RINA S. MEHTA, MUMBAI V. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3120/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5622 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P DANIEL SP L DEPTT
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Procedural lapse; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings; TDS
• Section: 234B; 143(1); 147; 148; 6; 144; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3120/M/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1995-96 RINA S. MEHTA, 32, MADHULI DR. A.B. ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 018 PAN: ABNPM 8219R VS. DCIT, CC-4(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DHARMESH SHAH, A.R. SHRI DHAVAL SHAH, A.R. REVENUE BY : DR. P. DANIEL, (SPL. COUNSEL FOR DE PTT.) DATE OF HEARING : 09.05.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.07.2019 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2015 OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT A S PER THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SPECIAL COURT DATED 30.04.2010 IN MP NO. 41 OF 1999 , THE ASSETS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL INCOME BELONGS TO LATE SHRI HARSHAD S. MEHTA AND HENCE THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF LATE SHRI HARSHAD S. MEHTA AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN PASSING ORDER WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ITA NO.3120/M/2015 RINA S. MEHTA 2 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,10,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED DE POSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT TH E APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. 5. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI A OF THE ACT. 6. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS I N CONFIRMING INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 7. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE INCOME ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT WAS SUBJECTE D TO THE PROVISIONS OF TDS AND HENCE ON THE SAID AMOUNT OF TAX, NO INTEREST CAN BE COMPUTED U/S. 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE OF YOUR HONOUR TO ADD TO, AMEND AND / OR ALTER ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. BESIDES, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH IS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND PASSING OF ASSESSMENT O RDER DATED 30.03.2001 WAS BAD IN LAW AND INVALID. 4. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APP EAL IS JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE CHALLENGING REOPENING THE ASS ESSMENT AND THEREFORE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.03.2011 BEING B AD IN LAW. 5. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY AO ON 31.03.1999 WHICH WAS SERVED UPO N THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED VI DE ORDER DATED 30.03.2001 U/S 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF T HE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF AS SESSMENT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT THE SAME WAS NOT PRESSED. NOW ASSESSEE BY RAISING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND SEEKS TO RAISE THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.3120/M/2015 RINA S. MEHTA 3 SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID GROUND WAS NOT TAKEN INADVE RTENTLY WHILE FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD . A.R. STATED THAT THE SAID GROUND IS A LEGAL GROUND WHICH CHALLE NGES THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO IN INITIATING THE REASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS AND PASSING REASSESSMENT ORDER AND GOES TO THE ROO T OF THE MATTER AND MAY BE ADMITTED/. THE LD COUNSEL RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN DEFENSE OF HIS ARGUMENTS: 1. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION VS. CIT (229 ITR 386 SC) 2. JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] 3. AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. VS. CIT [199 ITR 351 (BOM.) (FB)] 4. CIT VS. PRUTHVI BROKERS AND SHAREHOLDERS PVT. LT D. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (BOM.) THE LD. A.R. THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION AL GROUND MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED AND ADJUDICATED IN VIEW OF T HE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE DECISIONS. 6. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISS UE WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THOUG H THE GROUND WAS SPECIFICALLY RAISED AND ALSO THIS BEING A SECON D ROUND OF LITIGATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN THIS IN THE EARLIER ROUND AND THUS IT CAN NOT BE RAISED NOW BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL AND THUS PRAYED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DISMISSED. 7. REPLYING TO THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE LD. D.R. , THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE ISSUE IS NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WOULD NOT PRECLUD E THE ASSESSEE FROM RAISING THE GROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. A.R. RELIED ON A COUPLE OF DECISIONS NAMELY; ITA NO.3120/M/2015 RINA S. MEHTA 4 (I) INVENTORS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT ( 194 ITR 548) (II) P.V. DOSHI VS. CIT (1978)113 ITR 22. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN BOTH THESE DEC ISIONS IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE IS NOT PRE SSED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS REGARDI NG THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE SAME CAN BE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS PURELY LEGAL AND TEC HNICAL IN NATURE CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO TO IN ITIATE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND CONSEQUENTLY FRAMING T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH THOUGH CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT NOT PRESSED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. WE A RE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ISSUE AS RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND IS A LEGAL ISSUE WHICH DOES NO T REQUIRE ANY FURTHER VERIFICATION OF FACTS OR RECORD AND HAS TO BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE OBJE CTIONS RAISED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT THIS IS SECOND ROUND OF LITIGA TION AND THIS ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED IN THE FIRST ROUND. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS CLEARLY COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION VS. CIT (SUPRA), JUTE CORPORATION OF IN DIA VS. CIT (SUPRA) & AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. VS. CIT (S UPRA). IN THE CASE OF INVENTORS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. VS. C IT (SUPRA) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CHALLENG E THE JURISDICTION TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS B EFORE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES IN THE SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS EVEN THOUGH IT ITA NO.3120/M/2015 RINA S. MEHTA 5 HAS NOT BEEN RAISED EARLIER OR IN THE FIRST ROUND O F PROCEEDINGS. IN THE CASE OF P.V. DOSHI VS. CIT (SUPRA), THE HONB LE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WHILE REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO BAR ON RAISING THE ISSUE BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL EVEN IF IN THE FIRST ROUND THIS IS NOT PRESSED WHEN THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP BEFORE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AN D THUS ANSWERED THE QUESTION RAISED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY F OLLOWING THE SAME ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO TO FRAME ASS ESSMENT. 10. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT TH E AO HAS NOT PROVIDED THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPE NING THE ASSESSMENT DESPITE THE REPEATED REQUESTS MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT FAILURE OF THE AO TO PR OVIDE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED RENDERED THE INITIATION OF REASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS AND CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER AS INVA LID AND VOID. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS REQ UESTED THE AO ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS VIDE LETTER DATED 19.04.19 99, 02.03.2001, 30.05.2018 AND 01.05.2019 TO PROVIDE CO PIES OF REASONS RECORDED, HOWEVER, THE REQUEST OF THE ASSES SEE WENT UNHEEDED TILL DATE. THE LD. A.R. DREW THE ATTENTIO N OF THE BENCH TO THE ABOVE LETTERS POINTING OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED FOR SUPPLY OF REASONS RECORD ED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED T HAT THESE FACTS WERE NEVER DENIED BY THE LD. D.R. AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND THUS IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT AO HAS NOT RECORDE D ANY REASON FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND ON THIS COU NT ITSELF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY BE QUASHED. THE LD. A.R. RELIED ON A SER IES OF ITA NO.3120/M/2015 RINA S. MEHTA 6 DECISIONS NAMELY CIT VS. IDBI LTD. (76 TAXMANN.COM 227)(BOM), CIT VS. VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (340 ITR 66)(BOM), PR. CIT VS. JAGAT TALKIES DISTRIBUTORS (398 ITR 13)(DEL) AN D PCIT V RAMAIAH(2019)103TAXMANN.COM202(SC). 11. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY OPPOS ED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. A.R. BY SUBMITTING THAT ASSESS EE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE IS SUED UNDER SECTION 148 AND THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED WERE N OT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AS NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED B Y THE AO IS VERY MUCH VALID AND DESERVED TO BE SUSTAINED PRIMAR ILY FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTI CE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT BY FILING IN RETURN OF INCOME AND IN DEFENCE OF ARGUMENT THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE DECI SIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. ZUARI ESTATE DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CO. LTD. (373 ITR 661). 12. IN THE REBUTTAL, THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING PROVISIONS NOT BE INVOKED AND AO CAN NOT ASSUME JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT MERELY BE CAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND IN SUCH CASES THE AO IS WELL WITHIN ITS RIGHT TO COMPLETE THE ASS ESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THA T IT IS TRITE LAW THAT ASSESSMENT CAN BE REOPENED ONLY BY THE AO ONLY IF HE HAS SOME TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT SOME INC OME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THUS MERELY BECAUSE OF RETUR N OF INCOME IS NOT FILED IT CAN NOT BE A REASON TO REOPE NING THE ASSESSMENT. THE LD. A.R. ALSO DISTINGUISHED THE DE CISION OF THE APEX COURT REFERRED TO BY THE LD. D.R. THE LD. A.R. ALSO ITA NO.3120/M/2015 RINA S. MEHTA 7 SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE SOME PRACTICAL DIFFICULTI ES WHICH WERE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE IN COME TAX RETURN COULD BE FILED BEFORE THE AO. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT EVEN AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE RE ASONS WERE NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. A.R. ALSO SUB MITTED THAT IF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. D.R. QUA NON SUPPLYING OF REASONS ON THE GROUND THAT AO HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCO ME IS ACCEPTED IT WOULD GIVE BLANKET POWER TO RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENT IN ALL THE CASES WHERE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FILE THE R ETURN OF INCOME EVEN THOUGH THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS BEY OND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE LD. A.R. SUBM ITTED THAT DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F DCIT VS. ZUARI ESTATE DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CO. LTD. (SUP RA) WAS RENDERED ON COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS AND N OT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT I N THAT CASE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY WAY OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY REASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS WERE TAKEN UP WHEREIN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESS EE WAS THAT REOPENING WAS BASED UPON THE CHANGE OF OPINION AS T HE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN VERIFIED AS INTIMATION UNDER SECTI ON 143(1) IS ALREADY ISSUED AND THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO ASSESSMENT CARRIED OUT AND IT WILL NOT BE A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION AND REOPENING WAS HELD TO BE VALID. THE LD . A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO NON SUPPLY OF REASONS AND NOT QUA THE CHANGE OF OPINION AND THUS THIS IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. THE LD. A.R. FIN ALLY PRAYED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS THE CONSEQUENT REASSESSMENT ORDER MAY BE QUASHED AS THE SAME IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. ITA NO.3120/M/2015 RINA S. MEHTA 8 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE VARIOU S CITATIONS BY THE RIVAL PARTIES. WE OBSERVE THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME DESPITE THE ISSU E OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DUE TO THE FACT THAT ALL THE RECO RDS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE SEIZED BY THE VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AGEN CIES AND ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY ACCESS TO SUCH RECORDS AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO T HE NOTICE OF THE AO. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED BY VARIOUS LETTERS DATED 19.04.1999, PARA 5, 02.03.2001 PARA 9, DURING COURS E OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO SUPPLY THE REASONS BUT AO DID NOT SUPPLY ANY REASONS RECORDED FOR RE-OPENING. EVEN A FTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN RE QUESTED VIDE LETTER DATED 30.05.2018 AND 01.05.2019 TO SUPPLY CO PY OF REASONS BUT SOME WERE NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, ONCE IT HAS ESTABLISHED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN SUPPLIED COPY OF REASONS RECORDED, THEN THE REASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED AS A R ESULT THEREOF ARE INVALID. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. IDBI LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHE RE THE REASONS RECORDED ARE NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT WOULD BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE HO NBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WHILE PASSING THE DECISION FOLLOW ED THE EARLIER ORDER IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (SUPRA). THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. JAGAT TALKIES DISTRIBUTORS (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HE LD THAT FAILURE TO PROVIDE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED IS NOT A PROCED URAL LAPSE ITA NO.3120/M/2015 RINA S. MEHTA 9 AND SUCH FAILURE RENDERS THE NOTICE AND CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS AS VOID AB INITIO. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE C ASE OF PR CIT VS V. RAMAIH (SUPRA) HELD THAT NON COMMUNICATION OF R EASONS RECORDED FOR RE-ASSESSMENT TO THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AMOUNT TO MERE PROCEDURAL LAPSE AND IS A FATAL LAPSE AND GOES TO THE ROOTS OF THE CASE. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. D. R. IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. ZUARI ESTATE DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT C O. LTD. (SUPRA) WAS PERUSED AND FOUND TO BE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS AS STATED HEREINABOVE QUASH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE CONSEQUENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. SINCE WE HAVE A LLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED, THE MAIN GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT BE ADJUDICAT ED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.07.2019. SD/- SD/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 17.07.2019. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY /ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.