2(47)(V) WAS CONSIDERED BY HON'BLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHATURBHUJ DWARIKADAS KAP ADIA VS CIT (2003) 260 ITR 491 (BOM.), WHEREIN, IT WAS H ELD AS UNDER:- 'IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL, ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS PER WHICH THE CONSIDERATIO N WAS QUANTIFIED AT RS.1,85,63,000/-. THE DEVELOPER WAS G IVEN THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AS PER THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL RULES. THE AGREEMENT ENVISAGED THE ASSESSEE TO EXECUTE ONLY A LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZING THE BUILDER TO DEAL WITH THE P ROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING NECESSARY PERMISSIONS AND APPR OVALS FROM THE AUTHORITIES. ON RECEIPT OF SUCH PERMISSIONS, THE AS SESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO GRANT AN IRREVOCABLE AUTHORITY TO THE D EVELOPER TO ENTER UPON THE PROPERTY, DEMOLISH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, SETTLE THE EXISTING TENANT'S CLAIMS AND COMMENCE THE CONSTRUCTION. THE AGREEMENT WAS INITIALLY SIGNED ON 18.08.1994. THE PERMISSIONS FROM 'THE AUTHORITIES WERE RECEIVED AS WELL AS A SU BSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID IN YEAR ENDED 31.03.1996 . THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE FOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION WAS ISSUED ON 15.11.1996. THE IRREVOCABLE AUTHORITY TO THE BUILDE R WAS ISSUED ON 12.03.1999. IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT TRANSFER TOOK PL ACE ONLY IN MARCH 1999. IT WAS FURTHER CLAIMED THAT TILL THAT DATE, T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT PART WITH POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, HOWEVER, THE COURT HELD THAT THE DATE OF TRANSFER AS DATE OF ENTERING INTO THE DEVEL OPMENT AGREEMENT ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- A. AS PER SECTION 2(47)(V) THE REQUIREMENT OF ALLOW ING POSSESSION TO THE TAKEN OR RETAINED IN THAT SECTION DOES NOT N ECESSARILY ITA NO. 4458/MUM/2013 & C.O. 178/MUM/2014 PRABHAKAR T. BHANDARY 8 MEAN PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, BUT ANY ARRANGEMENTS BY WHICH THE TRANSFER CONFERS PRIVILEG ES OF OWNERSHIP WITHOUT EXECUTING CONVEYANCE. B. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED A CCOMPANIED BY LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZING THE BUILD ER TO DEAL WITH THE PROPERTY AND OBTAIN NECESSARY PERMISSIONS AND T HERE WAS NO CLAUSE PROVIDED FOR FORFEITURE/ TERMINATION OF T HE AGREEMENT. C. HENCE, EVEN THOUGH THE IRREVOCABLE AUTHORITY WAS NOT GRANTED ON SIGNING OF THE AGREEMENT NOR CONVEYANCE WAS EXEC UTED AT THAT TIME, THE BUILDER WAS CONFERRED WITH PRIVILEGE S OF OWNERSHIP CONSTITUTING ALLOWING THE POSSESSION TO BE TAKEN OR RETAINED AS CONTEMPLATED IN SEC. 2(47)(V). D. THEREFORE, THE DATE OF TRANSFER IS NOT 12.03.199 9 AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR YEAR ENDED 31.03.1996 (WHEN SUBSTA NTIAL PART OF THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID) AS CLAIMED BY T HE TAX DEPARTMENT, BUT THE DATE OF SIGNING OF THE AGREEMEN T I. E. 18.08. 994 IS THE DATE OF TRANSFER. ' IN THIS CASE BOMBAY HIGH COURT CLEARLY STATES THAT U/S.2(4 7(V) OF THE I. T. ACT EVEN A PART PERFORMANCE WITHOUT EVEN PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION OR SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT IF EVEN PRIVILEGE OR RIG HT IS CONFIRMED TO THE TRANSFER WITHOUT ANY CLAUSE OR FORFEITURE OR TERMIN ATION OF AGREEMENT THAT RIGHT OR ARRANGEMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS TRAN SFER. SO TRANSFER AS EXECUTED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT CAN ALSO BE AR RANGEMENT WHETHER PRIVILEGE CONFERRED WITHOUT BEING A CONSIDE RATION OR AGREEMENT SO WRITTEN. 2.3. THE MAIN CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT AND PAYMENT OF 7.5 CRORES WERE DULY CONSIDERED BY THE LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) AS THE AMOUNT WERE DULY MENT IONED IN THE RECEIPT COLUMN OF THE LAST PAGE OF THE AGREE MENT AND DR. PRABHAKAR T. BHANDARY ALONG WITH SHRI BIRMU BHANDARY, BMCL AND BPCL DULY CONFIRMED THE AGREEMEN T. THIS FACTUAL MATRIX WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE . THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF NON-REGISTRAT ION OF THE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN DULY REPLIED/CONSIDERED BY HON'B LE ITA NO. 4458/MUM/2013 & C.O. 178/MUM/2014 PRABHAKAR T. BHANDARY 9 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHATURBHUJ DWARIKADAS KAPADIA (SUPRA). WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WIT H THE FINDING OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE AL) THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAM E INCOME ON THE SAME PERSONS IN TWO DIFFERENT YEARS, WHICH IS OTHERWISE NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT. THE ISS UE OF DOUBLE TAXATION WAS DULY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF R. NATRAJAN VS ACIT (2012) 70 DTR (CHENNAI)(TM)(TRIB.) 249, WHEREIN, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOTEZE (INDIA) LTD. VS CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) AND CIT VS R. DALMIA 135 ITR 346 (DEL.), LAXMIPAT SINGHANIA VS CI T 72 ITR 291 (SC) AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS, RELIED UP ON BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) ALSO WE RE DISCUSSED. THUS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCL USION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL). IT I S AFFIRMED, THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. 3. SO FAR AS, C.O. NO.178/MUM/2014, RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CHALLENGED. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) WITH RESPECT TO CONFIRMING THE REOPENING O F ASSESSMENT. ON THE REASONING AND THE FACTUAL MATRIX CONSIDERED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WE FIN D NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE, DURING HEARING, ALSO AGREED TO THE REASONING CONTAI NED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITH RESPECT TO THE REOPENING OF ITA NO. 4458/MUM/2013 & C.O. 178/MUM/2014 PRABHAKAR T. BHANDARY 10 ASSESSMENT, THUS, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE C ROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 07/12/2016. SD/- SD/- ( RAJESH KUMAR ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '!# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $!# /JUDICIAL MEMBER $ MUMBAI; ( DATED : 19/12/2016 F{X~{T? P.S / /. .. %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *+,- / THE APPELLANT (RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE) 2. . /,- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0 0 1# ( *+ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 0 0 1# / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI, 5. 34 .# , 0 *+& * 5 , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6! 7$ / GUARD FILE. ! / BY ORDER, /3+# .# //TRUE COPY// /! (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI