SUBHASH CONSTRUCTION CO., THANE V. ASST CIT CIR 3, THANE

ITA 1976/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4173 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NISHANT SAMAIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Depreciation
• Section: 44AD; 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'G' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1976/MUM/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) M/S. SUBHASH CONSTRUCTION CO. 4, KRISHNANJALI BUILDING TAI PINGLE CHOWK, DOMBIVALI (E) THANE 421201 VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 2ND FLOOR, RANI MANSION MURBAD ROAD, KALYAN (W) 421301 PAN ABPFS5505E APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT BY: SHRI NISHANT SAMAIYA DATE OF HEARING: 03.10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.10.2018 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 15.12.2016 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-1, THANE AND IT REL ATES TO A.Y. 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE CI T(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT MADE BY THE AO AND ALSO IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION TOWARDS DEPRECIATION, PARTNERS REMUNERATION AND INT EREST ON CAPITAL OF PARTNERS. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE STATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR UNDERTAKING ROAD REPAIR WORKS FOR GOVERN MENT AUTHORITIES LIKE KONKAN BHAVAN, MAHARASHTRA MARITIME BOARD AND KALYA N DOMBIVILI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOM E DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 16.15 LAKHS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDI NGS THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECORDED A TURNOVER OF ` 23.59 LAKHS. THE GP AND NP RATIOS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WORKED OUT TO 4.14% AND 0. 69% RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS BOOKED VARIOUS EXPENSES AND HENCE THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES CLA IMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 1976/MUM/2017 M/S. SUBHASH CONSTRUCTION CO. 2 SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS CALL ED FOR BY THE AO, HE RECORDED A STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 131 INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER 'THE ACT') FROM THE PARTNER NAMED SHRI SUBHASH D. P AWAR. FROM THE REPLY GIVEN TO VARIOUS QUESTIONS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAKING PAYMENTS TO VARIOUS PARTIES BY WAY OF CASH F OR VARIOUS EXPENSES. HENCE THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT RELIABLE AND ACCORDINGLY HE REJECTED THE SAME. THE AO NOTICED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT HAS PRESCRIBE E NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER, IN THE CASES WHERE THE TURNOVER DOES NOT EXCEED ` 1 CRORE FOR A.Y. 2013-14. TAKING CUE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT, THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E SHOULD BE ESTIMATED AT 8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. THE AO ALSO NOTICED THAT THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CGT VS. A. VAJJRAM BROS. 326 I TR 551 HAS ACCEPTED THE ESTIMATE OF 8% IN THE CASE OF GROSS RECEIPTS OF INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE AO ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT @ 8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS DETERMINED THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE FROM CONT RACT WORKS AT ` 188.73 LAKHS. FURTHER, THE AO ALSO ASSESSED THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.12.06 LAKHS SEPARATELY UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . 3. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDE D THAT THE NET PROFIT RATIO SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER Y EARS WAS ONLY IN THE RANGE OF 0.62% TO 0.84% AND HENCE THE ESTIMATE OF 8 % MADE BY THE AO IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THA T THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY IT HAVE BEEN AUDITED AND THE AUDITORS HAVE NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS FURNISHED VARIOUS DETAILS BEFORE THE AO VIDE LETTERS DATED 03.08.2015 , 10.08.2015, 23.10.2015 AND 15.12.2015. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TH AT THE MAJOR EXPENSES INCURRED ARE EXPENSES RELATING TO FUEL, MA TERIALS AND LABOUR EXPENSES. ALL THESE EXPENSES ARE SUPPORTED BY PROPE R VOUCHERS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCT ION ON REMUNERATION AND INTEREST PAYABLE TO THE PARTNERS SUBJECT TO THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS CONTEN DED THAT THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. ITA NO. 1976/MUM/2017 M/S. SUBHASH CONSTRUCTION CO. 3 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPL ANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A P ROVISION OF ` 522.74 LAKHS TOWARDS LABOUR EXPENSES AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE DETAILS RELATING TO THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, BY PLACING RELIANCE ON TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF A. VAJJIRA M BROS (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF SUBODH GUPTA IN ITA NO. 80/2014 DATED 09.12.2014 THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THOU GH THE LD A.R CONTENDED THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS B Y AO WAS NOT ON PROPER REASONING, YET WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE NOT FURNISHED FULL DETAILS THAT WERE CALLED FOR BY THE AO. HENCE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE REJEC TION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 6. WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATION OF INCOME, THE LD A.R SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DOING ROAD REPAIR WORKS, WHICH IS LABOU R INTENSIVE ONE. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSTRAINED TO ENGAGE LOCAL LABOUR ERS AND PROCURE MATERIALS LOCALLY. HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSTRAI NED TO MAKE PAYMENTS BY WAY OF CASH, SINCE THE AMOUNT WAS PAYAB LE THEN AND THERE AND ALSO OF SMALL AMOUNTS. HE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE AUDITED AND THE AUDIT ORS HAVE NOT FOUND ANY DEFECT EITHER IN THE VOUCHERS OR IN THE A CCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MARGIN LEVEL IN RO AD REPAIR WORKS IS LOW, WHEN COMPARED WITH CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WORKS. H E FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INCREASED TO RS.23.59 CRORES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS AGAINST THE TURNOVER OF RS.8.60 CRORES IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECE DING YEAR. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD WIN MORE CONTRACT S DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DUE TO COMPETITIVE RATES QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE NET PROFIT IS BOUND TO BE LOWER DURING TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE RATE O F NET PROFIT BEFORE PARTNERS PAYMENTS AND AFTER DEPRECIATION WAS AS UN DER IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING YEARS:- ITA NO. 1976/MUM/2017 M/S. SUBHASH CONSTRUCTION CO. 4 ASST. YEAR GROSS TURNOVER RATE OF PROFIT 2010-11 12.65 CRORES 0.46% 2011-12 8.01 CRORES 1.93% 2012-13 8.60 CRORES 2.47% 2014-15 18.41 CRORES 1.24% 2015-16 22.12 CRORES 1.26% THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE TURNOVER OF RS.23.59 CRORES ACHIEVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS COMPARABLE WITH TH E TURNOVER ACHIEVED IN AY 2015-16. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RATE OF PROFI T BEFORE PARTNERS REMUNERATION AND AFTER DEPRECIATION WAS AROUND 1.25 %, WHEN THE TURNOVER HAS INCREASED AND IT WAS AROUND 2% WHEN TH E TURNOVER WAS LESS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSES SEE IS INCLUSIVE OF INTEREST RECEIVED FROM BANK, WHICH IS CONNECTED WIT H THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RATE OF NET PROFIT ADOPTED BY TAX AUTHORITIES, NET OF ALL DEDUCTIONS AT 8% IS VERY MUCH ON THE HIGHER SIDE AND IS DEVIATING FROM THE FACTS AVAILABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. HE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE INTERE ST INCOME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED SEPARATELY AND FURTHER THE AO SH OULD HAVE GIVEN DEDUCTION FOR DEPRECIATION, PARTNERS REMUNERATION AND INTEREST FROM THE ESTIMATE MADE BY HIM. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R STRONGLY PLACED RELI ANCE ON THE ORDERS PASSED BY TAX AUTHORITIES. 8. IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPHS, WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE RE JECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS WERE REJECTED, THE PROFIT FROM THE BUSINESS IS REQUIRED TO BE ESTIMATE D. THE AO SHOULD MAKE A RATIONAL AND REASONABLE ESTIMATE, WHILE ESTIMATIN G INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THIS PURPOSE, IN OUR VIEW, IT IS IMP ERATIVE TO BRING ON RECORD EXTERNAL COMPARABLE CASES FOR DETERMINING THE RATE OF PROFIT. IF NO EXTERNAL COMPARABLE CASE IS BROUGHT ON RECORD, THEN THE PAST RECORDS SHOULD BE TAKEN HELP OF. IN THIS REGARD, WE CAN GAINFULLY TA KE SUPPORT FROM THE ITA NO. 1976/MUM/2017 M/S. SUBHASH CONSTRUCTION CO. 5 DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF PRASAD CONSTRUCTION AND CO. (368 ITR 579), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ....THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST BE RATIONAL AND REA SONABLE WHILE ASSESSING THE DEALER TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGEMENT A ND THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF GUESS-WORK IN A BEST JUDGEMENT ASSESSMEN T. IT HAS ALSO BEEN HELD IN THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE PARTIES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST TAKE INTO C ONSIDERATION THE MATERIALS WHICH ARE IN HIS POSSESSION, INCLUDING PR EVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT IS TRUE THAT UPON THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE T O MAINTAIN THE ACCOUNT IN THE MANNER WHICH LED TO THE SITUATION THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT CANNOT WHOLLY GO TO THE AS SESSEES BENEFIT BUT AS A CAUTION BY THE COURTS THE FACT THAT A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT IS BEING MADE CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR FIX ING ANY UNJUSTIFIABLE FIGURE OF INCOME OR PROFIT WITHOUT RE FERENCE TO THE SAME IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS...... 9. THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD CIT(A) HAD PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F A VAJJIRAM & BROS (SUPRA). THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HONB LE MADRAS HIGH COURT IS MENTIONED AS CIVIL CONTRACTOR, WHILE THE ASSESSEE H EREIN IS ENGAGED IN ROAD REPAIRING WORKS. HENCE IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETH ER THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SAME OR NOT, SINCE THE EXPR ESSION CIVIL CONTRACT IS A GENERIC TERM ENCOMPASSING DIFFERENT KINDS OF ACTI VITIES. THE AO, IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE, WORKED OUT PROFIT AT 28%, WHICH WA S FOUND TO BE HIGHLY UNREASONABLE. HENCE THE ESTIMATE OF 8% MADE BY THE LD CIT(A) WAS FOUND TO BE REASONABLE BY ITAT AS WELL AS HONBLE HIGH CO URT. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE RATE OF 8% FOUND TO BE REASONABLE IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A STANDARD MEASURE FOR DETERMINING PROF ITS OF ALL TYPES OF CIVIL CONTRACTORS. 10. IN THE CASE OF SUBODH GUPTA (SUPRA), RELIED UPON BY LD CIT(A), WE NOTICE THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS ALSO R EITERATED THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPARABLES BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIO NS:- ITA NO. 1976/MUM/2017 M/S. SUBHASH CONSTRUCTION CO. 6 THE DIFFICULTY IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONDUCT ANY INQUIRY AND ASCERTAIN THE NET PROFI T RATE OF OTHER COMPARABLE CONTRACTORS.... THE INCOME, IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE, WAS ESTIMATED A T 8% BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE SAME BEFOR E THE HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT NOTICED THAT THE AO HIMSEL F HAD APPLIED NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% ON CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS AND NET P ROFIT RATE OF 3% ON SUPPLY RECEIPTS IN ANOTHER YEAR. FURTHER, THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT ALSO NOTICED THAT THE REVENUE WAS NOT ABLE TO POINT OUT OR STATE THAT THE OTHER CONTRACTORS HAVE A HIGHER PROFIT RATE THAN 8% . ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS PREVAILING IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE, THE HONBL E DELHI HIGH COURT CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND DISM ISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THUS, WE NOTICE THAT THE ABOVE SAID D ECISION WAS ALSO RENDERED IN THE FACTS PREVAILING IN THAT CASE. 11. NOW COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE N OTICE THAT THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST AND SUC CEDING YEARS IS CONSISTENTLY LOWER AND IS NO WHERE NEAR THE RATE OF 8% ESTIMATED BY THE AO, MEANING THEREBY, THE ASSESSEE IS OPERATING AT LOWER PROFIT LEVEL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE NET PROFIT RATE AVAILABLE WITH ROAD REPAIR WORKS IS LOW. WE HAVE N OTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY COM PARABLE CASES IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% WAS JU STIFIED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OFF THE CASE. IN THE ABSENCE OF EXTERNAL COMPARABLE CASES, THE RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN OTHE R YEARS, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE OF GREAT RELEVANCE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LD A.R HAS FURNISHED THE DETA ILS OF NET PROFIT RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER DEPRECIATION, BUT B EFORE ALLOWING PARTNERS PAYMENTS. A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SAM E WOULD SHOW THAT THE AVERAGE NET PROFIT RATE WAS AROUND 2% WHEN THE TURNOVER WAS BELOW TEN CRORES OF RUPEES. THE AVERAGE NET PROFIT RATE WAS AROUND 1.25%, WHEN THE TURNOVER HAS EXCEEDED TEN CRORES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS ACHIEVED A ITA NO. 1976/MUM/2017 M/S. SUBHASH CONSTRUCTION CO. 7 TURNOVER OF RS.23.59 CRORES. FROM THE ANALYSIS FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED NET PROFIT @ 1.41% DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 12. CONSIDERING THE AVERAGE RATE OF NET PROFIT SHOWN B Y THE ASSESSEE IN VARIOUS YEARS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RATE OF NET PROFIT ADOPTED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES @ 8% IS VERY MUCH ON THE HIGHER SIDE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE INTEREST INCOM E RECEIVED FROM BANKS IS CONNECTED WITH THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE RATE OF NET PROFIT LISTED ABOV E HAS BEEN COMPUTED AFTER INCLUDING THE INTEREST INCOME. ACCORDINGLY W E NOTICE THAT THE INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD BU SINESS ONLY IN THE PAST YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED TH AT THE DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED SEPARATELY. IN OUR VIEW, THE PRO FIT MAY BE ESTIMATED EITHER BEFORE ALLOWING DEPRECIATION OR AFTER ALLOWI NG DEPRECIATION. IN THE FORMER METHOD, THE RATE OF NET PROFIT WILL BE O N THE HIGHER SIDE AND IN THE LATER METHOD, IT WILL BE ON THE LOWER SIDE. 13. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE NET PROFIT MAY BE ESTIMATED NET OF DEPRECIATION. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE RATE OF NET PROFIT LISTED ABOVE IS AFTER ALLOWING DEPRECIATION, BUT BEFORE AL LOWING PARTNERS PAYMENTS. CONSIDERING THE AVERAGE RATE OF NET PROF IT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN VARIOUS YEARS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RATE OF NET PROFIT AFTER ALLOWING DEPRECIATION, BUT BEFORE ALLOWING PA RTNERS PARTNERS PAYMENTS MAY BE ESTIMATED @ 2% OF GROSS RECEIPTS FO R THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS IN FACT HIGHER THAN THE AVE RAGE RATE SHOWN WHEN THE TURNOVER IS HIGHER. YET WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE ABOVE SAID ESTIMATE OF 2% WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS ESTIMATE SHALL INCLUDE THE INTEREST INCOME ALSO. FROM THE INCOME SO ESTIMATED, THE REMUNERATION AND INTEREST PAYABLE TO THE PARTNERS, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED IN SEC.40(B) OF THE ACT SHALL BE ALLOWED. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY. THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) WOULD STAND MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 1976/MUM/2017 M/S. SUBHASH CONSTRUCTION CO. 8 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH OCTOBER, 2018. SD/ - SD/ - (RAVISH SOOD) (B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED:12 TH OCTOBER, 2018 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) -1, THANE 4. THE PR.CIT - 1, THANE 5. THE DR, G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.