SANGEETA N SHAH, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 7, MUMBAI

ITA 1206/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3957 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJUNATHA SWAMY
• Assessee Lawyers: K SHIVARAM RAHUL SARDA
• Keywords: Gift; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ./ I.T.A. NOS. 1206 & 1207/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 & 2005-06) SMT. SANGEETA N SHAH, 41, BHARAT MAHAL, DONGARSHI ROAD, WALKESHWAR, MUMBAI-400 006. / VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW CGO BLDG, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. SHIVARAM, RAHUL SARDA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJUNATHA SWAMY / DATE OF HEARING : 08/02/2016 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/02/2016 $% / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2014 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-36, MUMBAI (HE REINAFTER CALLED AS THE CIT(A)) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE H AS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 2 ITA NO. 1206 & 1207/M/2014(A.Y.04-05&05-06) SMT. SANGEETA N SHAH, VS. ACIT, 1. THE LD. CIT(A) -36 ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLO WANCE OF ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INCREASE IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT BALANCE OF RS.7 ,67,724/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING TO THE FACTS. THEREFORE, THE ALLEGED A DDITION IS UNCALLED FOR AND THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) -36 ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ALLEGED ESTIMATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.15,00,000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATIN G TO THE FACTS AND MERITS AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE. 3A THE LD. CIT(A) -36 HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE REMA ND REPORT AND THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE R EMAND REPORT. B THE LD. CIT(A) -36 ORDER IS BASED ON SURMISE, GUE SSWORK AND ASSUMPTIONS. C THE LD. CIT(A) -36 HAS IGNORED THE PAPER BOOK AND DOCUMENTS PUT BEFORE HER. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IN FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AG AINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.7,67,724/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASE IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF FOREIGN GIFTS. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 18/11/2004 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.1,21,600/-. THE AS SESSEES HUSBAND SHRI NAYAN C. SHAH WAS PARTNER IN M/S. GEMS INTERNATIONAL ON WHIC H A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION WAS CONDUCTED ON 20/10/2005. NOTICES U/S 153C R.W.S. 15 3A OF THE I.T. ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT SOME BEL ONGINGS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT F ILE ANY RETURN WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM 3 ITA NO. 1206 & 1207/M/2014(A.Y.04-05&05-06) SMT. SANGEETA N SHAH, VS. ACIT, THE DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. STATUTORY NOTICES U/ S 143(2) AND 142(1) WERE ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. LD. AO DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDING OBSERVED THAT CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALANCE SHEE T AS ON 31.03.04 WAS RS.12,18,709/- VIS A VIS CAPITAL BALANCE AT THE END OF THE CORRESPONDING PRECEDING PREVIOUS YEAR AT RS.4,50,985/- RESULTING INTO AN INCREASE OF RS.7,6 7,724/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AO ALSO NOTICED THA T THE SHARE INVESTMENT IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31.03.03 WHICH WERE RS.28,97,89 6/- HAD COME DOWN TO RS.11,67,659/- AS ON 31.03.04 AND THUS THERE WAS A REDUCTION OF RS.17,30,237/- IN THE INVESTMENTS. THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD HER INVESTMENTS BUT DID NOT SHOW ANY SHORT TERM OR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE A/C FILED AND ALSO THAT NO DETAILS OF INVESTMENTS WERE FILED AND CONSEQUENTLY MADE THE ADDITIONS OF RS.15,00,000 /- ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ON SALE OF INVESTMENTS. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE PR EFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 05.08.2008 PART LY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,67,724/ -, CONFIRMING RS.5,00,000/- ON THE SALE OF INVESTMENTS AS AGAINST THE RS.15,00,000/- A DDED BY THE AO AND DELETED RS.5,66,700/- ON ACCOUNT OF ON MONEY PAID FOR THE P URCHASE OF FLAT. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGE THE ORDER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL W HICH RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE 4 ITA NO. 1206 & 1207/M/2014(A.Y.04-05&05-06) SMT. SANGEETA N SHAH, VS. ACIT, FILE OF THE CIT(A) BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER WITH THE DIRECTION OF FRESH ADJUDICATION ON THE GROUND OF NATURAL JUSTICE AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDI NG CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND AO AFTER GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSE SSEE TO HIS REPLIES ON THE VARIOUS POINTS, FINALLY SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT DATED 1 3.12.2013 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 16.12.2013. THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.14 BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 8.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E APPELLANT AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO. IT IS SEEN THAT THE CIT(A) , CENTRAL-II IN HIS ORDER NO. CIT(A)C-II/IT-153/-7-08/ACIT CC.7 DATED 5 .8.2008 HELD THAT THE A.O. HAS MENTIONED IN THE BALANCE SHEET THE BAL ANCE AS PER LAST BALANCE SHEET AS RS.12,18,709/- WHEREAS THE ACTUAL CLOSING BALANCE OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2003 WAS ONLY RS.4,50,985/-. THUS, STRAIGHTWAY THE APPELLANT HAS INCREASED THE OPENING BALANCE OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THIS YEAR WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON WHATSOEVER FOR THE INCREASE IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AS AGAINST THE CLOSING BALANCE OF THE LAST YEAR. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WELL JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THIS DIFFERENCE AS THE UNEXPL AINED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND HENCE THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED. 8.2 THIS OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A), CENTRAL-II HAD BEEN BASED ON THE EARLIER A.OS FINDING. NOW, THE INCUMBENT A.O. IS S TATING THAT HE HAS VERIFIED THE GIFT DEED AND AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT IN DOLLARS HAS BEEN ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. HE IS ALSO STAT ING THAT THE TRANSACTION IS A VALID TRANSACTION. BUT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE PRESENT A.O. TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS VERIFICATION. HE HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE 5 ITA NO. 1206 & 1207/M/2014(A.Y.04-05&05-06) SMT. SANGEETA N SHAH, VS. ACIT, BANK ACCOUNT COPIES AS PROOF OF HIS VERIFICATION. T HEREFORE, THE CIT(A), CENTRAL-II OBSERVATION IS HELD TO BE CORRECT BY THE UNDERSIGNED AGAIN. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS NOT ALLOWED SIN CE THE A.O. IS NOT CONFIRMING IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT HE HAS VERIFIE D THE BANK STATEMENT, THE LETTER OF GIFT AND AFFIDAVIT OF THE DONOR BY GI VING SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ALONG WITH HIS REMAND REPORT. 9.1 THE CIT(A), CENTRAL-II HAD ALLOWED AND DIRECTE D THE A.O. TO REDUCE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.10 LAKHS AND M AKE AN ADDITION OF RS.5 LAKHS. THE A.O. IS STATING THAT HE HAS VERIFIE D ALL THE CONTRACT NOTES AND THAT THE APPELLANT APPEARS TO HAVE INCURRED A L OSS OF RS.92,734/- AND THAT THERE IS NO EXISTENCE OF ANY CAPITAL GAIN. HOW EVER, THE PRESENT A.O. HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF THE VERIFICA TION OF THE CONTRACT NOTES. AGAIN, THE EARLIER A.O. HAD ARRIVED AT A PRO FIT OF RS.15 LAKHS ON ESTIMATION BASIS. THE CIT(A), CENTRAL-II IN ORDER N O. CIT(A)C-II/IT- 153/07-08/ACIT CC.7 DATED 5.8.2008 HAD DELETED RS.1 0 LAKHS AND DIRECTED THE EARLIER A.O. TO ADD RS.5 LAKHS. THEREF ORE, I ALSO HOLD THE SAME VIEW AND ALSO BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT SINCE T HE PRESENT A.O. HAS USED THE WORD APPEARS THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF UNCE RTAINTY IN HIS REMAND REPORT. HE HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY DOCUMENTAR Y PROOF. THE POSSIBILITY OF THE APPELLANT OF HAVING MADE SOME GO OD PROFIT CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISM ISSED. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LAKHS. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAD WRONGLY CO NSIDERED THE REMAND REPORT DATED 13.12.2013 BUT DESPITE CLEAR-CUT FINDINGS BY THE A O ON THE VARIOUS ISSUES THAT GIFT 6 ITA NO. 1206 & 1207/M/2014(A.Y.04-05&05-06) SMT. SANGEETA N SHAH, VS. ACIT, WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER RELATIVE AF TER VERIFICATION OF GIFTS DEED, CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE DONOR, BANK STATEMENT EVIDENCING THE GIFT AND REMITTANCE CERTIFICATE. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDI NG AND THE LD. AO HAD GIVEN A VERY COMPREHENSIVE AND DETAILED FINDINGS IN THE REM AND REPORT MENTIONING ALL THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE DETAILS WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) VIDE LETTER 16.09 .2013 PLACED AT PAGE NO 4 TO 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN ALL THE DOCUMENTS WERE SUPP LIED SUCH AS BALANCE-SHEETS OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.03.03 AND 31.03.04, COMPUTATI ON OF TOTAL INCOME, AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT AT BHARAT MAHAL, STATEMENT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS ON SHARES ALONG WITH BROKERS BILLS, LETTER AND AFFIDAVIT FRO M ATUL C SHAH FOR CONFIRMING THE GIFT, COPY OF PASSBOOK OF UNION BANK OF INDIA FOR G IFT RECEIVED, LETTER FROM DIALITE IMPORT CORPORATION CONFIRMING THE REMITTANCE MADE B Y ATUL C SHAH. THUS, THE COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS PERTAINING T O FOREIGN GIFT RECEIVED FROM SHRI ATUL C SHAH CAPITAL ACCOUNT, AFFIDAVIT AND LETTER FROM T HE DONOR WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THEREFORE THE CIT(A) HAD WRONGLY DIS MISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS POINT THAT THE AO HAD NOT VERIFIED THE GIFT DEED AND OTHER DETAILS AND FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) THAT NO DOCUMENTS, AND EVIDE NCES WERE GIVEN BY THE PRESENT AO TO PROVE HIS VERIFICATIONS AS OBSERVED IN PARAS 8.1 AND 8.2 OF THE APPEAL ORDER WHEREAS ALL THESE INFORMATION WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. AO DURING THE COURSE OF 7 ITA NO. 1206 & 1207/M/2014(A.Y.04-05&05-06) SMT. SANGEETA N SHAH, VS. ACIT, REMAND PROCEEDING AND THE AO HAD DULY STATED HAVING VERIFIED ALL THESE DOCUMENTS WHILE PREPARING THE REMAND REPORT. SIMILARLY AS REG ARDS ADDITION OF RS.15 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN THE AO HAD GIVEN FINDINGS THAT ALL THE CONTRACT NOTES WERE SUPPLIED AND WERE VERIFIED BY HIM AND THE ASSE SSE HAD INCURRED THE LOSS OF RS.92,734/- AND THUS THERE WAS NO GAIN ON SALE OF THE SHARES DURING THE YEAR. THE LD. COUNSEL PLACED A STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE HER OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1208/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2006-07) VIDE ORDER DATE D 29.05.2014. LD. COUNSEL FINALLY PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BE A LLOWED BY REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER THE CIT(A). PER CONTRA THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND PRAYED FOR UPHOLDING THE SAME. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT F ROM THE AO WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 16.09.2013. PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATIO NS BEFORE THE AO DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS TO PROVE HER CASE SUCH AS BALAN CE-SHEET AS ON 31.03.03 AND 31.03.04, COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, STATEMENT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS ON SHARES ALONG WITH BROKERS BILLS, LETTER AND AFFIDA VIT FROM THE DONOR SHRI ATUL C SHAH FOR CONFIRMING THE GIFT, COPY OF PASSBOOK OF U NION BANK OF INDIA FOR GIFT RECEIVED AND CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM DIALITE IMPO RT CORPORATION QUA REMITTANCE 8 ITA NO. 1206 & 1207/M/2014(A.Y.04-05&05-06) SMT. SANGEETA N SHAH, VS. ACIT, MADE BY THE DONOR. THE LD. AO, HAVING VERIFIED ALL THESE DETAILS, SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT DATED TO THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 16 .09.2013. THE LD. AO CLEARLY STATED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT HE HAD VERIFIED THE GIFT DEED, LETTERS FROM THE DONOR, BANK ACCOUNTS, AND REMITTANCES CONFIRMATION AND THUS OBS ERVED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS ON 31.03.03 AND 31.03.04 OF RS. 7,67,724 /- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT RECEIVED WHICH STANDS DULY VERIFIED BY THE AO. WE FURTHER NO TE THE SIMILAR INFORMATION/DETAILS/CONFIRMATION WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 16.09.2013. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRE CIATE ALL THESE DOCUMENTS. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) HAD NOT APPRECIATED THE RECORD FILED BEFORE HIM AND WRONGLY RECORDED THE FINDINGS IN PARA 8.2 AND 9.1 O F THE APPEAL ORDER. THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US IN PAGE NO 4-29 OF THE PAPER BOOK CLEARLY PROVE THE GENUINENESS, CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR WHO HAPPENED TO BE CLOSE RELATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE ADDITION OF RS.7,67,724/- CA NNOT BE SUSTAINED AND HAS TO BE DELETED. FURTHER THE PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT W HICH IS PLACED AT PG. NO. 30-34 CLEARLY STATES THAT ALL THE CONTRACT NOTES WERE VER IFIED AND THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED LOSS OF RS.9,734/- AND THERE WAS NO CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF SHARES WHEREAS THE DOCUMENTS COMPRISING COVER NOTES WITH BILLS OF THE BROKERS WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON 16.09.2013 WHICH WERE NOT APPRECIATED IN THE CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE ALSO FIND SUPPORT IN HER OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 1208/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2006-07) WHEREIN THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AS HELD AS I N PARA 5 PG. NO.41 OF THE PAPER 9 ITA NO. 1206 & 1207/M/2014(A.Y.04-05&05-06) SMT. SANGEETA N SHAH, VS. ACIT, BOOK. WE, THEREFORE, ALLOW THE GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL WHICH WAS WRONGLY MENTIONED AS RS.15 LAKHS WHEREAS THE LD. CI T(A) HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LAKHS ONLY AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS ALLOWE D IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 1207/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) -36 ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLO WANCE OF ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INCREASE IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT BALANCE OF RS.3 8,05,964/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING TO THE FACTS. THEREFORE, THE ALLEGED A DDITION IS UNCALLED FOR AND THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. 2A. THE LD. CIT(A) -36 HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE REMAN D REPORT AND THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE REMAND REPORT. B THE LD. CIT(A) -36 ORDER IS BASED ON SURMISE, GUE SSWORK AND ASSUMPTIONS. C THE LD. CIT(A) -36 HAS IGNORED THE PAPER BOOK AND DOCUMENTS PUT BEFORE HER. THE ISSUED RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE WRO NG ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN GIFT RECEIVED FROM SHRI ATUL C. SHAH WHICH IS IDENT ICAL TO THE ISSUE DECIDED IN THE I.T.A. NO. 1206/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 I N WHICH THE FOREIGN GIFTS WAS RECEIVED FROM THE SAME PERSON WIT H SAME FACTS. THEREFORE, OUR 10 ITA NO. 1206 & 1207/M/2014(A.Y.04-05&05-06) SMT. SANGEETA N SHAH, VS. ACIT, DECISION IN I.T.A. NO. 1206/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEA R: 2004-05 WOULD MUTATIS, MUTANDIS, APPLY TO THIS APPEAL AS WELL. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (C.N. PRASAD) (RAJESH KUMAR) &' $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) MUMBAI; *$ DATED :26.02.2016 PS. ASHWINI / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. + ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. + / CIT CONCERNED 5. ./0 ''12 , 12# , ( ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 045 6 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / !'# (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) #$ %, ( ) / ITAT, MUMBAI