GLAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. ITO 3 (1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2035/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2541 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T S KHALSA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Bogus Share capital; Invalid notice; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Retrospective amendment; Validity of assessment; Accommodation entries; Block assessment; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 292BB; 143(2); 64; 13; 147; 68; 69; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND RAM LAL NEGI, JM ITA NO. 2035/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) GLAM PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. SHOP NO.5, METRO PLAZA COLABA CAUSEWAY MUMBAI-400 005 VS. ITO-3(1)(4) ROOM NO.666B, 6 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BAWAN, M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 PAN/GIR NO. AA CCG9349M ( APPELLANT ) : ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NEELKANTH KHANDELWAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.S.KHALSA - DR DATE OF HEARING : 10/3/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/05 /2021 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A. M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-8, MUMBAI (LD .CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 27.02.2019 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y .) 2008-09. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDI NG THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ('AO') IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE A PPELLANT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FAILED TO A PPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT ACCORDING TO THE L AWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS. THE AO HAS NOT ISSUED AND SERVED NOTICE U/S 143(2) TO THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT AND THEREFORE THE ENTIRE REASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS WERE BAD IN LAW. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,50,00,000 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 IN LIEU OF AMOUNT RECEIVED AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND AO FAI LED TO FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY NOT GRANTING AN OPPORTUNITY TO C ROSS EXAMINE / CONFRONT THE PERSON ON WHOSE CONFESSION / STATEMENT OR POSSESSION OF MATER IAL / EVIDENCE, THEY PRESUMED THAT THE SHARE TRANSACTION IS A BOGUS / SHAM TRANSACTION. TH E BASIC PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWED. 2 2035/MUM/2019 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN S USTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS 5,00,000 U/S 69 AS NOTIONAL COMMISSION EXPENDITURE. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS, 91,281. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS REOPENED UPON INFORMATION FROM THE DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION, MUM BAI THAT PURSUANT TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTIVITY IN THE CASE OF PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN (PKJ) GROUP, IT WAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY COMPANY THAT PROCURED BOGUS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,50,00,000/-. I N ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE SE ARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE SAID PRA VEEN KUMAR JAIN GROUP. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED FOLLOWING EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS. 1. SHARE APPLICATION FORM OF THE PARTY 2. BANK STATEMENT OF THE SAID PARTY 3. CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTY 4. BANK STATEMENT OF THE APPLICANT COMPANY SHOWING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED. 5. FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE SAID PARTIES FOR THE YEA R ENDED 31 MARCH, 2009 6. COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 7. CERTIFICATE OF INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SHARES. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED ALL THE ABOVE DOCUME NTS ON THE BASIS OF FINDINGS AND EVIDENCES COLLECTED IN THE CASE OF SEARCH IN TH E CASE OF PKJ GROUP. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REFER TO ANY ENQUIRY MADE BY HIM IN THIS REGARD AGAINST ANY OF THE PARTIES. HE ALSO REJECTED THE AS SESSEES REQUEST OF CROSS EXAMINATION. RELYING SOLELY ON THE FINDINGS OF THE SEARCH & INVESTIGATION IN THE CASE OF PKJ GROUP, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ADD ED A SUM OF RS. 5 LACS AS 3 2035/MUM/2019 BOGUS COMMISSION PAID AT THE RATE OF 2% IN ARRANGIN G THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY UNDER SECTION 69C. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE T HE LD.CIT(A), CHALLENGING BOTH THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING AS WELL AS MERITS O F THE ADDITION. 6. THE LD.CIT(A) FIRST ADDRESSED THE ISSUE ON MERITS. HE REFERRED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREAFTER, HE REFERRED TO A CATE NA OF CASE LAWS ON SUCH SEARCHES. THEREAFTER, LD.CIT(A) CONCLUDED AS UNDER: - 3.1.26 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DETAILED DISCUSSION, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ADDING THE ALLEGED SHARE APPLIC ATION MONEY OF RS.2,50,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM ALLEGED 13 SHAREHOLDERS TABULATED AT PARA 3.1.3 3.1.27 THE AO HAS ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.5,00 ,000/- BEING THE ESTIMATED UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AVAILI NG OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED @2% FOR THE TOTAL AC COMMODATION ENTRIES AVAILED OF RS.5,00,000/- FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR. AS DISCUSSED I N THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE ASSESEE HAS AVAILED OF ACCOMMODAT ION ENTRIES IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THE PAPER CONCERNS. SHRI PRA VEEN JAIN HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THAT HE WAS DOING THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION E NTRIES AT A PRICE. IN FACT, THERE IS NO WAY ONE WOULD BE TAKING SO MUCH BOTHERATION, RIS K AND HEADACHE, EXCEPT FOR MAKING EASY PROFITS THROUGH CHARGING COMMISSION, ET C. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE AO OF ESTIMATING THE UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO AVAIL ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES @2% IS HELD TO BE ON A REASON ABLE FOOTING. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.5,00,000/- IS AL SO CONFIRMED. CONCLUDINGLY, THEE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 7. AS REGARDS, THE CHALLENGE TO THE REOPENING LD.CIT(A ) ELABORATELY NOTED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION IN THIS REGARD. 8. IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD RE PRODUCED IN THE LD.CIT(A) ORDER, THE FIRST CHALLENGE WAS TO THE ISSUE OF REAS SESSMENT NOTICE BEING TIME- BARRED. THEREAFTER, THE ISSUE OF LACK OF APPLICATI ON OF INDEPENDENT MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE OF REOPENING WAS RAI SED. THEREAFTER, THERE WERE ISSUES OF VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE REGARDING NOT GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE. THERE WAS ALSO SUBMIS SION THAT SECTION 292BB 4 2035/MUM/2019 WAS NOT APPLICABLE. VARIOUS CASE LAWS AND PROVISION S OF THE ACT WERE ALSO MENTIONED. 9. IN HIS ADJUDICATION, THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT DISPUTE THE FACT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2 ) WAS TIME-BARED. HE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MADHYA BHARAT ENERGY CORPORATION LTD. AND THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PADINJAREKARA AGENCIES PV T.LTD. VS CIT FOR HIS PROPOSITION THAT ISSUE OF UNNECESSARY AND OVERHYPED IMPORTANCE GIVEN TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) FOR REOPENED PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 147 WAS TO BE DOWNPLAYED. 10. REFERRING TO THE DECISION HONBLE KERALA HIGH COU RT, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD HENCE, HEARING UPON A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) TO WAS N OT SUSTAINABLE. 11. THEREAFTER, HE REFERRED TO THE ASSESSEES CHALLE NGE OF NOT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE. HE REFERRED TO SEVER AL CASE LAWS AND REJECTED THE SAME. 12. AGAINST THE ORDER ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS 14. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT REASSESSMENT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED ON 24.3.2015. THE ASSE SSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 6.4.2015 STATING THAT IT HAS E-FILED A RETURN OF IN COME ON 31.3.2015 IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. IN THIS CASE NOTI CE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 19.2.2016. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WAS CLEARLY BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT FIXED UNDER PROVISION OF SECTION 143(2). 15. HENCE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED PURSUANT TO THE TIME-BARRED NOTICE ISSUED IS ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINABLE. 16. IN THIS REGARD, HE REFERRED TO FOLLOWING CASE LAW S:- 5 2035/MUM/2019 1.HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ABACUS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS(INDIA) (P.) LTD. [2017] 78 TAXMANN.COM 321 2. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN SUNWORLD INFRASTURUC TRE (P) LTD. VS ITO 24(3) [2015] 64 TAXMANN.COM 471 (DELHI) 3. HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CIT-II VS SALARP UR COLD STORAGE(P.) LTD. [2014] 50 TAXMANN.COM 105( ALLAHABAD) 4. HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT-II VS PANORAMA BUILDERS(P.) LTD. [2014] 45 TAXMANN.COM 159 (GUJARAT) 17. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HOWEVER, HE COULD NOT FACTUALLY DISPUTE THE SUBMISS ION THAT NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS TIME BARRED. 18. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION AND P ERUSED THE RECORD. 19. WE MAY GAINFULLY REFER TO THE EXTANT PROVISION OF SECTION 143(2) IN THIS CONNECTION INCORPORATING TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NO TICE WHICH READ AS UNDER:- '(2) WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED UNDER SECTIO N 139, OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE UNDER SUBSECTION (1) OF SECTION 142, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, (I) WHERE HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY CLAIM O F LOSS, EXEMPTION, DEDUCTION, ALLOWANCE OR RELIEF MADE IN THE RETURN IS INADMISSI BLE, SERVE ON THE ASSESSEE A NOTICE SPECIFYING PARTICULARS OF SUCH CLAIM OF LOSS, EXEMP TION, DEDUCTION, ALLOWANCE OR RELIEF AND REQUIRE HIM, ON A DATE TO BE SPECIFIED THEREIN TO PRODUCE, OR CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED, ANY EVIDENCE OR PARTICULARS SPECIFIED THEREIN OR ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY RELY, IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM: [PROVIDED THAT NO NOTICE UNDER THIS CLAUSE SHALL BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2003;] (II) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (I), IF HE CONSIDERS IT NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UN DERSTATED THE INCOME OR HAS NOT COMPUTED EXCESSIVE LOSS OR HAS NOT UNDER-PAID T HE TAX IN ANY MANNER, SERVE ON THE ASSESSEE A NOTICE REQUIRING HIM, ON A DATE T O BE SPECIFIED THEREIN, EITHER TO ATTEND HIS OFFICE OR TO PRODUCE, OR CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED, ANY EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY RELY IN SUPPORT OF THE RETUR N: A. [PROVIDED THAT NO NOTICE UNDER CLAUSE(II) SHALL BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANC IAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN IS FURNISHED.]] 6 2035/MUM/2019 20. IN THIS CASE IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT OR DER REOPENING NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 ON 24/3/2015. THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 6/4/2015 STATING THAT IT HAS E- FILED A RETURN OF INCOME ON 31/03/2015 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 1 43(2) ON 19/02/2016. 21. ADMITTEDLY THE STATUTORY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 43(2) HAS BEEN ISSUED BEYOND THE TIME PROVIDED UNDER THE SANGUINE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THIS FACTUAL ASPECT IS UNDISPUTED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE IM PORTANCE OF TIME-LIMIT IN THIS CONNECTION IS OVERHYPED AND NEEDS TO BE DOWNPLAYED. HOWEVER WE FIND THAT HONORABLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT HAVE HELD OTHERWISE. WE MAY GAINFULLY REFERRED TO THESE CASE LAWS AS UNDER :- SUNWORLD INFRASTRUCTURE (P.) LTD. V. ITO (64 TAXMAN N.COM 471) : HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT SECTION 143 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 -ASSESSMENT - ISSUE OF NOTICE (TIME LIMIT) - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 - WHETHER WHERE ASSESSEE FI LED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 14- 9-2012, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) COULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON OR BEFORE 30-9-2013, IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 24-12-2014 ISSUED UNDER SECTI ON 143(2) WAS BARRED BY TIME - HELD, YES -WHETHER FURTHER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 3(2) ISSUED ON 10-9-2013 BY ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING NO JURISDICTION OVER ASSES SEE WAS ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS A VALID NOTICE - HELD, YES. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME VS. SALARPUR COLD STORAGE (P ) LTD.(50 TAXMANN.COM 105): HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT SECTION 143, READ WITH SECTION 292BB, OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961 - ASSESSMENT (NOTICE U/S 143(2)) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 - WHET HER WHERE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILS TO ISSUE A NOTICE WITHIN PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AS SPELT OUT IN PROVISO TO CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 143(2), ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 143(3) WOULD BE INVALID AND THIS DEFECT CANNOT BE CURED BY TAKING R ECOURSE TO DEEMING FICTION UNDER SECTION 292BB - HELD, YES. CIT VS. PANORAMA BUILDERS (P) LTD. (224 TAXMAN 203) : HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT SECTION 292BB, READ WITH SECTION 143, OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961 - NOTICE - DEEMED TO VALID IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (CONDITION S PRECEDENT) - BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1-4-1997 TO 25-7-2012 - ASSESSEE FURNISHED ITS RETURN ON 6-10- 2004 - NOTICE UNDER PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2) WAS I SSUED ON 6-7-2006, BEYOND PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM END OF MONTH IN WHICH RETU RN WAS FILED - WHETHER SECTION 292BB, INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2008, HAS N O RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND IS TO 7 2035/MUM/2019 BE CONSTRUED PROSPECTIVELY - HELD, YES - WHETHER SE CTION 292BB IS ONLY CONFINED TO SERVICE OF NOTICE AND DOES NOT APPLY TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE, NEITHER IT CURES DEFECT OR ENLARGES STATUTORY PERIOD WHERE A MANDATORY NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED WITHIN LIMITATION FIXED UNDER ACT - HELD, YES. 22. IN THE CASE OF CIT VERSUS ABACUS DISTRIBUTION S YSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (78 TAXMAN.COM 321). HONOURABLE JURISDICTIONAL BOMB AY HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERS A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) HAS NOT BEEN SERVED AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS O N OR BEFORE THE 30 NOVEMBER 2007 WHICH IS NOT SHOWN TO BE INCORRECT. IT FOLLOWS THA T ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INVALID NOTICE IS VOID. 23. WE FIND THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DULY NOTED THIS CASE LAW AND DESPITE THAT HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CONSIDERATION TO THE SAME WHATSOE VER. THUS IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) BEYOND THE TIME MANDATED UNDER THE LAW IS FATAL AND RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT NULL AN D AVOID. 24. HERE WE NOTE SECTION 292BB ALSO DOESN'T COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE REVENUE IN AS MUCH AS IT PROVIDES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE S ECTION SHALL NOT APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SUCH OBJECTION BEFORE THE COMPL ETION OF SUCH ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE ASSESSEE HAS DULY SUBMITTED THAT BY THE LETTER DATED 7/10/2015 ASSESSEE HAS RAISED OBJECTION OF VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT ON NON-ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2). FACTUAL ASPECT OF THIS SUBMISSION HAS ALSO REMAINED UNREBUTTED. MOREOVER, AS HELD IN CASE LAWS ABOVE, S ECTION 292BB CANNOT CURE THE FATAL MISTAKE OF TIME BARRED ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) 25. ACCORDINGLY IN THE BACKGROUND OF AFORESAID DISC USSION AND PRECEDENTS, WE HOLD THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN AS MUCH AS THE STATUTOR Y NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS TIME BARRED. 26. SINCE WE HAVE HELD THAT THE REASSESSMENT IS WIT HOUT JURISDICTION AND HENCE IN- VALID, THE ADJUDICATION OF OTHER ISSUES IS ONLY OF ACADEMIC INTEREST. WE ARE NOT ENGAGING INTO THE SAME. 8 2035/MUM/2019 27. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.05.2021 SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 25.05.2021 THIRUMALESH , SR. PS/PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT - CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI