ITO (IT) 2(3)(1), MUMBAI V. NEETA DEEPAK GANDHI, MUMBAI

ITA 3025/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2780 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R C MODI; KETKI RAJESHIRKE
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 54

Judgement Text

P A G E | 1 ITA NO. 3025/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2012 - 13 INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 2(3)(1) VS. SMT. NEETA DEEPAK GANDHI IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3025 /MUM/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) - 2(3)(1) 17 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 1727, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 102 . VS. SMT. NEETA DEEPAK GANDHI 2503, TOWER A, IMPERIAL HEIGHTS, OSHIWARA, ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI 400102 PAN AAKPG0276E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SINGH, D.R RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R.C. MODI & MS. KETKI RAJESHIRKE , A.R S DATE OF HEARING: 1 4 .02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNC EMENT: 2 7 .02.2019 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A ) - 56, MUMBAI , DATED 18.01.2017, WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT IT ACT), DATED 28.03.2015 FOR A.Y. P A G E | 2 ITA NO. 3025/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2012 - 13 INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 2(3)(1) VS. SMT. NEETA DEEPAK GANDHI 2011 - 12. THE REVENUE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ER RED IN GRANTING EXEMPTION U/S 54 WHEN THE LEGAL TITLE IN THE PROPERTY WAS NOT PASSED OR TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE W ITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GRANTING EXEMPTION U/S 54 EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OF POSSESSION OF THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT EVEN AFTER 5 YEARS OF THE SALE OF THE OLD FL AT, I.E. UP TO THE PASSING OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS - BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE HAD E - FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 ON 25.07.2012 , DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.4,24,529/ - . T HE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED AS SUCH UNDER SEC. 143(1) OF THE IT ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(2). 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A . O THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN HER RETURN OF INCOME STATED TO HAVE EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (FOR SHORT LTCG) OF RS. 2,21,50,000/ - ON SALE OF A RESIDENTIAL FLAT SITUATED AT VIJAYADEEP CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, PLOT NO. 102, VILLAGE : BANDRA, 10 TH ROAD, KHAR WEST ON 14.11.2011 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2,40,00,000/ - . T HE A.O NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE AFORESAID LTCG AS EXEMPT UNDER SEC. 54 OF THE IT ACT FOR THE REASON THAT SHE HAD PURCHASE D A NEW RES IDENTIAL FLAT VIZ. B - 702, WINDSO R GRANDE RE SIDENCES, GOREGAON WEST, MUMBAI, VIDE A REGISTERED AGREEMENT , DATED 06.06.2012 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 4,85,41,660/ - FROM M/S WINDSOR REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED (FOR SHORT BUILDER) . IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT OUT OF THE AFORESAID PURCHASE CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID AN AMOUNT OF P A G E | 3 ITA NO. 3025/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2012 - 13 INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 2(3)(1) VS. SMT. NEETA DEEPAK GANDHI RS.3,62,34,230/ - TO THE BUILDER TILL THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF HER RETURN OF INCOME , WHILE FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 92,78,100/ - WAS PAID SUBSEQUENTLY . IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PUT INTO POSSESSION OF THE NEW RESIDENTIAL FLAT VIZ. B - 702, WINDS O R GRANDE RE SIDENCES, GOREGAON WEST, MUMBAI , DUE TO AN INTERNAL DISPUTE BETWEEN THE AFORESAID COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTOR. THE A.O HOLDING A CONVICTION THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE POSSESSION OF THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF 2 YEARS, T HEREFORE, SHE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SEC.54 OF THE IT ACT. ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS THE A.O DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC.54 AND ASSESSED HER TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 2,94,24,530/ - . 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) AFTER DELIBERATING AT LENGTH ON THE CONTENTION S ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO T HE SAME, AND OBSERVED AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSID E RED THE FACT OF THE CASE, SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE A.O. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND HAD EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AMOU N TI N G TORS.2,21,50,000/ - FROM SUCH SALE. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED AN EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 OF THE SAID AMOUNT WHICH WAS COMPUTED A S FOLLOWS: PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS) SALES CONSIDERATION ON THE FLAT SOLD ON 14.11.2011 2,40,00,000/ - LESS: INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION (15,75,000/ - ) LESS: TRANSFER EXPENSES (2,75,000/ - ) LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN 2,21,50,000/ - HOWEVER, THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID FLAT IS NOT RECEIVED DUE TO THE INTERNAL DISPUTE BETWEEN THE DIRECTOR OF WINDSOR REALTY PVT . LTD AND THE BUILDER COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 2,21,50,000/ - U/S 54 OF THE ACT ON HE GROUND THAT SINCE THE POSSESSION OF THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT IS NOT RECEIVED WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD OF TWO Y EARS, IT IS NOT P A G E | 4 ITA NO. 3025/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2012 - 13 INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 2(3)(1) VS. SMT. NEETA DEEPAK GANDHI CONSIDERED AS THE PURCHASES OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL FLAT WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE WORD 'PURCHASE' USED IN SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 54 IS NOT RESTRICTED OR CONFINED TO REGISTERED SALE DEED OR EV EN POSSESSION BUT HAS A WIDER CONNOTATION, THUS WHERE THE APPELLANT HAD EN TERED INTO AN AGREEMENT BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE PAYMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ARE MADE TO THE BUILDER WITHIN TWO YEARS FOR PU RCHASE OF PROPERTY, THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 54, EVEN WHEN LEGAL TITLE IN PROPERTY WAS NOT PASSED OR TRANSFERRED TO APPELLANT WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM DATE OF SALE OF THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT. FURTHER THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS DULY MADE THE INVESTMENT BY MAKING PAYMENTS TO THE BUILDER FOR ACQUISITION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL FLAT. THE APPELLANT INTENDED TO MAKE THE PAYMENTS TO THE BUILDER TO ACQUIRE THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE PAYMENTS WER E MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO THE BUILDER TO ACQUIRE THE RIGHT OF PURCHASE IN THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT. THE DELAY IN THE POSSESSION OF THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT CAUSED ON ACCOUNT OF INTERNAL DISPUTE BETWEEN THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUILDER COMPANY AND THE BUILDER COMPANY I S BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT RECEIVED THE LEGAL TITLE OF THE SAID RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. ALSO, I HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT WHICH STATE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE BEN EFITS CLAIMED IF THE CASE FALLS WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED SUBSTANTIAL DOMAIN OVER THE FLAT IN QUESTION UNDER THE AGREEMENT WITH THE SOCIETY COUPLED WITH THE PAYMENT OF ALMOST THE ENTIRE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AND POSSESSION OF THE FLAT WAS NOT GIVEN WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO HELD IN THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ABOVE THAT, POSSESSION IS MERE FORMALITY AND ACCORDINGLY EXEMPTION WAS GRANTED. THE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON: CIT VS. MRS. HILLA J. B . WADIA (216 ITR 376) BOM HC. HASMUKH N GALA, MUMBAI VS. ITO, ITAT NO: 7512 / MUM /2013 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. 5. THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PUT INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE NEW RESIDENTIAL FLAT, THEREFORE, THE A.O HAD RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT SHE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDE R SEC. 54 OF THE IT ACT. P A G E | 5 ITA NO. 3025/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2012 - 13 INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 2(3)(1) VS. SMT. NEETA DEEPAK GANDHI THE LD. D.R RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) BY MISCONCEIVING THE FACTS AND THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW HAD ERRED IN DISLODGING THE WELL REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT SEC. 54 OF THE IT ACT ENVISAGED INVESTMENT BY AN ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AS A PRE - CONDITION FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION. IT WAS AVERRED BY THE LD. AR THAT POSSESSION OF TH E PROPERTY WAS NOT A SINE QUA NON FOR ENTITLING AN ASSESSEE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION CONTEMPLATING UNDER SEC.54. APART THEREFROM, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE COULD NOT BE DELIVERED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR NO FAULT ON HER PART, BUT FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS AN INTERNAL DISPUTE B ETWEEN THE COMPAN Y VIZ. WINDSO R REALTY PVT. LTD. I.E THE BUILDER AND ITS DIRECTOR. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS DELIVERED TO THE ASSESSEE SU BSEQUENTLY I.E AS ON 11.07.2017 . IN ORDER TO FORTIFY HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION THAT THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD ENVISAGED IN SEC. 54 OF THE IT ACT, THE LD. A.R DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF THE REGISTE RED DEED , DATED 06.11.2017 EVIDENCING THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WELL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD A S ENVISAGED IN SEC. 54, THUS HER CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION UNDER THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION WAS WELL IN ORDER AND HAD RIGHTLY BEEN ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) . 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUT HORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A RESIDENTIAL P A G E | 6 ITA NO. 3025/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2012 - 13 INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 2(3)(1) VS. SMT. NEETA DEEPAK GANDHI HOUSE ON 14.11.2011 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2,40,00,000/ - . THE LTCG OF RS. 2,21,50,000/ - WORKED OUT ON THE SALE OF THE AF OREMENTIONED PROPERTY WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC. 54 FOR THE REASON THAT SHE HAD PURCHASE D A NEW RES IDENTIAL HOUSE I.E B - 702, WINDSO R GRANDE RESIDENCES, GOREGAON WEST, MUMBAI , VIDE A REGISTERED AGREEMENT DATED 06.06.2012 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 4,85,41,660/ - . ON A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS IT STANDS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE TI LL THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF HER RETURN OF INCOME HAD MADE A PAYMENT OF RS. 3,62,34,230/ - TO THE BUILDER, WHILE FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 92,78,100/ - WAS PAID SUBSEQUENTLY. IT IS A MATTER OF FACT DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT DUE TO AN INTERNAL DISPUTE BETWEEN THE AFORESAID SELLER COMPANY I.E. WINDS O R REALTY PVT. LTD. AND ITS DIRECTOR, THE POSSESSION OF THE AFOREMENTIONED RESIDENTIAL FLAT WAS NOT DELIVERED TO THE ASSESSEE UP TO 11.07.2017. THE A.O BEING OF THE VIEW THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN THE POSSESSION OF THE AFOREMENTIONE D NEW RESIDENTIAL FLAT WITHIN A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS ENVISAGED IN SEC.54 OF THE IT AC T , THUS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBL E FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 54 IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT SO MADE BY HER. 8. WE HAVE DELIBERATED AT LENGTH ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O. ON A PERUSAL OF SEC. 54 OF THE IT ACT , IT STANDS REVEALED THAT THE EXEMPTION THEREIN PROVIDED IS AVAILABLE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE PURCHASE D , OR H AS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THAT DATE CONSTRUCTED, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW , AS PER THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAD WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD PURCHASED THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THEN HE WOULD DULY STAND ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE P A G E | 7 ITA NO. 3025/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2012 - 13 INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 2(3)(1) VS. SMT. NEETA DEEPAK GANDHI A FORESAID STATUTORY PROVISION SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF THE OTHER CONDITIONS THEREIN PROVIDED. WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O THAT IN CASE WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAD PURCHA SED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THE TIME PER IOD ENVISAGED UNDER SEC.54, BUT HAD NOT TAKEN POSSESSION O F THE SAME WITHIN THE SAID PERIOD , HE WOULD FOR THE SAID REASON STAND DISENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION. WE ARE OF A STRONG CONVICTION THAT AS THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE BEFORE US HAD PURCHASED THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD STIPULATED IN SEC.54 OF THE IT ACT I.E WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE OLD RESIDENTIAL HOSE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED, THUS SHE WAS DULY ENTITLED FOR CLAIM O F EXEMPTION UNDER THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE AFTER PURCHASING THE PROPERTY WAS EITHER NOT PUT INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE SAME BY THE SELLER OR HAD NOT TAKEN THE POSSESSION OF THE SAME FOR ANY OTHER REASON , WOULD IN NO WAY ADVERSELY A FFECT HER ENTITLEMENT TOWARDS CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION. WE MAY HEREIN OBSERVE THAT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE I.E FLAT B - 702, WINDSO R GRANDE RESIDENCES, GOREGAON WEST, MUMBAI , VIDE REGISTERED AGREEMENT DATED 06.06.2012 I.E WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF 2 YEARS F ROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE OLD RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS SOLD BY HER ON 14.11.2011 IS NOT IN DISPUTE BEFORE US. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE CIT(A) AFTER DULY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE BACKDROP OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW HAD RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY COMPLIED WITH THE REQUISITE CONDITIONS CONTEMPLATED IN SEC.54 OF THE IT ACT, HENCE HER CLAIM O F EXEMPTION UNDER THE SAID STATUTORY PROVISION WAS WELL IN ORDER. WE THUS FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), UPHOLD THE SAME. P A G E | 8 ITA NO. 3025/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2012 - 13 INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 2(3)(1) VS. SMT. NEETA DEEPAK GANDHI 9. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. ORDER PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT ON 2 7 .02.2019 S D / - S D / - ( MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ) ( RAVISH SOOD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 2 7 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 9 PS. ROHIT / 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 . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI P A G E | 9 ITA NO. 3025/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2012 - 13 INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 2(3)(1) VS. SMT. NEETA DEEPAK GANDHI