Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6812 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
28-02-2019
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
J
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
11-05-2017
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 3440/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 DCIT CIR 6(3)(2), R OOM NO. 522, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKARBHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 20 VS. M/S JM FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONAL SECURITIES PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S J.M. FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.) 7 TH FLOOR, CNERGY, APPAESAHEBMARATHE MARG, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI - 400025. PAN NO. AAACM7079C APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. NO. 281 /MUM/201 8 (ITA NO. 3440 /MUM/201 7 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 M/S JM FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONAL SECURITIES PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S J.M. FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.) 7 TH FLOOR, CNERGY, APPAESAHEBMARATHE MARG, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI - 400025. VS. DCIT CIR 6(3)(2), R. NO. 522, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKARBHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 20 PAN NO. AAACM7079C APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : MR. SUSHIL KUMAR PODDER , DR ASSESSEE BY : DR. K. SHIVRAM & MR. SANJAY PARIKH , AR S DATE OF HEARING : 04/12 /2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/02/2019 M/S JM FINANCIAL ITA NO. 3440/MUM/2017 & CO NO. 281/MUM/2018 2 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS - OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 8 [IN SHORT CIT(A)] , MUMBAI AND ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (THE ACT). ITA NO. 3440/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT( A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RE - ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 147 IS INVALID AND ACCORDINGLY QUASHING THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT IF THE ISSUE IS NOT DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD NOT LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT NO OPINION WAS FORMED AS TO SUBJECT OF THE QUERY, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MERELY ON T HE PRESUMPTION THAT THOUGH IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER, THE AO HAS NOT SPECIFICALLY DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF MA R K - TO - MARKET LOSSES, ALL FACTS INDICATE THAT THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY HIM AFTER DETAILS AND EXPLANATION ON THE ISSUE WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. M/S JM FINANCIAL ITA NO. 3440/MUM/2017 & CO NO. 281/MUM/2018 3 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE SAME ON MERIT. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009 - 10 ON 25.09.2009 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS AT RS.5,51,27,238/ - . THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 29.11.2011. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 21.03.2014. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSMENT W AS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT ON 29.11.2011 ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,23,57,332/ - . FROM THE RECORDS, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD DEBITED A SUM OF RS.17,17,79,449/ - TOWARDS MARK TO MARKET LOSS ON THE SECURITIES HELD AS A RESULT OF UNDERWRITING. THESE SECURITIES ARE VALUED AT LOWER OF COST OR MARKET VALUE. THE SECURITIES IN QUESTION WERE ACQUIRED DUE TO LEGAL OBLIGATION AND NOT WITH INTENTION TO TRADE/SELL THEM AT A PROFIT ON LATER THAT. ACCORDINGLY THE SAID SECURITIES CA NNOT PERTAIN THE CHARACTER OF STOCK - IN - TRADE SO AS TO VALUE THE SAME OPTIONALLY AT LOWER OF COST OR MARKET PRICE. IN THIS COUNT, THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT UNLESS PURCHASE OF SECURITY IS MADE WITH INTENTION TO TRADE, THE SAME CANNOT FORM PART OF BUSINESS/TRADE. THUS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, ACQUIRING OF SHARES AS A RESULT OF LEGAL OBLIGATION CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH SHARES PURCHASED WITH INTENTION TO TRADE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF MARK TO MARKET LOSS ON SECURITIES HELD AS A RESU LT OF M/S JM FINANCIAL ITA NO. 3440/MUM/2017 & CO NO. 281/MUM/2018 4 UNDERWRITING, BEING NATIONAL OR CONTINGENT IN NATURE, IS NOT ALLOWABLE AND THUS REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AMOUNTING TO RS.17,17,79,449/ - HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2009 - 10 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE IT ACT. IN RESPONSE TO A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY WHICH HAS BEEN EXTRACTED AT PARA 4 (PAGE 2 - 5) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.03.2015. HOWE VER, THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SAID REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF MARK TO MARKET LOSS ON SHARES OF RS.17,17,79,449/ - ON THE REASON THAT THE VALUATION OF SHARES SHOULD BE AT PAR TO THE EXTENT EITHER TO SATISFY THE DEBT DUE TO THE ASSESSEE ON PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, IN THE CAPACITY OF LEAD MANAGER OR LESSER THAN THE AMOUNT OF SUCH CONTRACT. AS PER THE AO THE VALUATION OF ACQUISITION OF SUCH SHARES SHOULD BE PURELY ON LEGAL OBLIGATION AND NOT AS P ER THE MARKET VALUATION OF SUCH SHARES. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2017, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE THEN AO HAD SPEC IFICALLY CALLED FOR VIDE LETTER DATED 03.06.2011 AND 13.10.2011 THE DETAILS OF MARK TO MARKET LOSSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO IT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE SAID DETAILS BEFORE THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 21.11.2011. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER O BSERVED THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS OF MARK TO MARKET LOSSES, THE AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3), ASSESSING THE LOSS AT RS.3,71,72,116/ - . IT IS M/S JM FINANCIAL ITA NO. 3440/MUM/2017 & CO NO. 281/MUM/2018 5 FURTHER OBSERVED BY HIM THAT IN THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS RE - EXAMINED THE SAME ISSUE, LOOKED AT THE SAME RECORDS AND REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY REACHING ANOTHER OPINION T HAN HIS PREDECESSOR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE LD. CIT(A), RELYING ON THE DECISION IN CIT V. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC), OHM STOCK BROKERS (P.) LTD. V. CIT (351 ITR 443), GKN SINTER METAL LTD. V. ACIT (WP NO. 2639 OF 2007), GERMAN RAMEDIES LTD. V. DY. CIT & ORS (285 ITR 26), ACIT V. ICICI SECURITIES PRIMARY DEALERSHIP LTD. (348 ITR 299), PLUS PAPER FOOD PAC LTD. V. ITO (WP. NO. 746 OF 2015), ARONI COMMERCIALS LTD. V. DCIT (362 ITR 462) (BOM.), GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. V. DCIT (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC), HELD THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147AS VOID. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 WIT HIN 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, IT IS ARGUED BY HIM THAT THE CASE MAY BE DECIDED KEEPING IN MIND THE ABOVE ASPECT. FURTHER, IT IS STATED BY HIM THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AO HAS NOT SPECIFICALLY DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF MARK - TO - MARKET LOSSES. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS ARGUED BY THE LD. DR. RELIANCE IS PLACED BY HIM ON THE DECISION IN YUVRAJ V. UOI (2009) 315 ITR 84 (BOM). 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CO UNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 03.06.2011 ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT A NOTE ON MARK - TO - MARKET LOSSES ON SECURITIES HELD AS A RESULT OF UNDERTAKING. IN RESPONSE TO IT, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 20.10.2011 SUBMITTED A NOTE ON THE ABOVE. AGAIN THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 13.10.2011 ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN M/S JM FINANCIAL ITA NO. 3440/MUM/2017 & CO NO. 281/MUM/2018 6 THE NATURE OF LOSS ALONG WITH THE NATURE OF SECURITIES HELD FOR UNDERWRITING. THE LD. COUNSEL STATES THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 21.11.2011 FURNISHED THE SAID DETAILS. THEREAFTER, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 29.11.2011. RELYING ON THE DECISION IN OIL LTD. V. CIT (2017) 396 ITR 244 (BOM), THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ORDER IS SILENT O N THIS ASPECT, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE SAME. FURTHER, RELYING ON THE DECISIONS REFERRED BY THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS ARGUED BY HIM THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT TO RE - EXAMINE THE VERY SAME ASPECT, AM OUNTS TO CHANGE OF OPINIO N. THE LD. COUNSEL FILES A COPY OF THE DECISION IN VELINGKAR BROTHERS V. ACIT (2017) 85 TAXMANN.COM 8 MUMBAI. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER FILES A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING INTER ALIA COPY OF ANNUAL ACCOUNTS; COPY OF LETTER DATED 03.06.2011 AND 13.10.2011 RECEIVED FROM THE AO; COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.10.2011 AND 21.11.2011 FILED BY THE ASSESSEEE BEFORE THE AO ALONG WITH NOTE ON MARK - TO - MARKET LOSS ES . 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE REASONS FOR OUR DECISION ARE GIVEN BELOW. IN THE CASE OF YUVRAJ (SUPRA), RELIED ON BY THE DR, WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD S OLD HIS RIGHT TO PURCHASE OPEN PLOT AND COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF ACQUISITION OF RIGHT TO PURCHASE AND DEED IN RESPECT OF RIGHT TO PURCHASE EXECUTED BY THE BUILDERS WERE FILED ON RECORD. AFTER SAYING SO, THE AO OBSERVED THAT M/S JM FINANCIAL ITA NO. 3440/MUM/2017 & CO NO. 281/MUM/2018 7 SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE REMARKS, TH E TOTAL INCOME WAS COMPUTED AS PER THE CHART MENTIONED IN THE ORDER. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A NOTICE INDICATING THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF RIGHT TO PURCHASE A OPEN PLOT WAS SOUGHT TO BE TREATED AS CASUAL INCOME AND BRINGING IT TO TAX LIABILITY AT 40%. THE QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION WAS AS TO WHETHER THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSEES ASSESSMENT BEING BASED ON CHANGE OF OPINION WAS UNJUSTIFIED. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT : FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER ONE FOUND NO APPLICATI ON OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER TO THE FACT OF THE CASE, THE ISSUE TO BE DEALT WITH AND THE REASONS FOR PASSING THE ORDER. THE VALUE OF THE LAND WAS NOT DETERMINED BY THE REVENUE. THE ISSUE RELATING TO CAPITAL GAIN OR CASUAL INCOME WAS AL SO NOT ADDRESSED BY THE REVENUE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAME, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER DID NOT APPLY HIS MIND AND FAILED TO RECORD GOOD AND PROPER REASONS FOR PASSING THE ORDER. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ONE DID NOT FIND MERE CHANGE OF OPINION IN RECORDING REASONS FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE CASE OF VELINGKAR BROTHERS (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL , THE ASSESSEES HAD FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2000 - 01 AND THEREAFTER NOTICE DATED 28.08.2003 WAS ISSUED U/S 147 OF THE ACT, INTER ALIA ON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT, AS THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE PETITIONERS WER E NOT 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT. THE PETITIONERS FILED A REPLY INTER ALIA DISCLOSING THAT THEY WERE CARRYING OUT 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT AND AS SUCH ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. THE AO AFTER MINUTELY EXAMINING THE CONTENTION S BY ORDER M/S JM FINANCIAL ITA NO. 3440/MUM/2017 & CO NO. 281/MUM/2018 8 DATED 15.02.2005 ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE PETITIONERS AND ALLOWED DEDUCTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. THE AO SERVED ANOTHER NOTICE ON 28.11.2005 U/S 147 OF THE ACT INTER ALIA CONTENDING THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE NOT CARRYING OUT MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION BUSINESS TO AVAIL OF THE BENEFITS OF THE SAID PROVISIONS. IN APPEAL, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE WHILE DISPOSING OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDING S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CONCLUDED THAT ESTABLISHMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS AN EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT AND, THUS, ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10B, SUBSEQUENT NOTICE U/S 147 ON GROUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR SAID DEDUCTION WAS MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 03.06.2011 HA D ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND AT QUESTION NO. 7 A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED TO SUBMIT IN NOTE ON MARK - TO - MARKET LOSSES ON SECURITIES HELD AS A RESULT OF UNDERWRITING (P.52 OF P/B ). AGAIN VIDE LETTER DATED 13.1 0.2011, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS OF MARK - TO - MARKET LOSSES ON ACCOUNT OF SECURITIES HELD AS A RESULT OF UNDERWRITING COMMISSION DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT (RS.17.17 CRORE). ALSO THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF LOSS, ALONG WITH THE NATURE OF SECURITIES HELD FOR UNDERWRITING (P. 54 OF P/B ). IN THIS REGARD, ONE MAY REFER TO QUESTION NO. 3 OF THE SAID LETTER DATED 13.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE AO. IN RESPONSE TO IT , THE ASSESSEE FILED A NOTE ON MARK - TO - MARKET LOSSES ON SECURITIES H ELD AS A RESULT OF UNDERWRITING M/S JM FINANCIAL ITA NO. 3440/MUM/2017 & CO NO. 281/MUM/2018 9 AND ALSO ITS ACCOUNTING AND DETAILS OF COST PER SHARES OF SECURITIES HELD AS A RESULT OF UNDERWRITING (P.55 - 57 OF P/B ). PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FACTS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD F URNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS AND EXPLANATION SOUGHT BY THE AO . IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY RE - EXAMINING THE SAME FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN FACT THE ISSUE OF MARK - TO - MARKET LOSS ON SECURITIES HELD AS A RESULT OF UNDERWRITING I S A PART OF THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. THUS, THE ACTION OF THE AO OF REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AMOUNTS TO CHANGE OF OPINION. AS HELD IN THE CASE OF VELINGKAR BROTHERS (SUPRA), IF THE AO AFTER EXAMINING THE REPLY FILED BY THE A SSESSEE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION, SUBSEQUENT NOTICE U/S 148 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE SAID DEDUCTION WAS MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. WE FURTHER FIND THAT MARK - TO - MARKET LOSS IS HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF EDELWEISS CAPITAL LTD. V. ITO (2010) 8 TAXMANN.COM (MUM), WHICH WAS A BINDING DECISION ON THE DATE OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN LATER AFFIRMED IN CIT V. D. CHETAN & CO . (2017) 390 ITR 36 (BOM.) A ND DIT(IT) V. CITIBANK N.A . (2015) 377 ITR 69(BOM.). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE INSTANT CASE IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE DECISION YUVRAJ (SUPRA), RELIED ON BY THE LD. DR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), HOLDING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 148 AS VOID. M/S JM FINANCIAL ITA NO. 3440/MUM/2017 & CO NO. 281/MUM/2018 10 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE CROSS - OBJECTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF MARK - TO - MARKET LOSS OF RS.17,17,79,449/ - . WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO U/S 147 AS VOID, HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN SUCH CON CLUSION OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE CROSS - OBJECTION IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE AND THE CROSS - OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/02/2019. SD/ - SD/ - ( SAK TIJIT DEY ) (N.K. PR ADHAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 28/02/2019 RAHUL SHARMA, SR. P.S. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE .
Mehul