PRATIMA B. SHAH, MUMBAI V. ASSTT. CIT, RANGE- 16(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3428/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2538 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GANESH BAREDR
• Keywords: Wrong claim; Revised return
• Section: 139

Judgement Text

INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENC H MUMBAI , , BEFORE S/SHJOGINDER SINGH,JUDICIA L MEMBER & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A./3428 /MUM/2014 , /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SMT. PRATIMA B. SHAH 194, GAIWADI COMPOUND, GIRGAUM ROAD,MUMBAI-400 004. PAN:AAFPS 3008 R VS. THE ACIT, RANGE-16(3) 2 ND FLOOR, MATRU MANDIR MUMBAI-400 007. ./I.T.A./ 3429/MUM/2014 , /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI PRATIK BHARAT SHAH 194, GAIWADI COMPOUND, GIRGAUM ROAD,MUMBAI-400 004. PAN:AAGPS 1424 C VS. THE ACIT, RANGE-16(3) 2 ND FLOOR, MATRU MANDIR MUMBAI-400 007. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI GANESH BARE-DR ASSESSEE BY: S/SHRI VIJAY MEHTA &ANUJ KISHNADWALA-ARS / DATE OF HEARING: 25.05.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20.07.2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDERS,DATED 14.2.14,OF THE CIT(A)- 27,MUMBAI THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEALS.AS THE SAME ISSUE-LEVY OF P ENALTY U/S.271(1)(C)(1)(C) OF THE ACT-IS INVOLVED IN BOTH THE CASES AND THE ASSESSEES ARE ME MBERS OF THE SAME FAMILY,SO,WE ARE ADJUDICATING BOTH THE APPEALS BY A SINGLE ORDER. ITA/3429/MUM/2014 2 .ASSESSEE,AN INDIVIDUAL FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME, ON 29.3.2010,DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 39, 16,000/-.SUBSEQUENTLY,A REVISED RETURN WAS FILED O N 31.03.2011 SHOWING INCOME OF RS.46.76 LAKHS,THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE AC T. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND A NOTICE U/S. 142(2) WAS ISSUED ON 20.08.10. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT,ON 12.12.11,DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE AT 46,77,550/-. 3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED AS TO WHY THE REVISED RETURN SHOULD BE CONSIDERED,AS THE ORIGINAL RERUN WAS NOT FILED IN TIME AS PROVIDED U/S.139(1)OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY,THE REVISED RETURN WAS NOT CONSIDE RED FILED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139 (5) OF THE ACT. IN HIS SUBMISSION, DATED /12/20 11, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE HAD NOT 3428&29-PRATIMAS&PRATIK.S 2 RECEIVED INTIMATION U/S. 143 (1) AND THAT ACCORDING LY HE HAD REVISED HIS RETURN. THE AO HELD THAT EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCE PTABLE,THAT THE ORDER U/S. 143 (1) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 26/08/2010, THAT AS PER THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 139 (5) RETURNS FILED U/S. 139 (1) ONLY COULD BE REVISED. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT REVISED RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED.WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO HELD THAT HE HAD NOT OFFERED INCOME UNDER TWO HEADS NAMELY INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY (RS.54,864/-) AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES (RS.7.05 LAKHS). HE INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL RE TURN.THE AO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S. 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLA IN AS TO WHY THE PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED UNDER THE SAID SECTION. IN HIS EXPLANATIONS, FILED ON 06/01/2012 AND 22/06/2012, THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THAT HE HAD COMMITTED MISTAKES. A FTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASES RELIED UPON BY HIM, THE AO H ELD THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED ON 29/03/2010, THAT THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE CASE HAD BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THAT NOTICE U/S. 143 (2) HAD BEEN SERVED UPON HIM, THAT THE ACT OF FILING OF REVISED RETURN WAS NOT VO LUNTARILY, THAT RETURN FILED LATE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(4) COULD NOT BE REVISED, THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE THE TRUE AMOUNT OF TOTAL INCOME FOR THE YE AR UNDER APPEAL,THAT THE REASON FOR REVISING THE RETURN WAS CLAIM OF MAINTENANCE CHARGES AGAINST THE RENT WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S.23/24 OF THE ACT, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT HE WAS NOT HAVING FULL INFORMATION ABOUT THE BANK INTEREST ON FDRS HELD BY HIM AS WELL AS HELD ON BEHALF OF HIS MINOR SON.THE AO FURTHER HELD THAT CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSES SEE WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE MATTER BEFORE HIM.HE FINALLY HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED/ FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN,THAT I T WAS A FIT CASE WHERE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) WAS REQUIRED TO BE IMPOSED.FINALLY, THE AO IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS.2.58 LAKHS. 3428&29-PRATIMAS&PRATIK.S 3 4. AGGREIVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO,IMPOSING PENALTY,T HE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA).BEFORE HIM,IT WA S ARGUED THAT HE HAD FILED BELATED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/03/2010, THAT UPON DISCOVERING THE FACT THAT MAINTENANCE CHARGES WERE CLAIMED AGAINST THE RENTAL INCOME AND THAT INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSIT WAS INADVERTENTLY NOT DISCLOSED WHILE FILING THE REGIONAL RETURN OF INCOM E THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY RECTIFIED THE MISTAKE BY FILING REVISED RETURN, THAT THE AO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE INFORMED HIM ABOUT THE NON-DISCLOSURE OF PROPERTY INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 54,864/- AND OTHER SOURCES INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 7.05 LAKH S MUCH BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE START OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE MONTH OF JUNE,2011, T HAT TDS CERTIFICATES FROM ALLAHABAD BANK AND PUNJAB AND SINDH BANK WERE NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DATE OF FILING OF THE ORIGINAL RETURN, THAT AS SOON AS THE TDS CER TIFICATES WERE RECEIVED,THE ASSESSEE CALCULATED THE ACCRUED INTEREST FIGURE AND VOLUNTAR ILY DISCLOSED THE SAME BY FILING A REVISED RETURN.AFTER CONSIDERING THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL, TH E FAA HELD THAT PENALTY COULD BE LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) IF THE AO WAS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON H AD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OR HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THAT THERE WAS A STRICT LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT CONCEALING INCOME OR FOR NOT GIVIN G INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHILE FILING THE RETURN, THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED SECTION 271(1)(C) W AS A CIVIL LIABILITY, THAT THE WILLFUL CONCEALMENT WAS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR LEV YING THE PENALTY, THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A CORRECT AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF HIS INCOME. THE FAA REFERRED TO THE EXPLANATION OF THE SECTION 271(1)(C) AND HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (B) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE ATTRACTED FOR TESTING THE EXIGIBILITY OF PENALTY IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT EXPLANATION FILED BY IT WAS BONA FIDE, THAT HE COULD NOT PROVE THAT ALL THE FAC TS RELATING TO THE COMPETITION OF INCOME WERE DISCLOSED, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HIDDEN OR CONCEALE D THE FDR INTEREST INCOME, THAT HE HAD MADE A FALSE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE AGAINST THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME. 3428&29-PRATIMAS&PRATIK.S 4 5. BEFORE US,THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)ARGUED T HAT AT THE TIME OF FILING OF ORIGINAL RETURN ACCRUED INTEREST FIGURES WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH REGARD TO THE FDRS WITH THE ALLAHABAD BANK, PUNJAB AND SINDH BANK AS WELL IS THE FDRS STA NDING IN THE MINOR NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE TDS CERTIFICATES FROM THE RESPECTIVE BANKS OVER RECEIVED ON 18/03/2011, THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING OF ORIGINAL RETURN PASSBOOK WAS NOT AVAILABLE/TRACEABLE, THAT THE INTEREST ACCRUED REMAINED TO BE SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN, THAT I N THE REVISED RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE INTEREST FROM THE FDR S.HE REFERRED TO THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT OF THE INTEREST INCOME.WITH REGARD TO MAI NTENANCE CHARGES,HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INADVERTENTLY CLAIMED THE CHARGES IN T HE ORIGINAL RETURN, THAT WHILE FILING THE REVISED RETURN THE PROPERTY INCOME WAS INCREASED BY RS.54/864/-, THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEAL THE IN COME, THAT THE ASSESSEE REVISED THE RETURN AS SOON AS HE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE MISTAKES COMMITTE D BY HIM. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE PENALTY WAS NOT LEVIED FOR THE SAME REASON FOR WHIC H NOTICE WAS ISSUED.HE REFERRED TO THE CASES OF KISHORE J JANANI (ITA/6890/M/2012-11/03/20 16),HAFIZ CONTRACTOR(ITA/622/ MUM/ 2013-02/9/2015),MANGALAM DRUG & ORGANICS LTD.(ITA/5 454/MUM/2011-24/09/ 2015), MAHABIR PRASAD AGARWAL (IT A/739/KOL/2013-DATED,15 /01/2016) AND MANJUNATH COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (359ITR565). THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) ARGUED THAT IT WAS A CLEAR CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS, THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF H AD ADMITTED INADVERTENT MISTAKE WITH REGARD TO HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME, THAT THE ACCRUAL O F INTEREST WAS NOT DEPENDENT ON TDS, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE GIVEN CLEAR FINDING ABOUT THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER,WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT NO AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT AND 3428&29-PRATIMAS&PRATIK.S 5 PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT AND THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY HAS TO BE TAKEN INDEPENDENTLY.ADDITIONS MADE DURING THE QUANTUM PRO CEEDINGS SHOULD NOT RESULT IN AUTOMATIC LEVY OF PENALTY.WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THE EXPLANATIO N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS.IF THE EXPLANATION INDICATE THAT STAND TAKEN BY HIM ABOUT AN EXPENDITURE OR A CLAIM IS ONE OF THE PLAUSIBLE VIEWS THEN NO PENALTY SHOULD BE LEVIED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACTS THAT WHAT TREATMENT WAS GIVEN TO IT DURING THE ASSE SSMENT OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS.IS,SHORT,IF THE EXPLANATION IS NOT SO FANCIFUL THAT A PERSON OF COMMON PRUDENCE WOULD AGREE WITH IT,THEN THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE VISITED BY PENAL PROVISI ONS. BUT,IF THE EXPLANATION IS PRIMA FACIE CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THEN THE INTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE NO ROLE TO PLAY IN DECIDING THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C)OF THE AC T.IN OTHER WORDS,WHILE LEVYING THE PENALTY,EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE,HAS TO BE CONSIDERED INDEPENDENTLY. IN THE CASE BEFORE US,THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD B EEN INITIATED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERSTO OD THE SPIRIT IN WHICH THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED.THE NOTICE HAS TO BE READ ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DURING THE COURSE OF WHICH PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED.IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER THE AO HAD MENTIONED THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED FOR FURNISHING I NACCURATE PARTICULARS.WHILE IMPOSING THE PENALTY THE AO HAD HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCE ALED/FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS.IN OUR OPINION,THE ACT OF INITIATION OF PENALTY HAS CU LMINATED IN IMPOSING PENALTY ON SAME FOOTING. 6.1. IT IS TRUE THAT ALL THE CASES OF FILING OF INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME MAY NOT RESULT IN CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME-IN SOME CASES THERE MAY BE ONLY FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND IN SOME OTHER CASES THERE MAY BE CO NCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. BUT, THERE MAY BE A FEW CASES WHERE FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS LEAD TO CONCEALMENT.THUS,IT IS NOT EVERY CASE THAT THE AO SHOULD STRIKE OFF THE PH RASES IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE.WHAT THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE O F MANJUNATH COTTON & GINNING 3428&29-PRATIMAS&PRATIK.S 6 FACTORY(SUPRA) IS THAT PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS,IF SAME WAS INITIATED FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS O F INCOME.THE HONBLE COURT HAS NOT DELIBERATED UPON A SITUATION WHERE BOTH THE OMISSIO NS ARE THERE AND PENALTY IS INITIATED FOR BOTH COUNTS BUT PENALTY IS LEVIED ONLY FOR ONE OMIS SION/ COMMISSION, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE.IF THE AO AT THE TIME OF FINALISING THE ASSESSMENT ARRIVES AT THE CONCLUSION THAT AN ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACC URATE PARTICULARS AND FINALLY LEVIES PENALTY FOR THAT OMISSION ONLY,THEN IN OUR OPINION IT CANNO T BE HELD THAT FAILURE OF THE AO TO CANCEL A PARTICULAR PHRASE IN THE NOTICE IS FATAL AND THE PE NALTY ORDER SHOULD BE TREATED INVALID.DECISION TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS DURING THE ASSESSME NT ORDER , ISSUING A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN PURSUANCE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PASSING OF P ENALTY ORDER AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE ARE THE THREE STAGES OF LEVY OF PENALTY. THEREFORE,THE NOTICE ALONE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN ISOLATION-ALL THE THREE STAGES ARE TO BE CONSIDERED CUMULATIVELY. 6.2. NOW,COMING BACK TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONS IDERATION,WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED ACCRUED INTEREST IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND HAD MADE A PATENTLY INADMISSIBLE CLAIM WITH REGARD TO THE HOUSE PROPERT Y. AS FAR EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE INTEREST IS CONCERNED WE HOLD TH AT HIS EXPLANATION WAS BONA FIDE.IF THE FACTORS LIKE RECEIPT OF TDS CERTIFICATE IN THE MONT H OF MARCH,2011 AND SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT ARE CONSIDERED IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT TH ERE WAS PLAUSIBLE REASON FOR FILING A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME.THEREFORE,IN OUR OPINION P ENALTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LEVIED WITH REGARD TO THE ACCRUED INTEREST NOT SHOWN IN THE ORI GINAL RETURN.BUT,AS FAR AS THE SECOND ADDITION IS CONCERNED THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM OF MAINTENANCE-CHARGES AGAINST THE RENTAL INCOME.IN TH E EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE,HE HAS STATED THAT IT WAS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE.WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS NOT AN ISSUE WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE OR THERE CAN BE DIFFERENCE O F OPINION.IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF MAKING AN INADMISSIBLE CLAIM,AS STATE EARLIER.HAS THE CASE NO T BEEN SCRUTINISED,THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE 3428&29-PRATIMAS&PRATIK.S 7 WALKED AWAY WITH IT. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT SO-CALL ED REVISED RETURN WAS FILED AFTER THE AO HAD ISSUED A NOTICE U/S.143(2)NOTICE.WE SHOULD NOT FORG ET THAT ONLY A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE OF THE RETURNS ARE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY BY THE DEPART -ME NT.THEREFORE,IT IS THE DUTY OF THE TAXPAYERS TO PAY DUE TAXES.IT IS THEIR RIGHT THAT THEY ARE NO T TAXED FOR THE INCOME THAT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED OR ACCRUED TO THEM. BUT,THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN IS THAT THEY SHOULD NOT PUT FORTH TOTALLY INADMISSIBLE CLAIM AND REDUCE THE TAX LIABI LITY.FOR SUCH A OMISSION,IF PENAL PROVISIONS ARE INVOKED BY THE AO THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY GRUD GE.THEREFORE,WE HOLD THAT THE AO HAD RIGHTLY LEVIED PENALTY FOR CLAIMING MAINTENANCE CHA RGES AGAINST THE RENTAL INCOME. 6.3. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE A SSESSEE.IN OUR OPINION, SAME ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS.IN THE CASE BEFORE US,THE PENALTY WAS INITIATED FOR AND IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.271(1)(C)OF THE ACT,THE AO HAD MENTIONED THAT HE WAS LEVYING PENALTY FOR FURNISHING AS STATED IN THE EARLIER PART OF OUR ORD ER. CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE MATTER,WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF /AGAINST THE ASSESSEE,IN PART. ITA/3428/MUM/2014: 7. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF PRATIK B SHAH -THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS OF AMOUNTS INVOLVED.THE INTEREST INCO ME ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IS RS. 4,14,682/-AND THE MAINTENANCE CHARGES CLAIMED BY HE R AGAINST THE RENTAL INCOME IS RS. 2, 55, 540/-.FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN THE CASE OF PRATIK B S HAH,GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE,IN PART. AS A RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE A SSESSEES STAND PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JULY,2016. 20 , 2016 SD/- SD/- /JOGINDER SINGH) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 20.07.2016. JV.SR.PS. 3428&29-PRATIMAS&PRATIK.S 8 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.