OSWAL & ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI V. DCIT CC 3(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3197/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0041 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KUMAR RAI LD
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATEEK JAINLD
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Business income; Question of law; Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.3197-98,3284-85/MUM/2017 OSWAL & ASSOCIATES ASSESSMENT YEARS- 2011-12 & 2012-13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NOS. 3197 &3198/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13) OSWAL & ASSOCIATES 205, MARINE CHAMBERS 43, NEW MARINE LINES MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1) MUMBAI ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAAFO-0056-E ( /APPELLANT ) : ( !' / RESPONDENT ) & ./I.T.A. NOS. 3284 &3285/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1) 1924, 19 TH FLOOR AIR INDIA BUILDING NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 / VS. OSWAL & ASSOCIATES 205, MARINE CHAMBERS 43, NEW MARINE LINES MUMBAI-400 020 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAAFO-0056-F ( /APPELLANT ) : ( !' / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : PRATEEK JAIN,LD.AR REVENUE BY : SAURABH KUMAR RAI, LD. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 21/02/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 /02/2018 ITA NOS.3197-98,3284-85/MUM/2017 OSWAL & ASSOCIATES ASSESSMENT YEARS- 2011-12 & 2012-13 2 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. THESE ARE CROSS-APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS [AY ] 2011-12 & 2012-13 WHICH CONTEST SEPARATE ORDERS OF FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY ON SEPARATE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, WE DISPOSE-OFF THE SAME BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FO R THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE & BREVITY. FIRST WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO. 3197/MUM/2017 FOR AY 2011-12, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY CERTAIN ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES AS CONFIRMED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-51, MUMBAI [CIT(A)], APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-51/IT-37/2015-16 DATED 21/02/2017 . THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), MUMBAI U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 27/03/2015. 2.1 FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT FIRM ENGAGED IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AS BUILDERS & DEVELOPER S WAS SUBJECTED TO AN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 ON 27/03/2015 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SADDLED WITH ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FOR RS.62,43,421/- AND WHICH IS THE SOLE SUBJECT M ATTER OF THIS APPEAL. THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE ON 18/08/2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AS NIL AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). 2.2 PURSUANT TO INFORMATION RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION ON BHANWARLAL JAIN GROUP BY DGIT (INV.), IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE IMPUGNED PURCHASES FROM THREE ENTITIE S OF THE GROUP AS PER THE FOLLOWING DETAILS:- ITA NOS.3197-98,3284-85/MUM/2017 OSWAL & ASSOCIATES ASSESSMENT YEARS- 2011-12 & 2012-13 3 THE SEARCH / SURVEY ACTIONS ON THE SAID GROUP REVEA LED THAT THE SAID GROUP CONSISTING OF NUMEROUS BUSINESS ENTITIES WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION PURCHASES BILLS & ACCOMMODATION LOANS & ADVANCES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO SUBS TANTIATE THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED TH E PURCHASES MADE BY HIM AND PRODUCED CERTAIN DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES T O SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED, LD. AO DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME WITH PARTIAL SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/02/2 017 WHERE LD. AO, INTER-ALIA, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT CONSTRUCTION AC TIVITY AT VARIOUS PROJECTS AND THEREFORE FULL DISALLOWANCE TH EREOF WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. FINALLY, THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS WERE RESTRICTED TO 12.5% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES BY LD. CIT(A) BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT MAY BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED SIGNIFICANT DETAILS REGARDING THE ABOVE PURCHASES A ND THE SAME COULD NOT BE HELD AS BOGUS BY THE AO SIMPLY BECAUSE THE NAMES OF THE PAR TIES WHEREFROM PURCHASES WERE MADE WERE APPEARING IN THE LIST OF MAHARASHTRA VAT DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, THE FACT ALSO REMAINS THAT NAMES OF THESE PARTIES W ERE APPEARING IN THE LIST OF HAWALA DEALERS AS RECEIVED FROM THE MAHARASHTRA SAL ES TAX AND DGIT (INV.), MUMBAI. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SE PARTIES FOR EXAMINATION BEFORE THE AO. IT IS ALSO GATHERED THAT THESE PARTI ES ARE APPARENTLY NOT AVAILABLE ON THEIR LAST KNOWN ADDRESS. THEREFORE, THERE IS A POS SIBILITY THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE MADE PURCHASES FROM SOME OTHER UNREGISTERED DE ALERS AND IN TURN WOULD HAVE SAVED VAT AND OTHER TAXES ON SUCH PURCHASES. THE HO NBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS ADDRESSED THE IDENTICAL SITUATIONS IN THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SIMIT P SHETH 356 ITR 451 AND HAS HELD THAT IN SUCH CASE PROFIT OF THE ASSESS EE MAY BE COMPUTED AT 12.5% OF SUCH PURCHASES. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF TH E DECISION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- NO. NAME AMOUNT (RS.) 1. G M INTERNATIONAL 7,75,098/- 2. SWASTICK ENTERPRISES 18,26,311/- 3. IMPEX SALES CORPORATION 36,42,012/- TOTAL 62,43,421/- ITA NOS.3197-98,3284-85/MUM/2017 OSWAL & ASSOCIATES ASSESSMENT YEARS- 2011-12 & 2012-13 4 WE ARE BROADLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE REASONING ADOPTE D BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WITH RESPECT TO THE NATURE OF DISPUTED PURCHASES OF STE EL. IT MAY BE THAT THE THREE SUPPLIERS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED THE STE EL DID NOT OWN UP TO SUCH SALES. HOWEVER, VITAL QUESTION WHILE CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES SHOULD BE ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OR ONLY THE P ROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED THEREIN WAS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE PURCHASES THEMSELVES WERE COMPL ETELY BOGUS AND NON EXISTENT OR THAT THE PURCHASES WERE ACTUALLY MADE BUT NOT FROM THE PARTIES FROM WHOM IT WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE AND INSTEAD MAY HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FROM GREY MARKET WITHOUT PROPER BILLING OR DOCUMENTATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, CIT BELIEVED THAT WHEN AS A TRAD ER IN STEEL THE ASSESSEE SOLD CERTAIN QUANTITY OF STEEL, HE WOULD HAVE PURCHASED THE SAME Q UANTITY FROM SOME SOURCE. WHEN THE TOTAL SALE IS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE COULD NOT HAVE QUESTIONED THE VERY BASIS OF THE PURCHASES. IN ESSENCE THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER ( APPEALS) BELIEVED ASSESSEE S THEORY THAT THE PURCHASES WERE NOT BOGUS BUT WERE MADE FROM THE PARTIES OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THAT BEING THE POSITION, NOT THE ENTIRE PURCHASE PRIC E BUT ONLY PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH PURCHASES CAN BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SO MUCH IS CLEAR BY DECISION OF THIS COURT. IN PARTICULAR, COURT HAS ALSO TAKEN A SIMI LAR VIEW IN CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV VS. VIJAY M MISTRY CONSTRUCTION LTD. VIDE ORDER DATED 10.01.2011 PASSED IN TAX APPEAL NO. 1090 OF 2009 AND IN CASE OF COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX-I VS. BHOLANATH POLY FAB PVT. LTD. VIDE ORDER DATED 23.10.2012 PASSED IN TAX APPEAL NO. 63 OF 2012. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 58 ITD 428 CAME TO BE APPROVED. IF THE ENTIRE PURCHASES WERE WHOLLY BOGUS AND THERE W AS FINDING OF FACT ON RECORD THAT NO PURCHASE WERE MADE AT ALL, COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE WOU LD BE JUSTIFIED IN ARGUING THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES SHOULD BE ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH WERE THE FACTS IN CASE OF ACIT (OSC) WARD 5( 3) NADIAD VS. PAWANRAJ B BOKADIA (SUPRA). THIS BEING THE POSITION, THE ONLY QUESTION THAT SURVIVES I S WHAT SHOULD BE THE FAIR PROFIT RATE OUT OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES WHICH SHOULD BE ADDED BAC K TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISSIONER ADOPTED RATIO OF 30% OF SUCH TOTAL SALES . THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, SCALED DOWN TO 12.5%. WE MAY NOTICE THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECE DING YEAR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED GROSS PROF IT @ 3.56% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER. IF THE YARDSTICK OF 30%, AS ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSIONER, I S ACCEPTED GP RATE WILL BE MUCH HIGHER. IN ESSENCE, THE TRIBUNAL ONLY ESTIMATED THE POSSIBLE PROFIT OUT OF PURCHASES MADE THROUGH NON-GENUINE PARTIES. NO QUESTION OF LAW IN SUCH ESTIMATION WOULD ARISE. THE ESTIMATION OF RATE OF PROFIT RETURN MUST NECESSARILY VAR Y WITH THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND NO UNIFORM YARDSTICK CAN BE ADOPTED. 12. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH IN THE CASE OF SIMIT P SHETH 356 (SUPRA), THE PROFIT RATE OF 12.5% IS APPLIED ON THE SUSPECTED BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS.62,43,421/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.7,80,428/-. THEREFORE, OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.62,43,421/-, AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,80,428/- IS CONFI RMED AND THE BALANCE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THIS GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS.3197-98,3284-85/MUM/2017 OSWAL & ASSOCIATES ASSESSMENT YEARS- 2011-12 & 2012-13 5 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE IS I N FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY CONFIRMATIO N OF ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 12.5% WHEREAS THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY RELIEF GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A). 4. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE [AR] FOR ASSES SEE PLEADED FOR SOME MORE RELIEF WHEREAS LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE [DR] POINTED OUT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, BY ITSELF, WA S NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. IT WAS FURTHER C ONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY OF THE PARTY FOR CON FIRMATION OF TRANSACTIONS AND MOREOVER, THE SEARCH / SURVEY ACTI ON ON THE CONCERNED GROUP CLEARLY REVEALED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE M ERELY ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND THEREFORE, THE STAND OF LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIE S AT VARIOUS PROJECTS DURING IMPUGNED AY, THE SAME COULD NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT CONSUMPTION OF ACTUAL MATERIAL LIKE TILES, STEEL, CEMENT, TMT BARS ETC. STATED TO BE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE S UPPLIERS. THE ASSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSION OF PRIMARY PURCHASE DOCU MENTS AND THE PAYMENTS WERE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. AS EVIDENT FROM DOCUMENTS PLACED IN PAPER-BOOK, THE ASSESSEE RECONCILED PROJECT WISE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL. AT THE SAME TIM E, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY OF THE SUPPLIERS BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBSTANTIATE THE DELIVERY OF MATERIAL WITH COGENT E VIDENCES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED PURCHASES FROM THREE ENTITIES, A LL OF WHICH WERE ITA NOS.3197-98,3284-85/MUM/2017 OSWAL & ASSOCIATES ASSESSMENT YEARS- 2011-12 & 2012-13 6 CONTROLLED BY THE SAME GROUP AND THE SEARCH / SURVE Y ACTION CLEARLY REVEALED THAT THE SAID GROUP CONTROLLED MORE THAN 7 0 ENTITIES WITH THE SOLE OBJECTIVE OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION BILLS TO THE INTERESTED PERSON. ALL THESE FACTORS CAST A SERIOUS DOUBT ON ASSESSEE S CLAIM. THEREFORE, IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE ADDITION, WHICH COULD BE MADE , WAS TO ACCOUNT FOR PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THESE PURCHASE TRANSACTI ONS TO FACTORIZE FOR PROFIT ELEMENT EARNED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF MATERIAL IN THE GREY MARKET AND UNDUE BENEFIT OF VAT AGAINST ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES, WHICH LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DONE. FINDIN G THE ESTIMATED ADDITION OF 12.5% QUITE FAIR AND REASONABLE, WE FIN D NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY. 6. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 7. THE ASSESSEE, IN AY 2012-13, HAS SIMILARLY BEEN SADDLED WITH ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FOR RS.37,91,029/- IN AN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 31/03/2015. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ON SIMILAR REASONING, RESTRICTED THE SAME TO 12.5% AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US BY WAY OF IDENTICAL WORDED GROUNDS. SINCE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE S IMILAR, TAKING THE SAME VIEW, WE CONFIRM THE STAND OF LD. FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY AND DISMISS THE CROSS APPEALS QUA THIS GROUND. 8. IN THIS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ONE MORE G ROUND OF APPEAL WHICH READS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS C ASE AND IN LAW LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ACTION OF LD. ITA NOS.3197-98,3284-85/MUM/2017 OSWAL & ASSOCIATES ASSESSMENT YEARS- 2011-12 & 2012-13 7 ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENSES CLAIM ED AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.21,67,942/-. 9. FACTS QUA THE SAME ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED INCOME OF RS.85,87,102/- @8% AS PER PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD . DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSES SEE EARNED INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS WITH BANK [FDR] AMOUNTING TO RS.21,67,942/- WHICH HAS BEEN NULLIFIED BY CLAIMING EXPENDITURE OF THE S AME AMOUNT ON THE PREMISE THAT THE SAID DEPOSITS WERE CREATED OUT OF INTEREST BEARING UNSECURED LOANS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, LD. AO OPINED THAT THE INTEREST PAID ON UNSECURED LOANS HAD DIREC T NEXUS WITH THE ONGOING PROJECTS AND THEREFORE, THE SAME COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 57 AGAINST INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY T HE ASSESSEE ON FDRS WHICH WAS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/02/2017 WHERE LD. CIT( A), AFTER CONSIDERING ASSESSEES SUBMISSION, CONFIRMED THE ST AND OF LD. AO. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSU E REQUIRES RE- APPRECIATION AT THE END OF LD. AO SINCE THE MATERIA L ON RECORD IS INADEQUATE TO ADJUDICATE THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE H AS MERELY CONTENDED THAT UNSECURED LOANS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED T O MAKE FDRS WITH THE BANK AND THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE A LLOWED TO HIM. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/03/2012 REVEALS THAT THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS REFLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FAR EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT O F UNSECURED LOANS . THEREFORE, WITHOUT DELVING MUCH DEEPER INTO THE I SSUE, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ITA NOS.3197-98,3284-85/MUM/2017 OSWAL & ASSOCIATES ASSESSMENT YEARS- 2011-12 & 2012-13 8 ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENDITU RE U/S 57 FAILING WHICH LD. AO SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PE R LAW ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. RESULTANTLY, THIS GRO UND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. CONCLUSION 11. THE CROSS APPEALS FOR AY 2011-12 AND REVENUES APPEAL FOR AY 2012-13 STANDS DISMISSED WHEREAS ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO. 3198/MUM/2017 FOR AY 2012-13 STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2018 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) ( MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 28. 02.2018 SR.PS:- THIRUMALESH / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. !'# $% , & $%' , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. #() / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI