DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai V. M/S SERCO BPO PVT. LTD., Mumbai

ITA 2354/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had earlier granted relief to M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd regarding the reopening of their assessment and the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was whether the reopening of the assessment was justified and whether the addition of Rs. 32,21,48,679 as unexplained cash credit was valid. The CIT(A) had found the reopening to be bad in law and the addition unjustified, leading to the revenue's appeal. However, the revenue's appeal was dismissed due to an unexplained and inordinate delay in filing the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's cross objections as well.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299415 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Ltd, ACIT Vs. Vimal Mehra, Pr. CIT Vs Binani Industries Ltd
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Tax effect; Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Assessment record; Right to appeal; Condonation of delay; Bonafide mistake; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 68; 148; 154; 143(3); 142(1); 260A; 115JB; 143(1); 250; 143(2); 13; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2009-10) DCIT – 5(3)(1) Room No. 573, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 020. Vs. M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd.(as successor of Intelnet Global Service PvtLtd),Teleperformance Tower, Plot CST No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai -400104. PAN/GIR No. : AABCV2572L Appellant .. Respondent CO No. 136/Mum/2022 [Arising out of 2354/Mum/2022] (A.Y: 2009-10) Teleperformance Global Service Pvt Ltd(earlier Serco Bpo Pvt Ltd), Teleperformance Tower, Plot CST No. 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Goregaon(W) Mumbai- 400104. Vs. DCIT – 5(3)(1) Room No. 573, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400020. PAN/GIR No. : AABCV2572L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent by : Shri.Dr.Kishor Dhule. CIT DR Respondent/Appellant by : Shri.Madur Agarwal.AR ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 2 - Date of Hearing 22.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The revenue has filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Mumbai passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 and 250 of the Act and the assessee has filed the Cross Objections. The revenue has filed the following grounds of appeal: 1.` Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in holding the reopening as bad in law and allowing the appeal of the assessee by observing that mere information that the appellant received share premium cannot lead to the conclusion that income had escaped assessment as reasons recorded by the AO was flawed. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing the assessees claim with regards to the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. The assessing officer has rightly added the sum of Rs. 32,21,26,938/- as an unexplained cash credit. In this regard, assessee has not brought on record any detail in order to prove the genuineness of this transaction. Hence, AO has appropriately considered this amount as unexplained cash credits in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee. ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 3 - 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company (earlier known as M/s Intelenet Global Services Pvt Ltd) is engaged in the business of providing Information Technology Enabled Service(ITES),business process outsourcing services, call center and contract centre services. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2009-10 on 29.09.2009 disclosing a total income of Rs.Nil (After claiming setoff of unabsorbed depreciation) and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and Subsequently order u/s 143(3) r.w.s144C(1) of the Act determining the total income u/s 115JB of Rs. 90,99,78,259/- was passed on 28.01.2014. The Assessing Officer (A.O) after recording the reasons for reopening of assesseement has issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and the assessee has filed a letter to treat the return of income filed on 29.09.2009 as a due compliance. Subsequently, the AO has issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and in compliance, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and submit the information. The first disputed issue is with respect to validity of the assesseement and the objections raised by the assessee on the ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 4 - reopening of the assesseement are disposed off by the revenue authorities.. 3. Whereas,the A.O. has received the information from investigation wing that the share premium of Rs. 32,21,48,67,940/- has been received by the assessee in the previous year and the same has been disclosed in the reserves and surplus in the Balance sheet. The AO has dealt on the facts, submissions and observed as under: 7. From the records, it is seen that during F.Y.2008-09 relevant to A.Y.2009-10 assessee has shown receipt of share premium amounting Nil. Whereas information has been received from investigation wing that share premium was Rs.32,21,48,67,940/-. It has been found the that although the assessee has been objecting that the said amount of share premium amount has been shown in the securities premium account in the reserves and surplus of the Balance Sheet filed during the year, the issue of share premium was never been discussed anywhere in the assessment order as well as on the order sheet nothing. Hence it is amply clear that the then A.O. had not applied his mind to this issue and the information received from the Investigation Wing does bear the importance as this issue of share premium is being discussed afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee to explain its stand. The assessee has nowhere brought on record to prove the nature and the source of this share premium issued during the year. The reference ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 5 - of the assessee to the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of M/s Vodafone India Ltd. which is regarding the issue of shares at premium in case of preference shares issued by the company. In our case the equity shares have been issued at a premium for which necessary justification as to the worth of the company, the rationality, the details of impending projects, the discounted cash flow (DCF) valuation of the shares and the present performance as per these projections has to be considered in totality so as to justify the claim of issue of shares at a premium in true sense. The assessee in its support never submitted any detail on record so as to prove the genuineness of this transaction. Hence it is appropriate to consider an amount of Rs. 32,21,48,679/- as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee company u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added back to the total income of the assessee. Finally the A.O has assessed the total income of Rs. 123.21.26.938/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 23.03.2015. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee, findings of the AO, judicial decisions and the information filed in the course of appellate proceedings and granted relief in respect of receipt of share premium by the assessee from the holding company and has observed at Para 5.4 to Para 6.4.3 ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 6 - of the order and partly allowed the assessee appeal as under: 5.4 Decision on Ground No.2: 5.4.1 I have considered the contentions of the appellant. I find that in this case an assessment order was passed on28.01.2014 u/s 143(3) rws 144C(1) of the Act. The assessment was reopened on 23.03.2015, i.e., after expiry of more than 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 5.4.2 I find that in the reasons recorded by the AO has stated that the appellant had shown the receipt of share premium during the FY 2008-09 as NIL. In the course of the appellate proceedings, the appellant denied that premium receipt of Rs. 32,21,48,679/- was not disclosed by the appellant in its return of income. The appellant also furnished a copy of the original return of income for AY. 2009-10. As par Schedule 2 of the Balance Sheet of the return, the share premium received was Rs. 32,21,48,679/-. In view of this the AO was requested, by a letter dated 05.12.2017, to furnish his comments in this regard. In response the AO filed a letter dated 6.12.2017. The AO fail to rebut claim of the appellant that the share premium received was disclosed by it. Therefore, in my view the very basis on which the assessment was reopened was wrong. Therefore, I find that the information received from the Investigation Wing was already disclosed by the appellant in its return of income. 5.4.3 Further, the mere information that the appellant received share premium cannot lead to the conclusion that ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 7 - income had escaped assessment. On this count also, the reasons recorded is flawed. 5.4.4 In view of the foregoing discussions, I hold that the reopening was bad in law. Accordingly, ground of appeal No.2 raised by the appellant is allowed. 6. Ground Nos. 3 & 4: 6.1 In these grounds of appeal the appellant contended that the AO erred in making an addition of 32,21,48,679/- u/s. 68 of the Act to the book profit of the appellant u/s 115JB of the Act. 6.2 Facts relating to Grounds of Appeal No.3 & 4: 6.2.1 The AO made addition of 32,21,48,679/- u/s.68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced below: "7. From the records, it is seen that during F. Y. 2008-09 relevant to A.Y. 2009-10 assessee has shown receipt of share premium amounting to NIL whereas information has been received from the investigation wing that share premium was 232,21,48,67,940/-. It has been found that although the assessee has been objecting that the said amount of share premium has been shown in the securities premium account in the reserves and surplus of the Balance Sheet filed during the year, the issue of share premium was never been discussed anywhere in the assessment order as well as on the order sheet notings. Hence it is amply clear that the then AO has not applied his mind to this issue and the information received from the Investigation Wing does bear the important as this issue of share premium is being discussed afresh after giving due opportunity to the ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 8 - assessee to explain its stand. The assessee has nowhere brough on record to prove the nature and the source of this share premium issued during the year. The reference of the assessee to jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of M/s. Vodafone India Ltd. which is regarding the issue of shares at premium in case of preference shares issued by the company. In our case the equity shares have been issued at a premium for which necessary justification as to the worth of the company, the rationality, the details of impending projects, the discounted cash flow (DCF) valuation of the shares and the present performance as per these projections has to be considered in totality so as to justify the claim of issue of shares at a premium in true sense. The assessee in its support never submitted any detail on record so as to prove the genuineness of this transaction. Hence it is appropriate to consider an amount of 232,21,48,679/- as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee company u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added back to the total income of the assessee." 6.2.2 The computation of the book profit as per the order dated 23/03/2015 is reproduced as under: Total Income u/s. 115JB (As per order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) dated 28/01/2014 - 90,99,78,259 Add Disallowed u/s 68 (as discussed in para 7 above) 32,21,48,679 Total Income - 123,21,26,938 6.3 Submissions of the appellant in respect of ground number 3 & 4: Submissions of the appellant dated 28.03.2016 is reproduced below: ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 9 - "In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned addition of Rs.32,21,48,679, by way of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act, is absolutely erroneous and the same deserves to be deleted on this ground, itself. V. Further, the AO could not re-compute the profits in profit and loss account by adding the impugned share premium of Rs.32,21,48,679, for the determination of book profit under section 115JB of the Act. It may be further stated that the AO failed to correctly appreciate the implications of the provisions of section 115.JB of the Act. In this connection, it may be stated that a company is required do prepare its profit and loss account in accordance with Part-II of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. Further, the AO does not have any jurisdiction to go behind the net profits shown in the profit and loss account, except to the extent as provided for in the Explanation I to section 115.JB(2) of the Act. It may also be stated here that under the relevant clauses (a) to (j) of the aforesaid Explanation 1, the impugned share premium could not be added to the net profits for the purpose of computation of book profits. The aforesaid stand is supported by the following judgements of the Supreme Court. 1. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273 (SC) It was, held in this case that while determining 'book profits' under section 115J, the AO could not re- compute the profits in the profit and loss account except as provided for in the Explanation. It may also be stated ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 10 - here that the relevant provisions of section 115JB are totally in para materia with the relevant provisions of section 115J of the Act. 2. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2008] 300 ITR 251 (SC) It was held in this case that while computing the income of a company under section 115J, the AO has only power to examine, whether the books of account are certified by the authorities under the Companies Act. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, has the limited power of making increases and reductions as provided for in the Explanation to section 115J. The AO does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account, except to the extent as provided for in the Explanation to section 115J of the Act. It may also be stated here that the relevant provisions of section 115JB are totally in para materia with the relevant provisions of section 115J of the Act. In the light of the aforesaid reasons also, addition of the impugned share premium of Rs. 32,21,48,679, made by the AO to the book profits for the computation of MAT under section 115JB of the Act, is totally erroneous and bad in law. 6.3.2 Further, during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant filed by a letter dated 12/12/2016 following new evidences in support of the genuineness of the receipt of share premium of Rs. 32,21,48,679/-: (a) Confirmation letter, dt. 10.8.2017, in respect of the receipt of the aforesaid share premium. (b) Copy of relevant extract of bank account of M/S SKR BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. with HSBC Bank, ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 11 - (c) A copy of return of allotment regarding the aforesaid share, before the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which was filed by M/s Intelenet Global Services Pvt. Ltd. on 30.1.2009. (d) Copy of Financials in the case of M/s SKR BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. for the FY 2008-09, relevant to AY 2009-10. (e) a copy of the extract of bank account of M/s Intelenet Global Services Pvt. Ltd. with HSBC Bank in respect of receipt of Rs.39,99,99,979, from M/S SKR BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. was attached therewith. The appellant claimed that in the aforesaid extract of bank account, the deposit of the aforesaid amount of Rs.39,99,99,979, in the bank account of M/s Intelenet Global Services Pvt. Ltd. with HSBC Bank is clearly disclosed and that the aforesaid documents clearly establish the genuineness of the receipt of the aforesaid amount of share premium of Rs.32,21,48,679, by the appellant from M/S SKR BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. 6.3.3 The said new evidences were sent to the AO vide this office letter dated 01/09/2017 and was asked to furnish the comments. The AO by his letter dated 24/10/2017 has furnished his comments on the new evidences submitted by the appellant. The comments of the AO are reproduced as under: "Vide the above referred letter dated 01.09.2017, your goodself had requested to furnish the comments on the evidences in support of the genuineness of the transaction and also to furnish comments on the assessee company's claim that adequate opportunity was not given ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 12 - to the assessee company in the course of assessment proceedings to furnish the evidences. 2. As regards furnishing of comments regarding not providing adequate opportunity, it is submitted that vide this office letter dated 09.09.2017 issued under F.No. ACIT-12(2)(2)/Remand Report/2017-18, full comments on the same as observed from the assessment records have been reported therein and the same have not been repeated here to avoid repetition. The same may be referred to. In this regard, it is once again reiterated that as stated in the said letter, adequate opportunity and sufficient time was provided to the assessee company in the course of assessment proceedings to provide the requisite details, however to the reasons best known to the assessee company, it had refrained from furnishing the details. Further, it may be stated that the assessee company has not mentioned at any point of time during the course of assessment proceedings as to what prevented it from furnishing the requisite details. In the circumstances, it may be stated that the additional evidences now being produced before your goodself were available to the assessee company at the time of course of assessment proceedings and the same have not been furnished to the then Assessing Officer to the reasons best known to it. As such, the assessee company's claim that adequate opportunity was not provided to it in the course of assessment proceedings is incorrect and, in my considered opinion, the evidences submitted during the appellate proceedings before your goodself is in appropriate without furnishing the same during the assessment proceedings. 3. Pursuant to the same, vide letter dated 18.09.2017, a letter was issued to the assessee company to furnish ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 13 - certain details with regard to share premium received by it during the year so that the same may be verified from this end and accordingly submit the report before your goodself. In response, vide letters dated 05.10.2017 and 10.10.2017. Considering the evidences submitted your goodself and the submissions furnished before the undersigned, it is seen that vide this office letter dated 18.09.2017, inter alia, the assessee company was requested to state (i) reason & circumstances for issuing the shares at premium substantiating the same with documentary evidence, (ii) copies of correspondence ensured with the share subscribers/ shareholders in the form of emails / letters etc, (iii) details of the introducer(s) of the share subscribers/shareholders, (iv) engagement of any investment banker availed by the assessee company to the said transaction and (v) Any of the subscribers is a Director on board. 4. In response, vide letter dated 05.10.2017, the assessee company stated that as the assessee and M/s SKR BPO Services Pvt. Ltd are closely connected, no correspondence was necessary for the allotment of shares by Intelenet to M/s SKR BPO Services Pvt. Ltd., M/s SKR BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. was already an investor in Intelenet and as such, there was no need of any introducer and that all the 7 Directors of SKO BPO were also Directors in Intelenet. It is seen from the shareholding pattern in Intelenet from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 that SKR BPO Services held 100% of the shares being no change in shareholding pattern, which means that SKR BPO Services had full control over the affairs of Intelenet with its 07 Directors managing the business activities of Intelenet. In such a situation, the assessee has failed to explain the reason and circumstances for issuing the shares at premium with ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 14 - documentary evidence to a company having 100% shareholding and having control over its affairs. The assessee company in its submissions has not been able to explain the future potential in terms of bottom line or topline of its financials, future contracts, work orders, capacity utilization, huge one-time gains resulting in enough cash flows, corporate announcement etc., which could support the issue of shares to SKR BPO Services at such a premium. In my considered opinion, the issue and receipt of shares at a premium to any company can at best prove the completion of required formalities but the same cannot support/ substantiate the genuineness of the said transaction in the lack of future potential of the company invested in. 5. Further, from the HSBC bank account of SKR BPO Services, it is observed that an amount of Rs. 89,32,830/- were available as on 11.12.2008 and after receiving fresh deposit of Rs.40,98,63,001/- on 30.12.2008, SKR BPO Services could make payment of Rs.39,99,99,979/- to Intelenet on the very same date i.e.. 30.12.2008. This very fact proves that SKR BPO Services does not have enough credit worthiness to subscribe to the shares of Intelenet at such a premium in which SKR BPO Services had controlling rights. Furthermore, the absence of correspondence between these two companies as SKR BPO Services is already an investor in Intelenet does not appear logical in view of the fact that both SKR BPO Services and Intelenet are separate legal entities in the eyes of law though the Directors are same and SKR BPO Services held 100% shareholding in Intelenet. Any corporate transaction must be in a proper procedural law by making suitable correspondence. It is not explained by the asssesee company as to why Intelenet had not explored contacting other companies to make out better ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 15 - out of such shares other than SKR BPO Services and no other correspondence in this regard have been furnished by the assessee company, which shows that reasons underlying the share transfer at a premium to SKR BPO Services is other than the one which is shown to appear on the paper. 6. As per the submissions made by the assessee company, services of no investment banker have been availed by both SKR BPO Services and Intelenet. It is surprising to see how a company without knowing the future potential of Intelenet would subscribe for shares at a premium by paying such huge amount and also how the Intelenet had not availed services of any investment banker to explore better investor other than SKR BPO Services. It is not understood how Intelenet would simply issue shares to SKR BPO Services without making any other enquiries regarding other investors for allotment of such shares at better valuations. 7. In view of the above discussion, it is humbly brought to your notice that the shares issued to SKR BPO Services at a premium does not appear to be logical and genuine as tried to be shown by Intelenet in its submissions. The credits appearing in the bank account of SKR BPO Services clearly states that the said company has not having enough credit worthiness to subscribe for the shares. The whole transaction appears to be a pre-planned one merely by completing procedural formalities in the eyes of law trying to make the transaction a genuine one. Therefore, the submissions alongwith additional evidences submitted before your goodself in the course of appellate proceedings needs to be adjudicated keeping in view the observations made by the undersigned as explained above. ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 16 - 6.3.4 By this office letter dated 06/11/2017, the appellant was asked to file its comments on the remand report submitted by the AO. The appellant vide letter dated 20/11/2017 has filed its comments on the remand report submitted by the AO, which is reproduced hereunder: "Regarding reassessment proceedings 1) Thereafter, a notice was issued under section 148 of the Act, dt.27.3.2014. ii) Later on, a notice under section 143(2) was issued. However, vide the aforesaid notice only reasons recorded for reopening the assessment dt.27.3.2014 were supplied to the appellant. Further, in this connection, it is significant to state that the AO, vide the aforesaid notice under section 143(2) of the Act, did not call for any details for the purpose of reassessment. It is, therefore, quite clear that though the AO raised the issue of tax-treatment of the impugned share premium, yet no query, whatsoever, was raised in regard to the genuineness of the aforesaid share premium iii) Thereafter, detailed objections were filed against the aforesaid notice under section 148, vide appellant's letter, dt. 26.7.2014. Besides, vide another letter dt. 16.1.2015, additional objections were filed against the notice under section 148 of the Act. iv) Thereafter, the AO passed an order under section 147, r.w.s. 148 of the Act, dr.6.2.2015, rejecting the aforesaid objections of the appellant. ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 17 - v) Further, the appellant furnished comments on the aforesaid order under section 147 of the Act, vide letter, dt. 12.3.2015. Vide the aforesaid detailed letter a request was made to drop the reassessment proceedings. vi) Thereafter, the AO passed an order under section 143(3), r.w.s. 147 of the Act. dt.23.3.2015, which is under appeal. From the aforesaid reassessment proceedings, it may be clearly seen that the AO nowhere raised any query regarding the genuineness of the transaction relating to the receipt of the aforesaid share premium to the extent of Rs. 32,21,48,679. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the comments of the AO in the Remand Report that the appellant did not furnish the relevant pieces of evidence, regarding the genuineness of the transaction of the receipt of the aforesaid share premium, are totally erroneous. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, it is requested that the aforesaid evidence establishing the genuineness of the receipt of share premium of Rs.32,21,.48,679/-, by the appellant, from M/s SKR BPO Services Pvt. Ltd., may be accepted." 6.4 Decision on Ground Nos. 3 & 4: 6.4.1 In the course of the appellate proceedings the appellant filed additional evidence and the AO was requested to comment on the appellants contention that the appellant was not given adequate opportunity to produce the additional evidence. In reply the AO has ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 18 - merely stated that adequate opportunity and sufficient time were provided to the appellant to provide the requisite details. The AO in his report dated 09.09.2017. furnished the details of opportunities given to the appellant in the course of assessment proceedings. The report of the AO dated 09.09.2017 is reproduced below: "In this regard, it is to state that the then AO has enquired the specific input in the instant case which was received form DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai subsequently, the reason was recorded and assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. Accordingly a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2014 was served to the assessee company. In response to the said notice, a request was made by the assessee company vide letter dated 02.04.2014 to supply a copy of the reason recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act. The request of the assessee company was acceded and reason recorded for initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the Act was provided to the assessee company wherein it was clearly reflected the issue on which case was reopened/s 147 of the Act. Thereafter, notices u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 27.04.2017 and 30.07.2017 were issued to the assessee company which was duly served to the Assessee Company. In response, neither the assessee attended nor filed any submission. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) of the dated 30.07.2014, 09.10.214 and 11.12.2014 was issued and which was duly served upon the assessee company. It is pertinent to highlight over here that notice dated 11.12.2014 u/s 142(1) of the Act therein clearly mentioned that no adjournment will be granted. Despite it is gathered from the record that neither assessee company attended on the specific date i.e 30.12.2014 nor filed any submission in support of his claim." ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 19 - 6.4.2 I find from the report of the AO that adequate opportunities were provided to the appellant in the course of the assessment proceedings to furnish the evidences which have been filed before me. I, therefore, decline to admit the additional evidence. Accordingly, I proceed to decide the ground No. 4 without considering the new evidences filed. 6.4.3 I have considered the submissions of the appellant. I find that the AO has held the sum of Rs. 32,21,48679/- as unexplained cash credit. Thereafter the AO added the sum of Rs.32,21,48,679/- to the book profit of the appellant determined u/s 115JB in the assessment order dated 28.01.2014. This action of the appellant is grossly wrong. As per the Act, for determination of book profit u/s 115JB, no adjustments can be made other than those specified in explanation 1 to section 115JB. Therefore the action of the AO in adding the sum of Rs. 32,21,26,938/- is without any basis. I therefore, delete the addition made to the book profit. Since adjustment in respect of addition made u/s 68 in the computation of book profit for the purpose of section 115JB is not sustainable, there is no need to go into the merits of the findings of the AO that the sum of Rs. 32,21,48,679/- represents unexplained cash credit. Accordingly ground no 3 & 4 are allowed. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue has filed an appeal and the assessee has filed cross objection with the Honble Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. DR submitted that there is delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the registry has issued the defect notice ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 20 - dated 12-10-2022 mentioning that the Appeal filed is time barred by 1651 days. The contentions of the ld.DR that the delay is bonafide and emphasized that the revenue has a reasonable cause for delay in filling the appeal and placed reliance on the application dated 15.09.2022 filed by the revenue for condonation of delay. Since there was no clarity on subject matter of delay in filling the appeal .The revenue has filed the detailed reasons for delay in filling the appeal before the Honble Tribunal in letter dated21-02-2023 read as under: “ Sub: Condonation of delay for filing departmental Appeal in the case of M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd. Formerly known as intelnet Global Service Pvt Ltd (PAN – AABCV25) (erstwhile PAN – AAACI7387P) for A.Y 2009-10, ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 – reg. Kindly refer to the above, 2. In this connection, it is stated that the delay in filing appeal is attributed to the following cases S.No Jurisdiction Transfer date From To 1 Old Old-Addl/JCIT Rg. 1(2) 19.06.2002 2 Old-Addl/JCIT Rg. 1(2) Ward1(2)(1), Mumbai 04.01.2006 3 Ward1(2)(1), Circle 1(2)(1), 26.02.2008 ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 21 - Mumbai Mumbai 4 Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai Circle 13(2)(1) Mumbai 08.03.2016 5 Circle 13(2)(1) Mumbai Circle 12(2)(2) Mumbai 17.09.2016 6 Circle 12(2)(2) Mumbai Circle 4(2)(1) Mumbai 23.09.2020 7 Circle 4(2)(1) Mumbai Circle 5(3)(1) Mumbai 06.12.2021 3. A perusal of records at all levels (AO's office, Range office and Olo PCIT-5. Mumbai), revealed that this office was not in receipt of the CIT(A) order. Further the PAN history of the case was extracted from ITBA (copy of the printout enclosed). Pursuant to restructuring, PCIT-13, Mumbai was merged with PCIT-5 in August 2020. Thereafter, the case was transferred on 23.09.2020 from Circle 12(2)(2). Mumbai to Circle 4(2)(1). Mumbai and again the PAN was transferred on 06.12.2021 from Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai to Circle 5(3)(1). Mumbai. As can be inferred from the history of movement of PAN, the jurisdiction over the case under PCIT-5, Mumbai commenced only from 06.12.2021. Intermittently, it could not be ascertained as to where, when and in which office (ie, Commissionerate) the CIT(A) order was served. 4. To further clarify the delay in filing of appeal to ITAT, the chronology of events in the case is as follows: 1. Chronology of events in the instant case is as follows Sr. N. Date Status of order/Appeals Remarks 1 28.01.2014 Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) 2 23.03.2015 Order u/s 143(1) r.w.s 147 passed Addition u/s 68 made to book ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 22 - by the AO profit u/s 115JB of the Act 3 16.09.2017 Order u/s 154 rectfying the order u/s 147 of the Act dated 23.03.2015 passed Rectification made on two issues. 1. unexplained cash credit added in computation to book profit instead of addition as per normal provisions of the Act 2. Set off of unabsorbed deprecation wrongly allowed by the AO 4 29.12.2017 Ld. CIT(A) quashed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 23.03.2015 Dept filed an appeal in ITAT on 16.09.2022 5 07.06.2018 Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee appeal against the order u/s 154 of the Act dated 16.09.2017 Assessee filed further appeal in ITAT 6 24.05.2021 ITAT passed an order on appeal against CIT(A) against the order u/s 154 dated 16.09.2017 ITAT held that the order passed by CIT(A) dated 29.12.2017 quashing the order u/s 147 is reversed on an appeal by the revenue then addition made ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 23 - order u/s 154 shall stands restored. 7 16.09.2022 Appeal filed in ITAT against the order of CIT(A) dated 29.12.2017 Appeal filed after delay of 4 years 6 months and six days 5. In view of the above, the entire delay in filing of appeal to Hon’ble ITAT submitted as above and it is further requested to your goodself that condonation of delay may be granted for the same. 6. The Ld.DR mentioned that the afore said reasons mentioned in the letter are bonofide and the delay was due to change of jurisdiction, due to change of name of the assessee company and also the delay is attributable to Covid period and prayed for condonation of delay in filling the appeal. Contra, the Ld.AR strongly objected the submissions with facts , information and judicial decisions and pleaded to reject the condonation application filed for the delay in filling the appeal. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Ld.DR s contentions are that the delay of 1651 days in filling the appeal with the Honble Tribunal is attributable to change in PAN, jurisdiction of the case and transfer from old ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 24 - jurisdiction to new, movement of file pursuant to restructuring of PCIT and inferences drawn due to Covid period and the delay is reasonable and sufficient cause is explained and hence has to be condoned. We find that the CIT(A) has passed the order dated 29.12.2017 and the revenue has filed a letter explaining the chronology of jurisdiction of the case prior to date of passing of the CIT(A) order on 29-12-2017, which does not serve any purpose in the present case. The Revenue has to explain the delay after expiry of time limit of 60 days from the receipt of order of the CIT(A). We find as per Form No.36 along with the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue at page 2 against the column c –“Date of service or communication of the order – “It was mentioned as 19.01.2018”. The revenue having accepted the date of service of the CIT(A) order has challenged by appeal before the Honble Tribunal and therefore the explanations and reasons for delay should be subsequent to this date and to any prior period. 8. Further the Ld.DR submitted that due to covid period limitations, the delay in filling the appeal was ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 25 - further extended. Whereas the Ld. AR brought to the knowledge of the bench, crucial dates and extensions on limitation time in the Covid period. It was submitted that covid restrictions are effective from March 2020 and was extended from time to time by the Hon’ble Supreme Court till february 2022 and substantiated the submissions with the judicial decisions. Further the delay in filling the appeal has arised after expiry of 60 days from the receipt of order on 9-01-2018, which was much before the limitation during the covid period effective from march 2020. we considering the fact that the period of delay of covid cannot be considered as a sufficient cause as the delay in filling the appeal happened much prior to covid period and the Ld. DR has to explain the delay after receipt of the CIT(A) order and the date of filing the appeal. Therefore the submissions of the revenue that the covid period is also attributable to delay in filling does not have merits. The Submissions of the Ld.DR are not convincing and not supported with the credible information and sufficient reasons explaining the delay expect relaying on the secondary factors mentioning the dates of jurisdiction changes, ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 26 - restructuring and transfer of the case by the revenue. We find the delay in filling the appeal is abnormal and the revenue could not explain the delay with sufficient cause or bonofide reasons for condoning the delay. We support our view relying on the judicial decisions of Honble Supreme court , Honble High court and Honble tribunal on the disputed issues of delay in filling the appeal. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Ltd (348 ITR 7)(SC) has observed as under Head notes: Section 261 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Supreme Court Appeals to Whether, where appellant, a Government department, filed appeal with a delay of 427 days and there was no proper explanation offered by Department for delay except mentioning of various dates, it was to be concluded that Department had miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay and, therefore, appeal filed by it was to be dismissed being barred by limitation - Held, yes [In favour of assessee. At Para 13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 27 - months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 9. Similarly the Honble Tribunal in ITA No. 1484/ Delhi/2012 in the case ACIT Vs. Vimal Mehra has observed at Para 6 to 8 of the order as under: 6. After considering facts, material on record and various case law as cited by rival sides, we find it to be settled position of law that right of appeal is neither an absolute nor an ingredient of natural justice, the principle of which must be followed in judicial and quasi-judicial adjudication. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the condition in the grant. If a statute gives right to appeal upon certain conditions it is upon fulfilment of those conditions that the right becomes vested in and exercisable by the appellant. As per s. 253(3), appeal is required to be filed by the assessee or the Department within sixty days from the date of communication of the order to be appealed against on the assessee or the CIT, as the case may be and under s. ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 28 - 253(5), Tribunal may admit an appeal after expiry of relevant period referred to in s. 253(3) if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within that period. No doubt, it is specifically provided that appeal can be admitted after the prescribed period if the assessee satisfies the Tribunal that he/she had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within period as prescribed in this behalf. Where the time for referring an appeal has expired, a valuable right is secured to the respondent or the opposite party and such right ought not to be lightly disturbed [as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, 363]. The appeal preferred or. made after the expiry of the prescribed period can be admitted only if the assessee satisfied the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period. The Tribunal has power to condone the delay only when sufficient cause is shown with a view to advance substantial justice and even after sufficient cause has been shown the party is not entitled to condonation of delay, as a matter of right. If sufficient cause is shown then Tribunal has to enquire, whether in its discretion, it should condone the delay, consideration of bona fides or due diligence is always material. Since all other circumstances are also to be taken into account before applying the provisions of law in this regard and in this case the Department did not file the appeals within due time in this case and cause shown by it does not conclusively show that same is reasonable or sufficient. No doubt, at more than one occasion Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual because individual would be quick in taking the decision whereas Government machinery, there is impersonal mechanism through its ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 29 - officers or servants but position here is not the same as it was a case of no action on the part of the Assessing Officer inasmuch as even after obtaining authorization from concerned CIT on 30.08.2010, the appeal was filed on 29.03.2012 and no material or evidence to justify such inordinate delay of 557 days has been adduced except taking general type of plea of oversight and pressure of overwork, Department has sought condonation of delay, which, in our considered view, cannot be held to be a sufficient or reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within stipulated time in the light of facts and circumstances explained and discussed above. 7. As such, considering the totality of facts and circumstances, pleas raised and discussion held in the light of decided cases, as relied upon, we decline to condone the delay caused in filing of the appeal and dismiss the same in limine. 8.As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue gets dismissed. 10. Similarly the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Binani Industries Ltd, [2021] 141 taxmann.com 2 (Calcutta) has observed- Head notes Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 High Court - Appeal to (Condonation of delay) An order was passed in favour of assessee by Tribunal - Same was received by revenue on 1-12-2005 Appeal against same was to be filed by revenue not later than 30-3-2006 - However, it ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 30 - was only on 30-3-2006 DIT, (Investigation) recommended for filing an appeal against impugned order - Thereafter, revenue forwarded file to Ministry of Law, Justice and Company affairs on 3-4-2006 for drawing Memorandum of appeal and connected applications - Ministry appointed a counsel for drafting of memorandum of appeal and affidavits on 5-4-2006 It was only on 19-1-2011 counsel returned papers without drafting Memorandum of appeal, stay petition and condonation of delay petition - On 31-1-2012 Ministry of Law, Justice and Company affairs after perusal of draft sent draft along with judicial folder to Commissioner for approval On 17-7-2017 Principal Commissioner returned approved drafts of Memorandum of appeal and petition for condonation of delay - Thus, on 17-7-2017 revenue filed instant application seeking condonation of cumulative delay of more than 12 years in filing appeal against an order passed by Tribunal - It was noted that delay between 31-1-2012 and 17-7-2017 remained unexplained by department by sufficient cause for such delay - Whether since there was inordinate delay of 4357 days in filing appeal by revenue against order passed by Tribunal without giving any explanation for same, such delay could not be condoned - Held, yes [Para 3] [In favour of assessee] AT Para 3. “We have elaborately heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the averment set out in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application giving certain reasons for condonation of delay the preceding paragraph while noting the fact we have taken note of the lack of explanation on the part of the department for not preferring the appeal within the time. The cumulative ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 31 - delay is more than twelve years. Though it can be stated that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold, we need to bear in mind the plight of the respondent when there is inordinate delay in preferring the appeal. Though it may not be required that every hour, every day, every week of the delay should be explained but the explanation offered for the delay should be reasonable and there should be sufficient cause for not being able to prefer the appeal within time. Each case has to be tested on its own facts. The length of delay at time is immaterial and even a meagre delay, would be refused to be condoned if it is established that for collateral purposes the appeal was presented belatedly. The case on hand unravels bureaucratic approach adopted by the department in handling the matter. The learned Counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that substantial revenue is involved in the matter and, therefore, the Court should exercise discretion. The exercise of discretion has to be on reasonable basis and for us to do so, we have to examine the facts of each and every case. As pointed out earlier though the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company affairs had entrusted the matter to the learned panel counsel on 5-4-2006, the case papers were returned to the Ministry only on 19-1-2011 after more than five years. Though certain letters said to have been written by the erstwhile panel counsel have been referred to in the affidavit filed by the department, the copies are not being enclosed along with the affidavit. In any event, those letters cannot in any manner advance the case of the department as it is the department who should have followed up the matter and ascertained the progress of the matter and they cannot shift the blame on ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 32 - the panel counsel who had initially been nominated to draft the Memorandum of appeal. Even thereafter there has been three other panel counsel who have been nominated and Mr. S.N. Dutta, is stated to be the fourth learned panel counsel, who has been now nominated in the matter. We fail to understand as to why Ministry of Law, Justice and Company affairs has complicated the entire process rather dealt with the matter in a very casual manner. It is not clear as to which of the empanelled counsel had drafted the Memorandum of Appeal and the affidavits which were given to the Ministry as the learned standing Counsel appearing in the matter before us today has not drafted the Memorandum of Appeal and affidavits. The draft Memorandum of Appeal and affidavits were submitted to the ministry for approval on 19-1-2012. The Ministry of law, Justice and Company affairs after perusal of the draft sent the draft to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central - 1 for their approval. It is only on 17-7-2017 the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central 1, Kolkata had returned the approved drafts. The delay between 31-1-2012 and 17-7-2017 remain unexplained. Thus we are fully satisfied that this is not a case where any indulgence can be shown nor any discretion can be exercised by us. For all the above reasons, the application for condonation of delay stands chsmissed and consequently the appeal stands rejected. 11. Further Jurisdictional Honble High Court Of Bombay in the case of CIT(Exemptions)Pune Vs. Lata Mangeshkar Medical Foundation in Income Tax ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 33 - Appeal (Lodg) No. 2320 of 2017 has observed as under: 11. Further, the decision of the Apex Court in G. Ramegowda (supra) was a subject matter of consideration by the decision of the Apex Court in Living Media Ltd (supra). In the latter case, the observations in G. Ramegowda (supra) of the State possessing an impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology leading to delay was found not acceptable in view of the modern technologies being used and available to the State. Further, in G. Ramegowda, the Apex Court had inter-alia observed that that the malafides of the officers should not be imputed to government. In the present case, it is not the case of the Revenue that the officers were not bonafide in taking their decision and therefore the delay was caused. The reasons as come out from the Affidavits filed is, that our work takes time and therefore the period of limitation imposed by the State should not be applied in case of Revenue's appeal where the tax effect involved is substantial. We cannot accept such a proposition as it would be contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court that there is no different period of limitation for the State and the citizen. 12. One more submission made on behalf of the Revenue is that, the respondents have been served and they have chosen not to appear. Therefore, it must necessarily follow that they have no objection to the delay being condoned and the Appeal being entertained. Thus, it is submitted that the delay be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits. This submission ignores the fact that the object of the law of limitation is to bring certainty and finality to litigation. This is based on the Maxim "interest reipublicae sit finis litium" i.e. for the general benefit of the community at large, because the object is every legal remedy must be alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. The object is to get on with life, if you ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 34 - have failed to file an appeal within the period provided by the Statute. It is for the general benefit of the entire community so as to ensure that stale and old matters are not agitated and the party who is aggrieved by an order can expeditiously move higher forum to challenge the same, if he is aggrieved by it. As observed by the Apex Court in many cases, the law assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights as found in the Maxim "Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt". Therefore, merely because the Respondent does not appear, it cannot follow that the applicant is bestowed with a right to the delay being condoned. 13. We are conscious of the fact that the period of limitation should not come as an hindrance to do substantial justice between the parties. However, at the same time, a party cannot sleep over its right ignoring the statute of limitation and without giving sufficient and reasonable explanation for the delay, expect its Appeal to be entertained merely because it is a State. Appeals filed beyond a period of limitation have been entertained by us, where the delay has been sufficiently explained such as in cases of bonafide mistake, malafide action of the Officer of the State etc. However, to seek that the period of limitation provided in the statute be ignored in case of Revenue's appeals cannot be accepted. The Appeals which are filed by the Revenue in this Court under Section 260A of the Act are very large in number and on an average over 2000 per year from the orders of the Tribunal. Thus, the officers of the Revenue should be well aware of the statutory provisions and the period of limitation and should pursue its remedies diligently. It cannot expect their Appeals be entertained, because they are after all the State, notwithstanding the fact that delay is not sufficiently explained. 14. In the above view, both the Notices of Motion are dismissed. No order as to costs. 15. Both the Appeals also stand disposed off. ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 35 - 12.. We Considering the facts, circumstances, ratio of the judicial decisions and discussions in the above paragraphs are not convinced with the explanations of the revenue in respect of inordinate delay in filling the appeal and accordingly dismiss the revenue appeal on limitation. CO. No. 136/Mum/2022 13. The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as discussed in the above paragraphs and consequently, the assessee’s cross objections becomes infructuous and are dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.02.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 27.02.2023 KRK, PS ITA No. 2354/Mum/2022 & CO. 136/Mum/2022 M/s Serco BPO Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. - 36 - /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. / The Appellant 2. / The Respondent. 3. आ आ / The CIT(A) 4. आ आ ( ) / Concerned CIT 5. ! !" , आ $ %, हमद द / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. () * + / Guard file. ानुसार/ BY ORDER, ! //True Copy//() ( Asst. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai