DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(2)(2), MUMBAI V. PREMIER LIMITED , MUMBAI

ITA 3554/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8090 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHREELEELA PARDESHI; SHEFALI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D
• Section: 32; 143(3); 14A; 115JB; 32(1)(iia); 37(1); 64; 72

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH MUMB AI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE- PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3554/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16) DCIT- 3(2)(2), ROOM NO.674, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. VS. M/S PREMIER LTD. 58, NARIMAN BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021. P AN: AAACT5523G APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : MS. SHREELEELA PARDESHI (DR) REVENUE BY : MS. SHEFALI (AR) DATE OF HEARING : 03.11.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 12.01.2021 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT; 1. THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-8, MUMBAI [FOR SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] IN APPEAL NO. CIT-8/IT-86/2017-18 ORDER DATED 26.03.2019. ASSESSM ENT WAS FRAMED BY DCIT CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2015-16 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 14.12.2017. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AS REG ARDS TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF T HE ACT R.W.R 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (HEREINAFTER THE RULES) TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOME. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROU ND: ITA NO. 3554 MUM 2019-M/ S PREMIER LTD. 2 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/ S 14A TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS COMP UTED AS PER RULE 8D OF I.T RULES 1962 ON THE BASIS OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014 DATED 11.02.2014 WHICH CLEARLY STATES THAT IT IS NOT NECE SSARY TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME IN A PARTICULAR YEAR IN WHICH THE DISALLOWAN CE IS MADE? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/ S 14A TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS CONTR ARY TO CBDT CIRCULAR NO.5/2014 WHICH CLARIFIES THAT THE RULE 8D R.W.S. 1 4A OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE EVEN WHERE TAXPAYER IN A PARTICULAR YEAR HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME? 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT R.W.R 8D( 2)(III) AT RS. 29.01 LAKH AS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE COMPUTED BY ASSESSEE AT RS. 22,000/-. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS. 3,000/- ONLY, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) BY OBSERVING IN PARA-3.1.4 AS UNDER: 3.1.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DETAILED DISCUSSION OF H ON'BLE SE ORDER IN MAXOPP INVESTMENTS LTD, IT IS HELD HERE THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A AS THE APPELLANT HAS EARN ED EXEMPT INCOME OF RS 3,000/- ONLY. FURTHER, AGAINST THIS SMALL EXEMPT IN COME, IT HAS ALREADY DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 22,000/- SO, THERE IS N O SCOPE FOR ANY FURTHER DISALLOWANCE. IN VIEW OF THIS ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL POSITION, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE OF RS 3.9,01,000/- MADE U/S 14A IN THIS CASE I S HEREBY DELETED. SINCE THE ADDITION DOES NOT SURVIVE IN THE NORMAL PROVISI ONS THEMSELVES, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THEIR APPLICABILITY U/S 115JB FOR MA T PURPOSES. THE SAME ITA NO. 3554 MUM 2019-M/ S PREMIER LTD. 3 ADDITION IS ALSO CONSIDERED AS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN DELETED WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE LEGALITY OF WHETHER SECTION 14A IS APPLICABLE TO MAT PROVISIONS OR NOT. THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 5. WE NOTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLO WANCE TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOME AT RS. 3,000/- ONLY BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA) AND HENCE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HENCE, TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED AND THIS ISSUE OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADJUSTMENT MADE TO THE BOOK PROFIT UND ER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES RELATABLE TO EXEMPT INCO ME CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND: 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADJUSTMENT MAD E TO BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES RELATABLE T O EXEMPT INCOME U/S 14A OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ISSUE STAN DS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT 'D' BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. RBK SHARE BROKING PVT. LTD. - 37 TAXMAN 128(2013) AND THE DEC ISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT 'F' BENCH IN THE CASE OF D.C.I. T. CEN. CIR. 1 8 & 19, MUMBAI VS. VIRAJ PROFILES LTD. (2015) 64 TAXMANN.COM 52 (MUMBAI - TR IB.)/2016, 156 ITD 72 (MUMBAI - TRIB.) WHEREIN IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D IS APPLICABLE FOR COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT? 7. WE NOTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLO WANCE OF EXEMPT INCOME AT RS. 3,000/- ONLY. THE CIT(A) HAS ALREADY CONSIDE RED THIS ISSUE AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE VIDE PARA-3.1.4 (WHICH IS ALSO REPRODUCED ABOVE) AS UNDER: ITA NO. 3554 MUM 2019-M/ S PREMIER LTD. 4 3.1.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DETAILED DISCUSSION OF H ON'BLE SE ORDER IN MAXOPP INVESTMENTS LTD, IT IS HELD HERE THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A AS THE APPELLANT HAS EARN ED EXEMPT INCOME OF RS 3,000/- ONLY. FURTHER, AGAINST THIS SMALL EXEMPT IN COME, IT HAS ALREADY DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 22,000/- SO, THERE IS N O SCOPE FOR ANY FURTHER DISALLOWANCE. IN VIEW OF THIS ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL POSITION, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE OF RS 3.9,01,000/- MADE U/S 14A IN THIS CASE I S HEREBY DELETED. SINCE THE ADDITION DOES NOT SURVIVE IN THE NORMAL PROVISI ONS THEMSELVES, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THEIR APPLICABILITY U/S 115JB FOR MA T PURPOSES. THE SAME ADDITION IS ALSO CONSIDERED AS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN DELETED WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE LEGALITY OF WHETHER SECTION 14A IS APPLICABLE TO MAT PROVISIONS OR NOT. THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 8. WE NOTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS EVEN COVERED BY THE SPE CIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VIREET INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. (ITA NO. 502/DEL/2012 & CO NO. 68/DEL/2012; DATED. 16.06.2017 (SB) WHEREI N ITS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 6.22. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ANSWER THE Q UESTION REFERRED TO US IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE COMPUTATION UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB(2), IS TO BE MADE WI THOUT RESORTING TO THE COMPUTATION AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE POSITION, THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VIREET INVEST MENT PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE CONFIRME D THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HENCE, THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAINST THE CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND: ITA NO. 3554 MUM 2019-M/ S PREMIER LTD. 5 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON THE ASSETS PUT TO USE IN EARLIER YEAR WITHOUT AP PRECIATING THAT THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ONLY IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR I N WHICH THE NEW MACHINERY WAS ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED AND NOT THEREA FTER? 11. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOO K US THROUGH THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2013-14 IN ITA NO. 7290 & 7314/MUM/2017 ORDER DATED 13.02.2019, WHEREIN THE S AME ASSET WAS UNDER DISPUTE AND ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWED. TH E TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION BY OBSERVING IN PARA-9 AS UNDER: 9. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US AND ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE VI EW TAKEN BY THE A.O. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE ISSUE BEFORE US THE RELEVAN T PROVISION OF SEC. 32 TO THE EXTENT RELEVANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AR E CULLED OUT AS UNDER: SECTION 32 (1) IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION OF- (I) BUILDINGS, MACHINERY, PLANT OR FURNITURE, BEING TAN GIBLE ASSETS. (II) KNOW-HOW, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS, LICENCES , FRANCHISES OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATU RE, BEING INTANGIBLE ASSETS ACQUIRED ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1998, OWNED, WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY THE ASSESSEE AND USED FOR THE PURPOSES O F THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, THE FOLLOWING DEDUCTIONS SHALL BE ALLOW ED- (III) IN THE CASE OF ASSETS OF AN UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN GENERATION OR AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER, SUCH PERCENTAGE ON THE ACTUA L COST THEREOF TO THE ASSESSEE AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED; (IV) IN THE CASE OF ANY BLOCK OF ASSETS, SUCH PERCENTAGE ON THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE THEREOF AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE AN ASSET REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (I) OR CLAUSE (II) OR CLAUSE (IIA), AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND IS PUT TO USE FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DA YS IN THAT PREVIOUS ITA NO. 3554 MUM 2019-M/ S PREMIER LTD. 6 YEAR, THE DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION IN RESPE CT OF SUCH ASSET SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO FIFTY PER CENT OF THE AMOUNT CALCULAT ED AT THE PERCENTAGE PRESCRIBED FOR AN ASSET UNDER CLAUSE (I) OR CLAUSE (II) OR CLAUSE (IIA), AS THE CASE MAY BE: PROVIDED ALSO & EXPLANATION 1 TO EXPLANATION 5.. (IIA) IN THE CASE OF ANY NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT (OT HER THAN SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT), WHICH HAS BEEN ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED AF TER THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2005, BY AN ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING OR GENERATION OR GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER, A FURTHER SUM EQUAL TO TWENT Y PER CENT OF THE ACTUAL COST OF SUCH MACHINERY OR PLANT SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE (II). ADMITTEDLY, THE PURPOSE OF AFFORDING BENEFIT TO AN ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION UNDER SEC.32(1)(IIA) WAS B ACKED WITH AN INTENT TO ENCOURAGE INDUSTRIALIZATION I.E. EITHER BY SETTING UP A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNIT OR BY EXPANDING A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNIT BY PURCHASING AND I NSTALLING NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT AND PUTTING THE SAME TO USE FOR THE PURPOS E OF BUSINESS. WE FIND THAT AS PER SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 32(1) THE ENTITLEMENT OF AN ASSESSEE TOWARDS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IN A CASE WHERE A NEW MACHINE RY OR PLANT ACQUIRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IS PUT TO USE FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN 180 DAYS IN THAT PREVIOUS YEAR SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO 50% FOR THE PE RCENTAGE PRESCRIBED FOR THE SAID ASSET UNDER CLAUSE (IIA) OF SEC. 32(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING AVAILABLE IN THE STATUTE FROM WHERE IT CAN BE GATHERED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE DISENTITLED FOR CLAIMING THE BALANCE 50% O F THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION I.E.10% IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, IT CAN SAFELY BE CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS NO RESTRICTION MA DE AVAI1ABLE ON THE STATUTE AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD PUT TO USE THE NE W MACHINERY FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN 180 DAYS DURING A YEAR, WOULD BE DIVES TED OF ITS ENTITLEMENT TO CLAIM THE BALANCE 10% OF THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATIO N IN THE SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. OUR AFORESAID VIEWS IS FORTIFIED B Y THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, MADURAI, VS. T.P. TEXTILES (P) LTD. (2017) 79 TAXMA N.COM 411 (MADRAS) AND THAT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RITTAL INDIA PVT. LTD. (2016) 380 ITR 423 (KAR). WE THUS B EING OF THE CONSIDERED ITA NO. 3554 MUM 2019-M/ S PREMIER LTD. 7 VIEW THAT NO INFIRMITY ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAD RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,36,32,835/-, UPHOLD HIS ORDER TO THE SAID EXTENT. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 IS DISMISSED. 12. TAKING THE CONSISTENT VIEW AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWI NG THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEAR, THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 13. THE NEXT ISSUE IN APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF SALES AND SERVICES UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAI SED THE FOLLOWING GROUND: 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 37 ON ACCOUNT OF SALES AND SERVICES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE SAID EXPENDITURE AS ITS CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBI LITY AND THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CLEARLY SPECIFIES UNDER EXPLANATION (2) T O SUB-SECTION (1) OF SEC. 37 THAT ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY AN ASSESSEE ON THE ACTIVITIES RELATING TO CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REFERRED TO IN SECT ION 135 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION? 14. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STA TED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALREADY SET-ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASS ESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING THAT THESE EXPENSES INCURRED UNDER THE HEAD CORPORA TE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY EXPENDITURE WRONGLY CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE ARE ACTUALL Y PAYMENTS MADE FOR ADVERTISEMENT ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS PROMOTION AND LOGO ON PREMIER LTD. THE CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VE RIFY AND THE RELEVANT FINDING OF CIT(A) READS AS UNDER: ITA NO. 3554 MUM 2019-M/ S PREMIER LTD. 8 IN FIND THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPELLAN T ARE OF THE NATURE OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES WHICH ARE INCURRED FOR THE P URPOSE OF BUSINESS, HENCE, ALLOWABLE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE EXPENSES WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROGRAMMES CONDU CTED AT NATYA- MAHOTSAVA ETC, AND ALLOW THE SAME, IF FOND TO BE CO RRECT. THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. 15. WE NOTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALREADY RESTORED THE M ATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. HENCE, W E FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). BUT WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO VERIFY THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE FIRST AND THEN DECIDE AS PER LAW WHETHE R THE EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37(1) OR NOT? HENCE, THIS I SSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL HAS BEEN SET-ASIDE. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH JANUARY 2021. SD/- SD/- RAJESH KUMAR MAHAVIR SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATE: 12.01.2021 SK COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST . REGISTRAR ITAT , MUMBAI