SOLO HARDWARE P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1485/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8369 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V VINOD KUMAR JT
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Cost of acquisition; Accommodation entries
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 115JB; 133(6); 201; 147; 145; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G, BEN CH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO1485 & 1486/MUM/2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ) SOLO HARDWARE PRIVATE LIMITED SHOP NO.03, SHASTRI NAGAR 90FT RD., NR.AMBEDKAR CHOWK OPP.PANT NAGAR POLICE STATION GHATKOPAR(E) MUMBAI-400 075 VS. ACIT,CIRCLE-5(3)(2) AAYKAR BHAWAN, M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 PAN/GIR NO. A AJCS0760R APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI DHARAN GANDHI, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY SHRI V.VINOD KUMAR, JT. CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING 26/02/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/05/2020 / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST COMMON ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 10, MUMBAI, DATED 16/11/2016 FOR THE ASST. YEARS 20 0-11 & 2011- 12. SINCE, FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMO N, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED- OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NOS.1485 & 1486/MUM/2017 SOLO HARDWARE PVT.LTD. 2 ITA.NO.1485/MUM/2017 FOR AY 2010-11:- 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS, MORE OR LESS RAISED COMMON GRO UNDS OF APPEAL FOR BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, FOR TH E SAKE OF BREVITY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED FOR THE AY 201 0-11 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961('THE ACT') IS VALID IN LAW. REASONS ASSIGNED BY HIM FOR DOING THE SAME ARE WRON G AND INSUFFICIENT. APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 148 OF THE ACT FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS ITSELF ILLE GAL AND UNJUSTIFIED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE REASSESSMENT ORDER SO PASSED LIABL E TO BE QUASHED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. C.I.T.(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE AD DITION MADE BY LEARNED AO @12.5% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES AGGREGATIN G TO RS. 6,23,19,2897- FROM TWO PARTIES UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. REASONS ASSIGNED BY HIM FOR DOING THE SAME ARE WRONG AND IN SUFFICIENT. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS) BEING ARBITRARY AND BAD IN LAW, THE SAME SHOULD BE QUASHED AND YOUR APPELLANT BE GI VEN SUCH RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, AM END AND MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN HARDWARE ITEMS, FILED IT S RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2010-11 ON 06/10/2010, DECLARING TOTAL INCOM E AT RS.29,77,205/- UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE I.T.A CT, 1961 AND BOOK PROFIT OF RS.29,56,171 U/S 115JB OF THE I.T.AC T, 1961. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 ON 23/03/2013 AND THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS.29,77,205/-. THE CASE HAS BEEN, SUBSEQUENTLY REO PENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FR OM DGIT, INVESTIGATION, MUMBAI, AS PER WHICH, THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES OF ITA NOS.1485 & 1486/MUM/2017 SOLO HARDWARE PVT.LTD. 3 GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA HAD TAKEN ACTIONS AGAINST NUMBER OF HAWALA DEALERS, WHO HAD ISSUED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS TO VARIOUS PARTIES IN MUMBAI AND OTHER PLACES. AS PER LIST OF BENEFICIARIES, THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY, WHO HAD TAKEN A CCOMMODATION BILLS OF BOGUS PURCHASES FROM VICTOR INTERTRADE PVT LTD AND AANCHAL ENTERPRISES AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,23,19,289/-. THE CAS E WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S. 143(3).R.W.S. 147 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 ON 27/01/201 6 AND DETERMINED TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,07,67,116/-, AFTER MAKING ADD ITION OF 12.50% PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE FROM THOSE PARTIES AND MADE ADDITIONS OF RS. 77,89,911/-. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESEE HAS REITERATED ITS ARGUMENTS MADE BEFORE THE LD. AO. TH E ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PURCHASES FROM THOSE PARTIES ARE SUPPORTED BY NECESSARY EVIDENCES, INCLUDING PURCHASE BILLS AND P AYMENTS FOR SUCH PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH PROPER BANKIN G CHANNELS. THEREFORE, THE LD. AO WAS INCORRECT IN COMING TO TH E CONCLUSION THAT PURCHASES FROM ABOVE PARTIES IS NON GENUINE, MERELY FOR THE REASON THAT THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT CERTAIN DEALERS ARE INVOLVED IN THE ACTIVITY OF HAWALA TRANSACTIONS BY ISSUING BOGUS /ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF PURCHASE BILLS TO CERTAIN PARTIES. THE LD.CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS O F THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO BY TAKEN NOTE OF VARIOUS FACTS, INCLUDING BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SIMITH P.SHETH (2013) 356 ITR 451 HAS UPHELD THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO TOWARDS 12.5% PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHA SES. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER;- ITA NOS.1485 & 1486/MUM/2017 SOLO HARDWARE PVT.LTD. 4 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ID.AR. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS R ELIED ON BY THE LD.AR AND THE AO. AS SEEN FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM T HE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THROUGH DGIT(NV.), MUMBAI WITH REGARD TO NON-PAYMENT OF VAT BY SOME OF THE SELLERS WHOSE REGISTRATION WAS C ANCELLED LATER, HAVING OBSERVED THAT THOSE ARE THE NON-EXISTENT SEL LERS AND THEY HAVE NOT MADE ANY SALES EXCEPT THE BOGUS INVOICES ISSUED IN THEIR NAME. WHEN THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAS MADE ENQUIRIES THE SEL LERS HAVE ADMITTED BEFORE THEM THAT THEY HAVE NOT MADE ANY SALES BUT G IVEN THE INVOICES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAVE ARGUED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES THAT THEY HAVE MADE THE PAYMENTS THROUGH BANK CHEQU ES TO THE SELLERS AND RECEIVED THE MATERIAL. THEIR ARGUMENT WAS THAT UNLESS THE AO PROVES POSITIVELY THAT THE MATERIAL WAS NOT DELIVERED TO T HE ASSESSES AND THE PAYMENT MADE THROUGH THE BANK CHANNELS HAVE BEEN BO GUS OR THE AMOUNTS PAID IN THE NAMES OF THE SUPPLIERS HAVE COM E BACK TO THE PURCHASER-ASSESSEE, THE AO CANNOT MAKE ANY ADDITION . FURTHER, AS THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE SALES DISCLOSED BY THE APPEL LANT HE HAS TO ALLOW THE PURCHASES SINCE THERE CANNOT BE ANY SALES WITHO UT THE PURCHASE OF THE MATERIAL. THE ONLY POSSIBILITY IS THAT THE APPE LLANT MIGHT HAVE INFLATED ITS PURCHASES BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE INVOICES I N THE NAMES OF THE BOGUS SUPPLIERS. THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE MATERI AL MIGHT HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FROM GREY MARKET AT A LOWER RATE AND MADE GOOD THE ENTRIES WITH BOGUS BILLS TO REDUCE THE PROFITS. UNDER SIMIL AR CIRCUMSTANCES THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF SIMIT P SETH, 2013 (356 ITR 451) HAD AN OCCASION TO DELIVER ITS JUDGMENT BY CON FIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT WHICH HAS ESTIMATED THE DISALLOWANCE AT 12 .5% OF THE DISPUTED BOGUS PURCHASES TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THE HE AD-NOTE OF THE DECISION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER- 'SECTION 145 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - METHOD O F ACCOUNTING - ESTIMATION OF PROFITS (BOGUS PURCHASES ) ~ ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 - ASSESSES WAS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF TRADING IN STEEL ON WHOLESALE BASIS - A SSESSING OFFICER HAVING FOUND THAT SOME OF ALLEGED SUPPLIERS OF STEEL TO ASSESSES HAD NOT SUPPLIED STEEL TO ASSESSES BUT HAD ONLY PROVIDED SALE BILLS, HELD THAT PURCHASES MADE FROM SAID PARTIES WERE BOGUS - HE, ACCORDINGLY, ADDED ENTIRE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES TO GROSS PROFIT OF ASSESSES - COMMISSIONE R (APPEALS) HAVING FOUND THAT NOT FROM NAMED PARTIES BUT OTHER PARTIES FROM GREY MARKET, SUSTAINED ADDITION TO EXTENT OF 30 PER CENT OF PURCHASE COST AS PROBABLE PROFIT OF ASS ESSES - TRIBUNAL HOWEVER, SUSTAINED ADDITION TO EXTENT OF 1 2.5 PER CENT WHETHER, SINCE PURCHASES WERE NOT BOGUS .BUT WERE MADE FROM. PARTIES OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN BO OKS OF ACCOUNT, ONLY PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH PURCH ASES COULD BE ADDED TO ASSESSEE'S INCOME -HELD, YES - WHETHER HENCE, ORDER OF TRIBUNAL NEEDED NO INTERFERENCE - H ELD, YES [PARAS 6, 7 & 9] FIN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED). ITA NOS.1485 & 1486/MUM/2017 SOLO HARDWARE PVT.LTD. 5 5.2.1. IN THE INSTANT CASE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AM OUNT U/S 133(6) HAVE COME BACK UNSERVED. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PRO DUCE ANY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE PURCHASES AND FAI LED TO PRODUCE THE SO-CALLED SUPPLIERS FOR EXAMINATION OF THE AO. WITH REGARD TO THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DLT(INV.) MUMBAI THE SUMM ARY OF THE COMMUNICATION WAS ALREADY PASSED ON TO THE APPELLAN T WHILE COMMUNICATING REASONS FOR REOPENING. EVEN THOUGH TH E AO COULD NOT PROVE SUBSTANTIVELY THAT THE AMOUNTS GIVEN TO THE S ELLERS IN CHEQUE FORM HAVE COME BACK TO THE APPELLANT, THE ACTIVITIES OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE TRADING COMMUNITY IS NOT UNHEARD OF. FURTHER , THE INVESTIGATIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, ANOTHER GO VERNMENT AGENCY, WITH REGARD TO VAT VIOLATION CANNOT BE LOST SIGHT O F. EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE CATENA OF CASES BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT WHIC H HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN THE FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THEY ARE NOT U NIFORM IN A// THE CASES AS FFTEY WERE DECIDED AS PER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THAT PARTICULAR CASE BEFORE THEM. I AM OF THE OPINION TH AT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE MORE AKIN TO THE CASE DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIMIT P SETH (SUPRA.). IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THE AO HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THIS DECISION AND WORKED OUT THE POSSIBLE GAIN WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS SUPPR ESSED BY INCORPORATING BOGUS BILLS. ACCORDINGLY I CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT, THE GROUND IS DISMISS ED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD. AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF 12.50% PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS IS SUED BY HAWALA DEALERS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AO, ALTHOUGH ASSESEE HAS FILED CERTAIN BASIC EVIDENCES, BUT FAILED TO FILE FURTHER EVIDENC E IN THE BACKDROP OF CLEAR FINDING BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, MAHARASH TRA THAT THOSE PARTIES ARE INVOLVED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENT RIES WITHOUT ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS. THE LD. AO HAD ALSO TAKEN SUPPORT FROM THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AS PER WHICH NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) TO THE PARTIES WERE RETURNED UN-SERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTIES ARE BOGUS IN NATURE. IT IS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT PURCHASES FROM THE ABOVE PAR TY ARE SUPPORTED ITA NOS.1485 & 1486/MUM/2017 SOLO HARDWARE PVT.LTD. 6 BY NECESSARY EVIDENCES. IT HAS FURNISHED ALL POSSIB LE EVIDENCES, INCLUDING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS; STOCK DETAILS AND BANK STATEMENT TO PROVE THAT PAYMENT AGAINST SAID PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNELS. 6. HAVING CONSIDERED ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO, CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FI ND THAT BOTH THE SIDES HAVE FAILED TO PROVE