UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 9, MUMBAI

ITA 2578/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0324 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSHIL KUMAR PODDAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Speculation loss; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 153A; 43(5); 69B; 69A; 48; 13; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 2578 / MUM . /2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 12 13 ) UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. PLOT NO.4 5 6, UNI DESIGN SEEPZ, ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI 400 056 PAN AAACU0572G . APPELLANT V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 9 , MUMBAI . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANUJ KISNADWALA REVENUE BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR PODDAR DATE OF HEARING 10 . 10 .2019 DATE OF ORDER 30.12.2019 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M . T HE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 20 TH FEBRUARY 2018 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 48 , MUMBAI, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 12 13 . 2. IN GROUND NO.1 , THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS OF FOREIGN CURRENCY FORWARD CONTRACT AMOUNTING TO ` 39,02,500. 2 UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE , A RESIDENT COMPANY , IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND EXPORT OF JEWELLERY. FOR THE AFORESAID ACTIVITY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SET UP THREE UNITS LOCATED IN SEEPZ, MUMBAI. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT' ) CARRIED OUT ON TH E ASSESSEE ON 8 TH AUGUST 2011. PURSUANT TO SUCH SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION, PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUING A NOTICE ON 21 ST SEPTEMBER 2012. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS R ETURN OF INCOME ON 7 TH DECEMBER 2012, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 55,09,485. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LOSS OF ` 39,02,500, ON ACCOUNT OF CANCELLATION OF FOREIGN CURRENCY FORWARD CONTRACT . IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO FOREIGN CURRENCY FORWARD CONTRACT S TO HEDGE AGAINST THE FLUCTUATION IN PRICE OF FOREIGN CURRENCY TOWARDS PAYABLE AND RECEIVABLES AGA INST IMPORTS AND EXPORTS, THE LOSS ARISING ON CANCELLATION OF FOREIGN CURRENCY FORWARD CONTRACT IS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS LOSS. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUB MISSIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED , THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE FOREIGN CURRENCY FORWARD 3 UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. CONTRACT S ARE LINK ED TO ANY SPECIFIC EXPORT OR IMPORT TRANSACTION SO AS TO TREAT THEM AS HEDGING TRANSACTION S . HE OBSERVED , THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH ONE TO ONE LINK AGE BETWEEN THE FOREIGN CURRENCY FORWARD CONTRACT S AND THE UNDERLYING IMPORT OR EXPORT TRANSACTION. THUS, HE HELD THAT PURCHASE AND SALE OF DIAMOND AND THE FORWARD CONTRACTS ARE TWO SEPARA TE AND DISTINCT TRANSACTION S IN DEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. THEREFORE, HE TREATED THE LOSS ARISING FROM CANCELLATION OF FOREIGN CURRENCY FORWARD CONTRACT AS SPECULATION LOSS UNDER SECTION 43(5) OF THE ACT AND DISALLOWED CLAIM OF SET OFF AGAINST THE BUSINESS PR OFIT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4. L EARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE BY MORE OR LESS AGREEING WITH THE REASONING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OBSERVED , THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO ESTABLISH THE LINKAGE BETWEEN T HE PURCHASE AND SALE OF DIAMOND/ JEWELLERY WITH THE SPECIFIC HEDGING CONTRACTS. SHE OBSERVED , MERELY BECA USE THE EXPOSURE IN THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET WAS OF HIGHER VALUE THAN THE AMOUNT OF FORWARD CONTRACT, THE TRANSACTION CANNOT BE TREATED AS HEDGIN G TRANSACTION. REFERRING TO THE PROVISO TO SECTION 43(5) OF THE ACT, SHE OBSERVED , EXCEPTION IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO THE CONTRACT S IN THE NATURE OF GUARD AGAINST LOSS THROUGH FUTURE PRICE 4 UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. FLUCTUATION. SHE OBSERVED , UNLESS THE ASSESSEE PROVES THAT FOREIGN CURRENCY FORWARD CONTRACT S ARE HELD AS A GUARD, THE CLAIM OF LOSS IS NOT ALLOWABLE. FURTHER, SHE OBSERVED , THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 04 WOU LD BE OF NO HELP AS IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, LINKAGE BETWEEN THE FORWARD CONTRACTS AND IMPORT/ EXPORT TRANSACTION WERE ESTABLISHED. THUS, ON THE AFORESAID REASONING, SHE UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , FOREIGN CURRENCY FORWARD CONTRACT S ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ONLY FOR HEDGING THE LOSS ARISING IN PAYABLES AND RECEIVABLES IN FOREIGN CURRENCY WITH REGARD TO IMPORT AND EXPORT TRANSACTION S . HE SUBMITTED , FOREIGN CURRENCY FORWARD CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE ARE MUCH LESSER THAN THE ACTUAL UNDERLYING EXPOSURE. HE SUBMITTED , THE AFORESAID FACT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE S THAT FOREIGN CURRENCY FORWARD CONTRACT S ARE IN THE NATURE OF HEDGING TRANSACTION TO GUARD AGAINST THE ANTICIPATED LOSS DUE TO FLUCTUATION IN FOREIGN CURRENCY. HE SUBMITTED , NOW IT IS FAIRLY WELL SETTLED THAT TO PROVE THE FOREIGN CURRENCY FORWARD CONTRACT AS HEDGING TRANSACTION, THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT ESTABLISH ONE TO ONE LINKAGE WITH EXPORT OR IMPORT TRANSACTION. IN THIS CO NTEXT, HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) CIT V/S D. CHET AN & CO., [2017] 380 ITR 36 (BOM.); AND 5 UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. II) DCIT V/S MAHENDRA BROS. EXPORTS PVT. LTD., [2016] 161 ITD 772 (MUM.). 6. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE , DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.23D(XXXIX), DATED 12 TH SEPTEMBER 1960, SUBMITTED , IT CLEARLY SAYS THAT HEDGING SALES CAN BE TAKEN TO BE GENUINE ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE TOTAL OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS DOES NOT EXCEED THE TOTAL COST OF RAW MATERIALS OR MERCHANDISE IN HAND. THUS, HE SUBMITTED , SINCE THE FOREIGN CURRENCY FORWARD CONTRACT S ARE FAR LESSER THAN THE UNDERLYING EXPOSURE IN FOREIGN MARKET, THERE IS NO REASON TO CONSIDER THEM AS SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION SO AS TO DISALLOW ASSESSEES CLAIM OF BU SINESS LOSS. FURTHER, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , WHILE DECIDING IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2003 04, 2008 09 AND 2009 10, THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A FAVOURABLE VIEW AND HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF LOSS BY REV ERSING THE DECISION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN TREATING THEM AS SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION. IN SUPPORT, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THESE ORDERS. 7. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY RELYING UPON THE O BSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SUBMITTED , UNLESS THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH ONE TO ONE LINKAGE BETWEEN THE FOREIGN CURRENCY FORWARD CONTRACT S AND THE UNDERLYING IMPORT AND EXPORT TRANSACTION S, THEY CANNOT BE TREATED AS 6 UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. HEDGING TRANSACTION. DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO SECTION 43(5) R/W ITS PROVISO, HE SUBMITTED , LINKAGE OF HEDGING CONTRACT WITH ACTUAL EXPOSURE HAS TO BE ESTABLISH TO COME OUT OF AMBIT OF SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION. HE SUBMITTED , ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HE DGING LOSS WAS ALLOWED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 04 AS THE LINKAGE BETWEEN THE FORWARD CONTRACT AND ACTUAL EXPOSURE WAS ESTABLISHED WHICH IS NOT THE CASE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, ASSESSEES CLAIM HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DISALLOWED. 8. WE HAVE CONSI DERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO APPLIED OUR MIND TO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. IT IS EVIDENT , ASSESSEES CLAIM OF LOSS ARISING OUT OF FOREIGN CURRENCY F ORWARD CONTRACT HAS BEEN DENIED/ DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FOR THE PRIMARY REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH ONE TO ONE LINKAGE BETWEEN THE FORWARD CONT RACTS AND THE UNDERLYING EXPORT/ IMPORT TRANSACTION S . HOWEVER, IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EN GAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IMPORT OF RAW MATERIAL AND EXPORT OF JEWELLERY FOR WHICH IT HAS SET UP UNITS IN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE. THEREFORE, THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKES TRANSACTION IN FOREIGN CURRENCY IS BEYOND DOUBT. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E THAT TO GUARD AGAINST LOSS ARISING DUE TO FLUCTUATION IN THE PRICE OF FOREIGN CURRENCY TOWARDS PAYABLES AND 7 UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. RECEIVABLES, THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO HEDGING THROUGH FORWARD CONTRACTS. FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD, IT IS FURTHER EVIDENT THAT THE FOREIGN CUR RENCY FORWARD CONTRACT S HELD BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FAR LESSER THAN THE UNDERLYING EXPOSURE ON ACCOUNT OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT V/S D. CHETAN & CO., HAS HELD THAT HEDGING TRANSACTION ENTERED IN REGULAR COURSE OF BUS INESS ACTIVITY CANNOT BE TREATED AS SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION. THE CO ORDINATE BENCH IN MAHENDRA BROTHERS (SUPRA), HAS HELD THAT IT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH A ONE TO ONE LINKAGE BETWEEN THE FORWARD CONTRACTS AND THE EXPORT/ IMPORT TRANSACT ION. WHAT IS REQUIRED TO LOOK AT IS, WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF HEDGING TRANSACTION IS WITHIN THE AMOUNT OF UNDERLYING TRANSACTION OF IMPORTS AND EXPORT. IN FACT, CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 23D (XXXIX), DATED 12 TH SEPTEMBER 1960, ALSO SAYS THAT HEDGING TRANSACTION CAN BE TAKEN TO BE GENUINE IF THE TOTAL OF SUCH TRANSACTION DOES NOT EXCEED THE TOTAL COST OF RAW MATERIAL OR MERCHANDISE IN HAND. IN FACT, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 04, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.8 804/MUM./2004, DATED 30 TH OCTOBER 2009, HAS ALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF LOSS RESULTING FROM CANCELLATION OF FORWARD CONTRACT IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE BY TREATING IT AS GENUINE BUSINESS LOSS. THE SAME VIEW WAS EXPRESSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE I N THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09 IN ITA NO.4341/MUM./2016, DATED 2 ND JULY 2018. IN THE LATEST ORDER PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 8 UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. 10, IN ITA NO.2577/MUM./2018, DATED 19 TH AUGUST 2019, THE TRIBUNAL REITERATING THE VIEW TAKEN BY IT EARLIER HAS ALLOWED ASS ESSEES CLAIM OF LOSS. IN FACT, A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10 , AS REFERRED TO ABOVE , WOULD REVEAL THAT THE REASONING ON THE BASIS OF WHICH LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS DISALLOWED A SSESSEES CLAIM OF BUSINESS LOSS ARISING OUT OF FOREIGN CURRENCY FORWARD CONTRACT IS IDENTICAL TO THE REASONING OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WHILE DISALLOWING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF LOSS IN RESPECT OF HEDGING CONTRACT IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT. THEREFOR E, CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE D ECISIONS RELIED UPON AND MORE PARTICULARLY, THE CONSISTENT VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 04, 2008 09 AND 2010 11 ON IDENTIC AL ISSUE , AS REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT LOSS ARISING ON CANCELLATION OF FOREIGN CURRENCY FORWARD CONTRACT S CANNOT BE TREATED AS SPECULATIVE LOSS UNDER SECTION 43(5) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW ASSESSEES CLAIM OF LOSS. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 9. I N GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3, THE ASSESS EE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES MADE OF ` 3,70,237 AND ` 4,49,017, UNDER SECTION 69A AND 69B OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY. 9 UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. 10. BRIEF FACTS ARE, DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, STOCK OF DIAMOND, GOLD, PLATINUM, SILVER AND PALLADIUM WAS FOUND PHYSICALLY AND WERE VALUED THROUGH A GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH VALUAT ION CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND IN THE PHYSICAL STOCK AND STOCK AS PER BOOKS AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE THE AFORESAID DIFFERENCE. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A CHART RECONCILING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL STOCK AND STOCK AS PER BOOKS FOR EACH CATEGORY OF GOODS WITH SOME SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, EVEN ON THE BASIS OF R ECONCILIATION CHART FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, SOME MINOR DIFFERENCE AROSE WHICH THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF WEIGHING. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSES SEE USES LATEST TECHNOLOGY WITH HIGH PRECISION AND ACCURACY, HENCE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY WEIGHING DIFFERENCE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN THE PLEA OF SUCH WEIGHING DIFFERENCE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THEREFORE, IN RESPECT OF EXCESS PHY SICAL COST, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 4,49,017, AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE ACT AND WHERE THERE WAS SHORTAGE IN PHYSICAL STOCK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER 10 UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. TREATED THEM AS OUT OF BOOK SALE S AND MADE ADDITION OF ` 3,70,237, U NDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE AFORESAID ADDITION S BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 11. REITERATING THE STAND TAKEN BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , THE DIFFERENCE ARISING AFTER THE RECONCILIATION IS VERY MINOR DIFFERENCE WHICH COULD BE DUE TO THE WEIGHING AND THE CUSTOM ALLOWED LOSS WHICH WAS TAKEN ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS. HE SUBMITTED , NO ADDITION/ DISALLOWANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER EITHER UNDER SECTION 69A OR 69B OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH DIFFERENCE. HE SUBMITTED , THE VALUATION OF LOSS MADE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH IS ALSO WITHOUT ANY BASIS AS LOSS CANNOT BE VALUED ON A PARTICULAR DAY. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , EVEN IF THERE IS A MINOR DIFFERENCE IN STOCK, THE ADDITION, IF ANY, CAN BE MADE BY APPLYING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE. 12. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY RELYING UPON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNE D COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK WAS ESTABLISHED ON RECORD AS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE WITH VALID EXPLANATION. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS MADE SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 11 UNI DESIGN JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. 13. HAVING CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL STOCK AND THE STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITH VALID REASONING . THEREFORE, TO THAT EXTENT, THE FACTS ARE ESTABLISHED. HOWEVER, WE FIND MERIT IN THE ALTERNAT IVE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO THE GROSS PROFIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE ACCORDINGLY. GROUNDS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.12.2019 SD/ - MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DA TED: 30.1 2.2019 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI