Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala, Mumbai V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 41(4)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3177/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4435 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Next Hearing Date: 26-12-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation
• Section: 32; 54F; 192; 54EC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 3177/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala, 142/148, Ghaswala Estate, SV Road, Jogeshwari (West)-400102 Vs. DCIT-41(4)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East)-400051. PAN NO. AALPG 9087 A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. S.M. Makhija Revenue by : Mr. A.S. Sant, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27/12/2023 Date of pronouncement : 01/01/2024 ORDER PER PADMAVATHY S., AM This appeal is against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 12.07.2023 for assessment year 2016-17. The only issue contended by the assessee through various grounds of appeal is the disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act (the Act) to the tune of Rs.3 crores. 2. The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for assessment year 2016-17 declaring total income of Rs.5,43,56,720/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices that duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment notice has received a sum of Rs.8,70,0 sale of land jointly owned with other co that the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act for Rs. 3 crores towards investment in a new residential house property and also exemption investment in NHAI Bonds. The Assessing Officer called on the assessee to submit explanations as to how he had fulfilled the conditions u/s 54F of the Act. In response the assessee furnished the details of the house prope properties jointly held and the nature of the property details furnished the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee owns 16.67% share in Jogeshwari, Mumbai apart from o properties vacant land and under Assessing Officer issued show cause notice asking the assessee to explain why exemption u/s 54F of the Act should not be denied to him since he is own date of the transfer. In response, the assessee submitted that though he is having 16.67% share in 6 residential flats, actually the owner of only one flat members is occupying Accordingly, the assessee submitted that he fulfils the conditions Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala . The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices that duly served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment noticed that the assessee has received a sum of Rs.8,70,00,000/- as his share of 20% in the sale of land jointly owned with other co-owners. It is further noticed that the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act for Rs. 3 crores towards investment in a new residential house property and also exemption u/s 54EC of Rs.54,00,000/ investment in NHAI Bonds. The Assessing Officer called on the assessee to submit explanations as to how he had fulfilled the conditions u/s 54F of the Act. In response the assessee furnished the details of the house property owned by him including the properties jointly held and the nature of the property details furnished the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee owns 16.67% share in 6 flats residential house property in Jogeshwari, Mumbai apart from owning various commercial properties vacant land and under-construction properties. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice asking the assessee to explain why exemption u/s 54F of the Act should not be denied to ning more than one residential property on the date of the transfer. In response, the assessee submitted that though he is having 16.67% share in 6 residential flats, the owner of only one flat and that each of the family members is occupying only one out of this flats owned by them. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that he fulfils the conditions Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala 2 ITA No. 3177/Mum/2023 . The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices that duly served on the assessee. The Assessing that the assessee as his share of 20% in the owners. It is further noticed that the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act for Rs. 3 crores towards investment in a new residential house property u/s 54EC of Rs.54,00,000/- towards investment in NHAI Bonds. The Assessing Officer called on the assessee to submit explanations as to how he had fulfilled the conditions u/s 54F of the Act. In response the assessee furnished rty owned by him including the properties jointly held and the nature of the property etc. From the details furnished the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee residential house property in wning various commercial construction properties. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice asking the assessee to explain why exemption u/s 54F of the Act should not be denied to ing more than one residential property on the date of the transfer. In response, the assessee submitted that though he is having 16.67% share in 6 residential flats, he is each of the family only one out of this flats owned by them. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that he fulfils the conditions prescribed u/s 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer did not accept the submissions of the assessee for the reason that the assessee has not submitted any substantiate that each flat is e the other co-owners do not have any right in the said flat. The Ld. AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as upheld by the Apex Court in the case of [2015] 53 taxmann.com 318 and denied the exemption claimed u/s 54F of the Act. 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the order of the AO. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR subm jointly owns 16.67% in the six flats one flat since each of six flats is earmarked a particular family members. The Ld. AR also submitted that the Co the Tribunal in one of the Abedin Ghaswala v. CIT(A) (ITA No. 545/Mum/2023) dated 22.05.2023 has held that the said assessee is entitled for u/s 54F of the Act by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT (2012) 252 CTR 0336. The Ld. AR further submitted that the facts of assessee’s case being identical impugned issue is covered by the decision of the Co the deletion of the denial of Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala prescribed u/s 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer did not accept the submissions of the assessee for the reason that the assessee tted any evidences or relevant documents to substantiate that each flat is earmarked for each member and that owners do not have any right in the said flat. The Ld. AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court the Apex Court in the case of M.J. Siwani v. CIT [2015] 53 taxmann.com 318 and denied the exemption claimed u/s Aggrieved the assessee filed its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the order of the AO. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee though jointly owns 16.67% in the six flats he is actually occupying only one flat since each of six flats is earmarked a particular family members. The Ld. AR also submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in one of the other co-owner’s case namely Shri Sainul Abedin Ghaswala v. CIT(A) (ITA No. 545/Mum/2023) dated 22.05.2023 has held that the said assessee is entitled for u/s 54F of the Act by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Dr. P.K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT (2012) 252 CTR 0336. The Ld. AR further submitted that the facts of assessee’s case being identical impugned issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench and accordingly prayed for f the denial of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala 3 ITA No. 3177/Mum/2023 prescribed u/s 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer did not accept the submissions of the assessee for the reason that the assessee or relevant documents to for each member and that owners do not have any right in the said flat. The Ld. AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court M.J. Siwani v. CIT [2015] 53 taxmann.com 318 and denied the exemption claimed u/s Aggrieved the assessee filed its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) itted that the assessee though is actually occupying only one flat since each of six flats is earmarked a particular family ordinate Bench of owner’s case namely Shri Sainul Abedin Ghaswala v. CIT(A) (ITA No. 545/Mum/2023) dated 22.05.2023 has held that the said assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 54F of the Act by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble the case of Dr. P.K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT (2012) 252 CTR 0336. The Ld. AR further submitted that the facts of assessee’s case being identical impugned issue is covered by ordinate Bench and accordingly prayed for u/s 54F of the Act. 5. The Ld. DR on the other hand, submitted that the decision relied on by the Co-ordinate Bench in the other co factually distinguishable and therefore cannot be applied in assessee’s case. Accordingly, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case M.J. Siwani (supra). 6. We have heard the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. During the year under consideration the assessee has received a consideration of Rs.8,70, value of land jointly owned with other co not claim any cost of acquisition However, the assessee claimed tune of Rs.3 crores and amount of Rs.50,00,000/ of section 54F of the Act to the assessee for the reason that the assessee is owning 16.67% of six flats in another house property and therefore does not fulfill the condition u/s 54F of the Act. Before proceedings further 54F of the Act. Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential 54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long residential house (hereaf and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, one (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala The Ld. DR on the other hand, submitted that the decision ordinate Bench in the other co- factually distinguishable and therefore cannot be applied in ordingly, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case M.J. Siwani (supra). We have heard the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. During the year under consideration the assessee has ration of Rs.8,70,000/- as 20% share in the sale value of land jointly owned with other co-owners. The assessee did cost of acquisition against the sale consideration. However, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act to the Rs.3 crores and exemption u/s 54EC of the Act for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer denied the benefit of section 54F of the Act to the assessee for the reason that the assessee is owning 16.67% of six flats in another house property herefore does not fulfill the condition u/s 54F of the Act. further let us look at the provisions of section Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, one residential house in India (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala 4 ITA No. 3177/Mum/2023 The Ld. DR on the other hand, submitted that the decision -owner’s case is factually distinguishable and therefore cannot be applied in ordingly, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case M.J. Siwani (supra). We have heard the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. During the year under consideration the assessee has as 20% share in the sale owners. The assessee did against the sale consideration. u/s 54F of the Act to the u/s 54EC of the Act for an . The Assessing Officer denied the benefit of section 54F of the Act to the assessee for the reason that the assessee is owning 16.67% of six flats in another house property herefore does not fulfill the condition u/s 54F of the Act. the provisions of section Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain term capital asset, not being a ter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period residential house in India (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,— (a) if the cost of the new asset is not less than the respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be charged under section 45 (b) if the cost of the new asset is less th of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under Provided that nothing contained in this sub (a) the assessee,— (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or (iii) constructs any residential house, other than the new asset, wit period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset; and (b) the income from such residential house, other than the one residential house owned on the date of transfer of the original asset, is chargeable under the head "Income fro 7. The proviso clearly states that the exemption u/s.54F is not available if the assessee owns more than one house other than the new house as on the date of transfer. Therefore t revenue is that since the assessee has of 16.67% in 6 flats, the assessee is not entitled for exemption u/s.54F as per the proviso the joint ownership of 16.67% in 6 flats amounts to owning more than one residential house in is the "owner" of the 6 flats jointly. It is an admitted fact that there is no clear demarcation with regard to the Flats though as per the submissions of the assessee each flat is occupied by each of the joint owners. Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that ) if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be section 45; ) if the cost of the new asset is less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where — ) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on of transfer of the original asset; or ) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or ) constructs any residential house, other than the new asset, wit period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset; and ) the income from such residential house, other than the one residential house owned on the date of transfer of the original asset, is chargeable under the head "Income from house property". The proviso clearly states that the exemption u/s.54F is not available if the assessee owns more than one house other than the new house as on the date of transfer. Therefore the argument of the revenue is that since the assessee has joint ownership to the extent of 16.67% in 6 flats, the assessee is not entitled for exemption u/s.54F as per the proviso. Thus it is important to analyse whether the joint ownership of 16.67% in 6 flats amounts to owning more al house in assessee's case and that the assessee is the "owner" of the 6 flats jointly. It is an admitted fact that there is no clear demarcation with regard to the Flats though as per the submissions of the assessee each flat is occupied he joint owners. Therefore it cannot be said that one of Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala 5 ITA No. 3177/Mum/2023 be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain shall not be an the net consideration in respect of the original asset, so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the : section shall apply where— ) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on ) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or ) constructs any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset; and ) the income from such residential house, other than the one residential house owned on the date of transfer of the original asset, is chargeable The proviso clearly states that the exemption u/s.54F is not available if the assessee owns more than one house other than the he argument of the joint ownership to the extent of 16.67% in 6 flats, the assessee is not entitled for exemption it is important to analyse whether the joint ownership of 16.67% in 6 flats amounts to owning more assessee's case and that the assessee is the "owner" of the 6 flats jointly. It is an admitted fact that there is no clear demarcation with regard to the Flats jointly owned, though as per the submissions of the assessee each flat is occupied Therefore it cannot be said that one of the joint owners i.e.the assessee in this case is the absolute owner of the 6 flats and no individual person o property of all 6 flats. At best the joint owner can sell h interest in the property but the property would still continue to be owned by the rest of the co different from absolute ownership which is jointly owned the owner of residential owned by two or more persons, none of them can be said to be the absolute owner of the a case where a residential hou partly owned by other person(s). strength from the decision of the of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 783, wherein, it was held that a fractio even fractional depreciation under section 32 of the Act consequence to this decision provisions of section 32 with effect from 1 expression "owned wholly expressively mentioned in section 54F, in our considered view word "own" in section 54F would include only the case where a residential house is fully and wholly owned by assessee and consequently would not in the assessee along with other decisions of the coordinate bench in the following cases Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala the joint owners i.e.the assessee in this case is the absolute owner individual person on his own can sell the entire of all 6 flats. At best the joint owner can sell h interest in the property but the property would still continue to be owned by the rest of the co-owners. Joint ownership is different from absolute ownership and in the case of residential unit which is jointly owned none of the co-owners can claim that he is the owner of residential house. Accordingly where a house is owned by two or more persons, none of them can be said to be the the house. So, the word "own" would not include a case where a residential house is partly owned by one person or other person(s). For holding this view we draw strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 783, wherein, it a fractional ownership was not sufficient for claiming even fractional depreciation under section 32 of the Act consequence to this decision the Legislature had to amend the provisions of section 32 with effect from 1-4-1997 by using the wholly or partly". Since no such words are expressively mentioned in section 54F, in our considered view word "own" in section 54F would include only the case where a residential house is fully and wholly owned by assessee and consequently would not include a residential house the assessee along with other persons. This view is supported by decisions of the coordinate bench in the following cases Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala 6 ITA No. 3177/Mum/2023 the joint owners i.e.the assessee in this case is the absolute owner his own can sell the entire of all 6 flats. At best the joint owner can sell his share of interest in the property but the property would still continue to be Joint ownership is therefore n the case of residential unit ners can claim that he is where a house is jointly owned by two or more persons, none of them can be said to be the So, the word "own" would not include se is partly owned by one person or For holding this view we draw Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 783, wherein, it nal ownership was not sufficient for claiming even fractional depreciation under section 32 of the Act and as a the Legislature had to amend the 1997 by using the Since no such words are expressively mentioned in section 54F, in our considered view the word "own" in section 54F would include only the case where a residential house is fully and wholly owned by assessee and partly owned by This view is supported by decisions of the coordinate bench in the following cases – (i) ITO vs Rasiklal N. Satra (ii) Ashok G. Chauhan vs ACIT (Mumbai - Trib.) (ii) Anant R Gawande vs ACIT [2022] 144 taxmann.com 127 (Mumbai - Trib.) 8. The revenue has placed Karnataka High Court in the case of M J Siwani (supra) where the Hon'ble High Court has held that 54F, where assessee on date of sale of long term a residential house even jointly with another person, his claim deduction of capital gain arising from sale of asset has to be rejected. It is also submitted by the ld DR that the SLP against the order of the Hon'ble High Court is dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However the Madras High Court in the case of (supra) where it is held that no bar to exemption on transfer of individual because assessee jointly owned another property on date of of asset, its claim for exemption under section rejected in respect of capital gains earned from transfer of her individual property. It is a settled position that decision of the jurisdictional High Court, when two contrary views are expressed by the non favourable to the assessee need to be followed regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. ((1972) 88 ITR 192 Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala Rasiklal N. Satra [2006] 98 ITD 335 (MUM.) Ashok G. Chauhan vs ACIT [2019] 105 taxmann.com 204 (ii) Anant R Gawande vs ACIT [2022] 144 taxmann.com 127 The revenue has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M J Siwani (supra) where the gh Court has held that in terms of provisions of section where assessee on date of sale of long term capital asset owns a residential house even jointly with another person, his claim deduction of capital gain arising from sale of asset has to be It is also submitted by the ld DR that the SLP against the order of the Hon'ble High Court is dismissed by the Hon'ble However we notice that a contrary view is held by the Madras High Court in the case of Dr. P.K. Vasanthi Rangara (supra) where it is held that Joint ownership of a second property is no bar to exemption on transfer of individual property because assessee jointly owned another property on date of of asset, its claim for exemption under section 54F could not be respect of capital gains earned from transfer of her . It is a settled position that in the absence of decision of the jurisdictional High Court, when two contrary views are expressed by the non-jurisdictional High Courts, the view favourable to the assessee need to be followed and on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. ((1972) 88 ITR 192 Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala 7 ITA No. 3177/Mum/2023 [2006] 98 ITD 335 (MUM.) [2019] 105 taxmann.com 204 (ii) Anant R Gawande vs ACIT [2022] 144 taxmann.com 127 reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M J Siwani (supra) where the n terms of provisions of section capital asset owns a residential house even jointly with another person, his claim for deduction of capital gain arising from sale of asset has to be It is also submitted by the ld DR that the SLP against the order of the Hon'ble High Court is dismissed by the Hon'ble a contrary view is held by Dr. P.K. Vasanthi Rangarajan Joint ownership of a second property is property and merely because assessee jointly owned another property on date of transfer 54F could not be respect of capital gains earned from transfer of her in the absence of decision of the jurisdictional High Court, when two contrary views l High Courts, the view and reliance in this on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. ((1972) 88 ITR 192 (SC)) where the Hon’ble Supreme Co that "if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provisions are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted". It is also relevant to note that the coordinate bench in the case of one of the other co (supra) held a similar view and allowed the claim of exemption u/s.54F. 9. In view of this discussion and considering the binding judicial precedence, we hold that the of exemption u/s.54F on the ground that he is jointly owning 16.67% in 6 flats since joint ownership/part ownership cannot be treated as absolute ownership in the absence of any specific words to that effect in section Officer is directed to allow the claim of exemption u/s.54F as claimed in the return of income. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 01/01/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala (SC)) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down a principle that "if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provisions are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be It is also relevant to note that the coordinate bench in the case of one of the other co-owners Shri Sainul Abedin Ghaswala (supra) held a similar view and allowed the claim of exemption In view of this discussion and considering the binding judicial precedence, we hold that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of exemption u/s.54F on the ground that he is jointly owning 16.67% in 6 flats since joint ownership/part ownership cannot be treated as absolute ownership in the absence of any specific words that effect in section 54F of the Act. Accordingly the Officer is directed to allow the claim of exemption u/s.54F as claimed in the return of income. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. nounced in the open Court on 01/ Sd/- AMIT SHUKLA) (PADMAVATHY S. JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala 8 ITA No. 3177/Mum/2023 urt has laid down a principle that "if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provisions are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be It is also relevant to note that the coordinate bench in the Shri Sainul Abedin Ghaswala (supra) held a similar view and allowed the claim of exemption In view of this discussion and considering the binding judicial assessee cannot be denied the benefit of exemption u/s.54F on the ground that he is jointly owning 16.67% in 6 flats since joint ownership/part ownership cannot be treated as absolute ownership in the absence of any specific words 54F of the Act. Accordingly the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of exemption u/s.54F as In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. /01/2024. Sd/- PADMAVATHY S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala 9 ITA No. 3177/Mum/2023 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai