TRIVECTOR ORIGIO SCIENTIFIC P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3115/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3730 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 3115 /MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) TRIVECTOR ORIGIO SCIENTIFIC PRIVATE LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS TRIVECTOR SCIENTIFIC PRIVATE LIMITED), 111-115, MERATHON MAX, LBS ROAD, MULUND(WEST), MUMBAI- 400080 / V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10(3), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, M K ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 ./ PAN : AACCT3478Q ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI DHARMESH SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 15-02-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-04-2016 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, BEING ITA NO. 3115/MUM/2014, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06-03-2014 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 22, M UMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE CIT(A)), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11, THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) ARISING FROM THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER DATED 16-01- 2013 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER(HEREINAFTER CA LLED THE AO) U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). ITA 3115/MUM/2014 2 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN TH E MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBA I (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE TRIBUNAL) READ AS UNDER:- GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-22 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT (A) ), MUMBAI ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VIEW OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -10(3) (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS AO), M UMBAI THAT NO SERVICE HAS BEEN RENDERED FOR WHICH COMMISSION WAS PAID TO EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY AND THAT THE CLAIM OF COMMISSION APPEARS TO BE NOT GENUINE. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF T RADING IN GOODS AND EQUIPMENT RELATED TO INFERTILITY MANAGEMENT AND ALS O AS COMMISSION AGENTS. 4. THE ONLY ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS WITH RESPECT TO PAY MENT OF COMMISSION TO EMPLOYEES BEING RS.2,50,000/- BEING PAID TO MR. UDA Y KOLHE AND RS.50,000/- TO MR. UNNI, WHO ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY.THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE AO TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TION AND DETAILS OF NAME , ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES, TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO B Y THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH THEM, COMPARISON OF THE TRANSACTION WITH THEM FOR LAST YEAR AND COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT FOR THIS YEAR AND PRECEDING YEAR, DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT PAYMENT OF COMMISSI ON IS MADE TO EMPLOYEES BEING RS.2,50,000/- PAID TO MR. UDAY KOLH E AND RS.50,000/- TO MR. UNNI, WHO ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY .THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED B Y THEM AND PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION PAID TO THEM. AS PER AO , THE PAYMEN T OF COMMISSION IS HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT A ND IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DAL AL BROACHA STOCK BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED V. ADDL. CIT IN ITA NO. 5792/MUM/20 09 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, ITA 3115/MUM/2014 3 VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 16.01.2013 PASSED BY T HE AO U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 16.01.2 013 PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN FIRST APPEAL WITH THE CIT(A). 6. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT TH E COMMISSIONS ARE PAID TO EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY. THE LETTER OF EMPLOYMENT WAS ENCLOSED AND COMPLETE DETAILS SUCH AS NAME, ADDRESS AND PAN OF T HE EMPLOYEES WERE FURNISHED. THE COPIES OF LEDGER EXTRACT OF THE COMP ANYS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE SUBMITTED WHEREIN THE SAID LIABILITY WAS DULY REFLECTED. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CONTENDED THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED W HOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. THE COPIES OF CONFIRM ATION FROM BOTH THE EMPLOYEES WERE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH PAN, RETURN OF INCOME,FORM NO. 16 WITH DETAILS OF SALARY PAID INCLUDING COMMISSION.THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY DISTINGUISHED THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DALAL BROACHA STOCK BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) WHEREBY IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THESE EMPLOYEES ARE NOT SHAREHOLDER / DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY WHILE IN THE CASE OF DALAL BROACHA STOCK BR OKING PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) , THE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO EMPLOYEE-DIRE CTORS OF THE COMPANY WHO WERE THE ONLY SHAREHOLDERS OF THE SAID COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONS WERE PAID TO EMPLOYE ES OF THE COMPANY WHO WERE NEITHER SHAREHOLDERS NOR DIRECTORS OF THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY AND THEY WERE GETTING FIXED SALARY AND COMMISSIONS/BONUS FOR THEIR PERFORMANCE. THE COMMISSION IS NOT PAID IN LIEU OF PROFITS OR DIVIDE ND. THE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND DEPOSITED WITH GOVERNMENT ON THESE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THESE EMPLOYEES . THESE COMMISSIONS A RE DULY INCLUDED IN THE SALARY. THESE EMPLOYEES HAVE FOLLOWED UP WITH CUSTO MERS, GETTING ORDERS AND FOLLOW UP FOR OBTAINING PAYMENTS AND THUS HAVE REND ERED SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ADEQUACY OF SERVICES IS NOT A GRO UND OF DISALLOWANCE OF ITA 3115/MUM/2014 4 COMMISSION TO EMPLOYEES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN PROPER AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY BEFORE MAKING ADDITIONS TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOU NT OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENDITURE VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 16.01.2013 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THUS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS.3,00,000/- BEING COMMISSION TO EMPLOYEES IS A DE DUCTIBLE EXPENDITURE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT. 7. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT NONE OF EMPLOYEES WERE SHAR EHOLDER OR DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THUS, THE SAID PAYMENT OF COMM ISSION OF RS.3,00,000/- BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO THESE TWO EMPLOYEES IS NOT HIT BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE CIT(A) THAT ON PERUSAL O F THE EMPLOYMENT LETTER OF THESE TWO EMPLOYEES NAMELY MR. UDAY KOLHE AND MR. B .UNNIKRISHNAN REVEALS THAT THE SAID EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED FOR COMMISSION ON SALES. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE EMPLOYEES ARE AS UNDER: A) TO EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE WITH CUSTOMERS AND PROVI DE INFORMATION TO THEM IN DETAIL ABOUT THE PRODUCTS OF THE COMPANY . B) TO DEVELOP THE BUSINESS, TO MARKETING AND TO PROCUR E ORDERS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMPANY . C) TO PUT EFFORTS FOR PROMOTING THE SALES FOR THE COMP ANY. D) TO MAKE PROPER EFFORTS TO NEGOTIATE AND, WHERE APPR OPRIATE , CONCLUDE TRANSACTIONS. E) TO ENSURE INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING OF THE EQU IPMENT SOLD TO CUSTOMERS. F) TO ENSURE AFTER SALES SERVICE DURING WARRANTY PERIO D. ITA 3115/MUM/2014 5 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED SAMPLE SALES INVOICE , SAMPLE COPIES OF INSTALLATION/SERVICE REPORT AND EMAILS REFLECTING T HAT THE EMPLOYEES WERE ATTENDING TO MAINTENANCE WARRANTY COMPLAINTS ETC. T HE WARRANTY REQUIREMENT SHEETS SHOWED THAT THE SAID MR UDAY KOLHE WAS SERV ICE TECHNICIAN/ENGINEER WHO WAS ATTENDING TO THE ABOVE PROBLEMS. IT WAS OBS ERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE SAID MR UDAY KOLHE WAS ENTITLED TO COMMISSION O N SALES AND NOT ON AFTER SALES SERVICES . THUS, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION F OR COMMISSION. THE PERUSAL OF SALES INVOICES SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF COMMISSION ALSO DID NOT HAD THE NAME OF THE EMPLOYEES WHO GOT COMMISSION FROM T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT NO EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN SUBMITT ED IN SUPPORT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT THESE EMPLOYEES WERE INSTRUME NTAL IN GETTING ORDERS OR HAVE NEGOTIATED WITH THE CUSTOMERS FOR GENERATIN G ORDERS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT THESE EMPLOYEES WERE INVOLVED IN MARKETING OR INVOLVED IN INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING OF THE EQUIPMENTS. THUS, THE CIT( A) HELD THAT NO EVIDENCE IS FILED BEFORE HIM TO SHOW THAT THESE TWO EMPLOYEE S WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN GETTING THE PURCHASE ORDERS AND THUS HE CONCLUDED T HAT NO SERVICE HAS BEEN RENDERED BY THESE TWO EMPLOYEES FOR WHICH COMMISSIO NS WERE PAID AND HENCE IT WAS HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT GENUINE AND THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) , ALSO RELYING ON CASE LAW CITED IN THE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 06-03-2014 PASSED BY THE CI T(A). 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS DATED 06-03-2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED SECOND APPEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL. 9. THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN DEALING IN SURGICAL INFERTILITY MANAGEMENT EQUIPMEN T. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT RS.3 LACS COMMISSION WAS PAID TO TW O EMPLOYEES FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM. THE REVENUE HAS DISALLOWED THE SA ID COMMISSION BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT . THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED ITA 3115/MUM/2014 6 THAT THE REVENUE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF SP ECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF DALAL BROACHA STOCK BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DECISION HAS NO APPLICABILITY TO THE PRESE NT CASE AS THE SAID TWO EMPLOYEES ARE NOT SHAREHOLDER-DIRECTORS OF THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THEY ARE NOT EVEN RELATIVES OF SHARE HOLDERS DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY AND SECTION 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT HAS NO APP LICABILITY TO THE PAYMENT OF THE COMMISSION TO THESE TWO EMPLOYEES. THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE APPOINTMENT LETTE RS OF THE SAID EMPLOYEES WHICH ARE PLACED IN PAPER BOOK FILED WITH THE TRIBU NAL TO CONTEND THAT THE SAID COMMISSION IS IN-FACT PART OF SALARY PAID TO T HESE EMPLOYEES AND IS NOT PAID IN LIEU OF PROFIT OR DIVIDENDS. THE CONFIRMATI ON FROM THE EMPLOYEES WITH RESPECT TO RECEIVING OF COMMISSION ARE PLACED ON PA PER BOOK FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL.THE LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT TAX WAS DEDU CTED AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THESE EMPLOYEES AND OUR A TTENTION WAS DRAWN TO FORM NO 16 FOR NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WHEREBY THESE COMMISSIONS ARE STATED TO BE INCLUDED AND TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURC E BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON THESE COMMISSION PAYMENT. IT WAS SUBMITT ED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY IS REGULARLY REWARDING ITS EMPLOYEES WITH C OMMISSION BASED ON THEIR PERFORMANCE WHICH IS PART OF SALARY PAYABLE TO THES E EMPLOYEES. THE LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT VARIOUS INVOICES RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT MR UDAY KOLHE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE DIRECTO RS TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON 01-02-2010 VIDE LETTER OF TRANSFER TO ASSESSEE C OMPANY IS PLACED IN PAPER BOOK AND HE WAS EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANY DURING THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY/MARCH 2010. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE EMPLOYEES WERE ACTING AS ENGINEERS FOR SALE /SERVICE.THE LD COUNSEL SUBMI TTED THAT EMAILS ARE PLACED ON RECORD IN PAPER BOOK TO SHOW THAT THESE E MPLOYEES WERE WORKING FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ITA 3115/MUM/2014 7 10. THE LD DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT COMM ISSION IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS AN EXPENSE AS THE EMPLOYEES WERE ENTITLED FOR CO MMISSION ON SALES WHILE NO SUCH WORKING OF COMMISSION BASED ON SALES HAVE B EEN SUBMITTED . THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAD HELD THAT NO EVIDE NCE IS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO SHOW THAT THESE TWO EMPLOYEES WERE INSTRU MENTAL IN GETTING THE PURCHASE ORDERS AND THUS THE CIT(A) HAD CONCLUDED T HAT NO SERVICE HAS BEEN RENDERED BY THESE TWO EMPLOYEES FOR WHICH COMMISSIO NS WERE PAID AND HENCE IT WAS HELD BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY IS NOT GENUINE AND THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED BY THE CIT(A).N O DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED RELATING TO THE CONTRIBUTION OF THESE TWO EMP LOYEES IN GETTING THE SALE ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND IN ANY CASE, TH E EVIDENCE SO PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND N EED VERIFICATION BY THE REVENUE .IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT FORWARDED THE EVIDENCES SO FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE HIM TO THE AO FOR REMAND REPORT AND ALL THESE EVIDENCES SO FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL NEED EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION BY THE AO. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PAID COMMISSION TO TWO EMPLOYEES AGGREGATING TO RS.3 LACS DURING THE P REVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR.THE TERMS OF APPOINTMENT STIPULATE THAT THE COMMISSION IS TO BE PAID BASED ON SALES. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT FILE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH RESPECT TO SERVICES RENDERED FOR GE NERATING SALES ORDERS FOR WHICH COMMISSIONS WERE PAID AS SET OUT IN THE ORDER S OF THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DID NOT FORWARD THE EVIDENCES WHICH WERE FIL ED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO THE AO FOR EXAMINATI ON/VERIFICATIONS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ALSO PLACED EVIDENCES BEFORE U S TO CONTEND THAT THE COMMISSIONS PAID TO THESE EMPLOYEES WERE FOR SERVIC ES RENDERED AND ARE PART OF THE SALARY. IT IS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT DUE T DS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AND THESE EMPLOYEES HAVE CONFIRMED TO HAVE RECEIVED COM MISSION AND DECLARED ITA 3115/MUM/2014 8 THE SAME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITH THE REV ENUE. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT NO ATTEMPT IS MADE TO EVADE TAXES BY BOOKING T HE COMMISSION EXPENDITURE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, ALL THESE ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCES REQUIRES EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION BY THE AO TO COME TO C ONCLUSION WHETHER THE COMMISSION IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE AND IN OUR C ONSIDERED VIEW , THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE TO BE ADMITTED IN THE INTE REST OF JUSTICE AND THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DE-NOVO EX AMINATION OF THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION/EVIDENCES TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HIS DEFENSE. NEEDLESS TO SAY PROPER AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHALL BE GIVEN BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW. HOWEVER, WE WOULD LIKE TO STATE AT THIS STAGE WE ARE FULLY AGREEABLE WITH THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE COMMISSIONS TO THESE TWO EMPLOYEES IS NOT HIT BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT AS THESE TWO EMPLOYEES ARE NOT SHAREHOLDERS OR DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY NOR ARE THEY RELA TIVES OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE NOTE THAT THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL AGAINST THIS FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE COMMISSION TO THESE TWO EMPLOYEES IS NOT HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3 6(1)(II) OF THE ACT. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E COMPANY IN ITA N0. 3115/MUM/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH APRIL, 2016. # $% &' 29-04-2016 ( ) SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ MUMBAI ; & DATED 29-04-2016 [ ITA 3115/MUM/2014 9 !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. 9 / CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. <=( >>?@ , ?@ , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI E BENCH 6. (BC D / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, < > //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI