BALASORE ALLOYS LTD, ORRISSA V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1170/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1092 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N P SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: D V LAKHANI
• Keywords: Business income; Search and seizure; Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 234B; 115JB

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1170/M/201 5 BALASORE ALLOYS LT D 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI,BEFORE SH. G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO. 1170/MUM/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) BALASORE ALLOYS LIMITED (FORMERLY ISPAT ALLOYS LTD.) MUMBAI VS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2) (EARLIER DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 18 & 19) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACI3967P (APPELLANT) : ( RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. D.V. LAKHANI (AR) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. N.P. SINGH (CIT DR) / DATE OF HEARING : 13/04/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/04/2017 / O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 253 OF INCOME-TAX ACT IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-39, DATED 19.12.201 4 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE APP ELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS BAD IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER OR THE AU THORITY TO MAKE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES OR ITEMS WHICH A RE REFLECTED IN THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO MATERIAL IS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE POWERS OF THE LEAR NED ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE TOTAL INCOME WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U /S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) IS RESTRICTED TO ONLY THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH IS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES AND ITEMS WHICH ARE DISCLOSED BY THE ITA NO. 1170/M/201 5 BALASORE ALLOYS LT D 2 APPELLANT IN THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND W HICH ARE PARTS OF RETURN OF INCOME CANNOT BE TOUCHED UPON BY THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARN ED ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) IS ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THE SAID ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 2. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED CONF IRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,90,00,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME BEING THE A MOUNT ON FORFEITURE OF ZERO COUPON CONVERTIBLE WARRANTS. THE CONCLUSION RE ACHED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS A ND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE APP ELLANT PRAYS THAT THE SUM OF RS.4,90,00.000/- BEING THE AMOUNT OF FOR FEITURE OF ZERO-COUPON CONVERTIBLE WARRANTS IS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL RE CEIPT. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX H AS ERRED IN TREATING THE SAME AS REVENUE RECEIPT AND HAS TAXED THESAME U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS & PROFESSION. 4. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE APP ELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AMOUNT ING TO RS.4,90,00,000/- MAY BE DELETED. 5. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE APP ELLANT DENIES THE LIABILITY OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST U/S 234B. ON THE F ACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE APPELLANT SUBMIT THAT LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B AT RS.2,41,30,637/- IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND BE DELETED. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE OTHER . 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF SELLING OF FERRO-A LLOYS OF VARIOUS GRADES AND RAISING OF CHROME ORE AND MANGANESE ORE AND TRADING OF VARIOUS ALLIED PRODUCTS. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 12.10.2010 DECLARING TO TAL INCOME OF RS.25,93,20,565/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132(1) WAS CARRIED OUT ON 30.11.2010 ON THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER GROUP CASES. CONSEQUENTLY , NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A DATED 14.02.2012 WAS SERVED ON THE ASS ESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.05.2012 ITA NO. 1170/M/201 5 BALASORE ALLOYS LT D 3 DECLARING INCOME AT RS.22,17,40,290/- AND BOOK PROF IT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT AT RS.20,60,12,361/-. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 15 3A DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT RS.30,83,20,570/- A ND BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB AT RS.20,60,12,361/-. THE ASSESSING O FFICER WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.4,90,00, 000/- AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE ON FORFEITURE OF ZERO COUPON CONVERTIBLE W ARRANTS. ON APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS C ONFIRMED. AGGRIEVED, BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THIS APPEAL I S FILED BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE D.R. FOR REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. GROUN D NO.1 RELATES TO THE LEGALITY OF ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153A RWS 143(3) OF THE ACT. AT THE OUTSET T HE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRESSING T HE GROUND NO.1. KEEPING IN VIEW THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD AR FOR AS SESSEE GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. GROUNDS NO.2 TO 4 RELATES TO THE ADDITIONS OF RS.4, 90,00,000/- AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE ON FORFEITURE OF ZERO COUPON CON VERTIBLE WARRANTS. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LISTED COMPANY. M/S KARTIK CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED AND DENR O HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ARE TWO PROMOTERS COMPANY OF ASSESS EE-COMPANY. AS PER SEBI NORMS THE ASSESSEE ISSUED 6500000 WARRANTS TO THE PROMOTER OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. CONVERTIBLE WARRANT WAS I SSUED IN PURSUANCE OF THE REGULATION 11 OF SEBI REGULATIONS 1997. THE CONVERTIBLE WARRANTS WERE ISSUED TO THE PROMOTERS A FTER PASSING NECESSARY RESOLUTIONS IN THE BOARD MEETING. THE ASS ESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF RESOLUTIONS DATED 10.12.2007 & 2 1.01.2008. M/S KARTIK CREDIT PRIVATE LIMITED WAS ISSUED 3250000 WA RRANTS AND M/S DENRO HOLDING WAS ALSO ISSUED 3250000 WARRANTS, ZER O-COUPON ITA NO. 1170/M/201 5 BALASORE ALLOYS LT D 4 CONVERTIBLE WARRANTS. AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIO N OF THE WARRANTS, THE HOLDERS HAD THE OPTION FOR APPLYING AND BEING A LLOTTED ONE EQUITY SHARE OF RS. 5/-EACH AGAINST EACH WARRANT HELD BY T HEM AT A PREMIUM OF RS. 65/-. THE SHARES WERE TO BE ISSUED AT THE RATE OF RS.70/- PER-SHARE. THIS FORMULA WAS DECIDED AS PER SEBI REGULATION. TH E PROMOTERS HAVE TO EXERCISE THEIR OPTION PRIOR TO EXPIRY OF 18 MONT HS FROM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT OF THE WARRANT IN ONE OR MORE FRANCHISE A ND ACCORDING TO THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER SEBI REGULATIONS. THE LAST D ATE ON WHICH THE WARRANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONVERTED INTO EQUITY SHA RE WAS 14 SEPTEMBER 2009. AS PER THE SCHEME, IN CASE OF FAILU RE ON THE PART OF REGISTERED WARRANT HOLDER, TO EXERCISE THE OPTION A ND TO APPLY FOR ALLOTTED EQUITY SHARES BY PAYING THE BALANCE SUBSCR IPTION PRICE AFTER ADJUSTING THE UPFRONT PAYMENT MADE, FAILING WHICH T HE RIGHT ATTACHED TO THE WARRANT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY LAPSED AND THE AMOU NT PAID AT THE TIME OF ALLOTMENT SHALL BE FORFEITED. THIS WAS THE POSIT ION AS PER SEBI REGULATION. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THEM WAS CAPITAL RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND WAS REFLECTED UNDER THE HEAD SHARE APPLICATION MONEY TOWARDS ZERO COUPON CONVERTIBLE WARRANTS AND THE SAME IS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 MARCH 2009. THE LEARNED AR OF ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN US THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEME NT OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 AT PAGE NO.7 OF PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN A SUM O F RS.4,900,0000/- IS REFLECTED UNDER THE HEAD APPLICATION MONEY TOW ARD EQUITY WARRANTS. THE SEBI HAS GIVEN IN PRINCIPLE APPROVAL FOR ALLOTMENT OF 7000000 ZERO COUPON CONVERTIBLE WARRANTS. THE COPY OF ORDER OF APPROVAL OF SEBI DATED 29.02.2008, WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 90 OF PB. BOTH THE PROMOTERS DID NOT EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT UND ER THE WARRANTS. THE AMOUNT PAID BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS FOR FEITED AS PER SEBI REGULATIONS. IF THE PROMOTERS WOULD HAVE EXERC ISED THEIR RIGHT UNDER THE WARRANT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE ISSUED EQ UITY SHARES AT A ITA NO. 1170/M/201 5 BALASORE ALLOYS LT D 5 PREMIUM AS PER THE TERMS OF THE ISSUE OF WARRANT. I N FACT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED TOWORD WARRANT IS DIRECTLY LINKED TO ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL. ON FORFEITURE OF SUM OF RS.4,90,00,000/- THE AMOUNT WA S CREDITED TO THE CAPITAL RESERVE AND IS A PART OF RESERVE AND SURPL US. THE LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER THE REFERENCE TO THE NOTE NO 22 WHICH IS AVAI LABLE AT PAGE NO. 10 PB. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF VARIOUS CORRESPONDENCES MADE WITH BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE AND CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE WITH REGARD TO THE SUBSCRIPTION OF Z ERO-COUPON CONVERTIBLE WARRANT, WITH REFERENCE TO THE ALLOTMEN T AND FORFEITURE OF ZERO-COUPON CONVERTIBLE WARRANT, COPY OF WHICH IS A VAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 90 TO 99 OF PB. IN SUPPORT OF SUBMISSION THE LE ARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BEN CHES OF TRIBUNAL VIZ; JAIKISHAN DADLANI VERSUS ITO [2005] 4 SOT 138 (MUMBAI), PRISM CEMENT LTD VERSUS ACIT [2006] 101 ITD 103(MUMBAI), DCIT VERSUS BRIJLAXMI LEASING AND FINANCE LTD [2009] 118 ITD (AHD), DEEPAK FERTILIZERS AND PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION L TD VERSUS DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 372 (MUMBAI) AND ASIATIC OXYGEN LTD VERSUS DCIT [1994] 49 ITD 355 (MUMBAI). IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT TV SUNDARAM AYENGER & SONS 222 ITR 344 (SC) RELIED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES IS NOT APP LICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE ST RONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE MUTE QUESTION BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS TO WHY THESE TWO PROMOTE R COMPANIES WERE IDENTIFIED, AMONG ALL OTHER COMPANIES TO ISSUE SUCH ZERO-COUPON CONVERTIBLE WARRANTS AND WHY THESE COMPANY DESPITE HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDS, NOT EXERCISE THEIR OPTION TO PAY BALANCE AMO UNT FOR CONVERSION ITA NO. 1170/M/201 5 BALASORE ALLOYS LT D 6 OF ZERO-COUPON CONVERTIBLE WARRANTS, WITHIN THE PER IOD ALLOWED. THE FORFEITED AMOUNT HAS BEEN UTILIZED TO THE OPERATION BUSINESS REQUIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSE SSEE AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD REPR ESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND WITH THEIR ASSISTANCE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. FIRST OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO THE SELECTION OF THESE TWO COMPANIES AND WHY THESE COMP ANY DESPITE HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDS, NOT EXERCISE THEIR OPTION TO PAY BALANCE AMOUNT FOR CONVERSION OF ZERO-COUPON CONVERTIBLE WARRANTS, WITHIN THE PERIOD ALLOWED UNDER THE SEBI RULES. SECOND OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE NOMENCLATURE AND THE TREATMENT GIVEN TO THE AMOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT THE DETERMINA TIVE FACTOR. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE AS SESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED RS.4.90 CRORE AS UPFRONT MONEY FOR ALLOTME NT OF ZERO-COUPON CONVERTIBLE WARRANTS AND ITS FORFEITURE. THE LOWER AUTHORITY HAS FURTHER NOT DISPUTED THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS UNDER SCHEME OF THE SEBI AND GRANTING THE APPROVAL IN PRINCIPAL. WHILE PERUSING THE DOCUMENTS AND THE REPLY FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY, WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 22 ND MARCH 2013, CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME THE MARKET WERE NOT FAVORABLE AND IN THE OPINION OF THE PROMOTERS C OMPANY, THE FURTHER INVESTMENT ON CONVERSION OF WARRANTS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BENEFICIARY THUS THEY DID NOT EXERCISE THE OPTION AN AMOUNT PAI D BY THEM WAS FORFEITED (PAGE 118 OF PB). THE LOWER AUTHORITY HAS NEITHER REFERRED THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPLY DATED 22 MARCH 2013 NOR GAVE ANY FINDING ON THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE IN ITS ORDER. WE HAVE SEEN T HAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN JAIKISHAN DADLANI VERSUS ITO ( SUPRA) HELD THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE ABOUT THE POSITION THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL ITA NO. 1170/M/201 5 BALASORE ALLOYS LT D 7 FORFEITURE RECEIPT ARE IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL REC EIPTS. THE SHARE FORFEITURE ACCOUNT IS ALSO NOT AVAILABLE FOR DISTRI BUTION OF DIVIDEND, THEREFORE, EVEN IF ANY AMOUNT IS LENT FROM SUCH MON EY TO SHAREHOLDERS, SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS THE DIVIDEND. IN CASE OF PRISM CEMENT LTD (SUPRA) IT WAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN LIEU OF ISSUANCE OF DEBENTURE WHICH WERE FORFEITED LATER ON ACCOUNT OF NON- PAYMENT OF CALL MONEY, WOULD ASSUME THE CHARACTER O F A CAPITAL RECEIPT. IN DCIT VERSUS BRIJLAXMI LEASING AND FINANCE LTD (S UPRA) IT WAS HELD THAT SHARE APPLICATION WHICH HAD BEEN FORFEITED AS PER THE TERMS OF THE PROSPECT COULD NOT BE TREATED AS RECEIPT IN THE NOR MAL COURSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF T HE TRIBUNAL DISTINGUISHED THE FACT IN CASE OF TV SUNDARAM AYENG ER AND SONS (SUPRA) IN THE SAID CASE THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AS AN ADVANCE FOR PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT AND THE SAME WAS FORFEI TED. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AS AN ADVANCE RECEIPT. IN OTHER WORDS THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AS BUSINESS RECEIPT. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE AND IN HAND THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FOR ISSUANCE OF SHARE, WHICH IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN DEEPAK FERTILIZERS AND PET ROCHEMICAL CORPORATION LTD VERSUS DCIT (SUPRA) IT WAS HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ISSUED PARTLY CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES AG AINST WHICH ASSESSEE RECEIVED APPLICATION MONEY, HOWEVER, AFTER THE ALLOTMENT THE COMPANY COULD NOT MAKE THE PAYMENT IS PART OF ISSUE D DEBENTURES. THE AMOUNT WAS FORFEITED DUE TO NON-PAYMENT OF CALL MON EY CANNOT BE CHARGED TO TAX. IN ASIATIC OXYGEN LTD VERSUS DCIT ( SUPRA) IT WAS HELD THAT AMOUNT FORFEITED FROM A SHAREHOLDER FOR DEFAUL T FOR PAYMENT OF CALL MONEY WAS CAPITAL RECEIPT IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT AMOUNT RECEIVED ON REISSUE OF FORFEITED SHARE AND CREDIT TO THE SHARE PREMIUM ACCOUNT WAS ALSO A CAPITAL RECEIPT. ITA NO. 1170/M/201 5 BALASORE ALLOYS LT D 8 7. WE MAY ALSO NOTE THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE COMPANY IN ITS HAND AS CAPITAL RECEIPT; THE SAME WAS REFLECTED UNDER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. O NCE THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE-COMPANY AS A CAPITAL RECEI PT, ITS CHARACTER CANNOT BE CHANGED FROM CAPITAL TO BUSINESS RECEIPT. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF COORDINATE BENCH, WE HOL D THAT THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS ) IS NOT CORRECT. HENCE, THE GROUND NO. 2 TO 4 OF THE APPEAL RAISED B Y ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. GROUND NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND GRO UND NO, 6 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH DAY OF APRIL 2 017. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (PAWAN SINGH) ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' #! / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; # DATED : 28.04.2017 SK -PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. & ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. & / CIT- CONCERNED 5. #' (###) , #) , / D.R, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ( *+, / GUARD FILE / BYORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI