DINESH J VALECHA, MUMBAI V. ACIT CEN CIR 41, MUMBAI

ITA 2595/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7826 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A K GHOSH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Search and seizure; Salary income; Valuation report; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 56(2); 153A; 69B; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN , JM ./ ITA NO.2595 /MUM/201 7 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012 - 13) DINESH K VALECHA PLOT NO. 18, SANGAM, GREATER BOMBAY CHS, 5 TH FLOOR N.S. ROAD, JVPD SCHEME, VILE PARLE (WEST), MUMBAI - 400049. VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 41 [NOW DCIT, CC - 7(2)] AAYAKARBHAVAN, MUMBAI - 400020. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAPV5458R ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.K. GHOSH /REVENUE BY : SHRI CHAITANYA ANJARIA& SHRI ABI RAMA KARTHIKEYAN / DATE OF HEARING : 14.12 .2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.12.2018 / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A) - 49 MUMBAI, DATED 25.03 .20 14 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE I.T. ACT. DINESH H VALECHA 2 2. FOLLOWING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E AOS ACTION OF DISALLOWING BANK CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.5,150/ - 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,10,620/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.7,48,105/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B IN JEWELLERY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AOS ACTION OF MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,47,628/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B IN SILVE R ARTICLES. 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. T HE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF M/S VALECHA ENGINEERING LTD. WITH M/S JYOTI STRUCTURES LTD. AND ITS OTHER GROUP COMPANIES ALONG WITH THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE DIRECTOR AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS OF VEL GROUP OF COMPANIES ON 26.07.2011 BY THE ADIT (INV.), UNIT - II(3), MUMBAI AND ON SUBSEQUENT DATES. THE ASSESSEE WAS COVERED UNDER SEARCH ACTION U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENT UPON THE SEARCH ACTION, THE ASSESSEES C ASE WAS CENTRALIZED WITH ACIT CC - 43, MUMBAI AND SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE CHARGE OF DCIT CC - 41. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM SALARY, AND OTHER SOURCES AND FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 20.07.2012, DECLARING T OTAL INCOME AT RS.43,69,379/ - . DINESH H VALECHA 3 4. WHILE FRAMING ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A , AO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5 . IN AN APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED ADDITION OF RS.3,10,620/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.7,48,105/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B IN RESPECT OF JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) , ASSESSEE IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTION S AND PERUSED ORDER S OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF JEWELLERY FOUND TO BE UNEXPLAINED AMOUNTING TO RS.7,48,105/ - , T HE CIT(A) HAS DELETED ADDITION OF RS. 1,47,628/ - AND UPHELD ADDITION OF RS.3,10,620/ - AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION: 6.3.3 IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 2, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE ELIGIBLE OF POSSESSING 2550 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS, WHEREAS, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, ONLY 1855.90 GMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS WAS FOUND AND NO PART OF THE JEWELLERY WAS SEIZED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF INSTRUCTION NO.1916 DATED 11.05.1994 ISSUED BY THE CBDT, THE ENTIRE GOLD JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS OF 1855.960 GMS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS TO BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED AND THE ADDITION OF RS.7,48,105/ - WAS LIABLE TO BE DELETED, IN THIS REGARD, I FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND ORN AMENTS OF 1855.960 GMS.,INCLUDE DIAMOND ORNAMENTS CONTAINING GOLD OF 428.810 GMS. AND DIAMOND OF 65.98 CARATS. THE CBDT INSTRUCTION RELATES TO GOLD JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS AND NOT TO THE DIAMOND ORNAMENTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN CONS IDERED SEPARATELY WHILE MAKING T HE INVENTORY AND EXPLAINING THE VARIOUS ITEMS OF JEWELLERY. IN SO FAR AS GOLD ORNAMENTS ARE CONCERNED, THE TOTAL AMOUNT FOUND I.E., 1427.150 GMS HAS BEEN TREATED AS EXPLAINED OUT DINESH H VALECHA 4 OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF 65. 93 CARATS, TH E AO. HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS .74 8.105/ - IN RESPECT OF 1325 CARATS, CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED AS GIFT AS PER GIFT DEED/LETTERS FILED, AND THE ASSOCIATED GOLD WITH IT. THIS ADDITION OF RS.748,10 5/ - , AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN DIAMOND JEWELLERY, HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT BY THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDER ING ONLY THE RECEIPT OF GIFT OF 0.6 CARAT JEWELLERY BY SM T. PAY ALVALECHA FROM SHRI SHARATDODE JA, OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM OF GIFT OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF 13.85 CARATS, AS EXPLAINED. FURTHER, THE A.O. HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY, I.E., DIAMOND BRACEL ET VALUED AT RS.1,03,740/ - , WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY SHRI UMESHVALECHA AS UNEXPLAINED IN THE STATEMENT GIVEN ON OAT H IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 29. 08.2011, AS UNEXPLAINED. 6.3.4 I FIND THAT THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN DIAMOND JEWELLERY WAS ADMITTED BY SHRI UMESHVALE CHA AFTER CONSIDERING THAT OF AL L THE ITEMS, DIAMOND JEWELLERY (BRACELET) VALUED AT RS .1,03,740 / - VIDE SERIAL NO. 27 OF THE VALUATION REPORT OF SH RI SURAJRATAN AGRAWAL DTD 26/07/2011, WAS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED. THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED TH AT THERE IS NO SUCH ITEM IN T HE LIST OF DIAMOND ITEMS R ECEIVED AS GIFT AMOUNTING TO 13. 9 CARATS AND THE JEWELLERY AT SI. NO. 27 ,AS STATED ABOVE, ALM O ST MATCHED WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY AS PER THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY ITEM APPEARING AT SL.NO.14 OF THE DEPARTM ENTAL VALUER'S REPORT (GANPATLAL M. JAIN) DATED 30.05.2007. IN THIS REGARD, I FIND THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE TWO ITEMS IS AS UNDER; I. AS PER REPORT DATED 30.05. 2007 (PAGE 2) SI NO.13/14 ABROAD. THE GIFT OF DIAMO ND JEWELLERY FROM VIDYA TO PAYAL VALECHA/NEHA DOES NOT RELER. TO THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE DONOR AND THE RELATIONSHIP I.E., MOTHER - IN - LAW'S, SISTER'S HUSBAND'S, SISTER IS FOUND TO BE TOO REMOTE TO JUSTIF Y THY GIFT OF DIAMOND JEWLLERY WORTH ( RS.1,42,200/ - . SIMILARLY, T HE GIFT LETTER OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF RS .64.680/ - FROM AKSHAY DODEJA TO PAYALDODEJA DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY ADDRESS OF THE DONOR AND THE RELATIONSHIP IS ALSO FOUND TO BE REMOTE TO JUSTIFY SUCH GIFT. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT THESE ITEMS OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY SHOULD BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF VIDYA AND AKSHAYDODEJA A S NOTED ABOVE FOR AMOUNTS OF RS. 1,42,200/ - AND RS ,64,680 / - RESPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE SAID TWO GIFTS U /S.69B MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS2,06, 8 80/ - IS UPHELD. 6.3.6 FURTHE R, CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2) OF THE ACT, THE ITEMS RECEIVED AS GIFTS, AS NOTED ABOVE, WHICH HAVE BEEN RECEIVED PRIOR TO 01. 10.2009 (THE DATE WITH EFFECT FROM WHICH CLAU SE (VII) OF SECTION 56(2) WAS INSERTED) AND THE ITEMS RECEIVED AS GIFT AFTER 01.04.2009 FROM RELATIVES AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 56(2) WHICH ARE VALUED BELOW DINESH H VALECHA 5 RS . 50,000/ - ARE TO BE TREATED AS NOT TAXABLE. AS A RESULT, THE ITEMS WHICH ARE TREATED AS TAXABLE WOULD BE THE GIFT OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF RS.51 , 975/ - MADE BY SAPNA PUNJABI TO PAYALVALECHA F OR A.Y. 2010 - 11 AND OF RS.64,680 / - MADE BY AKSHAYDODEJA TO PAYALVALECHA FOR AY. 2012 - 13, SINCE THE GIFT AMOUNT IS MORE THAN RS. 50,000/ - AND THE DONORS A RE NOT RELATIVE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 56(2)(V II ) EXPLANATION (E) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ADDITION WITH RESPECT TO GIFT OF JEWELLERY VALUED AT RS. 64,680/ - BY AKSHAYDODEJA HAS ALREADY BEEN UPHELD IN PAR A 6 3.5 ABOVE AS UNEXPLAINED U/S .69B OF THE ACT . 6.3.7 IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE IN PARA 6.3.3 TO 6. 3 . 6, THE ADDITION OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY IS UPHELD FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,10,620 / - (RS.1,02,740 + RS. 1,42,200 + RS.64,68 0) AND THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.4,37,48 5/ - IS DELETED. GROUND NO.2 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THAT HE HAS DEALT HEREWITH THREADBARE IN RESPECT OF JEWELLERY FOUND DURING COURSE OF SEARCH AND ADDED BY AO AND AFTER CONSIDERING ASSESSEES CONTENTION AS WELL AS CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 DATED 11.05.199 4 AND ALSO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2) OF THE I.T. ACT HAS UPHELD ADDITION OF RS.1,03,740/ - ON ACCOUNT OF BRACELET ADMITTED BY SHRI UMESHVALECHA AS UNEXPLAINED IN THE STATEMENT GIVEN ON OATH DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 29.08.2011. THE CIT(A) FURTHER FOU ND THAT GIFT OF ITEMS JEWELLERY FROM VIDYA OF PAYALVALECHA DOES NOT REFER TO NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE DONOR AND THE RELATIONSHIP I.E. MOTHER - IN - LAW, SISTERS HUSBAND , SISTER WAS FOUND TO BE REMOTE GIFT DIAMOND JEWELLERY. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS.1,42,200/ - WAS CONFIRMED . SIMILARLY, THE GIFT LETTER OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY OF RS.64,680/ - FROM AKSHAY DODEJA TO PAYAL DODEJA DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY ADDRESS OF THE DONOR AND THE RELATIONSHIP WAS ALSO FOUND TO BE REMOTE TO JUSTIFY SUCH GIFT. ACCORDINGLY, HE UPHELD ADDITION DINESH H VALECHA 6 OF RS.64,680/ - . THE DETAILED FIND ING SO RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) AS REPRODUCED ABOVE HAS NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY LD. A R BY BRINGING ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTER FERE IN THE FINDING O F CIT(A) F OR U PHOLDING ADDITION OF RS.3,10,620/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.7,48,105/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B OF THE I.T. ACT. 7. THE AO HAS ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.5,150/ - BY DISALLOWING BANK CHARGES. WE DO NOT FIND A NY MERIT FOR THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEES BANK CHARGES LEVIED BY BANK FOR VARIOUS SERVICES RENDERED BY BANK TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. THUS , WE FOUND THAT THE EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND NO DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 9. IN GROUND NO. 2 - 3, ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR ADDITION OF RS.1,47,628/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT U/S 69B IN RESPECT OF SILVER ARTICLES. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT ADDITION MADE BY AO IN RESPECT OF SILVER ARTICLES WERE CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER: DINESH H VALECHA 7 6.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE STAND TAKEN BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS. 6.3.1 I FIND THAT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH DETAILED VERIFICATION OF THE JEW ELLERY FOUND THE RESIDENCES AND LOCKERS OF THE FAMILY OF DINESH VALECHA AND UMESHVALECHA WAS MADE IN LIGHT OF THE VALUTATION REPORTS PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER AT THE TIME OF EARLIER SEARCH IN THE YEAR 2007, PURCHASE BILLS, GIFT DEED ETC . STATEMEN T OF SMT. GEETAVALECHA, WIFE OF THE APPELLANT WAS RECORDED ON 29.08 . 2011 IN WHICH SHE HAS ADMITTED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL SILVER ITEMS OF 13. 25 KGS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE SILVE R ITEMS OF 340 KGS VALUED AT RS.1,47,628/ - WERE NOT FOUND REFLECTED I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR SUPPORTED BY INVOICES OR GIFT DOCUMENTS OF HER FAMILY MEMBERS AND HERSELF, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THOSE IT EMS REPRESENTED GIFTS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES AND FAMILY MEMBERS FROM TIME TO TIME IT HAS BEEN REQUESTED THAT THE SAID DECLARATION WITH RESPECT TO UNEXPLAINED SILVER ITEMS MAY BE CONSIDERED AS DECLARATION U/S.277AAA OF THE IT ACT. 6 . 3.2 THE A.O . HAS TREATED THE IN VESTMENT IN SILVER ITEMS AT RS1, 47,628/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CONSIDERING THE FINDING OF THE SEARCH, THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAID SLIVER ITEMS WERE ADMITTED AS UNEXPLAINED AFTER MAKING VERIFICATION IN LIGHT OF THE SILVER JEWELLERY/ITEMS FOUND AT THE TIME OF EARLIER SEARCH IN THE YEAR 2007, PURCHASE BILLS, GIFT DEED ETC . THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERING THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY, THE CUSTOMS OF THE INDIAN SOCIETY TO RECEIVE GIFTS ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS, THE EXCESS OF 3.40 K GS MAY BE TREATED AS GIFT RECEIVED BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS I FIND THAT THE RECEIPT OF GI FT WAS ALSO CONSIDERED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WHILE ARRIVING AT THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SILVER ITEMS AT RS.1,47,628/ - FURTHER, THE CLAIM THAT THE EXCESS INVESTMENT IN THE ITEMS OF SILVER SHOULD BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED BY WAY OF GIFT RECEIVED DURING TH E PERIOD 2007 TO 2011 IS FOUND TO BE UNACCEPTABLE IN LIGHT OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SMT . GEETAVAL ECHA AND THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE GIFT ITEMS LIKE GIFT OF SILVER ITEMS VALUED AT RS.65,000 / - B Y SHRI BHAGWAN PUNJABI TO SHARDA VA L ECHA ON 17.03.2010 AND OF RS .56,700/ - ON 11.11.2009 WOULD ALSO BE HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2) OF THE ACT SINCE THE RELATIONSHIP OF SISTER'S HUSBA ND WOULD NOT BE COVERED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF 'RELATIVE'. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ADDI TION OF DINESH H VALECHA 8 RS .1,47, 628/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SILVER IS UPHELD AND GROUND NO.3 TAKEN IN THIS REGARD IS DISMISSED. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND FOUND THAT AFTER RECORDING DETAILED FINDING WITH RESPECT TO THE SILVER ITEMS FOUND DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE EARLIER SEARCH CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE YEAR 2007, PURCHASE BILLS, GIFT DEED ETC , T HE CIT(A) REACHED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT RELATIONSHIP OF SISTERS HUSBAND WHO HAS ALLEGED TO GIVEN GIFT TO THE AS SESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. NOTHING WAS PLACED BY LD. AR BEFORE US TO PERUSE US TO DEVIATE FROM CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF C IT(A). 12. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT ISSUE IS COVERED BY ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. GEETA VALECHA ( OTHER FAMILY MEMBER ) ORDER DATED 11/07/2018 . WE HAD CAREFULLY GONE ORDER OF ITAT AND FOUND THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE INSTANT CASE, WHEREIN CIT(A) DEALT WITH ISSUE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE DONOR WITH RESPECT OF PROVISION OF SEC TION 56(2) OF THE I.T. ACT REACHE D TO THE CONCLUSION T HAT SISTERS HUSBAND IS NOT COVERED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF RELATIVE. DINESH H VALECHA 9 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27/ 12/2018 SD/ - ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) SD/ - (R.C.SHARMA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 27/12/2018 RAHUL SHARMA (SR. P.S.) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//