ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI V. KAUSHIK KUMAR SUMANLAL VAKHARIA, MUMBAI

ITA 2380/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6805 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M C OMI NINGSHEN
• Assessee Lawyers: N M PORWAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Business income; Rectification of order
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES H, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C N PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2621/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ITA NO.2380/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ITO 25(3)(2) MUMBAI VS. SHRI KAUSHIK KUMAR SUMANLAL VAKHARIA B/42, DEV NAGAR, NEAR BHATIA SCHOOL, SAIBABA NAGAR, KANDIVALI (W), MUMBAI 400 067. PAN AANPV7006Q (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M C OMI NINGSHEN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N M PORWAL DATE OF HEARING : 09 .0 5 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 .05.2018 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE AFORESAID APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVEN UE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) 35, MUMBAI, DATED 01.01.2013 & 30.01.2012 FOR A.YS 2009-10 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY. 2. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 238 0/MUM/2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09, WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL HA VE BEEN RAISED: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATED PURCHASES OF RS.1,38,29,815/- CLAIMED TO H AVE BEEN MADE FROM M/S. DHARMENDRA ASSOCIATES AND DIRECTING TO AD OPT THE GROSS PROFIT AT 0.74% OF THE TURNOVER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS BROUGHT OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) IF NOT SATISFIED WITH THE RESULT S OF INVESTIGATIONS ITA NOS 2621/MUM2013& 2380/MUM/2012 KAUSHIK KUMAR SUMANLAL VAKHARIA 2 BROUGHT OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT, HE SHOULD HAVE REMAN DED THE ISSUE FOR FRESH VERIFICATION WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS AND WITHOUT DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN DIRECTING TO ADOPT GROSS PROFIT RATIO @0.74% BASED ON THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE FO R EARLIER YEARS. 3. THE COMMON ISSUE IN BOTH THE GROUNDS IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION BY THE CIT(A) OF RS.1,38,29,815/- AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS BOGUS PURCHASES FROM M/S. DHARNENDRA ASSOCI ATES AND DIRECTING TO ADOPT GROSS PROFIT RATE OF @0.74% OF THE TURNOVER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS ON RECORD. 4. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGA GED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN FERROUS AND NON-FERROUS METAL AND ALLOY STEEL. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLE D FOR THE DETAILS OF SALES, PURCHASES, DEBTORS, CREDITORS, EXPENSES, ETC., WHIC H WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PUR CHASES FROM M/S. DHARNENDRA ASSOCIATES OF RS.1,38,29,815/- WHICH WAS OUTSTANDING FOR PAYMENT TO THE SAID PARTY AT THE YEAR END. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES, ISSUED NOT ICE U/S. 133(6), DATED 18.10.2010. HOWEVER, THE SAID PARTY DENIED THE TRA NSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFRONTED THE ASS ESSEE WITH THE FACT AND ASKED AS TO WHY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE TRE ATED AS UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, VIDE LETTER DATED 01.12.2010, AND FURNISHED THE COPIES OF PURCHASE BI LLS, LEDGER ACCOUNT COPIES OF SAID PARTIES AND COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS SHOWI NG PAYMENT MADE TO THE PARTIES DURING THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2008-09 AND 2 009-10. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 06.12.2010, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 4.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER. FINALLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES THROUGH BEARER CHEQUES AND THUS BELIED THE ASSERTION OF THE ASSESS EE THAT PAYMENTS WERE ITA NOS 2621/MUM2013& 2380/MUM/2012 KAUSHIK KUMAR SUMANLAL VAKHARIA 3 MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND, THEREFORE, THE A SSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY FRAMING ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 28.12.2010 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE AC T. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6.3. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE, I FIND THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IN TOTALITY. THEREFORE, T HE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS ALSO BEING CONSIDERED. IN THIS CONTEXT, I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE G.P.RATIO FOR THE LAST 4 Y EARS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IS AS UNDER:- 'M/S. RAJ METALS STATEMENT OF GROSS PROFIT PARTICULARS 31.3.2005 30.3.2006 31.3.2007 31.3.2008 SALES 64321111 77452017 242996173 255830788 PURCHASES 63929254 76875581 241992422 254510848 GROSS PROFIT 391857 576436 1003751 1319940 GP% TO SALES 0.609 0.744 0.413 0.516 % OF SALES AS COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEAR 122.34 120.41 313.74 105.28 6.4 IF ONE TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE STAND OF THE A.O. TO DISALLOW 1.38 CRORES, THE G.P. WILL INCREASE TO 5% AGAINST THAT O F 0.60,0.74, 0.41, 0.516 FOR A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY, WHICH IS UNLIKELY IN THIS TRADE. KEEPING IN VIEW, A LL THE ASPECTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS STAND OF THE A.O. ,-SUBMISSION OF T HE A.R, END OF JUSTICE WILL MET IF THE G.P. IS TAKEN MAXIMUM I.E., 0.744% OF RS.25,58,30,788/ WHICH COMES TO RS. 19,03,381/-. THEREFORE, THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS CONFIRMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.19,03,381/- ON THIS ISSUE AND BALANCE ADDITION I S DELETED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPELLANT'S GROUND ON THIS ISSUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS 2621/MUM2013& 2380/MUM/2012 KAUSHIK KUMAR SUMANLAL VAKHARIA 4 6. THE LEARNED DR ARGUED BEFORE US THAT THE FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED THE VERIFICATION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH REVEALED L THE PURCHASE BILLS TO BE BOGUS AN D, THEREFORE, NO PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID PARTIES HAS BEEN CARR IED OUT AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE SO CALLED SUPPLIER HAS DENIED TO HAVE CARRIED OUT ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, CONT ENDED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER BE RESTORED. 7. THE LEARNED AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS, IN FACT, MADE PURCHASES FROM THESE PARTIES AND THE SAM E WERE ULTIMATELY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT EVEN IF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE VARI OUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, DIRECTING THE ADDITION TO BE SUSTAINED @1 2.5% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES, EVEN THEN THE ADDITION WOULD BE RS.17,25 ,000/- WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.19,03,381/- THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT LEARN ED CIT(A) HAS ANALYZED THE GROSS PROFIT FOR FOUR YEARS VIZ. 2004-05 TO 200 7-08 AND APPLIED THE HIGHEST RATE, WHICH WAS IN F.Y. 2005-06 I.E. 0.744% AND, THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THEREBY SUSTAINING THE A DDITION OF RS.19,03,381/-. THE LEARNED AR PRAYED THAT SINCE THE CIT(A) HAS TAK EN A VERY BALANCED VIEW OF THE WHOLE SCENARIO AND PASSED A WELL-REASONED OR DER, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE AFFIRMED. 8. HAVING HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,38,29,815/ FROM HAS MADE PURCHASES FROM M/S. DHARNENDRA ASSOCIATES, WHICH WERE FOUND T O BE NON-GENUINE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE SAID PARTY HAD DENIED TO ANY TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN DEFENCE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS, LEDGER ACCOUNT CO PIES OF SAID PARTIES AND COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS SHOWING PAYMENT MADE TO T HE PARTIES DURING THE ITA NOS 2621/MUM2013& 2380/MUM/2012 KAUSHIK KUMAR SUMANLAL VAKHARIA 5 ACCOUNTING PERIOD 2008-09 AND 2009-10. HOWEVER, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS AND ADDED T HE ENTIRE AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT (A) REDUCED THE ADDITION TO RS.19,03,381/- BY APPLYING THE HIGHEST GROSS PRO FIT RATE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR I.E. @ 0.744% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE DECISIONS OF THE CO-O RDINATE BENCHES TAKING A VIEW THAT IN CASE OF NON-GENUINE PURCHASES THE ADDI TION SHOULD BE SUSTAINED FROM 2% TO 12.5%. WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THE PURCHASES AS NON-GENUINE, HAS NOT DI SPUTED THE SALE OF MATERIAL. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,03,381/- IS QUITE REASONABLE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE INCLINED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 9. COMING TO THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2621/MUM/2013, W HEREIN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER: 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, AND IN LAW, THE ID.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADHOC ADDITION OF R S. 3,31,690/-- OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES WITHOUT GIVING ANY COGENT REASON F OR ALLOWING THE SAME INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE A.O. HAD SUBMITTE D DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS THAT CONVEYANCE EXPENSES, HALL MAJURI E XPENSES, OFFICE EXPENSES AND TOUR (TRAVELLING EXPENSES) ARE NOT VER IFIABLE AS SOME OF THE SUPPORTING BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSES SEE.' 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE ID.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 50,00,344/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW RATE OF GROSS PROFIT AND RESTORING T HE GROSS PROFIT TO MAXIMUM OF 0.744% ON THE BASIS OF EARLIER YEARS THE REBY REDUCING THE GROSS PROFIT TO RS. 19,03,381/- INSTEAD OF RS. 25,6 3,721/- WHICH HAS BEEN OFFERED VOLUNTARILY BY THE ASSESSEE' 3. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING WHILE ADJUDICATI NG ON THE ISSUE OF GROSS PROFIT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ESTIMAT ED THE DIFFERENCE IN ITA NOS 2621/MUM2013& 2380/MUM/2012 KAUSHIK KUMAR SUMANLAL VAKHARIA 6 GROSS PROFIT OFFERED IN THIS CASE ON THE BASIS OF G ROSS PROFIT SHOWN BY OTHER TRADERS IN SIMILER LINE OF BUSINESS.' 10. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.3,31,690/- OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES BY THE CIT(A) , AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF NON-VERIFICATION OF EXPENSES COMPRISING OF CONVEYANCE EXPENSES, HALL MAJURI EXPENSES, OFFICE E XPENSES AND TOUR - TRAVELLING EXPENSES. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT T HE AO OBSERVED FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEES PROPRIETA RY CONCERN, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.33,16,902.38 /-. THE AO CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF VOUCHERS/BILLS, REGISTERS, AGREEMENT, ETC., IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES FOR VERIFICATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS THEREOF BEFORE THE AO. HE THEREFORE DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,31,690/- BEI NG 10% OF THESE EXPENSES FOR WANT OF PROPER VERIFICATION AND ADDED IT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE G ROUND THAT THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS NOT FOUND ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR BILLS AND VOUCHERS. 11. THE LEARNED DR WHILE RELYING HEAVILY ON THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER, SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS/VOUCHERS SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES WERE NOT PRODUCED AND, THEREFORE, THE A O HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE @10% OF THE EXPENSES. THE DR TH EREFORE, REQUESTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE RESTORED AND THE IMPUGNED OR DER BE DISMISSED ON THE ISSUE. 12. THE LEARNED AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, PRAYED BEFOR E THE BENCH THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 13. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAREFU LLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LEA RNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE AFTER CALLING FOR A REMAND REPOR T AND FOUND A CATEGORICAL ITA NOS 2621/MUM2013& 2380/MUM/2012 KAUSHIK KUMAR SUMANLAL VAKHARIA 7 FINDING BY THE AO AS TO THE VERIFICATION OF VARIOUS EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS/VOUCHERS PRODUCED BY THE AS SESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFE RE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE SAME. 14. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO THE DELETIO N OF THE ADDITION OF RS.50,00,344/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW RATE OF GROSS PROF IT. THE REVENUE HAS AGITATED THAT THE SAID DELETION HAS RESULTED IN THE REDUCTION OF GROSS PROFIT TO RS.19,03,381 INSTEAD OF RS.25,63,721/-, WHICH WAS V OLUNTARILY OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO OBSERVED FRO M THE TRADING & PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCLUDED INT EREST INCOME AND COMMISSION INCOME IN THE GROSS PROFIT AND THUS THE GROSS PROFIT RATE WAS SHOWN AT 2.25%. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IF INTERE ST AND COMMISSION INCOME IS EXCLUDED, THEN THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE COMES TO RS.25,63,721/- WHICH IS 1.36%, WHICH IS CONSIDERABLY LOW AS COMPAR ED TO GROSS PROFIT SHOWN BY OTHER TRADERS IN SIMILAR TRADING IN MUMBAI. HE, ACCORDINGLY, ISSUED SHOW CASE NOTICE DATED 12.09.2011 TO FURNISH COMPLETE DE TAILS OF PURCHASES. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT IN THE SIMILAR TR ADE RANGES FROM 4% TO 6% AND, ACCORDINGLY, APPLIED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 4% TO THE TOTAL SALES OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS.75,64,065/- AND SI NCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GROSS PROFIT OF RS.25,63,721/- ADDED THE BALA NCE OF RS.50,00,034/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED CIT(A ) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN PARA NO .7.6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO APPLY THE GROSS PROFIT @0.744% O N THE BASIS OF HIS ORDER IN A.Y. 2008-09. BUT THE SAID ACTION OF THE CIT(A) RESULTED IN THE GROSS PROFIT ITA NOS 2621/MUM2013& 2380/MUM/2012 KAUSHIK KUMAR SUMANLAL VAKHARIA 8 BEING REDUCED TO RS.19,03,381/- AS AGAINST RS.25,63 ,721/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT 1.36%. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE SAID ANOM ALY HAS BEEN RECTIFIED BY THE CIT(A) BY PASSING AN RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S. 1 54. 17. THE LEARNED DR CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) HAS REDUCED THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN BELOW THE AMOUNT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. THE GROSS PROFIT AFTER APPEA L EFFECT WOULD COME TO RS.19,03,381/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE SUO MOTO HAS SH OWN RS.25,63,721/-, WHICH COMES TO 1.35% OF THE TURNOVER. THEREFORE TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MUST BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE AO SHOULD BE RESTO RED. 18. THE LEARNED AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED TH AT THE CIT(A) REALISING THE ANOMALY IN HIS ORDER PASSED RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S. 154 RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO FORCE IN THE ARG UMENTS OF THE LEARNED DR THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS REDUCED THE GROSS PROFIT THAN THAT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS CAREFULLY. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE ANO MALY WHICH HAS COMMITTED BY THE CIT(A) REDUCING THE GROSS PROFIT E VEN BELOW THE GROSS PROFIT AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CORRECT ED BY PASSING A RECTIFICATION ORDER. THUS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE FACTS ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT SINCE THE MATTER HAS BEEN RECTIFIED THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IF REDRESSED AND REQUIRE NO INTERFERENC E AT OUR END. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS BY T HE RECTIFICATION CARRIED OUT BY THE LD CIT(A). 20.GROUND NO.3 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND, IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN GROUND NO.2, REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION. ITA NOS 2621/MUM2013& 2380/MUM/2012 KAUSHIK KUMAR SUMANLAL VAKHARIA 9 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 2 9 TH MAY 2018 SD/- SD/- (C N PRASAD) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 29 TH MAY 2018 SA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR, H BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI