ALCO COMPANY P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2608/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5381 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POOJA SWAROOP
• Assessee Lawyers: CHETAN KARIA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 2608/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 & ITA NO. 2609/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ALCO COMPANY PVT. LTD., 3 RD FLOOR, RAHIMTOOLA HOUSE, 7 HOMJI STREET, FORT, MUMBAI - 400001. VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI. PAN NO. AAACA1031G APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. CHETAN KARIA, AR REVENUE BY : MS. POOJA SWAROOP, DR DATE OF HEARING : 16/07/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/07/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM THE CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 4, MUMBAI [IN SHORT CIT(A) ] AND ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT). AS COMMON ISSU ES ARE INVOLVED, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE THEM OFF THROUGH A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ALCO COMPANY PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 2608, 2609/MUM/2014 2 ITA NO. 2608/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 2. THE 1 ST GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.32,49,904/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) U/S 14A. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006 - 07 ON 28.11.2006 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.12,23, 128/ - . THEREAFTER, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 31.12.2008 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.21,70,170/ - UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS AND BOOK PROFIT OF RS.7,06,37,724/ - U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. AS THE TAX PAYABLE U/S 115JB WAS GREATER THAN T HE TAX PAYABLE UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS, THE AO DETERMINED INCOME AT RS.7,06,37,724/ - . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A AND DIRECTED THE AO TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITO V. DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. & ORS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE I SSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TO THE AO TO ADOPT SOME REASONABLE BASIS. THEREAFTER, THE AO MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.32,49,904/ - BY TAKING 0.5% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENT OF RS.64,99,80,770/ - . WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE AO HAD ALREAD Y MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.27,24,454/ - . THEREFORE, THE AO RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.5,25,450/ - (RS.32,49,904/ - MINUS RS.27,24,454/ - ). ALCO COMPANY PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 2608, 2609/MUM/2014 3 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) AGREED WITH THE COMPUTATION DONE BY THE AO AND DISMISS ED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FILES A PAPER BOOK (P/B) CONTAINING (I) COPY OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 08.06.2015 FOR AY 2005 - 06, (II) COPY OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 19.01.2011 FOR AY 2006 - 07, (III) COPY OF ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 04.01.2010 FOR AY 2006 - 07, (IV) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2008 FOR AY 2006 - 07, (V) COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSI ONS TO CIT(A) DATED 26.08.2013, (VI) COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 15.10.2012 AND (VII) COPY OF COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AND ANNUAL ACCOUNTS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIES ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT A BENCH MUMB AI IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2009 - 10 IN ITA NO. 1747/MUM/2013 AND SUBMITS THAT THE SAME MAY BE FOLLOWED. THUS THE LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 19.01.2011 FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR (ITA NO. 1724/MUM/2010), FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. LTD. V. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (BOM), HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE DECISION. ALCO COMPANY PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 2608, 2609/MUM/2014 4 RULE 8D WAS NOTIFIED BY CBDT IN THE IT (5 TH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2008 W.E.F. 24.03.2008. IN GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. C O. LTD. (SUPRA), THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD IT TO BE PROSPECTIVE W.E.F. AY 2008 - 09. AS FURTHER HELD OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CASE, THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A FOR THE YEARS EARLIER TO AY 2008 - 09 HAS TO BE WORKED OUT BY A DOPTING SOME REASONABLE METHOD. A SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE ITAT G MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S GODREJ AGROVET LTD. V. ACIT FOR AY 2005 - 06 (ITA NO. 1629/MUM/2009) AND THE TRIBUNAL DIRECT ED THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF COMMON ADMINISTRATIV E EXPENSES TO 2% OF THE TOTAL EXEMPT INCOME. THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. FACT BEING IDENTICAL WE FOLLOW THE ABOVE DECISION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO RESTR ICT THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF COMMON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES TO 2% OF THE TOTAL EXEMPT INCOME. THUS THE 1 ST GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. IN THE 2 ND GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234C. IN THE 3 RD GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 220(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT IN RESPECT OF TAX DEDUCTED A T SOURCE (TDS), THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX, AS SUCH THERE WAS NO QUESTION WHATSOEVER OF INTEREST ALCO COMPANY PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 2608, 2609/MUM/2014 5 U/S 234C OF THE ACT, BEING PAYABLE. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS LEVIED INTEREST OF RS.17,933/ - U/S 234C OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMI TS THAT THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 31.12.2008 HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 19.01.2011 AND THE CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED TO THE AO. WHILE PASSING A FRESH ORDER DATED 29.10.2012, THE AO HAS LEVIED INTEREST U/S 220(2) AMOUNTING TO RS.2,13,070/ - , AFTER 30 DAYS FROM THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 31.12.2008. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT AS THE DEMAND HAS CRYSTALLIZED AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON REMAND DATED 29.10.2012, INTEREST U/S 220(2) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN LEVIED. 7.1 WE HAVE PERUSED THE RELE VANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE FACTS LEADING TO LEVY OF INTEREST AS MENTIONED HEREINBEFORE AT PARA 7 NEED VERIFICATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE ISSUES AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO PASS AN ORDER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO. THUS THE 2 ND AND 3 RD GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL FOR AY 2006 - 07 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 2609/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ALCO COMPANY PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 2608, 2609/MUM/2014 6 9. THE 1 ST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.46,43,452/ - U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE 2 ND GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.46,43,452/ - U/S 14A FOR THE PUR POSE OF COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. 10. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION ON DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.13,81,54,544/ - . IN RESPONSE TO A QUERY RAISED BY THE AO TO EXPLAIN WH Y DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D SHOULD NOT BE MADE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR EARNING SUCH EXEMPT INCOME. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.46,43,4 52/ - U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DISALLOWED RS.16,20,581/ - , THE AO RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.30,22,861/ - (RS.46,43,452/ - MINUS RS.16,20,591/ - ). 11. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS AGREED WITH THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY HIM. 12. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE AO HAS CALCULATED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D WITHOUT TAKI NG INTO CONSIDERATION THE NATURE OF INCOME EARNED, THE AMOUNT OF EXPENSES RELATED TO EARNING SUCH INCOME. IT IS STATED THAT THE AO HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED AS TO WHY THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DATED 15.10.2012 AND THE DETAILED WORKING OF REASONABLE D ISALLOWANCE ALCO COMPANY PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 2608, 2609/MUM/2014 7 ANNEXED THERETO WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO HIM AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION 2 TO SECTION 14A. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FILES A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT A BENCH MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2009 - 10 (I TA NO. 1747/MUM/2013) AND SUBMITS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,22,861/ - U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D MADE BY THE AO AND THEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE REASONS FOR OUR DECISIONS ARE GIVEN BELOW. THE ISSUE HERE IS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D(2)(III). THE ISSUE MAY BE EXAMINED BY THE RELEVANT DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. WE ARE OF THE C ONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE DECISION S IN GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. (SUPRA) ; GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. V. DCIT (2017) 81 TAXMANN.COM 111 (SC) AND MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. V. CIT (2018) 91 TAXMANN.COM 154 (SC) HAVE RELEVANCE IN INSTANT CASE AND THESE ARE TO BE EXAMINED. IN ASST. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE V. DUNLOP INDIA LTD . (1985) 154 ITR 172 (SC), IT IS HELD: IT IS NEEDLES TO ADD THAT IN INDIA UNDER ARTICLE 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE LAW DECLARED BY THE SUPREME COURT SH ALL BE BINDING ON ALL COURTS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF INDIA AND UNDER ARTICLE 144 ALL AUTHORITIES CIVIL AND JUDICIAL, IN THE TERRITORY OF INDIA SHALL ACT IN AID OF THE SUPREME COURT. ALCO COMPANY PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 2608, 2609/MUM/2014 8 FURTHER, IN EAST INDIA COMMERCIAL CO. LTD. V. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, AIR 1962 SC 1893, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE LAW DECLARED BY THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE STATE IS BINDING ON AUTHORITIES OR TRIBUNALS UNDER ITS SUPERINTENDENCE, AND THAT THEY CANNOT IGNORE IT EITHER IN INITIATING A PROCEEDING OR DECIDING ON THE RIGHTS INVOLVE D IN SUCH A PROCEEDING. IN THE INSTANT CASE NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LD. CIT(A) HAD THE BENEFIT OF THE ABOVE TWO RECENT DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ON THE DATE OF PASSING THE ASSESSMENT/APPELLATE ORDER. ALSO THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING THE BENEFI T OF THE ABOVE TWO DECISIONS WHILE SUBMITTING ITS CASE BEFORE THE ABOVE TWO AUTHORITIES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS , WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D B Y FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DELINEATED ABOVE. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE AO WOULD GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE FINALIZING THE ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WE ARE NOT ADVERTING TO THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSELS. THUS THE 1 ST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO HAS MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 46,43,452 / - U/S 14A WHILE MAKING AN ASSESSMENT OF BOOK PROFIT U/S ALCO COMPANY PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 2608, 2609/MUM/2014 9 115JB. IN VIREET INVESTMENT (P.) LTD . (SUPRA), THE QUESTION BEFORE THE SPECIAL BENCH WAS WHETHER THE AMOUNT OR AMOUNTS OF EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME AS CONTEMPLATED IN CLAUSE (F) TO EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB(2) COULD BE ARRIVED AT BY RESORTING TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OR NOT. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT HELD THAT COMPUTATION UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB(2) IS TO BE MADE WITHOUT RESORTING TO COMPUTATION AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D. FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, WE FOLLOW THE ABOVE DECISION OF TH E SPECIAL BENCH AND ALLOW THE 2 ND GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. THE 3 RD GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,37,699/ - U/S 94(7) FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. 16. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND FROM THE DETAILS OF DATE OF PURCHASE AND SALES AND RECEIPT OF DIVIDEND THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,37,699/ - IN RESPECT OF HSBC CASH FUND, IS HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 94(7) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, HE ADDED BACK AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,37,699/ - BEING SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS (STCL) WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS AND ALSO IN COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE REASON S GIVEN BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM 17. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 94(7) AMOUNTING TO RS.1,37,699/ - IS NOT TO BE ADDED TO THE NET PROFIT AS ALCO COMPANY PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 2608, 2609/MUM/2014 10 PER THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETE RMINING BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF RS.1,37,699/ - U/S 94(7) CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE NET PROFIT AS PER THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. THUS THE 3 RD GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 19. THE 4 TH GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234C OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT IN RESPECT OF TDS, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX, AS SUCH THERE W AS NO QUESTION WHATSOEVER OF INTEREST U/S 234C OF THE ACT, BEING PAYABLE. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS LEVIED INTEREST OF RS.22,412/ - U/S 234C OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ISSUE LEVY OF INTEREST REQUIRES VERIFICATION AT THE LEVELS OF THE AO . THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO PASS AN ORDER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DIRECT THE ASSESS EE TO FILE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO. ALCO COMPANY PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 2608, 2609/MUM/2014 11 THUS THE 4 TH GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FOR AY 2010 - 11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 21. TO SUM UP, THE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/07/2018. SD/ - SD/ - ( PAWAN SINGH ) (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 30/07/2018 RAHUL SHARMA, SR. P.S. 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// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI