ITO (IT) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI V. DALU VASU HIRANANDANI, MUMBAI

ITA 2919/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3759 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAITANYA ANJARLA
• Assessee Lawyers: NISHANT K RUPAREL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 54; 12; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM ITA NO. 2919 /MUM/ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 ) INCOME - TAX OFFICER (IT) - 2(2)(1), ROOM NO. 1725, 17 TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021 VS. DALU VASU HIRANANDANI A - 602, 6 TH FLOOR, KOHINOOR CHSL, 24 TH ROAD, TPS - III, KHAR (W), MUMBAI - 400 052 PAN/GIR NO. ABZPH 1876 P ( APPELLANT ) : ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI CHAITANYA ANJARLA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NISHANT K. RUPAREL DATE OF HEARING : 12.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.02 .2019 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A. M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE I S DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 56, MUMBAI (LD.CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 24.01.2015 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2012 - 13. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 FOR INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN IN PURCHASE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN PANAMA AND THUS ALLOWING THE SHIFTING OF TAX BASE OF INDI A TO FOREIGN COUNTRY, WHEREAS PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT EXTENDS TO INDIA ONLY AND NOT EXTRA TERRITORIAL?' 2. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED BY NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AMERICAN HOTEL & LODGING ASSOCIATION EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE VS. CBDT(2008 170 TAXMAN 306 SC) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTIONS U/S 10(23C)(VI), 'NON PROFIT' QUALIFICATION HAS TO BE TESTED ON INDIAN ACTIVITIES AND APPLYING THE SAME PRINCIPLE, FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 54, IT OUGHT TO BE AGAINST A FLAT IN INDIA, THOUGH THE WORDS IN INDIA' ARE NOT EXPRESSLY MENTIONED?' 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: 2 ITA NO.2919/MUM/2017 THE ASSESSEE IS A NRI AND RESIDES IN TAIWAN. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE INSTANT ASST. YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, INCOME UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN AND INCOME FROM THE OTHER SOURCES. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD A PROPERTY IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2012 - 13 AND THE SALE PROCEEDING HAS BEEN UTILIZE D IN BUYING THE NEW PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE BENEFIT OF THE EXEMPTION OF SEC U/S 54 OF THE I.T. ACT BY REPURCHASING THE NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING. THUS, A NIL INCOME IS DECLARED UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A. Y. 2012 - 13. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE INSTANT ASST. YEAR AND THE COMPUTATION OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS PERUSED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE PROPERTY AT RS.3,61,50,000/ - WHICH WAS LOCATED AT AQUARIUS TOWER IN BANDRA, MUMBAI. THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS CALCULATED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER REDUCING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION FROM THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATIONS THEREBY DECLARING THE GAIN OF RS.2,50,41,113 UNDER THE HEAD LTCG. THE ASSESSEE BOUGHT THE NEW RESIDEN TIAL HOUSE AT A PRICE OF RS. 3,62,81,700. THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS PURCHASED IN PANAMA, A FOREIGN COUNTRY. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, CLAIMED THE EXEMPTIONS U/S SEC. 54 OF THE I.T. ACT AND DECLARED NIL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN. 5 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O. FOR SHORT) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE INVESTMENT SHOULD BE IN INDIA AND NOT ABROAD FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54. HENCE, HE DID NOT GRANT THE EXEMPTION. THE A.O. HELD AS UNDER: THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSE E IS READ. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSES IN THE SUBMISSION IS THAT THE LAW CONCERNING THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RECENTLY AMENDED TO RESTRICT INVESTMENT IN 3 ITA NO.2919/MUM/2017 PROPERTY ABROAD TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF I.T. ACT ITSELF IMPLIES THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS ALLOWED T O CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF THE EXEMPTION. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TENABLE AT ALL. WHEN RESTRICTION IS BROUGHT IN THE ACT FOR INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY ABROAD ITSELF INDICATES THAT THE PROCESS OF INVESTMENT WAS ON THE WRONG TRACK. IT HAS BEEN INT ERPRETED AND USED AGAINST THE INTEND AND SPRIT OF THE LEGISLATION FRAMED TO GIVE BENEFIT TO THE TAX PAYERS OF THE COUNTRY. THE 'INCOME TAX ACT' IS PROMULGATED BY THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND WENT ON THROUGH THE PROCESS OF INSERTION AND DELETION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS AND SECTIONS THROUGH THE BILLS PASSED BY THE PARLIAMENT ON PROPOSALS KEPT BEFORE THE HOUSE IN THE BUDGET SESSION. THE PROPOSALS ARE MADE AFTER THE SAME WERE STUDIED AS PER THE CHANGING ECONOMIC SCENARIO IN THE COUNTRY AND WS IMPACT ON THE INDIAN SOCIETY. ANY EXEMPTION UNDER THE ACT IS A PRE - THOUGHT IN THE CONTEXT OF ECONOMICAL AND FISCAL IMPACT INVOLVING WELFARE ANGL E FOR THE CITIZEN OF THE COUNTRY. THE SCOPE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THUS, CONFIDES TO THE LIMIT OF THE TERRITORY OF THE COUNTRY. THE SCOPE OF THE ACT IS ALSO LIMITED SO FAR AS TO TAX THE INCOME ARISING OUT SIDE THE COUNTRY IS CONCERNED. IN A NUTSHELL THE PRO VISIONS OF THE SECTION 54 OF THE I.T. ACT DOES NOT APPLY IN PANAMA AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE I.T. ACT. FURTHER THE DECISION OF THE ITAT CHENNAI IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR TWO REASONS - I. IT IS NOT THE DECISION OF THE JURIS DICTIONAL COURT AND II. THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IS NOT A FINAL ONE, HENCE IT HAS NO BINDING EFFECT ON THE DEPARTMENT IF THE ISSUE IS SUB - JUDIES IN EVEN HIGHER COURT. IN THE CASE OF THE THE DECISION OF MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF PREMA SHAH THE DEPARTMENT N ORMALLY TAKES CONTRARY STAND. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE CAPITAL GAIN TO THE EXTENT OF AMOUNT INVOLVED IN PURCHASING THE HOUSE IN PANAMA IS NOT ALLOWABLE. THE CAPITAL GAIN CLAIMED EXEMPTED U/S 54 OF RS. RS.25041113 IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE SAME IS ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. UPON THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY NOT ING THE FOLLOWING DECISION S OF THE TRIBUNAL: 1. N. RANGANATHAN VS. ITO [2014] 56 CHENNAI TRIBUNA L, ITAT CHENNAI BENCH C. 2. MRS. PREMA SHAH VS. ITO [2006] 100 ITD 60 (MUM). 7. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT SECTION 54 HAS BEEN AMENDED FROM A.Y. 2014 - 15 TO RESTRICT THE EXEMPTION FOR INVESTMENT IN INDIA. HE ALSO ACCEPTED THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT RETROSPECTIVE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO THE TRANSACTION IN A.Y. 2011 - 12 WHEN THE SA ID AMENDMENT WAS NOT DECLARED. THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED AS UNDER: IN CONTRAST TO THE ABOVE THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT, THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD A PROPERTY DURING THE YEAR UNDER REVIEW. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN ORDER TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 THE APPELLANT RE - INVESTED THE CAPITAL GAINS IN A NEW 4 ITA NO.2919/MUM/2017 PROPERTY. THE NEW PROPERTY WAS BOUGHT AT PANAMA. FURTHER, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT A COPY OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT OF THE NEW PROPERTY AT PANAMA ALONG WITH THE TRANSLATED COPY IN ENG LISH VIDE SUBMISSIONS DATED 2 ND SEPTEMBER 2014 AND 12 TH FEBRUARY 2015 RESPECTIVELY IS SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT A PLAIN READING OF THE SECTION WOULD MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO INVEST IN A NEW ASSET FOR CLAIMING EXEM PTION BENEFIT UNDER THIS SECTION. THE SECTION NOWHERE MENTIONS THE LOCATION OF THE ASSET TO BE PURCHASED. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO STATED THAT APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 SINCE THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RE - INVESTED AS PRESCRIBED BY THE SAID SECTION. SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT ALSO REFLECT THAT THE LAW HAS BEEN RECENTLY AMENDED IN THE FINANCE BILL 2014 - 15 TO RESTRICT INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY ABROAD TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54, ITSELF IMPLIES THAT THE SAID INVES TMENT WAS ALLOWED TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF THE EXEMPTION. HOWEVER, THE AMENDMENT IS NOT RETROSPECTIVE & THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED IN TO THIS TRANSACTION IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011 - 12 WHEN THE SAID AMENDMENT WAS NOT DECLARED. HENCE, THE APPELLANT IS A BONAFID E TAX PAYER AND SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE TAKEN EFFECT SUBSEQUENTLY. FURTHERMORE, THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS WHICH UPHOLD THE DECISION THAT CLAIM UNDER SECTION 54 FOR DEDUCTION CANNOT BE REJECTED ON GR OUNDS THAT NEW HOUSE WAS PURCHASED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, IN CURRENCY OF SAID COUNTRY AND PURCHASE AMOUNT WAS MORE THAN SALE PROCEEDS OF INDIAN HOUSE PROPERTY. THE SAID RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: N. RANGANATHAN V INCOME TAX OFFICER [2014 ] 56 CHENNAI TRIBUNAL ITAT CHENNAI BENCH 'C' MRS. PREMA SHAH V INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4) [2006] 100 ITD 60 (MUM), ITAT MUMBAI BENCH ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT & RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT OF THE EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 54 SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 8. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE MAY GAINFULLY REFER TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH READS AS UNDER: PROFIT ON SALE OF PROPERTY USED FOR RESIDENCE. 54. (1) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (2), WHERE, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEI NG AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG - TERM CAPITAL ASSET, BEING BUILDINGS OR LANDS APPURTENANT THERETO, AND BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THE INCOME OF WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET), AND THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE PURCHASED, OR HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THAT DATE CONSTRUCTED, ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN INDIA, THEN, INSTEAD OF THE CAPITAL GAIN BEING CHARGED TO INCOME - TAX AS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, IT SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SEC TION, THAT IS TO SAY, ( I ) IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS GREATER THAN THE COST OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SO PURCHASED OR CONSTRUCTED (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE NEW ASSET), THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AND THE COST OF THE 5 ITA NO.2919/MUM/2017 NEW ASSET SHALL BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSET ANY CAPI TAL GAIN ARISING FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COST SHALL BE NIL ; OR ( II ) IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN SH ALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 ; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSET ANY CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COST SHALL BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN. (2) THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET TOOK PLACE, OR WHICH IS NOT UTILISED BY HIM FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139, SHALL BE DEPOSITED BY HIM BEFORE FURNISHING SUCH RETURN [SUCH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UN DER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 ] IN AN ACCOUNT IN ANY SUCH BANK OR INSTITUTION AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN, AND UTILISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, ANY SCHEME WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, FRAME IN THIS BEHALF AND SUCH RETURN SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF SUCH DEPOSIT; AND, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB - SECTION (1), THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, ALREADY UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURC HASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET : PROVIDED THAT IF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED UNDER THIS SUB - SECTION IS NOT UTILISED WHOLLY OR PARTLY FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB - SECTION (1), THEN, ( I ) THE AMOUNT NOT SO UTILISED SHALL BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET EXPIRES; AND ( II ) THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW SUCH AMOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME AFORESAID. EXPLANATION . [ OMITTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1992, W .E.F. 1 - 4 - 1993. ] 10. HERE IT IS NOTED THAT FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014 W.E.F. 01.04.2015 HAS SUBSTITUTED THE WORD CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITH CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN INDIA . 11. THUS PRIOR TO THIS AMENDMENT, THE EXEMPTION WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO CONSTRUCTION/INVESTMENT IN INDIA. THE EXTANT PROVISION OF THE ACT WAS EXAMINED IN THE DECISIONS AS REFERRED ABOVE BY THE ITAT AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE INVESTMENT ABROAD MEETS THE REQUIREMEN T OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54. THESE DECISIONS WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. AS HE OBSERVED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THESE DECISIONS. 6 ITA NO.2919/MUM/2017 12. NOW THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL RAISING THE GROUND THAT WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED BY NOT F OLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AMERCIAN HOTEL & LODGING ASSOCIATION EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE VS. CBDT (2008) 170 TAXMAN 306 (SC) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTIONS U/S.10(23C)(VI), NON PROFIT QUALIFICATION HAS TO BE TESTED ON INDIAN ACTIVITIES AND APPLYING THE SAME PRINCIPLE, FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 54, IT OUGHT TO BE AGAINST A FLAT IN INDIA, THOUGH THE WORDS IN INDIA ARE NOT EXPRESSLY MENTIONED? 13. WE FIND THAT THE SAID CASE LAW FROM THE HON'BLE APEX COURT WAS RENDERED IN A DIFFERENT CONTEX T AND ON DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS. W E FIND THAT THE SPECIFIC PROVISION OF SECTION 54 AS IT IS STOOD PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT WAS EXAMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS HELD THA T TH E INVESTMENT ABROAD SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54. NO CONTRARY DECISION HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX [2012] 340 ITR 53 (DEL) H AS EXPOUNDED THAT NON CONSIDERATION OF A CO - ORDINATE BENCH ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WILL RESULT IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER SUFFERING FROM MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. ACCORDINGLY IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECE DENT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 14. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 8 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 9 S D / - S D / - ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 1 8 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 9 ROSHANI , SR. PS 7 ITA NO.2919/MUM/2017 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT - CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI