DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI V. PREMIER LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1358/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7573 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABI RAMA KARTIKIYEN
• Assessee Lawyers: VIDHI GUPTA A RS
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Accommodation entries; Tax effect; Onus to prove; Revised return; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure; Set aside

Judgement Text

P A G E | 1 ITA NO. 1358/MUM/2016 A.Y. 2008 - 09 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1358/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 ) DCIT - 3(2)(2), R. NO. 674, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 VS. M/S PREMIER LTD 58, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 21 PAN AAACT5523G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI ABI RAMA KARTIKIYEN, D.R R ESPONDENT BY: SHRI JAYESH DADIA & MS. VIDHI GUPTA, A.RS DATE OF HEARING: 04 .04 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 1 0 .04.2019 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 8, MUMBAI , DATED 28.12.2015, WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC.14 3 (3) R.W.S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT I.T ACT), DATED 18.03.2013. THE REVENUE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A . O U/S. 69A OF RS.4,49,03,354/ HOLDING THAT SINCE NO VALUABLES SUCH AS CASH, JEWELLERY ETC. WERE FOUND DURING THE SURVEY ACTION NO ADDITION / CAN BE M ADE U/S.69A OF THE I.T ACT. 1961.? P A G E | 2 ITA NO. 1358/MUM/2016 A.Y. 2008 - 09 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE L D. CITA) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A . O U/S.69A OF RS.4,49,03,354/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED THAT IT HAD TAKEN BOGUS BILLS FOR SUCH EXPENDITURES & WHICH WERE RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AFTER PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO SUCH BOGUS BILLS PROVIDERS THROUGH BANK ACCOUNTS. 3. WHETHER ON THE FA CTS OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT( A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A . O U/S,69A OF RS.4,49,03,354/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION U/S.69A ON THE BASIS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SINCE ASSESSEE D ID NOT FILE NECESSARY EVIDENCES & DETAILS IN RESPECT OF BOGUS BILLING. ? 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) O N THE ABOVE GROUND BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUF ACTURING AND SALE OF ON ROAD AUTOMOBILES AND MACHINE TOOLS HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. N IL AND BOOK PROFIT UNDER SE C.115JB OF THE I.T ACT AT RS. 1,8 93.16 LACS ON 25.09.2008. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 16.03.2009 , DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.N IL. THEREAFTER , ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.143(3) WAS FRAMED ON 07.12.2010 AND THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.N IL AND BOOK PROFIT AT RS.18,94,23,043/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED UNDER SEC.147 OF THE I.T ACT. INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED B Y THE A . O , VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC.143(3) R.W.S. 147, DATED 18.03.2013 AT RS.18,95,99,896/ - . 3. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO SURVEY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC.133A OF THE I.T AC T ON 28.12.2010. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY ACTION IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE NATURE OF VARIOUS EXPENSES WHICH WERE DEBITED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND CONSUMABLES. F OR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE TOTAL ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL P A G E | 3 ITA NO. 1358/MUM/2016 A.Y. 2008 - 09 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. EXPENDITURE ON WHICH DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIME D WAS RS.4,81,68,303/ - . INSOFAR THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF CONSUMABLES WERE CONCERNED, THE SAME WORKED OUT TO AN AMOUNT OF RS.13,58,869/ - . OBSERVING, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE MADE PURCHASES OF RS.4,95,27,172/ - WHICH WERE ADMITTED TO BE BOGUS DURING THE COURSE OF THE SU RVEY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC.133A OF THE I.T ACT, THE A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDERS AFTER DEDUCTION OF COMMISSION OF 0.10% TO 0.25% WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY BEEN RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THEM . IN THE BACKDROP OF HIS AFO RESAID OBSERVATIONS THE A.O HELD A CONVICTION THAT KEEPING IN VIEW THE ADMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS THAT IT HAD OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, THE SUM OF RS.4,94,03,354/ - (AFTER REDUCING THE COMMISSION @ 0.25%) COU LD SAFE LY BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER SEC.69A OF THE I. T ACT IN ITS HANDS. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN AP PEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). INSOFAR THE ADDITION OF RS.4,94 ,03,354/ - UNDER SEC.69A MADE BY THE A.O WAS CONCERNED, THE CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE VIEW THAT WAS EARLIER TAKEN BY HIM WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 AND DELETED THE SAME . 5. THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE C ASE PERTAINING TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O UNDER SEC.69A. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE CONSOLIDATED ORD ER PASSED BY THE ITAT BENCH D, MUMBAI IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIZ. DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. (ITA NO. 1357 & 1566/MUM/2017) FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 AND A.Y. 2010 - 11 (COPY PLACED ON RECORD). IT WAS P A G E | 4 ITA NO. 1358/MUM/2016 A.Y. 2008 - 09 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OF F THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE INVOLVING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE OF ADDITION MADE UNDER SEC. 69A , HAD RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A FRESH ORDER AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. A.R TAKING SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED YEARS I.E A.Y. 2007 - 08 AND A.Y. 2010 - 11 S UBMITTED THAT ON THE SAME TERMS THE PRESENT APPEAL IN CONTEXT OF THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION MAY ALSO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( FOR SHORT D.R) DID NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID CONTENTIONS SO ADVANCED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRE SENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL PERTAINS TO AN ADDITION OF RS.4,94,03,354/ - MADE BY THE A.O UNDER SEC.69A , VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC.143(3) R.W.S 147, DATED 18.03.2013, WHICH ON APPEAL WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING T HE VIEW EARLIER TAKEN BY HIM WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE LATTER WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE AP PEAL BEFORE HIM HAD RELIED ON HIS EARLIER ORDER PASSED FOR A.Y. 2 007 - 08 , WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: I HAVE GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS AS SUMMARISED ABOVE THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO IN HIS ORDER AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT ON THIS GROUND AS ALSO EXTRACTED ABOVE IT IS NOTED THAT NOWHERE HAS THE AO MENTIONED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION JEWEL/CRY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF T HE SURVEY. I T IS TRITE TO SAY THAT THE STARTI NG POINT OF INVOCATION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 69A IS THE PRESENCE OF MONEY, BULLION, JT4ILLERY OR ANY OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES, IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR WHICH IS FOUND TO BE OWNED BY T HE ASSESSEE. IF NOTHING IS FOUND IN TH E POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND/OR IF THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHES THAT P A G E | 5 ITA NO. 1358/MUM/2016 A.Y. 2008 - 09 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. HE DOESN 'T HAVE THE OWNERSHIP OF WHAT IS FOUND, THEN PROVISION OF SECTION 69A CANNOT BE INVOKED . I PLACE MY RELIANCE ON [2015] 59 TAXMANN.COM 65 (MUMBA I TRIB) ITAT MUMBAI BENCH C CANNON INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING RATIOS WERE LAID DOWN. IN ABSENCE OF ANY, DIRECT EVIDENCE SHOWING NON - GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES, ADDITION MADE O N ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES BY MERELY RELYING ON STATEMENTS OF THI RD PARTIES RECORDED TINDER SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE WHETHER ONCE ASSESSEE HA DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY PRODUCING NECESSARY EVIDENCE, BURD EN WAS SHIFT ED ON TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISAPPROVE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM - HELD, YES IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO HIMSEL F IN PARA 4.8 OF HIS ORDER HAS STATED, IT IS A COMMON PHENOMENA THAT AFTER ISSUING BOGUS BILL ISSUE AFTER DEDUCTING HIS COMMISSION, RETURNS BACK TH E REMAINING SUM IN CASH. AS THIS CASH AS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESS EE, THEREFORE, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A, IT IS R EQUIRED TO BE TAXED. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ALLEGE D 'BOGUS PURCHASES' WERE RECORDED IN THE APPELLANTS BOOKS OF ACCOUN T THE PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS WAS ALSO MADE THROUGH CHEQUES FROM APPELLANT S KNOWN BANK ACCOUNTS AND DULY RECORDED IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS . TH ESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN CONTRADICTED OR DISPROVED BY THE AO. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON BASIS OF CERTAIN PRESUMPTIONS, WHICH IN MY OPINION ARE UNWARR ANTED AND UNJUSTIFIABLE. IN PARA 4.9 THE AO HAS PROPOUNDED A THEORY THAT IS BASED ON SURMISE S. IN FACT, HE STATES, 'THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN MONEY FROM THE BANK AND PAID IT TO BOGUS PARTIES FROM WHOM THE PURCHAS ES MADE.' IN OTHER WORDS, THE AO IS HIMSELF EXPLAINING THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED AS BEING FROM THE APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNT. HE HAS BROUGHT NO FINDING OR EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE APPELLANT ISSUED CHEQUES AND MADE PAYMENTS TO BOGUS SUPPLIERS WHO RETURNED THE SAME IN CASH AFTER DEDUCTING A COMMISSION, HE AVERS, THE M OST PROBABLE MODE OF RECEIPT WOULD BE BY WAY OF CASH I N ABSENCE OF AN Y EVIDENCE SUPPORT OF HIS THEORY, AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY, I AM UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE VIEW OF THE AO IT IS ALSO OBSERVE D THAT N O ADDITION U/S 69A WAS MADE FOR AY 2009 - 10 WHERE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND W HICH ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BEFORE THE INSTANT ONE. THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS.3, 75,03 , 182/ - U/S 69A IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWE D . WE FIND THAT THE AFORESAID ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 ON AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE A.O , WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A FRESH P A G E | 6 ITA NO. 1358/MUM/2016 A.Y. 2008 - 09 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. ORDER AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 , HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER : 7.1 WE FIND THAT SHRI MAITREYA V. DOSHI, THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGIN G DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENT OF SHRI K.S. NAIR, GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE & ACCOUNTS) AND ADM ITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE CONCERNED PARTIES WERE ONLY , ADJUSTMENT ENTRIES. SHRI DOSHI HAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT UNDER THE HEAD CAPIT AL EXPENDITURE ARNOUNTMG TO RS. 30,67,76,084/ - HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN ANY OF THE YEARS. HE )ROINSED TO WITHDRAW THE DEPRECIATION THAT HAS BEEN CLAIMED VRONGLY ON CAPITALISED ASSET TILL DATE AND ALSO PROMISED TO WITHDRAW HE CONCERNED CAPITALISATION AND NOT TO CLAIM ANY FURTHER D EPRECIATION ON THAT AMOUNT. SHRI DOSHI HAS ALSO STATED THAT (I) THE AMOUNT OF RS. 14,60,42,078/ - ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF TRADING GOODS IS A TAX NEUTRAL, (II) THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,44,54,564/ / BOOKED UNDER THE HEAD CONSUMABLES IN THE P&L. ACCOUNT SHALL BE RE VERSED IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS AND TAXES, IF ANY SHALL BE PAID ON THE SAME AND (III) THE AMOUNT OF RS. 9 , 07,83,728/ - UNDER THE HEAD LAND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES INCURRED FOR DOMBIVALI (ARID HAS NO TAX EFFECT. SHRI DOSHI WAS THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. HIS STATEMENT IS OF SEMINAL VALUE. HE HAS GIVEN THE ABOVE STATEMENT AFTER PERUSING THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI K.M. NAIR, GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE & ACCOU NTS) OF THE COMPANY. WE FIND THAT NEITHER THE A.O. NOR THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DONE PROPER ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT OF SHRI DOSHI. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO FILE ,THE COMPLETE DETAILS BEFORE THE A.G. TO SUBSTANTIATE THE STATEMENT OF SHRI DOSHI . IN CIT VS. CALCUTTA AGENCY LTD. (1951) 19 I TR 191 (SC), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE NECESSARY FACT IN ORDER TO ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A CLAIM IS ON THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME RATIO HAS BEEN REITERATED I N NUND & SAMONT CO. (P) LTD. VS. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 268 (SC). THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS LIMITED, TO PRIMARY OR INITIAL ONUS. ONE SUCH PRIMARY ONUS IS DISCHARGED, SUCH BURDEN SHIFTS TO REVENUE. WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS. - IN. VIEW OF T HE ABOVE THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE CASE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE O F THE A O. WITH A DIRECTION TO MAKE AN ORDER AFRESH AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF TH E ACT AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE STATEMENT OF SH RI MAITREYA V. DOSHI. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE THE RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE THE A.O. THUS THE 1 ST AND 2 ND AND 3 RD GROUND OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NOW WHEN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 HAD IN ITSELF BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE P A G E | 7 ITA NO. 1358/MUM/2016 A.Y. 2008 - 09 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I.E DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. (ITA NO. 1357/MUM/2016; DATED 28.04.2017), THEREF ORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E A.Y. 2009 - 10 , WHICH AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE WAS PASSED BY HIM FOLLOWING THE VIEW EARLIER TAKEN BY HIM WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL IN THE ASSESSES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08, WOULD IN ALL FAIRNESS REQUIRES TO BE RESTORED IN THE SAME TERMS TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WE THUS IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE CASE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O , WHO IS DIRECTED TO PASS A FRESH ORDER AFTER AFFORD ING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE G ROUND S OF APPEAL NO S . 1 TO 3 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. AS THE GROUND S OF APPEAL NO S . 4 AND 5 ARE GENERAL, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 10. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 0 . 04.2019 S D / - S D / - ( N.K. PRADHAN) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 10 .04.2019 PS. ROHIT P A G E | 8 ITA NO. 1358/MUM/2016 A.Y. 2008 - 09 DCIT - 3(2)(2) VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI