DCIT 8(3)(1), MUMBAI V. TURNKEY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS P LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1976/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9599 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V JUSTIN
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of being heard; Peak credit; Rule of consistency; Bonafide belief; Bad and doubtful debts; Accommodation entries; Tax effect; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G S PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.1936, 1937, 1938 & 1939/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009 -10 TURNKEY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS P LTD PLOT NO.236/13, TEKCHAND NIWAS, KEAL ANAND CO-OP SOCIETY OPP GTB RLY STATION, SION, MUMBAI 400 022 PAN AAACT1459M VS. DCIT 7(3) MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.1976/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 DCIT 8(3)(1) MUMBAI VS. TURNKEY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS P LTD MUMBAI 400 022 PAN AAACT1459M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE ASSESSEE : SHRI MANDAR VAIDYA FOR THE REVENUE : SHRI V JUSTIN DATE OF HEARING : 24.0 8 .2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 .0 9 .2017 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS GROUP OF FIVE APPEALS (FOUR BY THE ASSESSEE AN D ONE BY THE REVENUE) ARISE OUT OF DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE CIT(A )-14, MUMBAI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009 -10. FACTS OF ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL, E XCEPT THE VARIATION IN TURNKEY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. 2 FIGURES OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. ALL THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CO MMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. A PERUSAL OF RECORD REVEALS THAT THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN FILED BEYOND SIX DAYS OF THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF L IMITATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE AP PLICATION IS SUPPORTED WITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RAJESH KUMBHAR, WHO IS WORKIN G AS ACCOUNTS MANAGER IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN THE AFFIDAVIT, THE DEPONE NT HAS STATED THAT THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) FOR A.YS. 2006-07, 2007-08, 20 08-09 AND 2009-10 WERE RECEIVED ON 30.01.2015. THE COPY OF THE ORDERS WAS SENT TO THEIR COUNSEL AND CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FOR ADVICE. THE COUNSEL ADVIS ED THEM TO FILE APPLICATION U/S. 154 FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS B EFORE THE CIT(A), WHICH WAS FILED ON 24.02.2015. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNDER THE BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT THE APPEAL COULD BE FI LED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ONLY AFTER DISPOSAL OF THE APPLICATION BY THE CIT(A ). THUS, THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING PRESENT APPEALS. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE DEL AY IS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR DELIBERATE BUT DUE TO BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT APPEAL C OULD BE FILED ONLY AFTER DISPOSAL OF APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). T HE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE DID NOT OPPOSE THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONAT ION OF DELAY. CONSIDERING THE CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. TURNKEY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. 3 4. FOR APPRECIATION OF FACTS, FIRST WE TAKE UP APPE AL IN ITA NO.1936/MUM/2015 FOR A.Y. 2006-07, IN WHICH FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PUR CHASES FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6,13,9527-, ARE SHAM AND BOGUS. 2) THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AD DITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LD. AO SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF INFO RMATION SUPPLIED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES, WITHOUT ANY INDEPENDENT INQUIRY BY THE LD. AO. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER FAILE D TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNIT Y OF CROSS- EXAMINING SUCH PERSONS WHO HAD MADE STATEMENTS ABO UT THE TRANSACTION BEING SHAM. 3) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONFINING THE ADDITION TO THE GROSS PROFIT RATE ON THE VALUE OF PURCHASES. 4) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLO WANCE OF DEDUCTION OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.7,12,7667-, U/S. 36(1) (III) OF THE ACT. 5) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 30.11.20 06, DECLARING INCOME OF ` 1,22,78,606/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143( 1) ON 04.10.2007 AT AN INCOME OF ` 1,22,78,610/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS R E-OPENED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TA X DEPARTMENT THROUGH DGIT (INVESTIGATION) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BOGUS PU RCHASES FROM BHAVIKA ENTERPRISES, SAHYOG ENTERPRISES AND SUPREME ENTERPR ISES. THE ASSESSEE WAS SERVED WITH NOTICE, DATED 22.03.2013, U/S. 148 OF T HE I.T.ACT. THE REASONS TURNKEY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. 4 RECORDED FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 WERE A LSO SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 10.09.2013. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLET ED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT, ON 31.01.2014. WHILE PASSING ASSES SMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICE DISALLOWED A SUM OF ` 6,13,952/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE PU RCHASES OF ` 1,15,061/- FROM SAHYOG ENTERPRISES, ` 2,03,060/- FROM BHAVIKA ENTERPRISES AND ` 2,95,831/- FROM SUPREME ENTERPRISES. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ADDED 100% OF THE AMOUNT INCURRED ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. HE FURTHER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO ` 7,12,766/- U/S. 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. HOWEVER, NO DECISION WAS GIVEN ON THE GROUND OF APP EAL RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DR FOR THE REVENUE. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILAB LE ON RECORD ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LEARNED A R OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSE E PROVIDED COPIES OF BILLS/VOUCHERS AND DELIVERY CHALLANS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED EVIDENCE RELATED WITH PAYMENTS THROUGH BANKING CHAN NELS. THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED ITS PRIMARY ONUS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXP ENSES INCURRED ON PURCHASES. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MADE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THIRD PARTY INFORMATION WITHOU T MAKING ANY INDEPENDENT INQUIRY. THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUSTAINED 100% DISALLO WANCE MADE BY THE TURNKEY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. 5 ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCH ASES, WHICH IS UNREASONABLE. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT REJEC TED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR THE SALES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR, ON T HE OTHER HAND, ARGUED THAT THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT MADE FULL FLEDGE INQUIRY. THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASES WERE HAWALA DEALERS. THE NAME OF THREE CONCERNS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE H AS SHOWN PURCHASES ARE SHOWN IN THE LIST OF HAWALA DEALERS. THUS THE DEALERS WERE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WITHOUT DELIVERY OF ANY MATERIAL OR GOODS. THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED ACCOMMODATING BILLS TO SHOW I NCREASED COST AND BRING DOWN THE PROFITABILITY IN ORDER TO AVOID TAX. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAV E NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY INDEPENDENT INQU IRY BEFORE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ENTIRE PURCHASES FROM THREE PARTIES VIZ. BHAVIKA ENTERPRISES, SAHYOG ENTERPRISES AND SUPREME ENTERPRISES. THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR THE SALE/CONSUMPTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE PURCHASES H OLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE ACTUAL PURCHASE OF THE MATERIAL, TRANSPORTATION AND CONSUMPTION DETAIL S. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS EX AMINED THE BILLS RAISED BY BHAVIKA ENTERPRISES, SAHYOG ENTERPRISES AND SUPREME ENTERPRISES AND CONCLUDED THAT THE DELIVERY CHALLAN DOES NOT MENTIO N ANY VEHICLE NUMBER AND TURNKEY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. 6 THERE IS NO SIGNATURE OF THE RECEIVER. FURTHER, THE AUDIT REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY STOCK REGISTER OR ANY REGISTER FOR CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL. ON QUERIES F ROM THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT BEING A CONTRACTOR, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN SUCH REGISTER. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINE D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS WORKING AS A CONTRACTOR AND THE CONSUMPTION OF MATE RIAL IS ESTIMATED BY THE PARTIES, WHO AWARDS CONTRACT AND, THUS, CONSUMPTION CANNOT BE INFLATED ARBITRARILY TO REDUCE PROFIT. ON THE BASIS OF ABOV E OBSERVATION, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAI N THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO EXAMINED THE WO RKING OF PEAK FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD AND CONFIRMED THE ENTIRE DISALLOWAN CE. WE HAVE NOTED THAT NO INDEPENDENT INQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES MADE ADDITION OF 100% OF THE PURCHASES MADE FROM ALL THE THREE PARTIES. IN OUR VIEW, THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THIRD PARTY INFORMATION. UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES ARE ENTITLED TO TAX THE REAL INCOME. EVEN IF THE TRANSACTIONS I S NOT VERIFIABLE THE ONLY TAXABLE AMOUNT IS THE TAXABLE INCOME COMPONENT THER EIN AND NOT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN ORDER TO FULFILL THE GAP OF REVENUE LEAKAGE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF REASONABLE PERCENTAGE OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE MUST MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. CONSIDERING THE FAC TS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE RESTRICT THE ADDITION @12.5% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS P URCHASES (12.5% OF 6,13,952/-). THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HARIRAM TURNKEY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. 7 BHAMBHANI IN ITA NO. 313 OF 2013 DECIDED ON 04.02.2 015 ALSO HELD THAT THE REVENUE IS NOT ENTITLED TO TREAT THE ENTIRE SALE CO NSIDERATION TO TAX, BUT ONLY THE PROFIT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TOTAL UNRECORDED SAL E CONSIDERATION ALONE CAN BE SUBJECT TO TAX. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 OF THE APPEAL IS PART LY ALLOWED. 8. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWAN CE ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION OF BAD DEBTS. 9. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE C IT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR D EDUCTION OF BAD DEBT SHOWN IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON THE OTHE R HAND, LEARNED DR FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THIS GROUND IS NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE CIT(A) AND, HENCE, IT MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING ON THIS GROUND, WE RESTORE TH IS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE CIT(A) SHALL GRANT ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1936/MUM/2015 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. ITA NO.1937/MUM/2015 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 TURNKEY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. 8 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS AS IN A. Y. 2006-07. WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR THE YEAR UNDE R APPEAL ALSO, DISALLOWED 100% OF THE PURCHASES FROM ALL THE THREE PARTIES, W HO WERE INVOLVED IN A.Y. 2006-07. THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE WAS ` 52,55,518/-. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 44,71,886/- ON THE BASIS OF PEAK CREDIT. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE S USTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IS ABOUT 85% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE. CONSIDERI NG THE FACT THAT WE HAVE RESTRICTED SIMILAR ADDITION @12.5% FOR A.Y. 2006-07 , WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE @12.5% (12.5% OF ` 52,55,518/-) FOR THIS YEAR ALSO. THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. ITA NO.1938/MUM/2015 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS AS IN A. Y. 2007-08. FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE A DDITION OF ` .83,50,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO ` 57,87,373/- WHICH IS ABOUT 69.30% OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WE HAVE RE STRICTED SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE @12.5% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE F OR THE A.YS. 2006-07 AND 2007-08 IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RES TRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 12.5% (12.5% OF ` 83,50,600/) TURNKEY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. 9 APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 13. ITA NO.1939/MUM/2015 FOR A.Y. 2009-10: IN THIS APPEAL ALSO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE IN A.YS. 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09. WE NO TED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED A SUM OF ` 50,10,870/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES AS IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM THE VERY SAME PARTIES VIZ. BHAVIKA ENTERPRISES, SAHYOG ENTERPRISES AND SUPREME ENTERPRISES. ON APPEAL, CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WE HAVE RESTRICTED SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE @ 12.5% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE FOR THE A.YS. 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2 008-09 IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 12.5% (12.5 % OF ` 50,17,870/-) APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 14. NOW COMING TO THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1976/MUM/2015 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 (I) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LA W, IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSE THE BENEFIT OF PEAK WITHOUT APPRECIATIN G THAT THIS BEING A CASE OF UTTER DISREGARD AND SUBVERSION OF LAW, TH E BURDEN OF PROOF (REQUIRED FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT OF PEAK) CAST ON THE ASSESSE WAS OF A VERY HIGH DEGREE AND ASSESSE FAILED TO DISCHARGE TH IS BURDEN. (II) THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AN D IN LAW, IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT FOR PROOF OF PURCHASE DEBITED IN ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, ABSOLUTE BURDEN OF PROOF IS CAST ON TH E ASSESSE AND THIS BURDEN OF PROOF NEVER SHIFTS TO THE DEPARTMENT . TURNKEY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. 10 (III) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSE THE BENEFIT OF PEAK EVEN THOUGH, THE AS SESSE HAS FAILED TO PROVE BY PRODUCING COGENT, RELEVANT AND RELIABLE MATERIAL TO PROVE THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS AVAILABLE FOR MAKING SUBSEQUENT PURCHASES. (IV) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN NOT GIVING EFFECT TO SECTION 114(G) OF THE INDIA EVIDEN CE ACT WHICH CLEARLY LAYS DOWN THAT IF A FACT IN KNOWLEDGE OF PA RTY IS NOT EXPLAINED, ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST T HE PARTY POSSESSING THE KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS/INFORMATION. 15. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS LES S THAN ` .10 LACS AND, HENCE, IT IS PRECLUDED FROM FILING THE APPEAL BY CENTRAL B OARD OF DIRECT TAXES VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 FILE NO.279 OF MISC. 142/2007 ITJ (PT). THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN ` 10 LACS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND IS DISMISSED AS SUCH. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (G S PANNU) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED: 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 SA TURNKEY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. 11 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APP ELL ANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. T HE CIT(A), MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 5. DR, E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER, #TRUE COPY # ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI