RASA TECHNOLOGY, MUMBAI V. JCIT ,21(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3077/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0479 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARJU GARODIA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of cross examination; Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3); 6; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES J , MUMBAI BEFORE S HRI G.S. PANNU (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 3077 /MUM/20 1 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 2012 M/S RASA TECHNOLOGY, C/O M/S. RAVI & DEV CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 601, A WING, AURUS CHAMBERS, BEHIND MAHINDRA TOWERS, S.S. AMRUTWAR MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI 400013 PAN: AAJFR1935Q VS. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX 21(3), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) & ITA NO. 3442 /MUM/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 2012 THE ASSTT. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR - 26(2), ROOM NO. 501, BLDG, C - 11, 5 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSH KAR BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI - 400051 VS. M/S RASA TECHNOLOGY, 501, SOLARIS II, OPP. L & T GATE NO. 06, SAKI VIHAR ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI - 400072 PAN: AAJF R1935Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA (A R) RESPONDENT BY : MS. ARJU GARODIA (D R) DATE OF HEARING: 02/03 /201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31 / 0 5 /201 7 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEG I, JM THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AGAINST ORDER DATED 30/03 /2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX 2 ITA NO S . 3077 & 3442 /MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 2012 (APPEALS) - 38 , MUMBAI, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, WHEREBY THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT). ITA NO. 3077 /MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 2012 ) 2. BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING AND TRADING, MANUFACTURING OF PLASTIC MOULDS MACHINES AND MACHINE PARTS, STEEL SCRAP E TC . FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 24,67,504/ - . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED AN D AFTER SCRUTINY THE AO DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 2,35,92,300/ - AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 2,11,24,797/ - ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASE S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S WHITE STONE TRADING PVT. LTD. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 26,40,600/ - BY APPLYING ESTIMATED NET PROFIT @ 12.5% ON THE AFORESAID TRANSACTIONS. AGAINST THE SAID ORD ER BOTH ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE A TRIBUNAL. 3 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A): - THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (AP PEALS) - 38, MUMBAI IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961, BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, 21(3), MUMBAI IS BOTH BAD - IN - LAW AND BAD - IN - FACTS. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES FROM WHITESTONE T RADING PVT. LTD.: RS. 26,40,600/ - 3 ITA NO S . 3077 & 3442 /MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 2012 1.0 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 26,40,600/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION), MUMBAI, BY TREATING GENUINE PURCHASE OF STEEL OF RS. 2,11,24,797/ - FROM WHITESTONE TRADING PVT. LTD. AS BOGUS AND APPLYING ESTIMATED NET PROFIT @ 12.5% ON THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS. 2.1 IN DOING SO, HE IGNORED THE VITAL FACTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PROVIDE TO THE ASSESSE: (A) THE COPIES OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, IF ANY, FOUND AND SEIZED IN THE CASE OF WHITESTONE TRADING PVT. LTD. ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION), MUMBAI HELD ASSESSEES TRANSACTION WITH THESE PARTIES AS BOGUS, (B) THE COPIES OF STATEMENTS RECORDED IN THE CASE OF WHITESTONE TRADING PVT. LTD., (C) THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF WHITESTONE TRADING PVT. LTD. AND (D) THE OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE INTERFERENCE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE . 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED STEEL FROM WHITE STONE TRADING PVT. LTD. FOR RS. 2,11,24,797/ - AND SOLD TO BHARAT UDYOG LT D. FOR RS. 2,11,42,895/ - THE MATERIAL WAS NOT RECEIVED AT THE ASSESSEES GODOWN BUT DIRECTLY DELIVERED TO BHARAT UDYOG LTD. BY M/S WHITE STONE TRADING PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE EARNED A PROFIT OF RS. 18,098/ - . THE AO TREATED THE ENTIRE PURCHASES AS BOGUS ON T HE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DGIT (INV.) MUMBAI THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED GOODS FROM WHITE STONE TRADING PVT. 4 ITA NO S . 3077 & 3442 /MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 2012 LTD. WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN HAWALA TRANSACTIONS. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED TH E ACTION OF THE AO OF TREATING THE ENTIRE PURCHASE AS FICTITIOUS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS INCLUDING COPY OF PURCHASES INVOICES OF WHITE STONE TRADING PVT LTD., COPY OF SALE INVOICES FOR SALE MAD E TO BHARAT UDYOG LTD., COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS REFLECTING PAYMENTS MADE TO WHITE STONE TRADING PVT. LTD., COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS REFLECTING RECEIVED FROM BHARAT UDYOG LTD., COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF WHITE STONE TRADING PVT. LTD., FORM 32 RE GARDING DIRECTORSHIP AND FORM 18 REGARDING REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE COMPANY, COPY OF LEISURE OF WHITE STONE TRADING PVT. IN BHARAT UDYOG LTD. IN THE ASSESSES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND STOCK STATEMENT AND QUANTITATIVE TALLY. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT IF A PARTY IS A VAT DEFAULTER IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE PURCHASES MADE FROM SUCH PARTY IS NOT GENUINE OR FICTITIOUS. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER PROVIDED WITH THE MATERIAL RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE INVESTIGATING WING NOR WAS GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE SUPPLIERS . 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE , THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF THE PURCHASES FROM WHITE STONE TRADING PVT. LTD. WERE NOT GENUINE, THE AO SHOULD HAVE TREATED THE S ALE TO BHARAT UDY OG LTD. AS NOT GENUINE . IN OTHER WORDS, BOTH THE TRANSACTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ELIMINATE D TO ARRIVE AT THE ACTUAL TOTAL INCOME AND ADDITION CAN BE MADE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF COMMISSION ON SUCH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD C OUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF THE SALE TO BHARAT UDYOG LTD. WAS GENUINE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE SUPPLIED GOODS TO IT DEFINITELY BY ARRANGING THE SAME FROM THE OPEN MARKET USING WHITE STONE TRADING L TD. AS A CONDUIT FOR MAKING PAYMENTS IN SUCH SITUATION ALSO PROFIT FROM SUCH SALE CAN BE ESTIMATED. THE LD. COUNSEL RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 216 TAXMANN 171 (B OM ) AND DECISION OF 5 ITA NO S . 3077 & 3442 /MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 2012 ITAT MUMBAI RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJEEV G KA LATHIL VS. DCIT 25 (3) AND SH. GANPATRAJ A SAHGHAVI VS. ACIT 15 (3) AND OTHER DECISIONS RELIED UPON BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 26,40,600/ - CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) BY APPLYING ESTIMATED NET PROFIT @ 12.5% OF THE TOTAL TR ANSACTIONS MAY BE DELETED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) RELYING ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,11,24,797/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS BOGUS PURCHASES. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THE CROSS APPEAL AGAINST THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) TO THE ASSESSEE BY RESTRICTING THE ADDITIO N TO RS. 26,40,600/ - I.E. 12.5% OF THE TOTAL TRANSACTION. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US INCLUDING THE CASES RELIED ON BY THE PARTIE S . IN THIS CASE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE DGIT (INV.) MUMBAI, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED GOODS FROM WHITE STONE TRADING PVT. LTD. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THE SAID WHITE STONE TRADING PVT. LTD WAS FOUND ENGAGED IN HAWALA T RANSACTIONS. ACCORDINGLY , THE AO HAS MADE AN ENQUIRY DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE, T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SUPPLIER , AND FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE AO TREATED THE ENTIRE PURCHASE FROM WHITE STONE TRADING PVT. LTD. AS FICTITIOUS AND ADDED THE TOTAL AMOUNT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION BY APPLYING ESTIMATED NET PROFIT @ 12.5% ON THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A ) READS AS UNDER: - 6 ITA NO S . 3077 & 3442 /MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 2012 THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE SHOW THAT APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE EITHER CONFIRMATION OR THE PARTY FROM WHOM GOODS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED. THE SUPPLIER WAS F OUND TO BE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS BILLS WITHOUT ACTUAL DEALING OF GOODS AS PER THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES. FURTHER, THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE SALES MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO M/S. BHARAT UDYOG LTD. THEREFORE, IF SALES ARE NOT DOUBTED THEN THE APPELLANT HAS DEFINITELY MADE THE PURCHASES. HENCE PURCHASES PER SE CANNOT BE DOUBTED. HOWEVER, WHAT IS UNDER DISPUTE IS THE PURCHASES FROM THE PARTY WHOM BILLS HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND CHEQUES HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO IT. PURCHASES PER SE ARE NOT I N DISPUTE BUT THE PARTY FROM WHOM PURCHASES ARE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE ARE DISPUTED AND SUSPICIOUS. THE CASE OF THE AO IS THAT THE APPELLANT TOOK ONLY BILLS FROM THIS PARTY TO EXPLAIN THE PURCHASES MADE ALBEIT FROM OPEN MARKET. MERELY BECAUSE THE SUPPLIER DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO OR THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS WERE NOT FURNISHED, ONE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PURCHASES WERE NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES VS. CIT 216 TAXMAN 171 (BOM) (SUPRA). THI S BEING SO THE ENTIRE PURCHASES FROM THE PARTY M/S. WHITESTONE TRADING P. LTD. CANNOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS AND ADDED TO INCOME BECAUSE WHAT NEEDS TO BE TAXED IS THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH TRANSACTION. (RELIANCE IS PLACE ON DECISION OF CIT VS. BHOLA NATH POLYFAB PVT. LTD. [2013] 355 ITR 290 )(GUJ). ESTIMATION OF PROFIT RANGING FROM 12.5% TO 15% HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON GUJARAT HIGH COURT DEPENDING UPON THE NATURE OF BUSINESS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF SIMIT P. SHETH (SUPRA) AND CONSIDER ING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 12.5% WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THEREFORE, I DIRECT THE AO TO ESTIMATE PROFIT OF 12.5% ON THE TOTAL ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS. 26,40,600/ - (12.5% OF 2,11,24, 797/ - ). THE APPELLANT THEREFORE GETS THE RELIEF OF RS. 1,84,84,197. (RS. 2,11,24,797 RS. 26,40,600). THE GROUND IS RAISED IS PARTLY ALLOWED . 8. WE NOTICE THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE HELD THE PURCHASES FROM M/S WHITE STONE TRADING PVT. LTD. AS BOG US BECAUSE THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE SPOT ENQUIRY 7 ITA NO S . 3077 & 3442 /MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 2012 CONDUCTED BY THE INSPECTORS OF INCOME TAX REVEALED THAT THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES FROM VARIOUS PARTIES WERE NOT GENUINE. THE SUPPLIER WAS FOUND TO B E ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS BILLS WITHOUT SELLING THE GOODS. SECONDLY, DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED, THE ASSESSEE FA ILED TO PRODUCE THE PARTY TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THE BASIS OF ENQUIRY CONDUCTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THE SALES ARE NOT DOUBTED BY THE AO , THE LD. CIT(A) PRESUM ING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE GOODS FROM SOME OTHER SUPPLIERS AND BOGUS BILLS WERE OBTAINED FROM M/S WHI TE STONE TRADING PVT. LTD. RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 12.5% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY RELIED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. NIKUNJ EXIMP . ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. , 372 ITR 619 (BOM) AND HELD THAT WHEN THE SALES ARE NOT DOUBTED THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT ON PURCHASE S . HOWEVER, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE ASSESSEES CASE IS NOT FULLY COVERED BY THE DECISION RENDERED IN NIKUNJ EXIMP. ENTERPRI SES PVT. LTD (SUPRA) AS THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DIFFEREN T. SO FAR AS THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT IS CONCERNED, T HE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT RANGING FROM 12% TO 15 % DEPENDING UPON THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS IN SIMIT P SHATH , 356 ITR 451 ( GUJ ) . HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF LAW. WE , THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) TO INTERFERE WITH THE SA ME. A CCORDINGLY , WE UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 3442 /MUM/2015 (ASSE SSMENT Y EAR: 2011 - 2012 ) THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A): - 8 ITA NO S . 3077 & 3442 /MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 2012 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT @ 12.5% ON THE TOTAL BOGUS PURCHASES AS AGAINST 100% TAKEN BY THE A.O. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT INSPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BEING PROVIDED BY THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRODUCED THE HAWALA PARTY NOR FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THE SAID HAWALA PARTY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT AS PER ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT A S WELL AS SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA, THE HAWALA PARTY DID NOT SUPPLY ANY GOODS BUT ISSUED ONLY FAKE BILLS GIVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. SINCE, WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. WE , THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS INFRUCTUOUS. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE R E VE NUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 A RE DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 31 ST MAY , 2017 . SD/ - SD/ - ( G.S. PANNU ) ( RAM LAL NEGI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 31 / 0 5 / 2017 ALINDRA PS 9 ITA NO S . 3077 & 3442 /MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 2012 / 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