THE CASE IN THEIR FAVOUR WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES. ALTHOUGH, ASSESSEE HAS FILED CERTAIN BAS IC EVIDENCES, BUT FAILED TO FILE FURTHER EVIDENCES TO CONCLUSIVELY PR OVE PURCHASES TO THE SATISFACTIONS OF THE LD.AO. AT THE SAME TIME, THE LD. AO HAD ALSO FAILED TO TAKE THE INVESTIGATION TO A LOGICAL CONCL USION BY CARRYING OUT NECESSARY ENQUIRES, BUT HE SOLELY RELIED UPON INFO RMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING, WHICH WAS FURTHER SUPPORTE D BY INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. UN DER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES. FURTHER, IN A CASE WHERE PURCHASES ARE CONSIDERED T O BE EFFECTED FROM SUSPICIOUS/HAWALA DEALERS, VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND TRIBUNALS HAD CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN LIGHT OF INVES TIGATION CARRIED OUT BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND HELD THAT IN CASE O F PURCHASES CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM ALLEGED HAWALA DEALER S, ONLY PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THOSE PURCHASES NEEDS TO BE TAX ED, BUT NOT TOTAL PURCHASE FROM THOSE PARTIES. THE HONBLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SIMITH P.SHETH 356 ITR 451 HAD C ONSIDERED A SIMILAR ISSUE AND HELD THAT AT THE TIME OF ESTIMATI ON OF PROFIT FROM ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES NO UNIFORM YARDSTICKS COULD BE ADOPTED, BUT IT DEPENDS UPON FACTS OF EACH CASE. THE ITAT, M UMBAI, IN NUMBER OF CASES HAD CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE A ND DEPENDING UPON FACTS OF EACH CASE, DIRECTED THE LD.AO TO ESTI MATE GROSS PROFIT ITA NOS.1485 & 1486/MUM/2017 SOLO HARDWARE PVT.LTD. 7 OF 10% TO 15% ON TOTAL ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. IN THIS CASE, CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE THE LD. AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF 12.50% PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOGUS PUR CHASES, AND WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). ALTHOUGH, BOTH AUTHORITIES HAVE TAKEN 12.50% RATE OF PROFIT FOR ESTIMATION OF INCOME FROM ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE, BUT NO ONE COULD SUPPORT SA ID RATE OF GROSS PROFIT WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES OR ANY COMPARABLE C ASES. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE RATE OF PROFIT IN THIS KIND OF BUSINESS IS AT 2% TO 3% DEPENDING U PON VOLUME OF TRADE AND FOR THIS HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT, MUMBAI F BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. VERITAS INDIA LTD, IN ITA NO. 6383/MUM/2016 AND OTHER CASES, WHERE UNDER IDENTICA L FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ESTIMATED 2% PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOGUS P URCHASES. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HIS CASE AND CONSISTENT WITH VIEW TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN NUMBER OF CASES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT RATE OF P ROFIT ADOPTED BY THE LD. AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) SEEMS TO BE EXCESSIVE WHEN COMPARED TO NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDING LY WE DIRECT THE LD. AO TO ESTIMATE 2% PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCH ASES. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.1486/MUM/2017 FOR AY 2011-12 8. THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES, WHICH WE HAD CONSIDERED IN ITA NO . 1485/MUM/2017. THE REASONS GIVEN BY US IN PRECEDIN G PARAGRAPHS IN ITA NO.1485/MUM/2017 SHALL MUTATIS-MUTANDIS APPLY TO THIS APPEAL, AS WELL. THEREFORE, FOR SIMILAR REASONS REC ORDED IN ITA NO. ITA NOS.1485 & 1486/MUM/2017 SOLO HARDWARE PVT.LTD. 8 1485/MUM/2017, WE DIRECT THE LD. AO TO ESTIMATE NET PROFIT OF 2% ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. 10. AS A RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH ASST.YEARS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20/05/2 020 SD/- (RAVISH SOOD) SD/- (G. MANJUNATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 20/05/2020 THIRUMALESH SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//