VIMAL M. LODHA, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 25(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1409/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3321 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM BATRA
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Non compliance; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 145; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ' F ' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1409 /MUM/201 3 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 06 - 0 7 ) SHRI VIMAL M. LODHA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 25(2)(4) C/O. SARAF & CHANDRA, CA BHARAT INS. BLDG., 3 RD FLOOR 15A, HORNIMAN CIRCLE FORT, MUMBAI 400001 C - 11, PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAWAN B ANDRA K URALA C OMPLEX BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI PAN - AAAPL6131F APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VIKRAM BATRA DATE OF HEARING: 24 .02 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16 .0 3 .2016 O R D E R PER JASON P. BOAZ, A.M . THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 35 , MUM BAI DATED 2 9 . 11 .201 2 FOR A.Y. 20 06 - 07 . 2 . THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BRIEFLY, ARE AS UNDER: - 2.1 THE ASSESSEE, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SUNDER SHIRTINGS, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SYNTHETIC FABRICS AND TEXTILES FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 ON 31.10.2006 DECLARING INCOME OF ` 1,38,673/ - . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') AND THE CASE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT TO FIVE PARTIES, IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WERE RETURNED BACK UNSERVED. THE AO THEN REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE THE CORRECT ADDRESSES OF THESE FIVE PARTIES AND/OR TO PRODU CE THE SAID FIVE PARTIES. ON ELICITING NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, THE AO PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ITA NO. 1409 / MUM /2013 SHRI VIMAL M. LODHA 2 ORDER DATED 23.12.2003, ESTIMATING THE GP @ 12% OF TURNOVER AND FURTHER DISALLOWED 50% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED AFTER REJECTING THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THIS MANNER, THE ASSESSEES INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT ` 7,86,092/ - . 2.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 DATED 23.12.2008, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT(A) - 35, MUMBAI. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.11.2012. 3.1 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 35, MUMBAI DATED 29.11.2012 FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - I. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL : 1.1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT WITH ANY EXPRESS REASON AND CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. 1.2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN INVOKE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS RELATING TO METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OR BEING NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLET ENESS OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. 2. SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL : 2.1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IS CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,47,41 9/ - ON ESTIMATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2.2. HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT NON COMPLIANCE ON SUMMONS ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT BY FEW SUPPLIERS, WHICH IS AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY BY AO AND WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF OUR CLIENT AND THIS CAN'T BE THE REASON FOR ESTIMATION OF INCOME, AS THE APPELLANT RECEIVED MATERIAL, SOLD TO CUST OMERS, RECEIVED THE PAYMENT IN BANK AND GAVE THE PAYMENT TO THESE PARTIES THROUGH BANK AND WHICH WERE VERIFIED DURING ASSESSMENT AND REMAND PROCEEDINGS BY AO. 2.3. HE FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THESE SUMMONED PARTIES, NOT RESPONDED, WERE SU BMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THIRD GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 3.1. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AND/OR ALTER ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME. 3.1.1 THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND AS UNDER: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ITA NO. 1409 / MUM /2013 SHRI VIMAL M. LODHA 3 ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE 1.T ACT, 1961 IS INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LEARNED C.I.T(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND THAT TOO WITHOUT GIVING FULL AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.13(A) ERRED IN OBSERVING 'AS REGARDS THE IMPACT OF THIS ON THE OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS, SINCE THESE FIVE PARTIES WERE ADVERSELY COMMENTED UPON BY THE A.O. IN A.Y 2006 - 07 THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO GO THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS FOR A.Y. 2007 08,2008 - 09, & 2009 - 10 AND CONSIDER TO TAKE REMEDIAL MEASURES EITHER U/S 14 8 OR CONSIDER TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL BEFORE CIT - 25, MUMBAI FOR ENHANCEMENT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08,2008 - 09 & 2009 - 10.' 3.1.2 THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS HEARD IN RESPECT OF THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED (SUPRA). IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T THESE GROUNDS NOW SOUGHT TO BE RAISED ARE PURELY LEGAL GROUNDS THAT GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND WERE INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO BE TAKEN EARLIER. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORAT ION VS. CIT (229 ITR 383) (SC), IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BE ADMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION AND ADJUDICATION. 3.1.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT THESE GROUNDS ARE PURELY LEGAL GROUNDS AND WOULD GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER PERTAINING TO THIS APPEAL. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED WOULD NOT REQUIRE EXAMINATION OF ANY FACT NOT ALREADY ON RECORD. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE, WE ADMIT THESE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED (SUPRA) FOR CONSIDERATION AND ADJUDICATION. 3.2.1 IN RESPECT OF THE G ROUNDS RAISED AT S.NOS. 1 TO 3 AND THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL (SUPRA) THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS HEARD AT LENGTH. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS SUBMITTED IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 2 THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO, INTER ALIA, ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE FIVE PARTIES, LISTED OUT ON PAGE 2 OF THE ORD ER OF ASSESSMENT, IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASE TRANSACTION, BUT THE NOTICES RETURNED UNSERVED. THE AO THEN CITING THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES OR FURNISH DETAILS IN THIS ITA NO. 1409 / MUM /2013 SHRI VIMAL M. LODHA 4 REGARD, REJECTED THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOU NT UNDER SECTION 145 OF THE ACT AND PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE THE GROSS PROFIT @12% OF TOTAL SALES AND DISALLOWED 50% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED. 3.2.2 IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE AVERMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2009, REMANDED THE ISSUES RAISED AND SUBMISSION FILED IN THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR EXAMINATION/VERIFICATION AND REPORT THEREON. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE REM AND REPORT DATED 06.02.2012, THE AO REPORTED TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO AVAIL, ATTEND AND COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT DETAILS IN THIS REGARD ON 28.01.2010, 22.09.2011 AND 31.01.2012, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION TO OFFER IN RESPECT OF HIS CLAIM S AND THEREFORE THE APPEAL MAY BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE ABOVE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO IS FACTUALLY ERRONEOUS AND MI SLEADING, AS THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE AO IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS WERE IN FACT FURNISHED TO THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 08.09.2010. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH THAT THE ENCLOSURES VIDE LETTER DATED 08.09.2010 PLACED BEFORE THE AO, THE SAME SUBMISSION ENCLOSED THEREWITH ARE PLACED AT PAGE 41 TO 210 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS CAN BE ASCERTAINED BY THE BENCH BY CALLING FOR THE RECORDS OF ASSESSMENT FOR A. Y. 2006 - 07. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE AVERMENT S WOULD CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT, AS CONTENDED IN GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS (SUPRA), THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WITHOUT AFFORDIN G THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER SINCE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD NOT EXAMINED AND CONSIDERED THE AFORESAID DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND BEFORE THE AO IN REMAND PROC EEDINGS. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE ABOVE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DE NOVO ADJUDICATION IN TERMS OF GROUND N O. 2 OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED. ITA NO. 1409 / MUM /2013 SHRI VIMAL M. LODHA 5 3.3 THE LEARNED D.R. FOR REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LEARNED D.R. WAS REQUIRED BY THE BENCH TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS OF ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 FOR OUR PERUSAL, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE A VERMENTS OF THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS ERRONEOUS SINCE THE SUBMISSIONS/DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND BEFORE THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 08.09.2010 (PLACED AT PAGES 41 TO 21 0 OF THE PAPER BOOK) WERE NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED OR CONSIDERED WHILE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ALSO WERE IGNORED BY THE AO IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED D.R. PRODUCED THE RECORDS OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE BENCH AND CONFIRMED WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALLEGED, THAT THE SUBMISSIONS/DETAILS FILED BY HIM IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 08.09.2010 (PLACED AT PAGES 41 TO 210 OF THE PAPER BOOK) WERE IN FACT A PART OF THE RECORDS OF ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 AND WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AO. THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH EXAMINATION AND ADJUDICATION. 3.4.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES ON THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 2, I.E. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WITHOUT AFFORDING FULL AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER OF HIS APPEAL. THE FACTS THAT EMANATE AS PER THE RECORD IN THIS REGARD ARE THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO CALLED FOR INFORMATION UNDER S ECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF THE FIVE PARTIES LISTED ON PAGE 2 OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, THE NOTICES/LETTERS CALLING FOR INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE AC T RETURNED UNSERVED AND THE AO THEN REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THESE PARTIES OR PRODUCE THE SAID PARTIES FOR EXAMINATION. THERE BEING NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, THE AO PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT BY REJECTING THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ESTIMATING THE G.P. @ 12% OF TURNOVER AND FURTHER DISALLOWING 50% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.4.2 ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DETAILS/DOC UMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM, VIDE ORDER DATED ITA NO. 1409 / MUM /2013 SHRI VIMAL M. LODHA 6 15.12.2009, REMANDED THE ISSUES RAISED, DETAILS AND SUBMISSIONS FILED TO THE AO FOR EXAMINATION/VERIFICATION AND REPORT THEREON. 3.4.3 IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 06.02.2012, THE AO REPORTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO AVAIL OR COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED, THE ASSESSEE HAD NO EXPLANATION TO OFFER IN THE MATTER AND THEREFORE THE APPEAL BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSE E HAD ALLEGED THAT THE AOS REMAND REPORT DATED 06.02.2012 WAS FACTUALLY ERRONEOUS AND MISLEADING, SINCE THE ASSESSEE, IN THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE THE AO, HAD FILED ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS VIDE LETTER DATED 08.09.2010 (PLACED AT PAGES 41 TO 210 OF THE PAPER BOOK), WHICH INSPITE OF BEING A PART OF THE RECORDS OF ASSESSMENT WERE CONVENIENTLY IGNORED AND BRUSHED ASIDE BY THE AO WHILE SUBMITTING THE REMAND REPORT DATED 06.02.2012. 3.4.4 IN THIS REGARD WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS OF ASSESSMENT OF THE CASE ON HAND FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07, PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH BY THE LEARNED D.R. FOR REVENUE. ON PERUSAL THEREOF, WE FIND THAT AS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE SUBMISSION/DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE VIDE LETTER DATED 08.09.201 0 BEFORE THE AO IN THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS (ALSO PLACED AT PAGES 41 TO 210 OF THE PAPER BOOK) ARE A PART OF THE RECORDS OF ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07. THIS, IN OUR VIEW, SUBSTANTIATES THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AOS REM AND REPORT DATED 06.02.2012 WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND MISLEADING AND ALSO THAT THE SUBMISSIONS/DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS, VIDE LETTER DATED 08.09.2010, WERE NEVER CONSIDERED WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 200 6 - 07. 3.4.5 IN THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, AS DISCUSSED AT PARAS 3.2.1 TO 3.4.4 OF THIS ORDER (SUPRA), WE CONCUR WITH THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT( A) DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, WAS PASSED WITHOUT AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE FULL AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER, BY VIRTUE OF THE AO/CIT(A) IGNORING AND NOT CONSIDERING THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND VIDE LETTER DATED ITA NO. 1409 / MUM /2013 SHRI VIMAL M. LODHA 7 08.09.2010 BEFORE THE AO IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTERS RAISED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DE NOVO EXAMINATION AND ADJUDICATION THEREON AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS/ SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 08.09.2010 IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO FURTHER SUBMISSIONS/DETAILS REQUIRED TO BE FILED IN THIS REGARD FOR WHICH ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSE E. IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4 . IN VIEW OF OUR SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORING THE MATTER OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE CONT EXT OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR EXAMINATION AND ADJUDICATION, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE ON THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT S.NOS. 1 TO 3 AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 & 3. 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEA L FOR A.Y. 20 06 - 07 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH MARCH, 2016 . SD/ - SD/ - ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) ( JASON P. BOAZ ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 16 TH MARCH, 2016 COPY TO: 1 . THE APPELLANT 2 . THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT(A) 26 , MUMBAI 4 . THE CIT 15 MUMBAI 5 . THE DR, F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.