SUBHASH P. WAGH, MUMBAI V. ITO 21(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1955/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0367 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K RAVIKIRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: JAYANT R BHAT
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Capital expenditure
• Section: 68; 69; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 1955 / MUM/20 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 SUBHASH P. WAGH VS. ITO 21(3)(2 ) B/401 SHATRANJAY APTS. R. NO. 508 , 5 TH FLOOR NEW MILL ROAD, TANAJI CHOWK C - 11, PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN KURLA WEST. B.K.C. MUMBAI 400070 MUMBAI - 400051 PAN NO. AAHPW5697A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MR. JAYANT R. BHAT , AR REVENUE BY: MR. K RAVI KIRAN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 16 /05 /2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10/08/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2007 - 08 . THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 32 , MUMBAI AND ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER : I. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, DISREGARDING MAXIM UNDER LAW LEX COGIT NON ADDITION IMPOSIBLIA. II. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/ - MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 68 OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 1955 /MUM/201 4 2 III. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,15,000/ - AS AGAINST RS. 1,90,000/ - MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 69 OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. IV. A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 8,84,900/ - AS AGAINST RS. 9,19,275/ - MADE BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 69 OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 69 DOES NOT APPLY IN THE INSTANT CASE. B) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES AND IN LAW, CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CAPITAL ASSETS SAVE AND EXCEPT ON DEPRECIATION OF COMPUTER SYSTEM U/S 69 OF THE ACT. V. UND ER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SUM OF RS. 1,81,161/ - OUT OF TOTAL OF RS. 5,75,249/ - MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. VI. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,17,140/ - MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 41(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. VII. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 29 2838/ - BRING 25% OF FOLLOWING EXPENSES ON ADHOC BASIS : SL NO. NATURE OF EXPENSES AMOUNT (RS.) 1 TRANSPORTATION 145565.00 2 WAGES & SALARIES 651600.00 3 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES 25960.00 4 MOBILE & TELEPHONE EXPENSES 37402.00 5 PETROL & DIESEL EXPENSES 89950.00 6 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 120877.00 TOTAL 1171354.00 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO HAS MADE AN ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.33,34,999/ - TO THE INCOME OF RS.2,23,035/ - SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR FILED ON 31.1 0.2007. ITA NO. 1955 /MUM/201 4 3 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AFTER FORWARDING TO HIM THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE TOGETHER WITH THE DOCUMENTS FILED. T HEN THE LD. CIT(A) SUPPLIED A COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE HIS EXPLANATION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE REMAND REPORT AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE FINALISING THE APPELLATE ORDER. THEREFORE , WE SHALL BEGIN WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE 1 ST GROUND OF APPEAL IS NOT PRESSED. THUS WE DISMISS THE 1 ST GROUND OF APPEAL AS NOT PRESSED. 4.1 NOW WE COME TO THE 2 ND GROUND OF APPEAL. IT RELATES TO THE ADDIT ION OF RS.1,50,000/ - MADE BY THE AO U/S 68. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT (I) THE LOANS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN CASH TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, DO NOT HAVE TESTIMONY OF BANKING TRANSACTIONS, (II) THE IDENTITY MENTIONED IN THE CONFIRMATION LETT ER IS ONLY IN T HE SHAPE OF HAND WRITTEN LETTER AND THE REMAINING TWO ASPECTS WHICH IS CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION ARE NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, REMAND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO OR EVEN SUBSEQUE NTLY, IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), (III) THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT SUCH LOANS WHICH HAVE BEEN ADDED WERE NOT FRESHLY TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND (IV) NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN R ESPECT OF REPAYMENT OF SUCH LOANS W AS SUBMITTED. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/ - MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 IN RESPECT OF THE CREDITORS MR. KISSAN JAMADE AND MR. SAHIB RAO PATIL. ITA NO. 1955 /MUM/201 4 4 4.2 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE S UBMITS THAT THESE BORROWALS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY 2006 - 07 AND NOT IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 4.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 BEFORE US. IT IS MENTIONED THEREIN THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE NOT FILED EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(A). AS IT HAS BEAR ING ON THE ISSUE AT HAND WE ADMIT THE SAME. ALSO WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE ISSUE AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER EXAMINING THE DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. NEED LESS TO SAY, THE AO WOULD GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE 2 ND GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. WE NOW COME TO THE 3 RD GROUND OF APPEAL. IT RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1,90,000/ - MADE BY THE AO U/S 69 OF THE ACT REPRESENTING REPAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS OWN CREDITORS. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ISSUE OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN RELATE TO THE FOLLOWING FIVE PARTIES: SR. NO. NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT REPAID 1. ARUN VISHWAKARMA RS.50,000/ - 2. VIJAY WAGH RS.25,000/ - 3. BHIMRAO MANE RS.30,000/ - 4. KISAN JAMADE RS.35,000/ - ITA NO. 1955 /MUM/201 4 5 5. SAHEDRAO PATIL RS.50,000/ - THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT (I) THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED TO HAVE SUBMITTED COPIES OF PAN CARDS IN RESPECT OF PARTIES NO. 3, 4 AND 5 BUT THE SAME IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT, (II) NO PHOTOCOPIES OF THEIR PAN HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, (III) THE FINDING IS GI VEN BY THE AO THAT THE PAN MENTIONED ON SUCH HAND WRITTEN CONFIRMATION OF THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE PARTY AT SERIAL NO. 3 IS NOT VALID PAN. UNDER SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE SO CALLED REPAYMENTS TO THE PARTIES WHOSE NAM ES ARE APPEARING AT SERIAL NO. 3 TO 5 ARE NOT FOUND TO THE GENUINE AND VERIFIABLE. THEREFORE, HE UPHELD THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,15,000/ - MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.75, 000/ - IN RESPECT OF THE PARTIES HAVING PAN , AS PAYMENTS TO THEM HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE VERIFIABLE. 5.1 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT SECTION 69 OF THE ACT HAS NO APPLICATION ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS THESE REPAYMENTS WERE MADE AND S HOWN IN THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.2 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE REPAYMENTS OF LOANS IN THE INSTANT CASE REQUIRE PROPER VERIFICATION WHICH HAS NEITHER BEEN DONE BY THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(A) . THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER EXAMINING THE ITA NO. 1955 /MUM/201 4 6 DOCUMENTS TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. T HE AO WOULD GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE 3 RD GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. NOW WE COME TO THE 4 TH GROUND OF APPEAL. IT RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.8,84,900/ - UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.9,19,275/ - MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOUND THAT (I) THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY DETAILS, BILLS AND ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY PURCHASE IN SUPPORT OF THE ADDITION TO THE FIXED ASSETS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, (II) EVEN AFTER SUBMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHEN THE SAME WAS SENT TO THE AO FOR REMAND, THE ASSESSEE COMPLETELY FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE SAME, (III) SOME BILLS WERE FABRICATED AS EFFECTIVE DATE OF VAT TIN IN THOSE BILLS WAS MENTIONED AS 10.10.2006 WHEREAS THE BILLS WERE DATED JUNE 2006 AND T HE ASSESSE E IN HIS SUBMISSION SUBSEQUENT TO THE REMAND REPORT HAS NOT DISPUTED SUCH OBSERVATION OF THE AO, (IV) IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO MAKE AN ADDITION TO THE FIXED ASSETS ONLY BY PURCHASING STEEL OR RAW ELECTRICAL GOODS TO MANUFACTURE A PLANT WHICH CONVERTS P A PER INTO PAPER TUBES AND BOXES AND I T WOULD REQUIRE SOME BOILER, HITTING MECHANISM, SOME MACHINERY TO ROL L ETC. NOTHING OF THIS KIND WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE FINDING OF THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT THA T THE PURCHASE OF COMPUTER OF RS.34,375/ - WAS RELATABLE. THUS THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE A RELIEF OF RS.34,375/ - AND CONFIRMED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.8,84,900/ - . 6.1 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ORIGINAL BILLS AND DOCUMENTS WERE DESTR OYED IN EXTENSIVE FIRE AND COPIES OF THE BILLS WERE COLLECTED FROM THE RESPECTIVE VENDORS. IT IS ITA NO. 1955 /MUM/201 4 7 SUBMITTED THAT THESE ARE GENUINE BILLS AND THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE IS TO BE ALLOWED IN FULL. 6.2 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE BILLS PRODUCED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TO BE PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE AO TO ARRIVE AT THE CORRECT CONCLUSION. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE THE RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE THE AO. THU S THE 4 TH GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. WE NOW TURN TO THE 5 TH GROUND OF APPEAL. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT IN RESPECT OF PROVISION OF LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.5,75,249/ - THE ASSESSEE COULD FILE BEFORE THE AO BILLS AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,82,468/ - . THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO BILLS SUBMITTED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.92,781/ - . FURTHER THE BILLS AMOUNTING TO RS.88,380/ - RAISED BY BALAJI ENGG. ARE UNSIGNED AND THEREFORE, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS GENUINE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED DISALLOWANC E OF RS.1,81,161/ - . 7.1 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE PROVISIONS SO MADE HAVE BEEN DULY PAID AND ORIGINAL PAPERS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO AND ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE DELETED. 7.2 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD . DR SUPPORTS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO. 1955 /MUM/201 4 8 7.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO (I) RS.92,781/ - AS THE BILLS COULD NOT BE SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND (II) RS.88,380/ - AS THE BILLS RAISED BY BALAJI ENGG. ARE UNSIGNED. WE AGREE WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,81,161/ - AS THERE WAS NO PROPER EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THE ABOVE EXPENDIT URE. THUS THE 5 TH GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. WE NOW COME TO THE 6 TH GROUND OF APPEAL. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD FILE EVIDENCE ONLY IN RESPECT OF RS.3,35,060/ - AS AGAINST TOTAL SUNDRY CREDITORS STANDING AT RS.30,57,138/ - . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,17,140/ - ESTIMATED BY THE AO @ 30% OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. 8.1 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE PAYMENTS TO SUCH PARTIES SHOWN AS SUNDRY CREDITORS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THAT THE HIGHLIGHTED BANK STATEMENT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE AO. 8.2 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. 8.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PAYMENT S TO SUNDRY CREDITORS HA VE BEEN M ADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES ARE TO BE VERIFIED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE THE ITA NO. 1955 /MUM/201 4 9 CONCERNED BANK STATEMENT AND OTHER DETAILS BEFORE THE AO. THUS THE 6 TH GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. NOW WE COME TO THE 7 TH GROUND OF APPEAL. AFTER RECEIPT OF THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO , THE LD. CIT(A) SENT A COPY OF IT TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A REPLY, IF ANY . IN RESPONSE TO IT , THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM THAT THE SAID EXPENSES WERE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENSES ON ESTIMATE BASIS. A S THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE VARIOUS EXPENSES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE @ 25% OF EXPENSES OF RS.11,71,354/ - MADE BY THE AO WHICH COMES TO RS.2,92,838/ - . 9.1 BEFORE U S, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE ESTIMATED BY THE AO. 9.2 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIES ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A). 9.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 1 5% IN PLACE OF 25% MADE BY HIM. THUS THE 7 TH GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 10/08/2017 . SD/ - SD/ - ( MAHAVIR SINGH ) (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1955 /MUM/201 4 10 MUMBAI : DATED: 10/08/2017 RAHUL SHARMA , SR. P.S. 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 . BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI