ACIT 29(1), MUMBAI V. DHIREN P. NANDU (HUF), MUMBAI

ITA 2362/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5955 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D G
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained cash credit; Bogus Share capital; Unexplained investment; Accommodation entries; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH , AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM / I .T.A. NO. 2362 /MUM/201 7 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) ACIT-29(1) ROOM NO. 108, 1ST FLOOR, C- 10 PRATYANKSHAKAR BHAVAN, B.K.C, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI- 51. / VS. M/S. DHIREN P. NANDU (HUF) 3, GUPTA NIWAS, VP ROAD, MULUND WEST, MUMBAI - 80. CO. NO.359 /M/201 8 (ARISING OUT OF ITA . NO. 2362 /MUM/201 7 ) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 10 ) M/S. DHIR EN P. NANDU (HUF) 3, GUPTA NIWAS, VP ROAD, MULUND WEST, MUMBAI - 80 . / VS. ACIT-29(1) ROOM NO. 108, 1ST FLOOR, C- 10 PRATYANKSHAKAR BHAVAN, B.K.C, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI- 51. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAHD1784L ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING : 30 / 0 7 / 201 9 / DATE OF PRON OUNCEMENT : 31 / 0 7 /2019 / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, J M: THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE HAVE FILED THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEAL S AS WELL AS CROSS - OBJECTION AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25 . 0 1.201 7 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) - 40, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 20 09 - 10 . REVENUE BY: SHRI D. G. PANSARI (SR. A R) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PARAS SAVLA / PRATIK PODDAR ITA. NO.2362 /M/1 7 CO. NO. 359/M/2018 A.Y. 2009 - 10 2 ITA. NO.2362 /M/201 7 2 . THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25 .0 1 .201 7 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 44 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFT E R REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,00,000/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE CONCRETE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT MR. PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN WAS OPERATING AND MANAGING 71 BENAMI CONCERNS THROUGH WHICH THEY ARE INVOLVED IN PROVIDING BOGUS ENTRIES OF UNSECURED LOANS AND BOGUS PURCHASES TO VARIOUS BENEFICIARIES. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED UNSECURED LOAN FROM M/S. ANSH MERCHANDISE WHICH IS A BENAMI CONCERN OF MR. PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW . THE ID. CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE CONCRETE EVIDENCES REGARDING M/S. ANSH MERCHANDISE. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO AMEND, ALTER, SUBSTITUTE OR MODIFY ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUND OR ADD A FRESH GROU ND AS AND WHEN FOUND NECESSARY EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING.' 4 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28 . 0 7 .20 0 9 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,90,173 / - . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF T HE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT WAS PASSED ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,56,31,569/ - . AN INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DGIT(INV.), MUMBAI ITA. NO.2362 /M/1 7 CO. NO. 359/M/2018 A.Y. 2009 - 10 3 TO THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE INDULGED IN THE BOGUS UNSECURED LOANS, BOGUS SHARE APPLICATION AN D BOGUS SALES ETC. THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY OF THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED BY SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN GROU P CONCERN. THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS IS SUED AND AFTER THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LOAN FROM THE VARIOUS PARTIES IN SUM OF RS.1,00,00,000/ - WAS TREATED AS BOGUS AND ADDED TO TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO THE TUNE OF R S.1,07,86,749/ - . FEELING AGGR IEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 5 . ALL THE ISSUES ARE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH T HE TAKING THE LOAN FROM M/S. ANSH MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. DISALLOWED BY THE AO U/S 69/69A/68 OF THE ACT. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REVENUE HAS ARGUED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY BEEN ALLOWED BY CIT(A), THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE, HENCE, IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. H OWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN QUESTION. BEFORE GOING FURTHER, WE DEEM IT NECESSARY TO ADVERT THE FINDING O F THE CIT(A) ON RECORD.: - 8.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS TRANSPIRES FROM ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELEVANT JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE LD.AO RECEIVED AN INFO RMATION FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF RS.1,00,00,000/ - FROM M/S ANSH MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. OPERATED BY SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN AND GROUP IN THE FORM OF LOAN TRANSACTIONS. THE LD.AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE TRA NSACTIONS AS GENUINE AND ADDED RS.1,00,00,000/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.69/69A/68 OF THE IT ACT FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT IT HAD TAKEN DEPOSIT OF RS.1,00,00,0001 - FROM THE SAID MIS ANSH MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. TH ROUGH CHEQUE AND HAS ALSO REPAID THE SAME BY CHEQUE ONLY. ITA. NO.2362 /M/1 7 CO. NO. 359/M/2018 A.Y. 2009 - 10 4 8.2.1 FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE LD. AO HAS SOLELY RELIED UPON THE STATEMENTS OF PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN WHICH HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN RETRACTED BY SHRI JAM, AND THE FACT THAT THE APP ELLANT HAS NOT PRODUCED THE SAID PANICS BEFORE HIM. LD. AO DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY WORTHWHILE INDEPENDENT INQUIRY IN THE MATTER. HE HAS TOTALLY IGNORED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. THE LD.AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAS ADMITTED EXIS TENCE OF THESE DETAILS. THE LD. AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY LACUNA IN THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT, THE SOURCE AND THE GENUINEN ESS COULD NOT BE DOUBTED. ONCE EVIDENCES RELATING TO A TRANSACTION IS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. AO. THE ONUS SHIFTS ON HIM TO PROVE THESE AS NON - GENUINE OR BOGUS. THE U. AO HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS EAST ON HIM BY CONDUCTING ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY. THE L OAN HAS BEEN REPAID IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09 WHICH WAS EVEN BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE INFORMATION OF THE SAID LOANS WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE LD.AO FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING. AND EVEN BEFORE THE ON PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN GROUP. IN MY OPI NION, MERELY BASED ON THE STATEMENT OF A THIRD PERSON WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WILL NOT MAKE THE TRANSACTIONS, IN QUESTION. AS NON - GENUINE OR BOGUS TRANSACTION MORE SO WHEN EVEN THE STATEMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE, WA S FOUND TO BE RETRACTED. AS SUCH, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD, THE TRANSACTION CANNOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS OR PAPER TRANSACTION. 8.2.2 AS FAR AS THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE CONCERNED, EVEN IF SOME OF THE TRA NSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ABOVE PARTIES ARE FOUND TO THE NOT GENUINE, IT DOES NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE SAID PARTIES WERE BOGUS OR NON - GENUINE INCLUDING THE TRANSACTION RELATED TO THE APPELLANT. THE INFOR MATION RECEIVED BY THE LD. AO COULD BE SAID TO BE SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A DOUBT ABOUT GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HOWEVER, FURTHER ENQUIRY WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONDUCTED TO FORM AN OPINION OR BELIEF AS TO THE TRANSACTIONS BEING NON - GENUINE. A TRANSACTION WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES COULD NOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS OR NON - GENUINE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF DOUBTS RAISED REGARDING THE SAME. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO PROVE THE ABOVE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. A0. THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE WIDE OPEN AND THE LD. AO COULD HAVE CARRIED OUT INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION TO PROVE HIS ARGUMENT REGARDING THE TRANSACTIONS BEING NON - GENUINE. NO SUCH INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE LD. A0. THE OUTCOME OF INVESTIGATION C ARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN AND THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN THEREIN CANNOT BE APPLIED IPSO FACTO AND IN A SWEEPING MANNER TO ALL OTHER CASES WHO HAVE ENTERED INTO TRANSACTIONS DURING THAT PERIOD WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION TO EXAM INE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PARTICULAR TRANSACTION WHICH IS UNDER ITA. NO.2362 /M/1 7 CO. NO. 359/M/2018 A.Y. 2009 - 10 5 SUSPICION. SIMPLY RELYING ON THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING. MUMBAI AND STATEMENT OF SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN. THE LD. AO CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT ALL TRANSACTIONS ARE BOGUS OR HAVE NO CREDEN TIAL VALUE. 8.2.3 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED ABOVE, IN MY OPINION, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD.A0 HAS SOLELY RELIED UPON THE STA TEMENTS OF PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN AND DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY WORTHWHILE INDEPENDENT INQUIRY IN THE MATTER. HE HAS TOTALLY IGNORED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. THE LD.A0 HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCES SUBMITTED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY LACUNA IN THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT OR BRINGING ANY ADVERSE FINDINGS ON RECORD THROUGH INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION, THE SOURCES AND THE GE NUINENESS CANNOT BE REJECTED, UNLESS AND UNTIL PROVED OTHERWISE BY THE LD. AO, WHICH HE HAS FAILED TO DO. THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS SUGGEST THAT THE APPELLANT HAD TAKEN THE DEPOSIT FOR SALE OF LAND AND THERE IS AN MOU TO SUPPORT THE SAME WHICH HAS BEE N PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. AO AND THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO PRODUCED BANK STATEMENT TO PROVE RECEIPT OF THE SAID ADVANCE, AND ALL SUCH EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. AO. THE APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITTED COPY OF THE CANCELLATION DEED DATED 6.5.2008 IN LIEU OF WHICH THE ADVANCE RECEIVED EARLIER WAS REPAID IN THE MONTH OF MAY AND AUGUST 2008. AND THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF THE SAID REPAYMENTS AND ALL SUCH EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE IA. AO. THUS EVEN THE SAID ADVANCE RECEIVED IN MAY 2005 WAS DULY REPAID BY CHEQUE IN MAY AND AUGUST 2008. THE LD. AO HAS NOT DISCREDITED THESE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. THE GROUND ON WHICH THE LD. AO HAS REJECTED THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION IS THAT HE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE PARTY FOR VERIFICATION. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ED. AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO DISCREDIT THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORDS CANNOT BE IGNORED UNL ESS THE SAME IS DISPROVED. WITHOUT POINTING ANY DEFECT AND LACUNA IN THESE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE SAME. ONCE THE EVIDENCES RELATING TO A TRANSACTION IS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. AO. THE ONUS SHIFTS ON HIM TO PROVE THAT THE SAME AS NON - GENUINE OR BOGUS AND IN THE PRESENT CASE THE LD. AO HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CASTED ON HIM. IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY THE TRANSACTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS GENUINE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT TAKEN ANY AMOUNT AS LOAN OR DEPOSIT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT HAS ACTUALLY REPAID THE AMOUNT TAKEN AS DEPOSIT. AND HAS FURNISHED THE SOURCE OF MONEY FOR MAKING THE REPAYMENT, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ED. AO. AS THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY FOR REPAYMENT MADE ITA. NO.2362 /M/1 7 CO. NO. 359/M/2018 A.Y. 2009 - 10 6 IN THE YEAR HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT/UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS/UNEXPLAINED MONEY ETC. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DECISION OF THE LD. A 0 OF TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.00,00.000/ - AS INCOME U/S. 69/69A/68 IS NOT IN ORDER AND CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED. T HE LD. A0 IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTE D TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,00,000/ - . GROUND NO II IS A CCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 9. IN GROUND NO. III OF APPEAL THE APPELLANT HAS REQUESTED TO STAY THE ADDITIONAL DUES RAISED TILL THE APPEAL IS DECIDED. AS THE APPEAL IS DECIDED THIS GROUND HAS BECOME IN FRUCTUOUS AND IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 6. ON APPRAISAL OF THE A BOVE MENTIONED FINDING, WE NOTICED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DGIT(INV.) WING IN WHICH IT WAS INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF RS.1,00,00,000/ - FROM M/S. ANSH MERC HANDISE PVT. LTD. OPERATED BY SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN AND GROUP IN THE FORM OF LOAN TRANSACTIONS. THE AO NOWHERE TREATED THE TRANSACTION AS GENUINE AND ADDED IN SUM OF RS.1,00,00,000/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69/69A/68 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE SAID AMOUNT BY CHEQUE AND ALSO REPAID THROUGH THE CHEQUE. THE AO RAISED THE ADDITION ON THE STATEMENT OF THE SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN. THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE LOAN FOR THE SALE OF THE LAND AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE MOU ON RECORD. T HE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED THE BANK - STATEMENT TO PROVE THE RECEIPT OF THE SAID ADVANCE. T HE MOU WAS CANCELLED ON 06.05.2008 SO THE ADVANCE RECEIVED EARLIER WAS REPAID IN THE MONTH OF MAY AND A UGUST 2008. THE PAYMENT WAS MADE THROUGH CHEQUE . T HE ADVANCE RECEIVED IN THE MONTH OF MAY 2005 AND WAS REPAID IN MONTH OF AUGUST 2008 THROUGH CHEQUE. THE SOURCE HAS DULY BEEN EXPLAINED AND REPAYMENT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED BEING A MATTER OF RECORD (THROUGH CH EQUES), THEREFORE, CONSIDERING EACH AND EVERY ASPECTS OF THE TRANSACTION , T HE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. THE FACTS ARE NOT DISTINGUISHABLE AT THIS STAGE ALSO. MOREOVER, IT IS FACTUAL ISSUE NOWHERE ITA. NO.2362 /M/1 7 CO. NO. 359/M/2018 A.Y. 2009 - 10 7 REQUIRED ANY APPLICABILITY OF LAW, HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY JUDICIOUSLY AND CORRECTLY WHICH IS NOT LIABLE TO BE INTERFERE WITH AT THIS APPELLATE STAGE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DECIDE THESE ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVENUE . CROSS - OBJECTION NO. 359/M/2018 7 . THE CROSS - OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED AND THE CROSS - OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 /07/ 2019 SD/ - SD/ - ( M. BALAGANESH ) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBA I DATED : 31 /0 7 /2019 VIJAY/ SR. PS ITA. NO.2362 /M/1 7 CO. NO. 359/M/2018 A.Y. 2009 - 10 8 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY) , / ITAT, MUMBAI