PARUL ROY, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 20(2)(3) & CIT(A) XXXIX,

ITA 3086/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8085 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMBIT MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: UMESH NARVEKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 27; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH J,MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3086/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2008-09) MS PARUL ROY A/202, HIRAL GREENS, DISSHIVINAYAK NAGAR, PANDURANGWADI ROAD, NEAR LODHA COMPLEX, MIRA ROAD (EAST), THANE- 401104 PAN: ADGPR6359C VS. ITO 20(2)(3) MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI UMESH NARVEKAR (AR) REVENUE BY : SHRI SAMBIT MISHRA ( DR) DATE OF HEARING : 16.02.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.03.2017 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. THIS APPEAL U/S 253 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT (THE ACT ) IS DIRECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [FOR SHORT THE CIT(A)] 39, MUMBAI DATED 25.02.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 10 GROUNDS OF AP PEAL, BUT MOST OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE EITHER ARGUMENTATIVE OR GENERAL IN NATUR E. HOWEVER, AS PER OUR CONSIDERED OPINION ONLY 3 SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL EMERGE S FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE. (I) IF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. (II) IF THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,65,720/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, ADDED ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION. (III) IF THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 33,18,100/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION. 2 ITA NO. 3085 /M/2015 MS PA RUL ROY 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR RELEVANT AY ON 20.08.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOM E OF RS. 8,77,100/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 2 8.12.2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAD E THE ADDITION OF RS. 33,18,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDITION OF RS. 5,22,213/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. BOTH THE ADDI TIONS WERE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION. ON APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT WAS SUSTAINED. HOWEV ER, ON THE ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE ASSESSEE WAS RESTR ICTING TO RS. 4,65,720/- BY GIVING PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL BY ASSESSEE THAT NO PROPER AND VALID NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS SERVED, WAS A LSO REJECTED BY LD. CIT(A). FURTHER AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER LD. CIT(A). FURTHER AGGRIEV ED BY THE ORDER OF LD COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE P RESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR ) OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE AN D PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO THE SERVICE OF NO TICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF NOTICE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS INVALID. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE INVITED ARE ATTENTION AT PAGE 44 & 45 OF THE PAPER BOOK (PB ) FILED BY ASSESSEE. THE PAGE NO. 44 OF THE PB, IS THE COPY OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) DAT ED 28.08.2010 AND PAGE NO. 45 IS THE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD (AD) OF REGISTERED NOTICE [NOTICE UNDER SECTION143(3)]. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE COPY OF AD CARD AND THE COPY OF NOTICE WHICH WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESS EE DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDING. THE COPY OF AD CARD (PB-45) DOES NOT BE AR THE SIGNATURE OF ASSESSEE. ON OUR SPECIFIC QUERY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FAIRL Y ADMITTED THAT THE NOTICE AS WELL AS AD CARD BEARS THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF ASSESSEE. ON T HE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE STRONGLY OPPOSED THE CONTENTION RAISED BY L D. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ARGUED THAT THE NOTICE WAS SENT THROUGH SPEED-POST WITH AD AND WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AS AD CARD WAS RE CEIVED BACK THROUGH POSTAL AUTHORITIES BY AO AFTER SERVICE OF (POSTAL ARTICLE) NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUEN T NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ALSO RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME ADDRESS. THE L D. DR FOR THE REVENUE INVITED OUR 3 ITA NO. 3085 /M/2015 MS PA RUL ROY ATTENTION TO THE REPLY FILED BY ASSESSEE IN RESPONS E TO THE NOTICE U/S 142(1), WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED THAT THE NOTICE WAS RECEI VED THROUGH SECURITY OFFICER OF THE SOCIETY. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BASED ON SELF-SERVING STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE THAT NO NOTICE WAS SERVED. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ARGUED THAT U/S 114(F) O F INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT AND SECTION 27 OF GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, THERE IS PRESUMPTION THA T NOTICE IS SERVED ON THE ADDRESSEE, IF THE NOTICES IS SENT AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS IN TH E USUAL COURSE BY REGISTERED POST, IF THE SAME IS NOT RETURNED BACK BY POSTAL AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE SEEN THE NOTICE DATED 18.08.2010 AND THE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIVED THEREAFTER IN THE OFFICE OF AO. WE HAVE ALSO SEEN THE ORIGINAL OF AD CARD FROM THE RECORD OF AO ALONG WITH THE RECORD OF OTHER NOTICES SENT U/S 142 OF THE ACT. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS SENT AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE ADDRESS MENTIONED ON THE AD CARD. MORE OVER, THERE IS PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 114(F) OF INDIA EVIDENCE ACT AND SECT ION 27 OF GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, THAT IF REGISTERED ARTICLE SENT AT THE CORRECT ADDR ESS IN USUAL COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE, IF NOT RETU RNED BACK UNSERVED. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE GROUND THAT NO PROPER AND V ALID NOTICE WAS SERVED. THERE IS NO CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE THAT NO SUCH NOTIC E U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY AO OR ISSUED AFTER DUE DATE. THE OTHER NOTICE U/ S 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON THE SAME A DDRESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THAT THE OTHER NOTICES U/S 142 WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESSE E HERSELF. ASSESSE E HERSELF HAS DISCLOSED THAT NOTICE U/S 142 WAS RECEI VED THROUGH SECURITY OFFICER OF THE SOCIETY BUILDING ON 27.10.2010. THE PRESUMPTION U/S 27 OF GENERAL CLAUSES ACT AND 114(F) OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT IS REBUTTABLE PRESUMP TION. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION EXCEPT RELYING UPON HER SELF-SERVIN G STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE THAT EITHER SHE WAS NOT AVAI LABLE AT HER ADDRESS DURING THE PERIOD WHEN NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ALLEGEDLY SERVED. THUS, IN OUR VIEW THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE IS NOT PLAUSIBLE AND THE SAME IS REJECT ED. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 5. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 4, 65,720/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION. THE LD. A R OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT NO 4 ITA NO. 3085 /M/2015 MS PA RUL ROY SUFFICIENT TIME WAS GIVEN BY AO TO RECONCILE THE ST ATEMENT OF CERTIFICATE/FORM 16A ISSUED BY THE BANKERS OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDING, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE FRESH FORM-16A AND SU BMITTED THAT DUE TO DATA MIGRATION AND MISTAKE OF THE BANK, THERE IS DUPLICATION IN TH E ENTRY AS TWO DIFFERENT IDS WERE OPENED BY THE BANK WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASS ESSEE. ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) CAL LED THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) NOT CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION UR GED BEFORE HIM AND RESTRICTED THE ADDITION OF INTEREST TO RS. 4,65,720/-, WITHOUT GIV ING FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A FRESH COPY OF FORM-16A (DUPLICATE) WHICH WAS ALLEGEDLY ISSUED ON 30.05.2011 AND SUBMIT TED THAT THE BANKERS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THEIR MISTAKE ABOUT THE DUPLI CATION OF INTEREST ENTRIES. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A) AND WOULD ARGUE THAT LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF BRINGI NG SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO MAKE THE CLARIFY IN THE FACTS ALWAYS TRIED TO CREATE THE CON FUSION. THE ASSESSEE HERSELF ADMITTED BEFORE THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT. DURING THE REMA ND REPORT VIDE HER LETTER DATED 15.07.2011 THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OF RS. 4,65,720/-. THE AO DULY RECORDED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE IN THE REMAND R EPORT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME WAS SUSTAINE D TO RS. 4,65,720/-. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE PART IES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS REC EIVED INTEREST OF RS. 14,87,931/- FROM CENTURION BANK OF PUNJAB LTD . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS DECLARED INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 9,71,310/- ONLY . THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF INTEREST; THE ASSESSEE CO NTENDED THAT THE ENTRY REFLECTED IN THE AIR INFORMATION SEEMS TO BE ERROR AND WRONGLY ADDED IN CALCULATION OF TOTAL INTEREST. THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY AO A ND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ADDED A SUM OF RS. 5,22,213/- IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESS EE DUE TO THE VARIATION IN INTEREST. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE LD. CIT( A) CALLED THE REMAND REPORT OF AO. THE AO SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT. THE AO IN HIS R EMAND REPORT REFERRED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AT RS. 4,65,720/-, THE SAID CONCEALED INCOME WAS INTEREST ON FDS CREATED FROM CURRENT AC COUNT NO 4780, WHICH WAS NOT FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. T HUS, THE ADDITION ON VARIATION IS TO 5 ITA NO. 3085 /M/2015 MS PA RUL ROY BE SUSTAINED. THE AO FURTHER REFERRED IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TWO CUSTOMERS ID WITH HIS BANKER AND ASSESSEE HAS ESCAP ED (CONCEALED) THE TDS CERTIFICATE FROM 2 ND CUSTOMER ID FROM HIS CURRENT ACCOUNT. AFTER CONSID ERING THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE AND THE REMAND REPORTS FURNI SHED BY AO, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THE INT EREST ON FD OF RS. 4,65,720/- OUT OF RS. 5,22,213/-. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) GRANTED PARTIA L RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE STILL AGITATING THAT NO PROPER RECO NCILIATION OF ENTRIES IN FORM-16A WAS MADE. THE BANKERS OF ASSESSEE COMMITTED MISTAKE WHI LE ISSUING CERTIFICATE FROM TWO CUSTOMER IDS. CONSIDERING THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL TO THE FILE OF AO TO RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND PASS THE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. T HE AO WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO CALL THE COMPLETE DETAILS FROM THE BANKERS OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FULLY COOPERATE AND PROVIDE COMPLETE INFORMATION WITH REG ARD TO THE BANK ACCOUNT(S), SAVING OR CURRENT AND THE DETAILS OF INTEREST EARNE D DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THIS GROUND OF APPE AL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 7. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 33,18,100/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED A LOA N FROM ONE AMIT KATYAL OF RS. 2.00 CRORE DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSE SSEE HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF TRANS ACTION. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF LOAN D ATED 12.05.2012 AND THE MEMO OF UNDERSTANDING EXECUTED BY ASSESSEE AND THE LENDER D ATED 05.04.2007. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ARGUED THAT HE HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY/CREDITWORTHINESS OF PERSON AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT MAY BE DELETED. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER ARGUED TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS TAKING INCONSISTENT PLEA. BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT CASH DEPOSIT WAS MADE OUT OF CASH IN HAND AND RE-DEPOSIT ED FROM EARLIER WITHDRAWAL AND NOW SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED LOAN. THE L D. DR FOR THE REVENUE ARGUED THAT ARGUMENT OF THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TENABLE AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. 6 ITA NO. 3085 /M/2015 MS PA RUL ROY 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NG, THE AO ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CAS H OF RS. 33,18,000/- IN SAVINGS BANK A/C IN CENTURION BANK OF PUNJAB LTD. THE ASSES SEE HAS ASKED TO PROVIDE THE BANK DETAILS AND SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE OUT OF CASH IN HAND AND RE-DEPOSITED IN CASH WHICH WAS EARLIER WITHDRAWN. NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED; THE AO NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE CASH DEPOSIT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. DURING THE FIRST APPELLAT E PROCEEDING ON THE SIMILAR CONTENTION THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED THE REMAND REPORT FROM AO. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS LETTER ON 31.12.2010 AND 24.12.2010 FOR EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT RS. 20.7 LAKHS WERE WITHDRAWN FROM BANK WERE RE-DEPOSITED, RS. 4,8 6,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN FROM S.B. A/C NO. 4890 AND RS. 15,84,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN FROM CURRENT ACCOUNT NO. 4780. NO BANK SUMMARY WAS FILED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANT IATED HER CONTENTION THAT CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED AFTER WITHDRAWAL. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED THE LOAN A ND FIELD CONFIRMATION OF LENDER. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME, BEF ORE US, THE DOCUMENTS RELATED WITH LOAN FROM AMIT KATYAL AND CONFIRMATION OF LOAN. THO UGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED SUCH CONTENTION BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED INCONS ISTENT PLEA. NO SUCH PLEA THAT ASSESSEE AVAILED LOAN FROM AMIT KATYAL OF RS. 2.00 CRORE WAS RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THIS GROUND TO THE FILE OF A O TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE AFRESH AND PASS ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE AO SHALL GRANT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING THE ORDE R. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PROVIDE THE COMPLETE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO IDENTITY OF LENDER, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION INC LUDING PAN NUMBER, TELEPHONE NUMBER OF CREDITOR TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 7 ITA NO. 3085 /M/2015 MS PA RUL ROY ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 3 RD MARCH, 2017. SD/- SD/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 03/03/2017 S.K.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/