FRACTAL ANALYTICS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3510/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8796 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M V RAJGURU
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; Retrospective amendment; Permanent establishment; Tangible material
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL L BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , A M AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN , J M ./ I.T.A. NO. 3510/MUM/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 ) FRACTAL ANAL YTICS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FRACTAL ANALYTICS LTD.) UNIT NO. 701/702, 7 TH FLOOR, SILVER METROPOLIS, WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, GOREGAON (W), MUMBAI / VS. DY. CIT - 8(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. MARG, MUMBAI - 400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAACF 4502 D ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NIRAJ SHETH / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. V. RAJGURU / DATE OF HEARING : 25.10.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.11. 2017 / O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA , A. M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 16 , MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 27.02.2015 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2007 - 08. 2. T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 2 ITA NO. 3510/MUM/2015 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) FRACTAL ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT 1) THAT BASED ON THE FACTS AN D THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - 16, MUMBAI, ('CIT(A)') HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WAS VALIDLY INITIATED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8(1) ('AO') WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS / PARTICULARS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF FRAMING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT') AND NO NEW TANGIBLE MATERIAL HAS COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LEARNED AO AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE A CT. 2) THAT BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE SG BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO INR 1,85,90,396 AS TEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' ('FTS') UNDER SECTION 9(1)(VII) OF THE ACT AND CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) R.W.S 195 OF THE ACT. 3) THAT BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE SG BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AMOUNTIN G TO INR 1,85,90,396 AS FTS UNDER SECTION 9{1)(VII) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY YOUR APPELLANT TO FRACTAL SINGAPORE PTE. LTD. ('FRACTAL SINGAPORE') FALLS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIONARY PART OF SECTION 9(1)(VII)(B) OF THE ACT WHICH PR OVIDES THAT FTS SHALL NOT BE TAXABLE IN INDIA WHERE SAID SERVICES ARE UTILIZED FOR EARNING INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE OUTSIDE INDIA. 4) THAT BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE REQUIREME NT OF WITHHOLDING OF TAX AT SOURCE TO TRANSACTIONS ENTERED BY YOUR APPELLANT IN AY 2007 - 08 BY APPLYING EXPLANATION TO SECTION 9(1) OF THE ACT AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2010 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01/06/1976 WHICH PROVIDES TAXABILITY OF 'FEES FOR TECH NICAL SERVICES' IN INDIA IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT SUCH SERVICES ARE RENDERED IN INDIA BY THE NON RESIDENT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT WHILE JUDGING WHETHER THE EXPENSES SHOULD BE DISALLOWED DUE TO NOT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, ONE SHOULD CONSIDER THE POSITION OF LAW THAT ACTUALLY EXISTED AT THE RELEVANT TIME, NAMELY WHEN THE TAX OUGHT (ALLEGEDLY) TO BE DEDUCTED. THAT BAS ED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SG BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE APPLICABILITY OF BENEFICIAL PROVISION OF 'MAKE AVAILABLE' AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE 12 - 'ROYALTIES AND FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' OF THE AGREEMENT FOR AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION AND PREVENTION OF FISCAL EVA SION WITH SINGAPORE ( 'INDIA - SINGAPORE TAX TREATY') WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE PAYMENT IN RELATION TO THE FTS WILL NOT BE TAXABLE IN INDIA IF SUCH SERVICES ARE NOT 'MAKE AVAILABLE'. FURTHER, THE LEARNED CIT( A) ALSO ERRED TO 3 ITA NO. 3510/MUM/2015 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) FRACTAL ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT APPRECIATE THAT FRACTAL SINGAPORE DO ES NOT HAVE A PERMANENT E STABLISHMENT IN INDIA AS PER THE ARTICLE 5 - 'PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT' OF THE INDIA - SINGAPORE TAX TRE ATY AND THUS, THE INCOME OF FRACTAL SINGAPORE CANNOT BE TAXED IN INDIA AS 'BUSINESS PROFITS'. 6. THA T BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONF IRMING DISALLOWANCE OF SG BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO INR 1,85,90,396 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE BENEFICIAL CIRCULAR 23 OF 1969 DATED JULY 23, 1969 WAS IN FORCE DURING T H E AY 2007 - 08 SINCE THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE FRACTAL SINGAPORE WERE CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED AO AS AKIN TO COMMISSION. 7 ) THAT BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST UN DER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO INR 45,91,224. YOUR APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT ON GRANTING RELIEF UNDER ABOVE GROUNDS, NO ADDITIONAL INTEREST IS PAYABLE BY YOUR APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE HAS ALSO FILED FOLLOWING ADDITION GROUND : 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE APPELLANTS GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 INSOFAR AS IT CHALLENGED THE AO'S DECISION TO HOLD THAT THE SINGAPORE BD EX PENSES WERE NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPELLANTS BUSINESS. ADDITION GROUND 4. F OR THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITION GROUND , THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED AS UNDER : SUB: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL - RULE 11 OF THE INCOME - TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 ('THE IT AT RULES') THE APPELLANT IS MOVING THIS APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR DUE ADJUDICATION BY YOUR HONOURS. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED THE CAPTIONED APPE AL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27 FEBRUARY 2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ( 'CIT(A)') - 16, MUMBAI UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT ). THE APPELLANT WISHES TO RAISE AN ALTERNATE LEGAL PLEA BY RAISING AN ADDITION AL GROUND WHICH ARISES OUT OF THE SAID ORDER OF CIT(A) 4 ITA NO. 3510/MUM/2015 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) FRACTAL ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND BEING PURELY A LEGAL GROUND WOULD BE ESSENTIAL FOR EFFECTIVE AND JUST DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR THE ADMISSION AND ADJUDICATION BY HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, OF THE ATTACHED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE INVESTIGATION INTO; OR EXAMINATION OF, ANY NEW FACTS OR EVIDENCES, WHICH WERE NOT ALREADY AVAILABLE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE LIGHT THEREOF, WE HUMBLY REQUEST YOUR HONOURS TO EXERCISE THE POWERS PROVIDED IN RULE 11 OF THE ITAT RULES AND ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH WAS INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO BE RAISED IN THE ORIGINAL MEMO OF APPEAL. THE APPELLANT MOST HUMBLY PRAY TO YOUR HONOUR T O KINDLY ADMIT AND ADJUDICATE UPON AFORESAID GROUND OF APPEAL AND OBLIGE. 5. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND HEARING BOTH THE LD. COUNSEL, WE ADMIT THE ADDITION GROUND. IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED U /S. 147 OF THE I NCOME T AX A CT. I N THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING , THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,85,90,396/ - BEING COMMISSION PAID TO FRACTAL P RIVATE L IMITED , SINGAPORE , BEING THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE OF THE ASSESSEE . T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE DISALLOWANCE U /S. 40(A)(I) OF THE I NCOME T AX A CT, FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. OVER AND ABOVE THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION U /S. 40(A)(I), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE , THE PAYMENT ALSO CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FO R THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY. 6. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER , THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) , CHALLENGING THE FOLLOWING : V ALIDITY OF REOPENING , CHALLENGING THE DISALLOWANCE U /S. 40(A)(I) AND CHALLENGING THE DISALLOWANCE AS N OT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 ITA NO. 3510/MUM/2015 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) FRACTAL ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT 7. THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BY UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING AND HOLDING THAT DISALLOWANCE U /S. 40(A)(I) WAS JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER , THE LD. CI T(A) DID NOT DEAL T WITH THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE AS NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT - A, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 9. IN THE MAIN GROUNDS , THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE REOPENING AND ADDITION U /S.40(A)(I). I N THE ADDITION AL GROUND , THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE AS NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. I N THIS REGARD , THE L D . COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO GROUND N O. 2 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT - A , WHERE THIS ASPECT HAS BEEN RAISED AS UNDER : GROUND NO._ 2 - OBJECTION AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES AMOUNTINT GO INR 1,85,90,396. NOTWITHSTANDING GROUND NO . 1`ABOVE, THE LEARNED AO IN THE ORDER HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING EXPENSES OF INR 1,85,90,396 UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) R.W.S. SECTION 195 OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING T HE BENEFICIAL EXCEPTION UNDER SECTION 9(L)(VI I)(B) OF T HE ACT AVAILABLE IN THE CASE OF YOUR APPELLANT AND ALSO THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES' U NDER SECTION 9 (1)(VII) OF THE ACT. F URTHER, TH E LEARNED A O ERRED I N NOT APPLYING THE BENEFICIAL PROVISIONS OF AR TICLE 12 OF THE AGREEMENT OF DOUBLE TAXATION AND PR EVENTION OF FI SC AL EVASION BE TWEE N INDIA AND SINGAPORE ( HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO A S , THE 'THE INDIA - SINGAPORE TAX TREATY') WHEREBY IF THE SERVICES ARE NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO YOUR APPELLANT THEN THE PAYMENT W ILL NOT BE TAXABLE. THE AMOUNT WILL ONLY BE TAXABLE IF F RACT A L SINGAPORE P . LTD ( HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'FRACTAL SINGAPORE') CONSTITUTES A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN IN DIA. AS NEITHER SERVICES 6 ITA NO. 3510/MUM/2015 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) FRACTAL ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT ARE NOT MADE AVAILABLE NOR FRACTUAL SINGAPORE CONSTITUTES PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA , HENCE, THE PAYMENT DOES NOT QUALIFY TO BE TAXED IN INDIA . 'THE LEARNED AO H AS ALSO ERRED IN WRONGLY ALLEGING THAT T HE EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR T H E P URPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF YOUR APPELLAN T. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS, YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF INR 1,85,90,396 BE DELETED. 10. R EFERRING TO THE ABOVE , THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE LD . CIT ( A ) SHOULD HAVE ADJUDICATED THIS ASPECT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE HIM , T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. IN THIS REGARD , HE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 4037/MUM/2015 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.08.2017, WHEREIN THE MATTER WAS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT - A TO COMPLETE THE ORDER , AS IN THAT CASE HE HAD OMIT TE D TO ADJUDICATE THE MERITS OF THE CASE, HAVING ONLY DECIDED UP ON THE ISSUE OF REOPENING. 11. PER CONTRA , THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION IN THE ISSUE BEING REMITTED TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT ( A ) TO COMPLETE HIS APPELLATE ORDER. 12. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS . W E FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 40 3 7/ M UM/2015 AND CO NO. 82/ M UM/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR VIDE ORDER DATED 21 .08. 2017 HAS HELD AS UNDER : 7 ITA NO. 3510/MUM/2015 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) FRACTAL ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT 10. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, WHEN THE RE OPENING AS WELL AS MERITS OF THE CASE WERE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON HIM TO PASS AN ORDER AND ADJUDICATE BY SPEAKING ORDER ON BOTH ASPECTS. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION ASSESSEE IS RIGHTLY AGGRIEVED THAT DESPITE FILING THE APPEAL AND RAISI NG THE NECESSARY GROUNDS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. THERE ARE CATENA OF DECISIONS OF HIGHER COURTS WHEN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IT IS INCUMBENT UPON LOWER AUTHORITIES TO DECIDE UPON THE JURISDICTIONAL AS WELL AS MERIT S OF THE CASE RAISED BEFORE THEM SO THAT THERE IS A FINALITY IN PROCEEDING AT LOWER LEVEL AND THE HIGHER FORUM CAN PROPERLY APPRECIATE AND DECIDE UPON THE ISSUE. 11. HENCE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT THE ADJUDICATION OF MERITS BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). LEARNED CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO COMPLETE THE APPEAL ORDER BY CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND PASSING AN ORDER ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. NEEDLESS TO ADD, ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF REOPENING IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. REVENUE IS FREE TO TAKE UP THE ISSUE AS REQUIRED AFTER THE ORDER BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS COMPLETED IN TERMS OF OUR REMITTING AS ABOVE. BOTH THE COUNSEL FAIRLY AGREED TO THE ABOVE PROPOSITION. 13. W E FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE GROUND RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE BY HOLDING IT AS NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS WAS ALREADY BEFORE T HE L D CIT - A , BUT THE SAME WAS NOT ADJUDICATED BY HIM. HENCE , FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT AS ABOVE , WE REMIT THE ADJUDICATION OF THIS ASPECT TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT - A. LEARNED CIT - A IS DIRECTED TO COMPLETE THE APPELLATE ORDER BY CONSIDERING THE ISSUE WHETHER THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE BEING NOT FULLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AS RAISED IN GROUND NUMBER TWO BEFORE HIM IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT. NEEDLESS TO ADD , THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. WE M AKE IT CLEAR THAT WE HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF REOPENING AND THE DISALLOWANCE U /S.40(I)(A), I.E. , IN ANY MANNER 8 ITA NO. 3510/MUM/2015 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) FRACTAL ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT WHATSOEVER. BOTH THE PARTIES ARE FREE TO TAKE UP NECESSARY ISSUES AS DEEMED NECESSARY A FTER THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT - A IS COMPLETED IN T ERMS OF OUR REMITTING AS ABOVE. BOTH THE COUNSEL FAIRLY AGREED TO THE ABOVE PROPOSITION. 14. IN THE RESULT , THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ORD ER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.11.2017 SD/ - SD/ - ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (S HAMIM YAHYA ) / J UDICIAL MEMBER / A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 01.11.2017 . . ./ ROSHANI , SR. PS / 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 F ILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./AS STT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI