MOHAMEDALI H CHARANIA, MUMBAI V. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1527/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9684 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV GUBGOTRA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1527/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 MR. MOHAMEDALI H. CHARANIA, C/O. M/S. HASANALI VIRJEE & SONS, 305, GULAB BLDG, 237, P.D MELLO ROAD, OPP: G.P.O. MUMBAI [PAN : AACPC0710B] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, -12(1)(2), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI DHARMESH SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJEEV GUBGOTRA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 14-06-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :24-06-2019 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)- 10, MUMBAI, DATED 19-12-2012, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDE R DATED 07-12-2009 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO), MUM BAI U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE A CT). ITA NO. 1527/MUM/2013 : 2 : 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: I. A.) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THEREBY ASSESSING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.25,63,834/- ON SALE OF RESI DENTIAL HOUSE IN PLACE OF RS.NIL RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT, (AFTER C LAIMING EXEMPTION U/S.540 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961) BY SUBSTITUTIN G THE SALE VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ASSESSED FOR STAMP DUTY VALUATION IN PL ACE OF THE SALE VALUE DECLARED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT. B) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS ASSESSED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. II. THE APPELLANT, RESPECTFULLY, SUBMITS AS FOLLO WS. I) THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO DIE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, SIN CE SECTION 48 IS NOT ATTRACTED. II) THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C IS APPLICABLE ONL Y FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF SECTION 48 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR COMPUTING THE TAXABLE CAPITAL GAIN. III) THAT UNDER THE CHARGING SECTION 45 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, THERE IS NO CAPITAL GAIN LEFT (AFTER CONSIDERING TH E EXEMPTION U/S.54) TO WHICH THE OTHER PROVISION OF THE ACT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN LIKE SECTION 48, SECTIO N 50C ETC. APPLY. IV) THAT THE DEEMING PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, IS APPLICABLE ONLY FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF SECT ION 48 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, WHEN SECTION 4 8 IS NOT APPLICABLE (IN VIEW OF EXEMPTION U/S.54) SECTION 50 C DOES NOT APPLY. V) THAT IT IS NEVER THE INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE TO TA X NOTIONAL GAIN BY INVOKING DEEMING PROVISION OF SECTION 50C O F THE ACT, 1961, AND TO DENY CONCESSIONAL GRANTED BY SECT ION 54 ETC. III. THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, PRAYS THAT THE NOTIO NAL CAPITAL GAIN COMPUTED BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C S HOULD BE DELETED AND THE EXEMPTION OF CAPITAL GAIN CLAIMED BY THE AP PELLANT U/S.54 OF ITA NO. 1527/MUM/2013 : 3 : THE INCOME TAX ACT, MAY BE ACCEPTED AND THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO MODIFY HIS ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGLY. 3. BRIEFLY PUT, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31-10-2007 , DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,37,910/- AND THE SAME WAS PROCESS ED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SC RUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT RS.30,01,740/- BY PRIM ARILY SCALING DOWN THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S.54EC OF THE ACT. 4. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD TWO FLATS DURING THE YEAR AND EARNED CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SAME. IN RESPECT OF FLAT N O.8, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.40,00,0 00/- WHEREAS THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION IN RESPECT OF THE SAM E WAS RS.50,85,000/-. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF FLAT NO.301, SALE PROCEEDS AS PER AGREEMENT WAS RS.5,00,000/- WHEREAS THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION WAS RS.96,67,300/-. AFTER CONSI DERING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION, INVESTMENTS IN PURCHASE OF NEW HOUSE PROPERTY AND BONDS U/S.54EC OF THE ACT, WH ILE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY TAXABLE CAPITAL GAINS BASED ON ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION; BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VOKED SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND TOOK THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AND COMPUTED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,27,09,634/-. AFTER CONSIDERING THE INVE STMENTS IN PURCHASE OF HOUSE PROPERTY AND BONDS U/S.54EC OF THE ACT, THE TAXABLE CAPITAL GAINS WAS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AT RS.25,63,834/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSME NT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY DETERMINING THE LONG ITA NO. 1527/MUM/2013 : 4 : TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.25,63,834/- AS AGAINST NIL COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4.1. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT(A), WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE BY FOLL OWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MOHD. SHOIB VS. DCIT (2010) 127 TTJ LUCKNOW 457 WHEREIN THE BENCH HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT - SECTION 50C WOULD APPLY IN ALL CASES AND NOT MERELY WHERE THERE IS A TAXABLE CAPITAL GAIN . 4.2. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL, BY RAISING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, REPRODUC ED HEREIN ABOVE. 5. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MULTIPLE GROUND S OF APPEAL, BUT IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THE DISPUTE REVOLVES AROUND INVOKING OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER WHILE EXAMINING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FO R EXEMPTION U/S.54EC OF THE ACT, WITH RESPECT TO THE LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAINS EARNED ON SALE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER NOTED THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, ASSES SEE WAS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54EC OF THE ACT ON ACCOUN T OF RE-INVESTMENT IN A NEW PROPERTY, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED THE ACTUAL SALE PROCEEDS AS AGAINST THE AMOUNT OF STAMP VALUATION PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE AC T. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE DEEMING PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT REQUIRING THE ADOPTION OF THE MARK ET VALUE IN TERMS OF THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AS THE FULL VALUE OF ITA NO. 1527/MUM/2013 : 5 : CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE O F COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE ACT , AND THAT THE SAME COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN THE PRESENT CASE, W HERE THE CAPITAL GAIN IS CLAIMED EXEMPT ON ACCOUNT OF INVEST MENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND BONDS IN TERMS OF SECTION 5 4 AND SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WE LL AS THE CIT(A) HAVE NOT ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE MARKET VALUE IN TERMS OF STAMP VALUAT ION AUTHORITY HAS BEEN ADOPTED AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN VIEW OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IN ORDER TO COMPUTE THE LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAIN, EVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING EXEMP TION U/S.54EC OF THE ACT. 5.1. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE QUITE FAIRLY POINTED OUT THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH C. DHABALIA VS. TH E INCOME TAX OFFICER, IN IT APPEAL NOS.981 & 983 OF 2016, DA TED 12-03- 2019 HAS, IN PRINCIPLE APPROVED THE STAND OF THE REVEN UE. IN PARTICULAR, THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS BEEN REFERRED : 11. COMBINED READING OF THESE PROVISIONS WOULD SHO W THAT CAPITAL GAIN UPON TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET IS TO BE CHARGED AS PER SECTION 45 OF THE ACT AND WHICH SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHI CH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE. IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS CON TAINED IN SECTION 48 THE CAPITAL GAIN WOULD BE COMPUTED BY DE DUCTING FROM THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR AC CRUING AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER, EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER AND THE COST OF ACQUIS ITION OF THE ASSET AND COST OF IMPROVEMENT THEREOF. IT IS AT THE STAGE OF COMPUTATION THAT SECTION 50C OF THE ACT KICKS IN. T HIS PROVISION, AS CAN BE SEEN, PROVIDES FOR A DEEMING FICTION. SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 50C PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE CONSIDER ATION RECEIVED OR ITA NO. 1527/MUM/2013 : 6 : ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR PLOT OR BOTH IS LE SS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY STAMP VA LUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY COLLECTION IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED, ASSESSED OR AS SESSABLE SHALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 48 BE DEEMED TO BE THE F ULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. IN PLAIN TERMS, THE STAMP VALUATION ASSES SMENT BY THE STAMP DUTY OFFICER OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF CAPITAL ASSET, REPLACI NG THE DECLARED SALE CONSIDERATION, IF IT HAPPENS TO BE LESS THAN S TAMP DUTY VALUATION. FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHARGING CAPITAL GAIN IN VIEW OF SECTION 45, TO BE COMPUTED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 4 8, THIS DEEMED CONSIDERATION WOULD BE APPLIED. 12. WE MAY REFER TO SECTION 54EC WHICH IS AN EXEMPT ION OF PROVISION. SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 54EC PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LON G TERM CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND OR PLOT OR BOTH AND THE AS SESSEE HAS, AT ANY TIME WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE O F SUCH TRANSFER, INVESTED THE WHOLE OR PART OF THE CAPITAL GAINS IN SPECIFIED ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE (A) AND (B) OF SUBSECTION (1). AS PER CLAUSE (A) IF THE COS T OF THE LONG TERM SPECIFIED ASSET IS NOT LESS THAN THE CAPI TAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, THE WHOLE OF SUCH CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45. AS PER CLAUSE (B) IF THE COST OF THE LONG TERM SPECIFIED ASSET IS LESS T HAN THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSE T, THE ASSESSEE WOULD RECEIVE PROPORTIONATE EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN. FURTHER PROVISO OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 54EC LIMITS THE INVESTMENT THAT AN ASSESSEE CAN MAKE IN ANY SPE CIFIED ASSET TO RS.50 LAKHS. IN OTHER WORDS, THEREFORE CLAUSES ( A) AND (B) OF SUBSECTION (1) OF SECTION 54EC WOULD ALWAYS HAVE LI MIT OF RS.50 LAKHS SPECIFIED IN THE FURTHER PROVISO FOR IN VESTMENT IN THE SPECIFIED ASSET. 13. WE DO NOT FIND ANY CONFLICT OR ANY INCONGRUENT CONSEQUENCES OF APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN TAX AFTER CL AIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. THE DEEMIN G FICTION UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, MUST BE GIVEN ITS FUL L EFFECT AND THE COURT SHOULD NOT ALLOW TO BOGGLE THE MIND WHILE GIV ING FULL EFFECT TO SUCH FICTION. WE ARE NOT OPPOSING THE PRO POSITION CANVASSED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DEEMI NG FICTION MUST BE APPLIED IN RELATION TO THE SITUATION FOR WH ICH IT IS ITA NO. 1527/MUM/2013 : 7 : CREATED. HOWEVER, WHILE GIVING FULL EFFECT TO THE D EEMING FICTION CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT FOR THE PURP OSE OF COMPUTATION OF THE CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SECTION 48, F OR WHICH SECTION 50C IS SPECIFICALLY ENACTED, THE AUTOMATIC FALLOUT THEREOF WOULD BE THAT THE COMPUTATION OF THE ASSESSEES CAP ITAL GAIN AND CONSEQUENTLY THE COMPUTATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER SEC TION 54EC, SHALL HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF SUBSTIT UTED DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET IN TERMS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. 14. ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION, PARTICULARLY ONE CANV ASSED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WOULD RENDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C REDUNDANT. IN A SITUATION LIKE THE ONE ON HAND, EVEN IF FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 48, IN TERMS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THE SALE CONSIDERATION DEEM ED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE MUCH HIGHER THAN ON E DECLARED IN THE SALE DEED, THE ASSESSEE WOULD CLAIM NO FURTHER CAPITAL GAIN TAX LIABILITY BY SIMPLY CLAIMING TO HA VE MADE INVESTMENT IN SPECIFIED ASSET THE FULL DECLARED SAL E CONSIDERATION. 6. HOWEVER, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALL ALONG CAN VASSING THE INAPPLICABILITY OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT UNDER THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES. HOWEVER, EVEN IF ONE IS TO APPLY SECTI ON 50C OF THE ACT IN ORDER TO COMPUTE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT, YET, IN TERMS O F SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT, THE REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMEN TAL VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) IS REQUIRED WHEREVER, ASSESS EE SEEKS TO CHALLENGE THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES. FOR THE SAID LIMITED PURPOSE, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE PRAYED THAT THE MATTER BE SENT BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. WITH RESPECT TO THE LATTER PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE, LD. DR DID NOT RAISE A SERIOUS OBJECTION. ITA NO. 1527/MUM/2013 : 8 : 8. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, IN OUR VIEW , IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THE DEDUCTIONS U/S.54 OF THE ACT AND/OR 54 EC OF THE ACT HAVE ALSO TO BE COMPUTED CONSIDERING THE S ALE CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, WHEREV ER THE SAME IS FOUND APPLICABLE. THUS, IN PRINCIPLE, THE A CTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO BE UPHELD IN VIEW O F THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F JAGDISH C. DHABALIA (SUPRA). SO, HOWEVER, SECTION 5 0C(2) OF THE ACT PRESCRIBES THAT - WHERE THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY IS DISPUTED IN AS MUCH AS THE S AID VALUE EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF SUCH ASSET TO A DVO. IT IS ALSO PRESCRIBED THAT WHERE THE VALUE SO ARRIVED AT BY THE DVO IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, THEN, THE VALUE SO ESTIMATED BY THE DVO SHALL BE AD OPTED AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 50C OF T HE ACT . IN OTHER WORDS, ASSESSEE SEEKS TO POINT OUT THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE FULL VALUE OF CONSI DERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 50C IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMI NED BECAUSE HITHERTO BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, ASSESSEE WAS OBJECTING TO THE INVOCATION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT I TSELF. OF COURSE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HON'B LE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH C. DHABALIA (SUPRA), INVOKING OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT HAS BEEN H ELD TO BE IN ORDER AND THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW IT WOULD BE IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS THAT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US FOR REMITTI NG THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-WORK THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, AFTER APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF S UB- SECTION 2 OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IS MERITED. WE HOL D SO. ITA NO. 1527/MUM/2013 : 9 : 9. BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY OBSERVE THAT IN THE ENSUING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLO W THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AN D THEREAFTER PASS AN ORDER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W ON THE ISSUE OF QUANTIFICATION OF DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE U/S.54E C OF THE ACT. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED, AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH JUNE,2019 SD/- SD/- (RAVISH SOOD) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT /MUMBAI; /DATED : 24-06-2019 TNMM / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI 4. / CIT, MUMBAI 5. !' #$ , % #$& , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ''( / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASST. REGISTRAR) % #$& , / ITAT, MUMBAI