SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

ITA 3178/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0596 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B B RAJINDRAN
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Gross profit estimation; Unexplained expenditure; Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Difference of opinion; Accommodation entries; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 148; 263; 63

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH MUMB AI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3178/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ) SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. TOWER-C, BLOCK-E4012013, BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400051 . PAN: AAACS9384A VS. PR.CIT -5 ROOM NO. 501, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. APPELLANT RESPONDE NT ITA NO. 3179/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ) SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. TOWER-C, BLOCK-E4012013, BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400051 . PAN: AAACS9384A VS. PR.CIT -5 ROOM NO. 501, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. APPELLANT RESPONDE NT ITA NO. 3180/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) SANGHAVI EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. CE-4011, CE 4012, CE-4013, BHARAT , BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400051 . PAN: AAKCS7350N VS. PR.CIT -5 ROOM NO. 501, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. APPELLANT RESPONDE NT ITA NO. 3181/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) SANGHAVI EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. CE-4011, CE 4012, PR.CIT -5 ROOM NO. 501, AAYAKAR ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 2 CE-4013, BHARAT , BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400051 . PAN: AAKCS7350N VS. BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. APPELLANT RESPONDE NT ITA NO. 3182/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) SANGHAVI EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. CE-4011, CE 402, CE-4013, BHARAT , BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400051 . PAN: AAKCS7350N VS. PR.CIT -5 ROOM NO. 501, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. APPELLANT RESPONDE NT APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAKESH JOSHI WITH SHRI SUCHEK ANCHALIYA (AR) RESPONDENT BY : SH. B.B. RAJINDRAN (CIT-DR) DATE OF HEARING : 26.11.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 30.11.2018 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. THIS GROUP OF FIVE APPEALS BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSE E ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. PR.CIT DATED 23.03.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. IN ALL APPEALS THE ASSESSES HAVE RAISED THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE FACTS O F ALL APPEALS ARE ALMOST SIMILAR EXCEPT CERTAIN VARIATION OF DATES OF ASSESS MENT ORDER, ADDITIONS ON ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 3 ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES ETC. THUS, WITH THE CONSENT OF PARTIES ALL APPEALS WERE CLUBBED, HEARD AND ARE DECIDED BY COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. WITH THE CONSENT OF PARTIES TH E APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN SANGHAVI EXPORTS INTERNA TIONAL PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 3180/MUM/2018 IS TREATED AS LEAD CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. PR.CIT ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. A.O. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MANUFACTURER AND EXPORTER OF CUT AND POLISHED DIAMONDS, FILED ITS RETURN OF I NCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 29.09.2009 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 52 ,96,729/-. THE BOOK PROFIT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB AT RS . 6,74,05,764/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 26 .03.2013 ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 24,01,908/- AND BOOK PROFIT AT RS. 7,31,15,250/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH ON BHANWARLAL JAIN GROUP ON 3 RD OCTOBER 2013 BY INVESTIGATION WING OF INCOME-TAX DE PARTMENT, WHEREIN IT WAS FOUND THAT BHANWARLAL JAIN GROUP WAS CONTROL LING 70 BENAMI COMPANIES, CONTROLLED BY BHANWARLAL JAIN GROUP FOR PROVIDING BOGUS ENTRIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED THE INFORMA TION FROM INVESTIGATION WING OF INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT THAT AS SESSEE OBTAINED ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 4 ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF PURCHASE OF RS.9,67,25,369 /- FROM TWO SUCH BOGUS ENTITIES MANAGED BY SAID BHANWARLAL JAIN GROU P. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INFORMATION, THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED ON 1 9.02.2015. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 27.02.2015 WAS ISSUED TO TH E ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED AFTER OBTAINING NECESSARY APPROVA L FROM LD. PCIT-5. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS REPLY DATED 11.05.2015. IN THE REPLY, THE ASSESSEE CONTEN DED THAT RETURN FILED ON 29.09.2009 BE TREATED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REQUESTED FOR REASONS RECORD ED. THE REASONS RECORDED WERE COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 29.12 .2015. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS OBJECTION VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 22.02.201 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISPOSED OF THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCE EDED FOR RE- ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECT ION 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE RE -ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBSTANTIATE T HE PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED REPLY WITH REGARD TO THE QU ERIES RAISED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CONFIRMA TION FROM M/S MURALI GEMS & SURYA DIAM CONFIRMING THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE SALE TO THEM OF RS. 587,86440/ AND RS. 3,79,38,929/- RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSE ALSO FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME, PROFIT AND LOSS ACC OUNT, BALANCE SHEET AND ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 5 OTHER DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THAT THE PURCHASES ARE GEN UINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED EXPLANATION AND VERIFYING THE TAX AUDIT REPORT (TAR) MADE THE ADDITION @ 12.50% ON AC COUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ADDITION WAS MADE FOR SUPPRESSION OF GROSS PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF DECISION OF CIT VS. SIMIT P. SHETH (356 IT R 451 (GUJARAT). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. PCIT, THE ASSESSEE FI LED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). DURING THE PENDENCY OF APPEAL THE LD. P CIT REVISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 23.03.2018 AN D DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CARRY OUT THE ENQUIRIES AND MA KE FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE APE X COURT IN CASE OF N.K. PROTEINS LTD. VS. DCIT [2017 250 TAXMAN 0022]. THE LD. PCIT ISSUED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 01.03.2018. IN THE S HOW-CAUSE NOTICE, THE LD. PCIT MENTIONED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT THAT PURCHASE OF RS. 33.57 LAKHS MADE FROM BHANWARLAL JA IN GROUP ARE BOGUS, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DISALLOW THE ENTIRE BOGUS PURCHASES BUT INSTEAD MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF P ROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES BY APPLYING DISALLOWANCE @ 12. 5%. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DECLARED GROSS PROFIT @ 6.70% AND THE A SSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION BY APPLYING THE PROFIT RATE OF 5.80 % ON TOTAL BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY TAKING ALL FACTUAL AND LEGAL ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 6 OBJECTIONS. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED IN THE REPLY THAT DURING THE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 14 7, THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED ELABORATE EXPLANATION AND ENTIRE CHAIN OF TRANSACTION AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER PROPER EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND AUDIT REPORT OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECE DENT INCLUDING THE DECISION OF SIMIT P. SHETH (SUPRA) MADE THE ADDITIO N ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT EMBEDDED ON SUCH PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CO NTENDED THAT THEY ARE DEALING IN DIAMONDS AND NORMAL RATE OF PROFIT R ANGE ARE BETWEEN 4 TO 6%, THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE FURTHER ADDIT ION @ 9.73%. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER FULL INVESTIGATIO N OF FACTS. THE ORDER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREAD Y FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE SAME GROUND WHICH IS SOUGHT T O BE REVISED ON THE SAME GROUND, THEREFORE, ON THE DOCTRINE OF PARTIAL MERGER, THE REVISION OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY LD. PCIT. THE LD. PCIT CONTENDED THAT A SSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED UNDISCLOSED PROFIT EMBEDDED THEREIN, THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONTRARY IN HIS FINDING THAT PURCHASES A RE BOGUS AND THERE CAN BE NO PROFIT EMBEDDED IN PURCHASES WHICH WAS NEVER MADE. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCL OSED INCOME ARISING ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 7 OUT OF BOGUS PURCHASES CAN BE SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THER EFORE, HIS VIEW IS NOT BASED ON CHANGE OF OPINION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOT MADE ENQUIRIES AS REVISION MADE AS PER THE PROVISION OF CLAUSE-(A) OF EXPLANATION- 2 TO SECTION 263(1) AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DEEMED TO BE ERRONEOUS AND SO FAR PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTEREST OF REVENUE AND DIRECTED TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS THE ASSES SMENT ORDER AFRESH. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. PCIT, THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSES SEE AND LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON R ECORD. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASS ED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147 DATED 29.03.2016 IS NEITHER ERRONE OUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS I NITIALLY COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) BY ACCEPTING THE RETURN INCOME DECLARED BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED ON SPECIFIC INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION WING OF INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT THAT AS SESSEE HAS SHOWN CERTAIN PURCHASES FROM BHANWARLAL JAIN GROUP WHICH WERE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN THE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING EXAMINED THE ISSUE EXTENSIVEL Y AND PASSED THE ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 8 ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT DATED 29.03.2016. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS THER EFORE, NOT ERRONEOUS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION, THE LD. AR OF THE ASS ESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. M ALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. AND THE DECISION OF GABRIEL INDIA LTD. 71 TAXM AN 585 (BOM). 4. IN SECOND ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION/PREPOSITION, THE L D. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE ON WHICH LD. PCIT REVISED TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ONCE THE MATTER IS COVERED UNDER THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. PCIT HAS NO POWER UNDER SECTION 263 TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN FINE JEWELLERY (INDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT 30 TAXMANN.COM 323 (MUM TRIB.), RAJAL ENTERPRISES VS P CIT (ITA NO. 2273/MUM/2018 DATED 31.08.2018 (CO-AUTHORED BY LD A M). MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CWT VS SAMPATHMAL CHORDIA 256 ITR 440 (BOM ) AND RANKA JEWELERS VS ACIT (2010) 190 TAXMAN 265 (BOMBAY). THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IN HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN RANKA JEWELERS VS CIT (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE COMMISS IONER WHILE ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 9 EXERCISING POWER UNDER SECTION 263 CAN ONLY EXTEND TO SUCH MATTER WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN APPEAL. 5. ON MERIT, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE SALE OF ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT 99% OF SALE OF THE ASSESSEE IS EXPORT SALE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS HUGE TURNOVER. THE SALE OF ASSESSEE IS FULLY VE RIFIABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN DEPTH. NO DISCREPANCI ES WAS RECORDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SALE OF THE ASSESSEE, THER EFORE, IN ABSENCE OF DISPUTE WITH THE SALE, THE PURCHASES CANNOT BE DOUB TED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IN ASSESSE ES GROUP CASE IN SANGHAVI EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD IN APPEAL FO R AY 2011-12, THE LD CIT(A) (NO.CIT(A)-10/DCIT-5(3)(1)/59/2015-16) HAS S USTAINED ONLY 3% OF DISALLOWANCES ON SIMILAR TRANSACTION IN HIS ORDE R DATED 16.01.2017. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE MUST FOLLOW THE CONSISTENCY. THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 17.02.2017 IS PLACED ON RECOR D. 6. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IN ALL FAIRNESS, HE WANTED TO BRING ON RECORD THAT IN A RECENT DECISION, THE H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN M/S. SHORELINE HOTEL PVT. LTD. VS. CI T 98 TAXMANN.COM 234 (BOMBAY), THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT UPHOLD THE REVISION ORDER PASSED AFTER, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UND ER SECTION 143(3) AND ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 10 UPHELD THE 100% UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE (BOGUS PURC HASES). THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE FACTS OF THE ASSES SEES CASE ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF PLUMBING, FURNITURE ITEM, PAINTING AND BUILDING ITEMS FROM SOME OF THE PARTIES AND STATIONARY & GAS SUPPLIED ITEM. IN THE SAID, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH AND RECONCILED THE PURCHASES. THUS, IN T HE SAID CASE, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS NOR THE PURCHAS ES WERE RECONCILED, HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBS TANTIATED HIS CONTENTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RECONCILED ALL THE PURCHASES. THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ARE COMPLETELY DIF FER. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF LD. PCIT. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE LD. P CIT WHILE REVISING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS CLEARLY HELD IN PARA-6 OF IMPU GNED ORDER THAT THE REVISION IS NOT CHANGE OF OPINION. THE LD. PCIT CLE ARLY BRINGS OUT THE CASE COVERED BY CLAUSE-(A) OF EXPLANATION (2) OF SE CTION 263(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO MAKE SUFFI CIENT ENQUIRIES; THEREFORE, THE ORDER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANDATE OF EXPLANATION (2) OF SECTION 263. THEREFORE, THE ORDER IS ERRONEO US, THEREBY PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVE NUE PRAYED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 11 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THERE IS N O DISPUTE THAT INITIALLY RETURN OF INCOME WAS ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, T HERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 148 DATED 27.02.2015. THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT O RDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S. 143(3), THE ASSESSING OFFICER MA DE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES BY APPLYING THE GROSS PR OFIT SUPPRESSED IN THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION @ 12% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. AGGRIEVED BY TH E ADDITION IN THE RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). DURING THE PENDENCY OF APPEAL, THE LD. PCIT REVISED THE AS SESSMENT ORDER VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 23.03.2018. ON OUR SPECIFIC QUERY, IT W AS COMMUNICATED THAT AFTER PASSING THE ORDER OF LD. PCIT, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE APPEAL HAS BECOME INF RUCTUOUS. IT WAS STATED AT BAR THAT THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF APPEAL IN ALL CASES HAS NOT BEEN COMMUNICATED SO FAR EXCEPT IN ONE CASE. 9. FOR APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND LAW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 251 AND 263 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 ARE EXTRACTED BELOW; ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 12 251. POWERS OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS )- (1) IN DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEAL S)] SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING POWERS (A) IN AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, H E MAY CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT (AA) IN AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT I N RESPECT OF WHICH THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ABATES UNDER SECTION 245HA, HE MAY, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE MATERIAL AND OTHER INFORMATION PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE, OR THE RESULTS OF THE INQUIRY HELD OR EVIDENCE RECORDED BY, THE SETTLEMENT COMMIS SION, IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDING BEFORE IT AND SUCH OTHER MATERIAL AS MAY BE BROUGHT ON HIS RECORD, CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL THE A SSESSMENT; (B) IN AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALT Y, HE MAY CONFIRM OR CANCEL SUCH ORDER OR VARY IT SO AS EITHER TO ENHANC E OR TO REDUCE THE PENALTY; (C) IN ANY OTHER CASE, HE MAY PASS SUCH OR DERS IN THE APPEAL AS HE THINKS FIT. (2) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL NOT ENHANCE AN ASSESSMENT OR A PENALTY OR REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF REFUND UNLESS THE A PPELLANT HAS HAD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUC H ENHANCEMENT OR REDUCTION. EXPLANATION.IN DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL, THE COMMISS IONER (APPEALS)] MAY CONSIDER AND DECIDE ANY MATTER ARISING OUT OF THE P ROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WAS PASSED, NOTWITHSTAND ING THAT SUCH MATTER WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] B Y THE APPELLANT . REVISION OF ORDERS PREJUDICIAL TO REVENUE . 263. (1) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER MA Y CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT , AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE [ASSESSING] OF FICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD A ND AFTER MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSA RY, PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, I NCLUDING AN ORDER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELLIN G THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. [ EXPLANATION 1 .]FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, AN ORDER PASSED [ON OR BEFORE OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 1988] BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL INCLUDE ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 13 AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSISTANT COMMIS SIONER OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE [JOINT] COMMI SSIONER UNDER SECTION 144A ; AN ORDER MADE BY THE [JOINT] COMMISSIONER IN EXERC ISE OF THE POWERS OR IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER CONFERRED ON, OR ASSIGNED TO, HIM UNDER THE ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD OR BY THE 22 [PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR 22 [PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR] DIRECTOR GENERAL OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER AUTHORISED BY THE BOAR D IN THIS BEHALF UNDER SECTION 120 ; 'RECORD' SHALL INCLUDE AND SHALL BE DEEMED ALWAYS T O HAVE INCLUDED ALL RECORDS RELATING TO ANY PROCEEDING UND ER THIS ACT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY THE PRINCIP AL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER; WHERE ANY ORDER REFERRED TO IN THIS SUB-SECTION A ND PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN THE SUBJECT MATTER O F ANY APPEAL FILED ON OR BEFORE OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF J UNE, 1988, THE POWERS OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMIS SIONER UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL EXTEND AND SHALL BE DE EMED ALWAYS TO HAVE EXTENDED] TO SUCH MATTERS AS HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN SUCH APPEAL. [ EXPLANATION 2. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, IT IS HEREBY DECL ARED THAT AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT ERESTS OF THE REVENUE, IF, IN THE OPINION OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMIS SIONER, THE ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT MAKING INQUIRIES OR VERIFICATION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE; THE ORDER IS PASSED ALLOWING ANY RELIEF WITHOUT INQ UIRING INTO THE CLAIM; THE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY ORDER, DIRECTION OR INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY THE BOARD UNDER ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 14 SECTION 119 ; OR THE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN Y DECISION WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE, REND ERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE OR ANY OTHER PERSON.] (2) NO ORDER SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AF TER THE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHI CH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED WAS PASSED.] (3) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTI ON (2), AN ORDER IN REVISION UNDER THIS SECTION MAY BE PASSED AT ANY TIME IN THE CASE OF AN ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED IN CONSEQUENCE OF, O R TO GIVE EFFECT TO, ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NATIONAL TAX TRIBUNAL,] THE HIGH COURT OR THE SUPREME COURT. EXPLANATION .IN COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR THE PUR POSES OF SUB-SECTION (2), THE TIME TAKEN IN GIVING AN OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO BE REHEARD UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 129 AND ANY PERIOD DURING WHICH ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS SECTI ON IS STAYED BY AN ORDER OR INJUNCTION OF ANY COURT SHALL BE EXCLUD ED. 10. A CAREFUL READING OF SEC. 251 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 M AKES IT CLEAR THAT THE CIT(A) WHILE HEARING THE APPEAL MAY CONFIRM, REDUCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT OR MAY PASS SUCH ORDER AS HE MAY THINK F IT. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL NOT ENHANCE AN ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY O R REDUCE THE AMOUNT UNLESS THE ASSESSEE HAS A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY ON SUCH ENHANCEMENT OR REDUCTION. EXPLANATION ATTACHED WITH SUB SEC. (2) OF SEC. 251 ALSO MAKES IT CLEAR THAT WHILE DISPOSING THE APPEAL THE CIT(A) MAY CONSIDER AND DECIDE ANY MATTER ARISING OUT OF THE PROCEDURE IN W HICH THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WERE PASSED, NOT WITHSTANDING THAT SUCH MATTER WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A) BY APPELLANT. ADMITTEDLY THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 15 ON ADDITION OF QUANTUM ASSESSMENT, ON ACCOUNT OF AD DITION ON THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES PENDING BEFORE THE CIT(A). FURTHER , SO FAR AS ISSUE OF BOGUS PURCHASES IS CONCERNED, THE A.O EXAMINED THE WHILE PASSING RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEED ING, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE PURCHASES ARE GENUINE; THE CONTE NTION OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES BY D ISALLOWING 12.5% OF THE DISPUTED PURCHASES AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLAN ATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. FURTHER CAREFUL READING OF CLAUSE (C) OF EXPLANATIO N-1 OF SUB SEC. (1) OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT PRESCRIBED THAT WHERE ANY OR DER REFERRED IN THE SUB SECTION AND PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN TH E SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ANY APPEAL AFTER 01.06.1998, THE POWER OF PR. C IT OR CIT UNDER THIS SUB SECTION AND SHALL EXTEND AND SHALL BE DEEMED AL WAYS TO HAVE EXTENDED TO SUCH MATTER AS HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN SUCH APPEAL. AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE OUT OF THE SAME ISSUE OF ALLEGED CASH DEPOSITS IS STILL PENDIN G BEFORE CIT(A) THEREFORE, THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE LD. PR. CIT REVIS ED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS STILL SUB-JUDICE BEFORE CIT(A). 12. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CWT VS SAMPATHMAL CHORDIA (SUPRA) IN A WEALTH TAX MATTER HELD THAT COMMISSION ER HAS NO JURISDICTION ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 16 TO PASS AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 25(2) TO REVISE VALU ATION OF PROPERTY, WHEN THAT VALUATION WAS SUBJECT-MATTER OF AN APPEAL. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THAT WHERE THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ONE PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAD BEEN MADE THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF AN APPEAL, THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER WOULD EXTEND TO SUCH MATTERS AS HA D NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN SUCH APPEAL. 13. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN RANKA JEWELLERS ( SUPRA) HELD THAT THE POWER UNDER SECTION 263(1) CAN BE EXERCISED BY THE COMMISSIONER WHERE HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER ESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE EXPLANATION (C ) TO THE PROVISION PROVIDES THAT WHE RE ANY ORDER REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) AND PASSED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS BEEN MADE A SUBJECT-MATTER OF ANY APPEAL, THE POWERS OF THE C OMMISSIONER UNDER THE SUB-SECTION SHALL EXTEND TO SUCH MATTERS AS HAD NOT BEEN 'CONSIDERED AND DECIDED' IN THE APPEAL. IN OTHER WORDS, THE EXERCIS E OF POWER UNDER SECTION 263(1) IS IN RESPECT OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHERE THE ORDER IS REGARDED AS BEING ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WHERE AN ORDER PASSED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUBJECT TO AN APPEAL THAT HAS BEEN FILED, THE PO WER OF THE COMMISSIONER TO INVOKE HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 CAN ONLY EXTEND TO ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 17 SUCH MATTERS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND DEC IDED IN THE APPEAL. THE WORDS WHICH HAVE BEEN USED IN THE EXPLANATION ( C) TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 263 ARE 'CONSIDERED AND DECIDED'. IN OTH ER WORDS, IT IS NOT MERELY A CONSIDERATION THAT DISABLES, BUT THE MATTE R IS TO BE CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN THE APPEAL. THE SUBMISSION OF THE RE VENUE, THAT THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAD NOT DECIDED THE ISSUE WH ILE DEALING WITH THE QUESTION OF ENHANCEMENT, COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS STRUCTURED BY THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 251. SECTION 251, INTER ALIA, PROVIDES THAT IN DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHAL L HAVE THE POWER TO CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT. C ONSEQUENTLY, WHEN A REQUEST FOR ENHANCEMENT WAS MADE TO THE COMMISSIONE R (APPEALS), HE HAD THE JURISDICTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 251 TO CON FIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT. A READING OF THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WOULD LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAD CONSIDERED AND DECIDED T HE ISSUE. ONCE THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE COMMISSIONE R (APPEALS), THE REMEDY OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT LIE IN THE INVOCATI ON OF THE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY COORDINATE BENCH IN RAJAL ENTERPRISES VS PCIT (SUPRA). ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 18 14. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL AND LEGAL DISCUSSION THE ORDER PASSED BY LD PCIT BY INVOKING POWER UNDER SECTION 2 63 IN INVALID, HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IS SET ASIDE. 15. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE TWIN CONDITION FOR INVOKING THE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 IS NOT SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GABRIEL INDIA LTD. (SUPRA ) ALSO CLEARLY LAYS DOWN THAT UNDER SECTION 263, THERE CANNOT BE ANY SUBSTITUTION OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER'S JUDGMENT BY JUDGMENT OF COMMISSIONER. FURTHER, HONBLE RAJASTHA N HIGH COURT IN CIT VS GIRDHARI LAL (172 CTR 92 RAJ) HELD ASSESSMEN T WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3), READ WITH SECTION 148. THE CO MMISSIONER (APPEALS) ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 TO REVI SE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND T HAT ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN HASTE AND IN A STEREOTYPED FASHION. ON APPE AL, THE TRIBUNAL TOOK THE VIEW THAT MERELY BECAUSE LOW PROFIT WAS SHOWN B Y THE ASSESSEE IN ITSELF DID NOT RENDER THE ORDER ERRONEOUS AND FURTH ER OBSERVED THAT ITO HAD DULY CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED AND A LSO CONSIDERED THE HEAVY LOSSES IN CONTRACT WORK DUE TO COMPETITION IN THE LINE OF BUSINESS AND HELD THAT IF LOW GP OR NP HAD BEEN SHOWN IN THE BUSINESS, THAT DID ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 19 NOT MEAN THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WA S ERRONEOUS. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS ARVIND JEWELER S (259 ITR 502 GUJ) HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, THA T SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED AND INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN I NCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT WAS THE FINDING OF FACT GIVEN BY T HE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED RELEVANT MATERIAL AND OFFERED EXPLANATION IN PURSUANCE OF THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1 ) AS WELL AS SECTION 143(2) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THOSE MATERIALS AND EX PLANATION, THE ITO HAD COME TO A DEFINITE CONCLUSION. THE COMMISSIONER DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE ITO. SECTION 263 DID NOT EMPOWER HIM TO TAKE ACTION ON THESE FACTS TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUS ION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE. SINCE THE MATERIAL WAS THERE ON RECORD AND THE SAID MATERIAL WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ITO AND A PARTICULAR VIEW WAS TAK EN, THE MERE FACT THAT DIFFERENT VIEW COULD BE TAKEN, SHOULD NOT BE THE BA SIS FOR AN ACTION UNDER SECTION 263 AND IT COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE JUSTIFIE D ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 20 16. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTUAL AND LEGAL DISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE POSSIBLE V IEWS; THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ERRONE OUS. THUS, THE TWIN CONDITION PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT I S NOT SATISFIED. HENCE, THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO SUCCEEDED ON THE AL TERNATIVE SUBMISSION. 17. AS WE HAVE ACCEPTED THE LEGAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE L D AR FOR THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS INVALID, THEREFORE, THE DISCUSSION ON THE MERIT OF THE CASE HAS BECOME ACADEMIC. 18. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . PARTIES ARE LEFT TO BEAR THEIR OWN COST. ITA NO. 3179,3080,3181& 3182/MUM/ 2018 19. IN ALL APPEALS THE ASSESSEES HAVE RAISED IDENTICA L GROUNDS OF APPEAL, AS WE HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED THAT IN ALL APPEAL IDENTI CAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE RAISED, CONSIDERING OUR DECISION IN ITA NO. 317 8/MUM/2018 AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPAL OF CONSISTENCY, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED WITH SIMILAR OBSERVATION. 20. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/11/2018. SD/- SD/- N.K. PRADHAN PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 30.11.2018 ITA NO. 3178, 3179 , 3180, 3181 & 3182 MUM 2018-SANGHAVI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. & ANR 21 SK COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI