ALKYL AMINES CHEMICALS LTD, NAVI MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2897/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3145 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A RAMACHANDRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: DIVYESH J SHAH MOKSHA K SHAH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 2897 /MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S ALKYL AMINES CHEMICALS LIMITED, 401-402, NIRMAN VYPAR KENDRA, PLOT NO. 10, SECTOR-17, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI-400 703 / V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 10(3) MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AAACA6783F ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI DIVYESH J.SHAH / MOKSHA K.SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI A. RAMACHANDRAN / DATE OF HEARING : 16-6-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-09-2016 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, BEING ITA NO. 2897/MUM/2011, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE APPELLATE OR DER DATED 31 ST JANUARY, 2011 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS)- 22, MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE CIT(A)), FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2007-08, THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARI SING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24 TH DECEMBER, 2009 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFF ICER (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AO) U/S 143(3) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). ITA 2897/MUM/2011 2 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COM PANY IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE TRIBUNAL) READ AS UNDER:- 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-22, MUM BAI [THE CIT(A)] ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 10(3) , MUMBAI (THE A.O.) TO FIND OUT THE RATIO OF INV ESTMENT IN SHARES TO THE TOTAL ASSETS AND APPLY THE SAME TO THE AMOUNT OF INTE REST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A O F INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(THE ACT). 1.1 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT TO EARN THE DIVIDE ND INCOME WHICH WAS EXEMPT U/S 10(34) OF THE ACT. 1.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DI RECTING SUCH EXPENSES WHICH WERE IN RELATION TO INVESTMENT TO BE C APITALIZED. 1.3 THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A BE DELETED. 1.4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE SAID DISALLOWANCE U/S 1 4A BE MADE ON REASONABLE BASIS. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A .O. IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM U/S 35(2AB) ON THE ALLEGED GROUND THAT IT H AD FAILED TO FURNISH THE CERTIFICATE IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM ISSUED IN THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. 2.1 THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE CLAIM FOR THE DEDUCTIO N U/S 35(2AB) OF THE ACT BE ALLOWED. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A .O. IN DISALLOWING SUNDRY BALANCES WRITTEN OFF AMOUNT TO RS. 14,44,832/- ON THE ALLEGED GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE CONDI TIONS LAID DOWN U/S 36(1)(VII) R.W.S. 36(2) . 3.1. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE SAID WRITE OFF SUNDR Y BALANCE BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. 3.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE SAID WRITE OFF OF SUNDRY BALANCES BE ALLOWED AS TRADING LOSS. ITA 2897/MUM/2011 3 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AMINE AND AMINE DERIVATIVES. 4. ON PERUSAL OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME DURING THE C OURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT , IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1,15,64,8 82/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S. 10(34) OF THE ACT. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME A S PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULE S, 1962. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY BEFORE THE AO SUBMITTED THAT NO EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME AND HENCE NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR U/S. 14A OF THE ACT. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE U/R. 8D OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WHIC H WORKED OUT TO RS. 1,13,010/-. THE AO REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE KEEPING IN VIEW BOARDS LETTER F.NO. 173/172/2008-I.T.A.I DATED 04- 02-2009 WHEREBY BOARD DIRECTED TO CONSIDER APPLICABILITY OF PROVISION OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT KEEPING IN VIEW THE JUDGMENT OF SPECIAL BENCH OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DAGA CAPIAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED (ITA NO. 8057/MUM/20 03 DATED 20-10- 2008) WHEREBY THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A(2) AND 14A(3) OF THE ACT THOUGH INTRODUCED BY FINANCE ACT, 2006 W .E.F. 01-04-2007 ARE CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND SHALL APPLY RETROSPECTI VELY W.E.F. 01-04-1962 AND IN THE RESULT RULE 8D WILL ALSO APPLY ACCORDINGLY. THE AO WORKED OUT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D O F INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 OF RS. 11,87,415/- , OF WHICH DISALLOWANCE FOR INTE REST U/R 8D(2)(II) OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WAS WORKED OUT TO BE OF RS.10,74,40 5/- , WHILE DISALLOWANCE U/R 8D(2)(III) OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 FOR INDIRE CT AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES @0.5% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENT WORKED OUT TO RS.1,13,010/-, VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24-12-2009 PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. ITA 2897/MUM/2011 4 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24-12-20 09 PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED FIRST AP PEAL WITH THE LEARNED CIT(A). 6. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08 AND THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE ON REASONABLE BASIS FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE EARNING OF INCOME NOT FORMING PA RT OF THE TOTAL INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME WHICH IS CLAIMED A S EXEMPT U/S 10(34) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPA NY LIMITED V. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 81(BOM.) AND STATED THAT RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 IS APPLICABLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND CANNOT BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY AND DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE WORKED OU T ON REASONABLE BASIS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MIXED POOL OF FUNDS BOTH INTEREST BEAR ING AS WELL INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENSES FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME. THE ASSESSE E HAS BOTH TAXABLE INCOME AS WELL EXEMPT INCOME AND THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHICH ARE TOWARDS EARNING BOTH THE INCOMES. THE LEARNED CIT(A ) DIRECTED THE AO TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT ON A REASONAB LE BASIS. THE AO WAS DIRECTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO FIND OUT THE RATI O OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES TO THE TOTAL ASSETS AND APPLY THE SAME TO THE AMOUNT O F INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT, VIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.01.2011 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A). 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.01.201 1 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED SECOND APPEAL WITH THE T RIBUNAL. ITA 2897/MUM/2011 5 8. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS COMPRISING OF SHARE CAPITAL AN D RESERVES AFTER ADJUSTING MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE AS AT 31-03-2007 WAS RS.5 562.13 LACS ( RS. 3902.04 LACS AS AT 31-03-2006) , WHILE INVESTMENT M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS AT 31-03-2007 WAS RS.226.02 LACS (RS.226.02 LACS AS AT 31-03-2006) AND HENCE PRESUMPTION SHALL APPLY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVES TED ITS OWN FUNDS AS IT HAS ITS OWN FUNDS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE INVESTMENT AND NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO INTEREST PA ID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-98 TO 2006-07 ARE PLACED IN PAPER BOOK PAGE 47-106 FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT LOANS WERE RAISED FOR VARIOUS PURPOS ES SUCH AS CASH CREDIT, EXPORT CREDITS, CAR LOANS AND TERM LOANS AND NONE O F THE LOANS WERE UTILIZED FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS . THE LOAN AGREEMENTS ARE PL ACED IN PAPER BOOK PAGE 5-46 FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL. THE DETAILS OF INTERE ST PAID IS ALSO PLACED IN PAPER BOOK PAGE 107 AND DETAILS OF SECURED AND UNSE CURED LOANS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PLACED ON PAPER BOOK PAGE 108-121. THUS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT KEEPING IN VIEW DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LIMITED (2009)313 I TR 340(BOM.) AND HDFC BANK LIMITED V. DCIT (2016) 67 TAXMANN.COM 42(BOM) , THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST TO THE TUNE OF RS. 10,74,405/- AS DISALLOW ED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. FOR THE OTHER DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 1,13,010/-TOWARDS ADMINISTRATIVE AND INDIRECT EXPENSES DISALLOWED U/S 14A OF THE ACT , IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE BE SUSTAINED . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS ARE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE EARNIN G OF EXEMPT INCOME. 9. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED C IT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ITA 2897/MUM/2011 6 ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENTS OF RS.226.02 LACS AS AT 31-03-2007 ( RS.226.02 LACS AS AT 31-03-2006) WHICH ARE STATED T O BE STRATEGIC INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS ARE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 556 2.13 LACS AS AT 31-03- 2007 AND RS. 3902.04 LACS . THE AUDITED FINANCIAL S TATEMENTS FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-98 TO 2006-07 ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A ND ARE PLACED IN PAPER BOOK PAGE 47-106. IT COULD BE OBSERVED AS DETAILED ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS ARE MUCH HIGHER THAN THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE CAPABLE OF YIELDING EXEMPT INCOME. THE AS SESSEE RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1,15,64,882/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS AN EXEMPT INCOME U/S. 10(34) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED DETAILS OF VARIOUS LOANS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND INTEREST PAID TO CONTEND THAT NONE OF THE LOANS RAISED WERE DEPLOYED TOWARDS INVESTMENTS MADE AND T HESE ARE OLD INVESTMENTS AND NO FRESH INVESTMENT ARE MADE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED DETAILS OF LOANS RAISED, LOAN AGREEMENTS AND DETAILS OF INTEREST PAID DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR TO CONTEND THAT NONE O F THE LOANS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DIRECTED TOWARDS ACQUISITION OF I NVESTMENTS. THE SAID DOCUMENTS ARE PLACED IN PAPER BOOK FILED WITH THE T RIBUNAL. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE PRESUMPTION SHALL APPLY AS WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE UT ILITIES AND POWER LIMITED (SUPRA) AND HDFC BANK LIMITED V. CIT(SUPRA) THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED ITS OWN FUNDS TOWARDS MAKING INVESTMENT UNLESS CONT RARY IS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE. NOTHING INCRIMINATING IS BRO UGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE S PECIFICALLY USED FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS AND HENCE IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW , ADDITION OF RS.10,74,405/- MADE BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AN D IS ORDERED TO BE DELETED. WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,13,01 0/- MADE BY LEARNED AO TOWARDS ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER INDIRECT EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME BEING DIVIDEND OF RS.1,15, 64,882/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE I MPUGNED ASSESSMENT , ITA 2897/MUM/2011 7 WHICH DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,13,010/- IN OUR CONSIDER ED VIEW IS VERY REASONABLE AND FAIR WHICH WE UPHELD AND SUSTAIN AND DO NOT INTEND TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW KEEPING IN VIEW OF FAIRNESS AND REASONABILITY OF THE DISALLOWANCE KEEPING IN VI EW FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM THE RECORDS BEFORE US . THIS DISPOSES OF GROUND NO 1 (1.1 TO 1.4 ) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ME MO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 11. THE SECOND GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WIT H RESPECT TO CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 35(2AB) OF THE ACT. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO FROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED WEIGHTED DEDUCTION U/S. 35(2AB) OF THE ACT OF RS.60,33,820/-. THE ASSE SSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF SUCH EXPENSES WITH SUPPORTING EVIDEN CES INCLUDING CERTIFICATES IN FORM NO. 3CK , 3CL AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCES INCLUDING RESEARCH CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY SUBMITTED CERTAIN DETAILS AND THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAS BEEN EXAMINED AT LENGTH BY CALLING DETAILS. IT WAS HELD IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 -07 THAT THE ASSESSEE R & D FACILITY HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBE D AUTHORITY I.E. SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH. I T WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE R & D EXPENDITURE SHOWS THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN INCU RRED AND RELATED PURELY TO SALES PROMOTION , TESTING, MANPOWER EXPENSES AND INCLUDES EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON CLINICAL DRUG TRIAL , OBTAINING APPROVA L FROM THE REGULATORY AUTHORITIES UNDER ANY CENTRAL, STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT AND FILING AN APPLICATION FOR A PATENT. IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THAT IT HAS AN IN-HOUSE R & D FACILITY WH ICH CARRIED OUT ANY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN RESPECT OF A NY DRUG OR ITA 2897/MUM/2011 8 PHARMACEUTICALS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ALSO COMPLIED WITH CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE FORM NO 3CK FOR THE PURPOSES OF MA KING APPLICATION TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND FORM NO 3CL GRANTING APPRO VAL FOR THE SAID FACILITY HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSE E DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF MAINTENANCE AND AUDIT AND SEPARATE AC COUNTS FOR THE APPROVED FACILITY.ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION W AS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE FILED FOR EARLIER YEARS AND NO NEW FACTS WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANT IATE ITS CLAIM. THUS AS THE FACTS FOR THE INSTANT YEAR WERE IDENTICAL TO TH E PRECEDING YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SE CTION 35(2AB) OF THE ACT, THE AO DISALLOWED THE EXCESS WEIGHTED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS DEDUCTION OF RS. 60,33,820/- CLAIMED U/S. 35(2AB) O F THE ACT WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2009 PA SSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 12. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2 009 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED FIRST APPE AL WITH THE LEARNED CIT(A). 13. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A ) THAT SECTION 35(2AB) OF THE ACT MANDATE THAT IN CASE OF A COMPANY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY DRUGS, PHARMACE UTICALS , INCURS ANY EXPENDITURE ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON IN-HOUSE RESE ARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITY AS APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, T HEN , THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED A DEDUCTION OF A SUM EQUAL TO ONE AND ONE-HALF TIME S OF THE EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT APPLI CATION FORMS 3CK AND 3CL ARE PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 6(4) AND 7(A) OF THE INCO ME TAX RULES, 1962 RELATE TO THE APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE REPORT IN RELATION TO THE APPROVAL TO BE GIVEN BY DIRECTOR GENERAL (EXEMPTIONS) . IT W AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35(2AB) OF THE ACT ONLY REQUIRES THAT R ITA 2897/MUM/2011 9 & D FACILITY SHOULD BE APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED A UTHORITY AND THERE IS NO MANDATE AS TO THE FORM OF APPLICATION OR APPROVAL. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (I) MUKTA ARTS PRIVATE LIMITED V. ACIT , 105 ITD 533(MU M. TRIB) (II) CIT V. CROWN PRODUCTS, 304 ITR 106 (III) FENOPLAST LIMITED V. ACIT, 82 ITD 178(HYD TRIB) (IV) ACIT V. TUSNIAL TRADING CO. , 61 TTJ 700(GAU. TRIB. ) (V) ITO V. MEGHALAYA BONDED WAREHOUSE, 60 TTJ 219(GAU. TRIB) THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM TH E AO TO VERIFY GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REMAND REPORT WAS SENT BY THE AO TO THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT TH E AO HAS STATED IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED T HE CERTIFICATE IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMS VIZ. FORM NO. 3CL AND FORM 3CM ISS UED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY , WHICH IS SECRETARY, DSIR, MINISTRY OF S CIENTIFIC RESEARCH. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONCURRED WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE A O AND CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE P RESCRIBED FORMS ISSUED BY PRESCRIBED AUTHORITIES, VIDE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 31.01.2011 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A). 14. AGGRIEVED BY THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.01.20 11 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE FILED SECOND APPEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL. 15. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM PRESCRIBED AUTH ORITIES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPR OVAL BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITIES AS WELL REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 35(2AB) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOW ELIGIBLE FOR WEIGHTED DEDUCTION CLA IMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITH THE REVENUE. IT WAS SUB MITTED BY LEARNED COUNSEL ITA 2897/MUM/2011 10 FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IF AN OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN , THEN THE ASSESSEE WILL PRODUCE ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS BEFORE THE LEARNED AO AND WILL ALSO SATISFY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY COMPLIED WITH THE ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE APPROVAL STIPULATED BY THE PRESCR IBED AUTHORITIES AS WELL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35(2AB) O F THE ACT WHICH THE AO CAN VERIFY BY EXAMINATION , ENQUIRY , INVESTIGATION ETC AS MAY BE DECIDED BY THE AO BEFORE GRATING WEIGHTED DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB) OF THE ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT NECESSARY DOCUMENTS ARE PLACED IN PAPER BOOK P AGES 122-153 FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL AND THESE DOCUMENTS CAN BE SUBJECTED T O VERIFICATION BY THE AO TO SATISFY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY COMPLIED WITH ALL LEGAL AND STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS BEFORE GRANTING DEDUCTIONS U/S 35(2AB) OF THE ACT. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) . 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAI MED WEIGHTED DEDUCTIONS U/S 35(2AB) OF THE ACT OF RS. 60,33,820/- TOWARDS R & D CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS THE APPROVALS FROM PRESCRIBED AUTHORITIES WERE NOT SUBMITTED AS W ELL GENUINENESS OF THE RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DOUBTED BY T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS EVIDENCES OF CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN THE FIELD OF DR UGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS WERE NOT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW. FURTHER, THE AO HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS OF MAINTENANCE AND AUDITS AND SEPARATE ACCOUNTS FOR TH E APPROVED FACILITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW CONTENDED THAT THE APPROVALS FROM PRESCRIBED AUTHORITIES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND IF AN OPPORTUNITY IS GRANTED THE ASSESSEE WILL PRODUCE ALL NECESSARY EVIDENCES AND APPROVALS TO SATISFY TH E AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FULLY AND DULY COMPLIED WITH ALL THE LEGAL AND STAT UTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR AVAILING WEIGHTED DEDUCTIONS U/S 35(2AB) OF THE ACT . IT IS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO CAN MAKE NECESSARY VERIFIC ATIONS, ENQUIRIES, EXAMINATION AND INVESTIGATION BEFORE GRANTING THE B ENEFIT OF WEIGHTED ITA 2897/MUM/2011 11 DEDUCTION U/S. 35(2AB) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ALL DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREOF IN PAPER BOOK PAGE 122-153. WE A RE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, THIS I SSUE NEED TO BE SET ASIDE AND RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DE-NOVO EXAMINAT ION OF THE ISSUE ON MERITS BY THE AO BEFORE GRANTING WEIGHTED DEDUCTION U/S. 3 5(2AB) OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY AND P LACE ON RECORD THAT WE HAVE NOT MADE ANY COMMENTS ON MERITS OF THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE FOR WEIGHTED DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB) OF THE ACT AND THE A O SHALL ADJUDICATE THIS ISSUE ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW UNINFLUENCED BY OBSERVATION, IF ANY MADE BY US ON THIS ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 3(2AB) OF THE ACT IN THIS ORDER. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35(2AB) OF THE ACT ALLOWS WEIGHTED DEDUCTION AND IS A BENEFICIAL PROVISIONS AND HENCE THE SAME I S TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AT THE FIRST STAGE TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE BENEFICIAL PROVISION AND ONCE THE ENTITLEMENT AND E LIGIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS ESTABLISHED BY STRICTLY CONSTRUING THE SAME, THEN T HE PROVISION IS TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED SO THAT FULL EFFECT IS GIVEN OF THE BENEFICIAL PROVISION TO ACHIEVE THE INTENDED OBJECTIVE FOR WHICH THE BENEFI CIAL STATUTORY PROVISION IS PLACED ON THE STATUTE. NEEDLESS TO SAY PROPER AND A DEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD SHALL BE ACCORDED BY THE AO TO THE ASSE SSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W , AND ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSE E TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTIONS SHALL BE ADMITTED BY THE AO AND SHALL B E ADJUDICATED ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS DISPOSES OF GROUND NO 2(2 .1) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL.WE OR DER ACCORDINGLY. 17. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS.14,44,832/- BEING TOWARDS SUNDRY BA LANCES WRITTEN OFF ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FALIED TO PROVE THE CO NDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 36(1)(VII) R.W.S. 36(2) OF THE ACT. FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT ITA 2897/MUM/2011 12 OF RS.14,44,832/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES/AMOUNT WRI TTEN OFF. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) READ WITH SECTION 36(2) OF THE A CT. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY THEREOF FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO BREAKUP OF SUCH ADV ANCE WRITE OFF AND NO EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO R EJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF ADV ANCES WHICH WERE NOT ON REVENUE ACCOUNT AND THE SAME CANNOT BE EQUATED WIT H DEBT. THE SAID ADVANCES WERE NOT OFFERED AS INCOME EITHER IN THE I NSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR IN EARLIER YEARS AND HENCE THE ADVANCE WRITTEN OFF OF RS.14,44,832/- WAS NOT ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2009 PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 18. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2 009 PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT , THE ASSESSEE FILED FIRST A PPEAL WITH THE LEARNED CIT(A). 19. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A ) THAT THE DEBIT BALANCES OF CREDITORS WHICH WERE ADVANCES OR DEBITS RAISED I N THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS AND SUBSEQUENTLY TURNED IRRECOVERABLE WERE WRITTEN OFF AND ALSO WRITE OFF WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PREMIUM PAID ON FO REIGN EXCHANGE CONTRACT ENTERED INTO HEDGE EXPORT DEBTORS WHICH WAS AMORTIZ ED AS PER AS-11 ISSUED BY ICAI. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISHED THE RE ASONS FOR SUCH WRITE OFF AND SATISFACTION OF CONDITIONS U/S 36 OF THE ACT. I T WAS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DETAILS OF SUCH ADVANCES DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM AO TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE. THE AO SENT THE REMAND REPORT TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHEREIN THE AO MADE OBSERVATIONS W.R.T. WRITE OFFS AS UNDER: ITA 2897/MUM/2011 13 I. THE SUM OF RS. 2,50,852/- WRITTEN OFF IN RESPEC T OF M/S. SOFTWARE ALGORITHMS (I) P. LTD. REPRESENTS ADVANCE GIVEN FOR PURCHASE OF EXPORT RELATED SOFTWARE , WHICH WAS A C APITAL ADVANCE. HENCE, WRITE OFF OF SUCH CAPITAL ADVANCE C ANNOT BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE DEDUCTION. II. DEFERRED PREMIUM ACCOUNT OF RS.1,02,592 IS CLAI MED TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION DIFFERENCE PERTAINING TO FY 05-06. THE SAID CLAIM IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS THE SA ME IS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE / CHARGE AND THE ASSESSEE IS FOL LOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. III.SERVICE TAX CREDIT OF 04-05 AMOUNTING TO RS. 6, 14,920 IS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID SERV ICE TAX IS NOT PAID DURING THE YEAR. THE DEDUCTION FOR SERVICE TAX IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF T HE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS AS TO WHY TH E CLAIM IS MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IV. A SUM OF RS. 28,780 IS CLAIMED AS EXCESS PAYMEN T OF TDS ON COMMISSION . SUCH CLAIM IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS FIRSTLY , IT IS NOT EXPLAINED AS TO HOW & WHY EXCESS PAYMENT WAS MADE A ND SECONDLY, THE PROCEDURE FOR CLAIMING REFUND OF THE EXCESS PAYMENT, IF ANY , COULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE A SSESSEE. V. AS REGARDS CLAIM OF RS. 4,30,774 , THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S. 36(2) R.W.S. 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT EXPLAINED B Y THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER AND WHEN THE RELEVANT AMOUNTS WERE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ITA 2897/MUM/2011 14 THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILED ANY COMMENTS BEFORE LEAR NED CIT(A) ON THESE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO IN REMAND REPORT DESPITE THE FACT THAT COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT WAS FORWARDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) TO TH E ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED/SUSTAINED THE ADDITIONS AS MADE BY THE AO AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S. 36(1)(VII) READ WITH SECTION 36(2) OF THE ACT WERE SATISFIED, VIDE APPELLATE ORD ER DATED 31.01.2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 20. AGGRIEVED BY THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.01.20 11 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED SECOND APPEAL WITH THE T RIBUNAL. 21. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REPLY BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) WITH RESPECT TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO IN REMAND REPORT AS PROPER A ND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GRANTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON ON ACCOUNT OF WRITE OFF AS IT HAS SATISFIED ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 36 (1)(VII) READ WITH SECTION 36(2) OF THE ACT AND IF OPPORTUNITY IS GRANTED THEN THE ASSESSEE WILL EXPLAIN IN DETAILS THAT THE ASSESSEE DULY FULFILLED ALL THE CO NDITIONS STIPULATED U/S 36(1)(VII) READ WITH SECTION 36(2) OF THE ACT AND I S ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF THESE WRITE OFF OF RS.14,44,832/-. THE A SSESSEE PLACED ON RECORD VARIOUS DETAILS IN PAPER BOOK FILED WITH THE TRIBUN AL WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE 154-262. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE AO CAN MAKE NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS , ENQUIRIES, EXAMINATIONS AND INVESTI GATION AS MAY BE DESIRED BY HIM BEFORE GRANTING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 36(1)(VII) READ WITH SECTION 36(2) OF THE ACT. LEARNED DR ON T HE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A). ITA 2897/MUM/2011 15 22. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND P ERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAI MED DEDUCTION FOR WRITE OFF ADVANCES TO THE TUNE OF RS.14,44,832/- WHICH WA S NOT ALLOWED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS IN THEIR OPINION THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) READ WITH SECTIO N 36(2) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO WHICH WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMITTED ANY EXPLANATION BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN RESPONSE TO REMAND REPORT OF THE AO. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN PROPER AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH PREVENTED A SSESSEE FROM GIVING REPLY BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) IN RESPONSE TO THE REMAND REP ORT OF THE AO. IT IS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IF THE MATTER/ ISS UE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO, THEN THE ENTIRE DETAILS WILL BE SUBMITTED T O THE AO AND THE AO CAN MAKE NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS, ENQUIRIES, EXAMINATIO N AND INVESTIGATION BEFORE GRANTING THE BENEFIT OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOU NT OF WRITE OFF ADVANCES TO THE TUNE OF RS.14,44,832/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ALL DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREOF IN PAPER BOOK PAGE 154-262. WE A RE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, THIS I SSUE NEED TO BE SET ASIDE AND RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DE-NOVO EXAMINAT ION OF THE ISSUE ON MERITS BY THE AO BEFORE GRANTING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF W RITE OFF OF ADVANCE OF RS.14,44,832/- U/S. 36(1)(VII) READ WITH SECTION 36 (2) OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY AND PLACE ON REC ORD THAT WE HAVE NOT MADE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF WRITE OFF OF ADVANCE OF RS.14,44,832/- U /S. 36(1)(VII) READ WITH SECTION 36(2) OF THE ACT AND THE AO SHALL ADJUDICAT E THIS ISSUE ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW UNINFLUENCED BY OBSERVATION, IF ANY MADE BY US ON THIS ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF WRITE OFF OF ADVANCE OF RS.14,44,832/- U/S. 36(1)(VII) READ WITH SECTION 36 (2) OF THE ACT IN THIS ORDER. NEEDLESS TO SAY PROPER AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD SHALL BE ACCORDED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WI TH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL ITA 2897/MUM/2011 16 JUSTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AND ALL THE RELEVAN T EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT I TS CONTENTIONS SHALL BE ADMITTED BY THE AO AND SHALL BE ADJUDICATED ON MERI TS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS DISPOSES OF GROUND NO 3(3.1 TO 3.2) RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL. WE ORDER AC CORDINGLY. 23. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 2897/MUM/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS ALLOWED IN THE M ANNER AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016. # $% &' 12-09-2016 ( ) SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ MUMBAI ; & DATED 12-09-2016 [ .9../ R.K. R.K. R.K. R.K. , EX. SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. : / CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. =>( 99?@ , ?@ , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI A BENCH 6. (BC D / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, = 9 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI