GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3519/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7090 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Capital asset; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 142(1); 14A; 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R. C. SHARMA , AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , JM I.T.A. NO . 3519 /M/ 20 1 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD. 8, FIDA BUILDING, 18, SHAMALDAS GANDHI MARG, MUMBAI - 400002. VS. ACIT 4(2) MUMBAI. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACCG 4503 F ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING : 20 . 0 4 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.05 . 201 8 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THE PRESENT APPEA L HA S BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30 . 03 .201 6 PASSED BY THE COMMIS S IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 9 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 . 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - L THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - T AX (APPEALS) - 9, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT[A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - 4 (2) - MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER) IN DISALLOWING LOSS RS 2,26,31,095 ARISING ON SALE OF DEHRADUN UNIT. THE APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE EASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY: RAJEEV KHANDELWAL DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI V. VIDYADHAR ( DR) ITA. NO.3519/M/2016 A.Y.2009 - 10 2 ASSESSING OFFI CER IN DISALLOWING LOSS ARISING ON SALE OF DEHRADUN UNIT INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN ITS ENTIRELY AND HENCE, THE SAID DISALLOWANCE REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D(2)(III). THE APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT NOT TO HAVE MADE T HE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE INASMUCH AS THE SAME IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESCRIPTION OF SECTION 14A ROAD WITH RULE 8 D(2)(III). THE APPELLANTS FURTHER, CONTEND THAT THE CALCULATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D(2)(III) . THE APPELLANTS CRAVE LEAVE JO ADD, TO, AFTER OR ALTER THE AFORESTATED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.09.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,37,98,860/ - . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ACCEPTING THE RETURN INCOME. THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 20.08.2010 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING PHARMACEUTICAL FORMULATIONS AND SELLING LOCALLY AND EXPORTING OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS. ON VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADD THE EXCISE DUTY OF RS.23,31,559/ - TO THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK ON 31.03.2009. THEREFORE, THE NOTICED WAS GIVEN AND AFTER GETTING THE REPLY THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIM THE LOSS OF SALE DEHRADUN UNIT TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,26,31,095/ - WHICH WAS DISALLOWED ITA. NO.3519/M/2016 A.Y.2009 - 10 3 AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE H AS ALSO EARNED THE DIVIDEND INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,00,000/ - , THEREFORE, THE AO APPLIED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D OF THE ACT AND ASSESSED THE EXPENSES TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.14,51,810/ - . THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E WAS ASSESSED TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,06,95,650/ - . FEELING AGGRIEVED, T HE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHO DID NOT ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF MENTIONED ABOVE, THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. ISSUE NO. 1 : - 4 . UNDER TH IS ISSUE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,26,31,095/ - ARISING ON SALE OF DEHRADUN UNIT. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO SET - UP A MANUFACTURING UNIT/FACTORY AT DEHRADUN, HIMACHAL PRADESH/UTTRAKHAND. WITH A VIEW TO EXPAND THE EXISTING LINE OF BUSINESS AND TO CAPITAL ON THE COST OF BENEFIT SCENARIO WHICH WAS IN EXISTENCE, IF THE PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS WERE TO BE MANUFACTURED IN THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH/UTTARAKHAND. TH E CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY WAS @ 16% ALL OVER THE COUNT RY WHEREAS THE EXCISE DUTY WAS NIL IN THE HIMACHAL PRADESH/ UTTARAKHAND . IN VIEW OF THIS SCENARIO THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO SET - UP THE PLANT AT DEHRADUN AND STARTED SET TING OF PLANT AND MACHINERY W.E.F. FOR THE PERIOD 31.03.2008 ONWARDS. IT IS ITA. NO.3519/M/2016 A.Y.2009 - 10 4 ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT REDUCED THE EXCISE DUTY FROM 16% TO 8% ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. THIS HAD THE EFFECT OF NOT ONLY THE SURPLUS GETTING CONSIDERABLY ERODED BUT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE INCURRED A LO SS IF THEY WOULD HAVE GONE AHEAD WITH THE MANUFACTURING OF PHARMA PRODUCTS AT HIMACHAL PRADESH. THUS, THE EXPANSION PLAN TO GO AHEAD WITH THE PROJECT AT HIMALCHAL PRADESH BECAME UNVIABLE. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO SELL THE FACTORY BUILDING T OGETHER WITH LAND, PLANT AND MACHINERY, FURNITURE FIXTURE AND SO ON. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFERED A LOSS TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,26,31,095/ - ON SALE OF THIS UNIT WHICH WAS DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SAME AS BUSINESS LOSS WHEREAS THE AO AS WELL AS THE CI T(A) ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT IT IS A CAPITAL LOSS, THEREFORE, NO BUSINESS LOSS IS LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED. HOWEVER, THE DR HAS STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN QUESTION. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF BINANI CEMENT LIMITED 60 TAXMANN.COM 384 IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT LOSS ON ABANDONED PROJECT WAS LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS LOSS. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PL ACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF A. GAJAPATHI NAIDU 53 ITR 114 AND SWADESH COTTON AND FLOUR MILLS 53 ITR 134. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAD ALSO DELIB ERATED ON THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THEIR ITA. NO.3519/M/2016 A.Y.2009 - 10 5 RESPECTIVE ORDERS AS WELL AS CITED BY LEARNED AR AND DR BEFORE US, IN THE CONTEXT OF FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. FROM THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACT URE OF PHARMACEUTICAL FORMULATION. THEY ARE CONTRACT MANUFACTURERS, THAT IS, THEY MANUFACTURE MEDICINES FOR DOMESTIC AND MULTINATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL MARKETING COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO SET UP A MANUFACTURING UNIT/ FACTORY AT DEHRADUN, HIMACHAL PR ADESH WITH A VIEW TO EXPAND THE EXISTING LINE OF BUSINESS AND TO CAPITALISE ON THE COST - BENEFIT SCENARIO THAT WAS IN EXISTENCE, IF THE PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS WERE TO BE MANUFACTURED IN THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASE D A PLOT OF LAND AT DEHRADUN TO SET UP A FACTORY. THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEE WAS TO GET BENEFIT OF LOW TAX AT HIMACHAL PRADESH WHERE DUTY WAS NIL. IN ORDER TO SET UP A MANUFACTURING UNIT AT DEHRADUN, THERE WERE VARIOUS OUTLAYS NAMELY, SALARY, ELECTRICITY, P LANT AND MACHINERY, FURNITURE FIXTURE AND SO ON. THESE OUTLAY WERE BEING DEBITED TO CAPITAL WOK - IN - PROGRESS WHICH IS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE TILL THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING PREVIOUS YEAR THAT IS, 31 ST MARCH, 2008. THE CENTRAL GOVERN MENT THEN CAME UP WITH A NOTIFICATION WHEREBY CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY ON MANUFACTURING OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS WAS REDUCED FROM 16% TO 8% ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. DUE TO THIS NOTIFICATION, THERE WAS NO VIABILITY IN THE PROJECT ITSELF. THIS HAD THE EFFECT OF NO T ONLY THE SURPLUS GETTING CONSIDERABLY ERODED BUT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE INCURRED A LOSS IF THEY WOULD HAVE GONE AHEAD WITH THE MANUFACTURING OF PHARMA PRODUCTS AT HIMACHAL ITA. NO.3519/M/2016 A.Y.2009 - 10 6 PRADESH. THUS, THE EXPANSION PLAN TO GO AHEAD WITH THE PROJECT AT HIMACHAL PRADES H BECAME UNVIABLE. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO SELL THE FACTORY BUILDING TOGETHER WITH LAND, PLANT AND MACHINERY, FURNITURE FIXTURE AND SO ON . 7. AS A RESULT OF THE SAME, ASSESSEE HAD SUFFERED A LOSS OF RS. 2,26,31,095/ - WHICH WAS DEBITED TO T HE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. AO DISALLOWED LOSES ON THE PLEA THAT IT WAS NOT GENUINE AND ALSO IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL LOSS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S.37 OF THE ACT. 8. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S BEEN SHOWING THE CAPITAL WORK - IN - PROGRESS UNDER REFERENCE IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEARS ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2007 AND 31 ST MARCH, 2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE CAPITAL WORK - IN - PROGRESS IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND HENCE, CANNOT AT THE TIME OF SALE, DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH CAPITAL WORK - IN - PROGRESS. THE SALE DEED SO ENTERED WAS REGISTERED WITH THE SUB - REGISTRAR OFFICE. THUS, THERE IS NO DOUBT WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF T HE TRANSACTION. THE AO HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME, HOWEVER, UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL LOSS I T IS IMPERATIVE TO MENTION THAT THE SALE DEED IS A DOCUMENT REGISTERED WITH A STATUTORY AUTHORITY THAT HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CIT(A); THERE CANNOT BE ANY DOUBT AS REGARDS THE SAME. FURTHER, THE C1T(A) IN HIS ORDER THEN DISCUS SES THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND AND CONCLUDES THAT THE LOSS IS NOT A REVENUE LOSS FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE. AS PER OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF SETTI NG UP A ITA. NO.3519/M/2016 A.Y.2009 - 10 7 FACTORY BUILDING IN DEHRADUN FOR MANUFACTURING PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS , WHICH, IS THE EXISTING LINE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS BEING EXPANDED AND NOT A CASE OF STARTING A NEW LINE OF BUSINESS. THE DECISION TO SELL THE FACTORY IS A BUSINE SS DECISION TO CONTROL THE FUTURE BUSINESS LOSSES. THUS, THE LOSS INCURRED IS A BUSINESS LOSS. FURTHERMORE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS ALREADY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING MEDICINES AND IT IS NOT THAT IT IS FIRST TIME VENTURING INTO MANUFACTURING ME DICINES AND WITH THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS EXISTING BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING MEDICINES THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE PLOT OF LAND AT DEHRADUN AND WAS MAKING FACTORY BUILDING ON THE PLOT OF LAND BUT AS THE PROJECT BECAME UNVIABLE FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO SCRAP THE SAME, THE LOSS ARISING ON SALE OF THE SAME IS CLAIMED TO BE ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE LOSS AS HELD BY THE RECENT TWO DECISIONS OF HONOURABLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BINANI CEMENT LIMITE D REPORTED IN 380 ITR 116 (CAL) AND OF ALCOVE INDUSTRIES LIMITED REPORTED IN 237 TAXMAN 226 (CAL). RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BINANI CEMENT LIMITED REPORTED IN 380 ITR 116 (CAL) IS GIVEN BELOW '77. FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF A, GAJAPATHI NAIDU (SUPRA) THE QUESTION TO BE ASKED IS - WHEN DID THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY WAY OF DEDUCTION ARISE? THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO OCCASION TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION IF THE WORK - IN - PROGRESS HAD COMPLETED IT S COURSE. BECAUSE THE PROJECT WAS ABANDONED THE WORK - IN - PROGRESS DID NOT PROCEED ANY FURTHER. THE DECISION TO ABANDON THE PROJECT WAS THE CAUSE FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION. THE DECISION WAS TAKEN IN THE RELEVANT YEAR. IT CAN ITA. NO.3519/M/2016 A.Y.2009 - 10 8 THEREFORE BE SAFELY CONCLUDED TH AT THE EXPENDITURE AROSE IN THE RELEVANT YEAR. 12. REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD MAY BE MADE TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. INDIAN MICA SUPPLY CO. (P.) LTD. [1970] 77 ITR 20 (SO WHEREIN THE SUPREME COURT IN CONSIDERING A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION ON ARREAR LE ASE RENTS, ASCERTAINED SUBSEQUENTLY CONSEQUENT TO A COMPROMISE ARRIVED IN THE SUIT AND PAID IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR HELD, INTER ALIA, AS UNDER: 'THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE PRESENT CASE, HAD CLEARLY FOUND THAT IT WAS ONLY AS A RESULT OF THE COMPROMISE THAT THE RESPONDENT BECAME ENTITLED TO REMAIN IN POSSESSION OF THE DEMISED LAND. ITS LIABILITY ALSO BECAME ASCERTAINED ONLY AT THAT POINT OF TIME. IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE RESPONDENT INCURRING THE EXPENDITURE HAD ACTED IN THE INTEREST OF AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT LAID OUT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS. THE DEDUCTION WAS PROPERLY ADMISSIBLE UNDER S. 10(2)(XV) OF THE ACT AND THE MATTER BEING SELF - EVIDENT THE HIGH COURT WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DECLINING TO ACCEDE TO THE PRAYER MADE UNDER S. 66(2) OF THE IT ACT, 1922.' 13. SEC. I0(2)(XV) OF THE OLD ACT CORRESPONDS TO S. 37(1) OF (HE PRESENT ACT. OUR ABOVE CONCLUSION IS FORTIFIED BY THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAID DECISION. FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS THE QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL IS THUS ALLOWED.' 9. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT DECISION OF THE ASSESSEE TO ABANDON THE PROJECT IS A COMMERCIAL DECISION SO AS TO AVOID FUTURE LOSS SINCE THE PROJECT WAS UNDER WORK IN PROGRESS. THE EXPENDITURE DID NOT RESULT IN BRING ING INTO EXISTENCE ANY CAPITAL ASSET OF ENDURING NATURE. THUS, THE EXPENDITURE WAS ALLOWABLE AS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. OUR THIS PROPOSITION IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN ITA. NO.3519/M/2016 A.Y.2009 - 10 9 ALUMINUM CORPORATION 55 CTR 237 AND ALSO BY THE DECISION OF AISATIC OXYGEN LTD., 190 ITR 328. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT FOR THE DISA LLOWANCE OF LOSS SUFFERED DUE TO SALE OF ABANDONED PROJECT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,26,31,095/ - . ISSUE NO. 2 : - 10 . UNDER THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO INVOK ING THE PROVISION OF SECTION PROVISION 14A R.W. RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE ACT. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA. NO.3513/M/2016 AND OTHERS FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09 TO 2011 - 12. THE HONBL E ITAT HAS DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE THE STRATEGIC INVESTMENT WHILE CALCUL ATING THE DISALLOWANCE OF U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN VIEW OF THE CASE DECIDED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT I N THE STRATEGIC INVESTMENT IS NOT LIABLE TO BE EXCLU DED FOR CALCULATING THE EXPENDITURE TO ASSESS THE INCOME IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE WE LIABLE TO BE FOLLOWED HENCE WE AF FIRMED THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ITA. NO.3519/M/2016 A.Y.2009 - 10 10 11 . IN RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 . 05. 2018 . SD/ - SD/ - ( R. C. SHARMA ) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 31 . 05. 2018 VIJAY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI