ALKYL AMINES CHEMICALS LTD, NAVI MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2256/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8071 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: DIVYESH SHAH; AMIT SHETTY
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Search and seizure; Audit objection; Retrospective amendment; Tangible material; Bad and doubtful debts; Difference of opinion; Competent authority; Revised return; Reason to believe; Provision of bad debts; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE S/SHRI RAJENDRA, A.M. AND SANJAY GARG,J.M. ./ITA NO.2256/MUM/2012 , / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 ALKYL AMINES CHEMICALS LTD. 401-402, NIRMAN VYAPAR KENDRA PLOT NO.10, SECTOR-17, VASHI NAVI MUMBAI-400 703. PAN: AAACA 6783 F VS. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-10(3) MUMBAI. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR YADAV ASSESSEE BY: S/SHRI DIVYESH SHAH & AMIT SHETTY / DATE OF HEARING: 16.01.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.03.2017 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) , -PER RAJENDRA,AM: CHALLENGING THE ORDER,DATED 12/01/2012 OF THE CIT(A )-22,MUMBAI THE ASSESSE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL.ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE B USINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF AMINES AND ITS DERIVATIVES. IN THIS CASE,ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS C OMPLETED U/S. 143 (3) OF THE ACT, ON 30/11/ 2005 AT RS.(-) 2.53 CRORES UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISI ONS AND AT RS.4.02 CRORES U/S.115 JB OF THE ACT.LATER ON, THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO)ISSUED A NOT ICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT,AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS FOR INITIATING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. HE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT ON 25/11/2011. 2. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREF ERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA).BEFORE HIM, THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND CHALLENGED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON MERITS AL SO. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY NEW INFORMATION ABOUT ESCAPEMENT O F INCOME, THAT HE HAD SCRUTINIZED THE WORKING OF BOOK PROFIT IN DETAIL WHILE COMPUTING TH E PROFIT U/S.115 JB, THAT THERE WAS AN AUDIT OBJECTION RAISED ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSME NT HAD BEEN REOPENED, THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE OF OPINION IN THE REGIONS RECORD IT THE REOPENING W AS NOT VALID, THAT THE NOTICE U/S.148 WAS ISSUED ON THE SAME MATERIAL WHICH WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIM E OF COMPLETION OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DIS CLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. 2256/M/12(04-05) ALKYL A MINES CHEMICALS 2 AFTER CONSIDERING THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL, THE FAA H ELD THAT THE AO HAD NOT DISCUSSED ANYTHING REGARDING ALLOWABLITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE PROVISION S FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS, THAT NO EVIDENCES WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY IT TO PROVE THAT THE AO HAD EV ER CALLED FOR DETAILS OF PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS, THAT THE AO HAD SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE INCOME A S PER REVISED RETURN UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS AS WELL AS U/S.115 JB, THAT THE AO HAD DEALT WITH A LL THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT REOPENING. HE REFERRED TO THE CASES OF PRAFUL CHUNI LAL PATEL (236 ITR 832) RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS (236 ITR 34) AND PHOOL CHAND (203 ITR 456) AN D UPHELD THE REOPENING. ABOUT THE AUDIT OBJECTION, HE OBSERVED THAT, IN THE REGIONS RECORDE D BY THE AO THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY SUCH OBJECTION, THAT THE DISPUTED AMOUNT WAS COVERED BY CLAUSE (C) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115 JB OF THE ACT, THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINIO N, THAT SUFFICIENCY OF REASONS FOR REOPENING DID NOT FALL FOR DETERMINATION AT THE STAGE OF A REOPEN ING OF ASSESSMENT. WITH REGARD TO THE MERIT OF THE CASE, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED AND AMOUNT OF RS. 13.26 LAKHS TO THE P&L ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD PROVI SION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS, THAT SAME WAS ADDED WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISI ONS, THAT SAME WAS NOT ADDED WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME AS PER THE MAT PROVISIONS,THAT THERE WAS INFIRMITY IN THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSEE THAT UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS THE FIGURES O F PROVISIONS FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS HAD BEEN ADDED BACK, THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 115 JB IT HAD NOT GIVEN THE SAME TREATMENT TO THE DISPUTED AMOUNT, THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADDING BACK THE PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS U/S.115 JB OF THE ACT. FINALLY, HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEFORE US, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) ARGUE D THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE AFTER DETAILED SCRUTINY OF RECORDS, THAT THE AO HAD CALLE D FOR DETAILS OF COMPETITION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.115 JB INCLUDING THE CLAIM OF PROVISIO N FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THAT ASSESSEE HAD VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 18/09/2006, FURNISHED THE NECESSITY DETAILS,THAT THE AO WAS NOT IN POSSESSION OF ANY NEW MATERIAL FOR ISSUING 148 NOTICE, THAT REOPENING COULD NOT BE MADE DUE TO RETROSPECTI VE AMENDMENTS, THAT THE NOTICE U/S.148 WAS ISSUED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WITHOUT ANY FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISC LOSE TO AND MATERIAL FACTS, THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THE PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS WERE DULY SHOWN, THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE AO AND THE AS SESSEE ABOUT TREATMENT TO BE GIVEN TO THE 2256/M/12(04-05) ALKYL A MINES CHEMICALS 3 PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS, THAT THE PRIOR PERMIS SION OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY WAS NOT OBTAINED, THAT THE AO HAD INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (C)/CLAUSE(I) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115 JBFOR COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS, THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING THE RETURN OR PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115 JB WERE VERY CLEAR, THAT IN THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED THE PROVISIONS OF DOUBTFUL DEBTS TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THAT THE CORRESPONDING PROVISION HAD BEEN REDUCED FROM THE DEBTORS ACCOUNT ON THE ASSET SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND THAT THE NET DEBTORS HAD BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET, THAT THE PROVISION OF BAD DEBTSS MADE BY IT AMOUNTED TO WRI TE OFF, THAT SAME DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF CLAUSE(C) OF EXPLANATION 1, THAT THE AMOUNT OF R S. 13.26 LAKHS WAS WRONGLY ADDED BY THE AO AND THE FAA TO THE BOOK PROFITS. HE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR THE AY 2003-04.THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT AND SAME READS AS UNDER: IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143 (3) OF THE ACT ON 30/11/2006. THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPUTED THE BOOK PROFIT U/S.115 JB OF THE ACT AT RS. 4, 02, 44, 769/-. IT IS NOTICE THAT PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 13, 26, 000/-WAS NOT ADDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE NET PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING BOOK PR OFIT IS U/S.115 JB WHEREAS THE SAID SUM WAS BY CLAUSE (C) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115 JB. WITHOU T PREJUDICE, THE SAID SUM IS ALSO COVERED BY CLAUSE (I) OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SE CTION. THEREFORE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 13, 26, 000/-HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT DUE TO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE TRULY AND FULLY ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF I NCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL, THAT LATER A REVISED RETURN WAS FILED, THAT THE BOOK PRO FIT WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 4.02 CRORE AND THE ASSESSEE PAID TAXES ACCORDINGLY, THAT THE AFTER COM PLETION OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/S.143 (3) THE AO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S.148 AS HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF INCOME HAD ESCAPED TAXATION, THAT HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 13.26 LAK HS IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS U/S.115 JB OF THE ACT, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IT SELF HAD ADDED BACK THE PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS IN THE COMPETITION OF INCOME UNDER NORMAL PRO VISIONS EVEN IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FILED DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AN D THAT SAME WAS NOT ADDED WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE MAT PROVISIONS. WE FIND THAT W HILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE AY. 2003 - 2256/M/12(04-05) ALKYL A MINES CHEMICALS 4 04 (ITA/1134/MUMBAI/2010, DATED 31/12/2010),THE TRI BUNAL HAS DEALT WITH THE IDENTICAL ISSUE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: '1.'THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION O F THE ACIT IN REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE ACT ON THE ALLEGED GROUND THAT THE I T A NO. 1134/MUM/2010 2 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04) ORIGINAL ASSESSME NT ORDER U/S 143(3) WAS PASSED WITHOUT DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE RELATING TO MAKING ADJUSTMENT OF PROVISIONS FOR DOU BTFUL DEBS U/S 115JB OF THE ACT; 1.1 THE CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE F ACT T HAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS BASED ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION AND SUCH WAS VALID AND BA D- IN-L AW; 1.2 THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT IT BE HELD THAT THE RE OPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS ABINITIO OR OTHERWISE VOID AND BAD-IN-LAW; 2. THE CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION O F THE AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS WHILE COMPUT NG BOOK PROFIT U/S.115J B OF THE ACT; 3. THE CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT TO ARRIVE AT TRUE REALIZABLE PROFITS AS ALSO FROM LEGAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO DIVIDENDS, I T IS IMPERATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND AS SUCH THE PROVISIONS FOR DOUBT FUL DEBTS WOULD NOT BE ADDED WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT ' AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE TRIBUNAL D ECIDED THE MATTER AS FOLLOW: 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND RELE VANT RECORD, WE NOTE THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 28.3.2008 AND THE AMENDMENT TO THE SE CTION 115JB BY THE FINANCE ACT 2009 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.2001 WAS BROUGHT INTO FORCE ON 19.08.2009. THUS, THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT CAME INTO FORCE AFTER THE DATE OF ISSUE O F NOTICE U/S 148 ON 28.3.2008. THEREFORE, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN BOTH THE CASES. THE HON. JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN PARAGRAPHS 13,14 AND 22 OF THE REPORT WHICH READ AS UNDER : '13. WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT IN T HE PRESENT CASE THE OPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS SOUGHT TO BE EFFECTED WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR YE ARS OF THE EXPIRY OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, IT IS NOW A WELL SETTLED POSITION OF AW THAT A MERE CHANGE IT A NO. 1134/MUM/2010 5 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04) OF OPIN ION WOULD NOT JUSTIFY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SEEKING RECOURSE TO THE POWERS UNDER SEC TION 147AND 148 AND THERE MUST BE TANGIBLE MATERIAL BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT I NCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE PRINCIPLE THAT THERE MUST B E TANGIBLE MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH AN ASSESSMENT IS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED EVEN WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS IS NOW ESTABLISHED IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S. M/S.KELVINATOR OF INDIA LIMITED.THE SUPREME COURT H AS HELD THUS : '.........THEREFORE, POST 1ST APRIL, 1989, POWER TO REOPEN IS MUCH WIDER. HOWEVER, ONE NEEDS TO GIVE A SCHEMATIC I NTERPRETATION TO THE WO RDS 'REASON TO BELIEVE' FAILING WHICH, WE ARE AFRAID, SECTION 147 WOULD GIVE ARBITRARY POW ERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN ASSESSMENTS ON THE BASIS OF 'MERE CHANGE OF OPINION', WHICH CANNOT BE PER SE REASON TO REOPEN. WE MUST ALSO KEEP IN MIND THE CON CEPTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POWER TO REVIEW AND POWER TO REASSESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW; HE HAS THE POWER TO REASSESS. BUT REASSESSMENT HAS TO BE BASED ON FULFILMENT OF CERTAIN PRECONDITION AND IF THE CONCEPT OF 'CHANGE OF OPINION' I S REMOV ED, AS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF TH E DEPARTMENT, THEN, IN THE GARB OF REOPENING THE ASSE SSMENT, REVIEW WOULD TAKE PLACE. ONCE MUST TREAT THE CONCEPT OF 'CHANGE OF OPINION' AS AN INBUILT TEST TO CHECK ABUSE OF POWER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, AFTER 1ST AP RIL, 1989, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POWER TO REOPEN, PROVIDED THERE IS 'TANGIBLE MATERIAL ' T O COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT. ' 2256/M/12(04-05) ALKYL A MINES CHEMICALS 5 14. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE WAS AN ABSENCE OF TA NGIBL E MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSMENT COULD HAVE BEEN REOPENED. THE REASON WHICH WEIGHED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EXTRANEOUS TO THE BASIS ON WHICH THE DED UCTION CAN LEGITIMATELY BE CL AIMED UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII). THIS IS A CASE OF A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION WITHOUT ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL. THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THIS G ROUND IS HENCE UNSUSTAINABLE. 22. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW WHICH HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN MAX INDIA (SUPRA) WOULD BE ATTRACTED. ON T HE DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER PURPORTED TO EXERCISE HIS POWER TO REOPEN T HE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147, THE LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT BY THE INSERTION OF CLAUSE (I ) TO EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 115JB HAD NOT BEE N BROUGHT INTO FORCE ON THE STATU TE BOOK. OBVIOUSLY, THEREFORE, THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AND IS NOT A GROUND WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE REOPENING THE ASSESSME NT. THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N SEEKING TO REOPEN THE ASS ESSMENT MUST BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE REASONS WHICH ARE FOUND IN SUPPORT OF THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THESE REASONS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SUPPLEMENTED ON A BASIS WHICH WAS NOT PRESENT TO THE MIND OF THE OFFICER AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO PRESENT ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE POWER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS EXERCISED. WE, T HEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN MAX INDIA (SUPRA) WOUL D BE ATTRACTED TO THE PRESENT CASE. CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER WITH REFERENCE TO THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFITS UNDER SECTION 115JB WAS AT THE LEAST A PROBABLE VIEW AND AS A MATTER OF FACT THE CORRECT VIEW TO TAKE IN VIEW O F THE 19 DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN HCL (SUPRA). IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE LAW LAI D DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IS DECLARATORY OF THE POSITION AS IT ALWAYS STOOD. IN ANY EVENT, AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SUPPORTED BY THE INTERPRE TATION PLACED EVEN CONTEMPORANEOUSLY I N THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN ECHJAY (SUPRA) AND IN THE JUDGMENTS OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN EICHER AND HCL (SUPRA). IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WAS NO WARRANT FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 147. ' 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RALIES INDIA LTD (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSES SMENT IN THE CASE IN HAND IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE REASSESSMENT IS SET ASIDE. 9. GROUND NO.1 AND 1.2. ARE ALLOWED. 10. GROUNDS NO.2, SINCE RE-ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN SET ASIDE AS INVALID, WE DO NOT PROPOSE TO ADJUDICATE THIS ISSUE ON MERITS. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. RESPECTFULLY,FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER, WE DECIDE T HE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWE D. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 TH MARCH, 2017. 09 , 2017 SD/- SD/- ( /SANJAY GARG) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED : 09.03.2017. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 2256/M/12(04-05) ALKYL A MINES CHEMICALS 6 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.