DCIT (TDS) 2(3), MUMBAI V. NATIONAL HEALTH EDUCATION SOCIETY, MUMBAI

ITA 3709/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4620 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITA P KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Salary income; Question of law; TDS
• Section: 201(1); 201; 192; 194J; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL C OURT), B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3709/MUM/2 019 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 ) D CIT (TDS) - 2(3) ROOM NO.718, K.G.MITTAL AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL BLDG. ROOM NO.718 CHARNI ROAD MUMBAI-400 002 - VS. NATIONAL HEALTH EDUCATION SOCIETY 87, VEER SAVARKAR ROAD, MAHIM,MUMBAI-400 016 PAN/GIR NO. AA ATN0093Q (APPELLAN T ) .. (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY MS. RUTUJA N. PAWAR, AR REVENUE BY MS. KAVITA P. KAUSHIK, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 1 4 /10/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14 /10/2020 / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA (J.M ) : THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y.2012-13 ARISES FROM M UMBAIS ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-60, IN CASE NO.CIT(A)-60/IT-10102/ACIT(TDS)-(2)2/2014-15 DATED 18/03/2019, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.201(1) R.W.S.(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT]. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. 2. THE REVENUES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE PLEADED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL SEEKS TO CHALLENGE CORRECTNESS OF TH E CIT(A)S ACTION ITA NO.3709/MUM/2019 M/S. NATIONAL HEALTH EDUCATION SOCIETY 2 REVERSING THE ASSESSMENT FINDINGS TREATING THE ASSE SSEE TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR NOT HAVING DEDUCTED TDS ON PAYMENTS MADE TO HOSPITAL BASED CONSULTANTS (HBCS). WE FIND FROM A PERUSAL OF THE CASE FILE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS CORRE SPONDING ORDER DATED 28/03/2014 HELD THAT AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE REL ATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS HOSPITAL BASED CONSULTANTS AND THEREFORE, THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE LATTER WERE IN THE NATURE OF SALARY REQUIRING TDS DEDUCTION U/S 192 OF THE ACT FAILURE OF WHICH AT THE FORMERS PART HAD MADE IT AS THE ASSESSEE IN DE FAULT. 3. WE NOTICE THAT THE CIT(A) FINDINGS UNDER CHALLEN GE PLACE RELIANCE ON HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION DE CLINING REVENUES ARGUMENTS ON THE SAME ISSUE AS UNDER:- GROUND NO.1 & 2:- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS)-2 (2) (AO) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN A LW, ERRED IN HOLDING THAT BASED ON THE LETTER APPOINTMENT OF HOSPITAL BA SED CONSULTANTS (HBCS), EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP EXISTS BET WEEN THE APPELLANT & THE HBC'S AND THEREBY FURTHER HOLDING THAT TDS SHOU LD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED U/S. 192 & NOT U/S. 194J. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE MERITS OF THE ABOVE, TH E AO HAS ALSO ERRED IN HOLDING THE APPELLANT AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN TER MS OF SEC. 201(1) & 201(1A) BY WORKING OUT SHORT DEDUCTION U/S. 201(1) AT RS. 16,42,66,732/- AND INTEREST ON SHORT DEDUCTION U/S. 201(1A) AT RS. 1,97,12,0087- AGGREGATING TO RS. 18,39,78,740/- HOLDING THAT APPE LLANT SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED TAX U/S. 192 INSTEAD OF 194J. APPELLANT SUBMISSION:- DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED ALONG WITH PAPER BOOK, THE RELEVANT PART OF WHICH I S SUMMARIZED AS UNDER:- THE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF AO TO TREAT THE AMOUNTS PAID TO THE CONSULTING DOCTORS AS SALARIES THEREBY ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 192 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AS AGAINST OUR CONTENTIO N THAT THESE PAYMENT ARE THE CONSULTING DOCTORS' SHARE AS PER THE AGREEMENTS , IN THE FEES COLLECTED FROM THE VISITING PATIENTS. THE APPELLANT HAS DEDUCTED T AX AT SOURCE ON THESE PAYMENTS @ 10% AS TAX PAYABLE ON PROFESSIONAL FEES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 J OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NO.3709/MUM/2019 M/S. NATIONAL HEALTH EDUCATION SOCIETY 3 THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED BY AO DURING THE LAST 8 ASSES SMENT YEARS NAMELY AY 2004-05 TO 2011-12. IN ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE DECISIONS OF CIT (A) AND ITAT ARE IN OUR FAVOUR. BOTH CIT( A ) AND ITAT HAVE UPHELD OUR CONTENTION THAT THE PROFESSIONAL FEES PAID TO THE HOSPITAL BASED CONSULTANTS (HBCS) FALL UNDER THE AMBIT OF SECTION 194 J OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 19 62 AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CORRECTLY DEDUCTED THE TDS AND PAID THE SAME. S INCE THERE IS NO DEMAND FOR THE SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DEMAND FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201 (1)/201(1 A) OF THE ACT. AS SUGGESTED BY YOU, WE ARE ENCLOSING THE COPIES OF ITAT ORDERS AND AO ORDERS NULLIFYING THE DEMAND BASED ON ITAT ORDERS F OR THE 8 AYS NAMELY AY 2004-05 TO 2011-12 WHICH ARE SELF-EXPLANATORY. WE WOULD LIKE TO SUMMAR IZE OUR CONTENTION BASED ON THE CONTRACTS FOR THE ENGAGEMEN T WITH HBCS FOR THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AS UNDER:- 1. THE PROFESSIONAL FEES GENERATED FROM THE PATIE NTS BILLS ARE SHARED BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE HBCS IN A PREDETERMINED RATIO BASED ON THE CONTRACT OF ENGAGEMENT. 2. UNLIKE EMPLOYEES, HBCS DO NOT HAVE SICK LEAVE, PRIVILEGE LEAVE 3. HBCS DO NOT HAVE THE FIXED TIMINGS OF WORK. 4. HBCS ARE NOT ENTITLED FOR PF, ESIC AND GRATUIT Y 5. HOSPITAL DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY INSURANCE COVER TO HBCS. FOR PHYSICIANS THE INSURANCE COVER IS RS.15 LACS AND FOR SURGEONS IT I S RS 25 LACS AND THE HBCS HAVE TO PAY THE INSURANCE PREMIUM THEMSELVES AND HO SPITAL DOES NOT PAY THE PREMIUM. 6. CERTAIN % OF PROFESSIONAL FEES IS EARMARKED FO R ATTENDING MEDICAL CONFERENCES, ACADEMIC WORK 7. SOME HBCS ARE ALLOWED TO WORK AT OTHER ATTACH MENTS AS WELL. IT WILL BE THUS CLEAR THAT THESE ARE THE CONTRACTS FOR SERVICE AND NOT OF SERVICE. SECONDLY A COMPARATIVE CHART SHOWING TERMS AND COND ITIONS OF THE ENGAGEMENT/APPOINTMENT OF HBCS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AR'S OF THE APPELLANT ON 08.03.2017 THE SAME IS REF ERRED BELOW:- NO PARTICULARS HOUSE BASED CONSULTANTS OTHER EMPLOYEES 1. BASIS LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT OF SERVICE APPOINTMENT LETTER 2. PAYMENT STRUCTURE HBCS ARE GENERALLY ON THE BASIS OF SHARING FEES BUT IN SOME CASES THERE IS CERTAIN FIXED AMOUNT ALSO. IN FEW CASES, THERE IS ONLY FIXED AMOUNT. NO SUCH STRUCTURE. ONLY FIXED AMOUNT. SOME EMPLOYEES WILL HAVE VARIABLE DA. 3. BREAK-UP OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED NO SUCH BREAK-UP BREAK-UP INTO BASIC, DA, HRA AND OTHER ALLOWANCES 4. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF THE HOSPITAL NO YES ITA NO.3709/MUM/2019 M/S. NATIONAL HEALTH EDUCATION SOCIETY 4 5. REGULATION OF TIME FOR THE SERVICES IN THE HOSPITAL TIMINGS AND DAYS ARE MENTIONED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PATIENTS. HBCS ARE FREE TO COME AT ANY TIME TO TREAT THE PATIENTS FIXED TIME AND DAYS OF WORK. 6. GRATUITY, PF, EPF, ESIC, BONUS, EX- GRATIA, LTA, FESTIVAL ADVANCE NO SUCH BENEFITS ALL SUCH BENEFITS AS PER THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF GRATUITY, PF, ESIC ACTS. 7. ATTENDANCE NO MUSTER, PUNCHING OF IDENTITY CARD PUNCHING OF IDENTITY CARD FOR ALL EXCEPT SR. MANAGERS AND ABOVE. 8. OVERTIME NO APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES 9. LEAVE 30 DAYS P.A. SICK LEAVE, PRIVILEGE LEAVE AND CASUAL LEAVE 10 APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS RULES PERTAINING TO CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICS ARE APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE HOSPITAL ARE APPLICABLE. 11. PROHIBITION FROM TAKING ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENTS SENIOR HBCS ARE ALLOWED TO TAKE UP OTHER ASSIGNMENTS PROHIBITION TO TAKE UP OTHER JOB 12. INDEMNITY INSURANCE TAKEN BY SELF HBCS ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE INDEMNITY INSURANCE POLICY AND PAY THE PREMIUM ON THEIR OWN. NO SUCH POLICY IS REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN 13. RETURN OF INCOME HBCS ARE SHOWING THE INCOME FROM THE HOSPITAL UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM PROFESSION' EMPLOYEES SHOW THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM SALARY' 14. RELATIONSHIP NO RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP EXITS. 15. NATURE OF SERVICE CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACT OF SERVICE NOTE: THESE FACTS ARE THE SAME AS IN EARLIER YEARS. FROM THE CHART ABOVE STATED IT IS CLEARLY SEEN THAT THERE IS IMMENSE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REGULAR EMPLOYEES AND HBCS WORKING IN THE H OSPITAL. THE HBCS ARE PROFESSIONAL WORKING AT THE HOSPITAL. ITA NO.3709/MUM/2019 M/S. NATIONAL HEALTH EDUCATION SOCIETY 5 FURTHERMORE, A PAPER BOOK FILED ON 16.02.2017 COMPR ISING OF ORDERS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND HON'BLE ITAT FOR ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2004-05 TO 2011-12 WHEREIN THE ITAT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE OF HBCS IN T HE FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH FOR A.Y. 2009-1 0 IS STATED AS UNDER- '7.A. ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE REFERRED TWO JUDGMENT L EAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF 192/194J CONTROVERSY FOLLOWING FACTORS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED I) ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL II)REGULATION O THE TIME FOR SERVICE IN THE HOSPITA L III)ELIGIBILITY FOR GRATUITY AND COVER UNDER THE PR OVIDENT FUND SCHEME IV)BENEFIT OF CAUSAL LEAVE AND SICK LEAVE V) APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL SERVICE RULES FRAMED BY THE HOSPITAL BESIDES, PROHIBITION FROM TAKING ANY OTHER ASSIGNME NT DOES BOTH JUSTIFY THE INFERENCE THAT THE PAYMENT TO THEM ID SALARY. ONE O F THE OTHER IMPORTANT FACTOR IS FILING OF RETURN BY HBCS AND SHOWING THE SUM RECEIV ED BY THEM FROM THE HOSPITALS IT HAS TO BE SEEN WHETHER THEY ARE SHOWIN G THE RECEIPT FROM THE HOSPITAL UNDER THE HEAD SALARY OR UNDER THE HEAD PR OFESSIONAL INCOME. IN ADDITION TO IT ONE OF THE IMPORTANT FACTORS IS INSU RANCE TAKEN BY THE HBCS. IF THEY ARE NOT COVERED BY THE INSURANCE PROVIDED BY THE HO SPITAL AND THEY TAKE THE INDEMNITY INSURANCE FOR THEMSELVES, IT INDICATES TH AT THEY MIGHT NOT BE THE EMPLOYEE OF THE ORGANIZATION. BROADLY, THESE ARE TH E SOME OF THE BASIC PARAMETERS. 8. WE HAVE COMPARED THE ENGAGEMENT LETTERS ISSUED B Y THE HH TO THE HBCS AND THE OTHER DOCTORS. IN THE FIRST CATEGORY TDS WA S MADE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT, WHEREAS IN THE SECOND C ATEGORY TAX WAS DEDUCTED U/S. 192 OF THE ACT WE FIND THAT THE HBCS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO ANY KIND OF LEAVE, WHEREAS THE OTHER DOCTORS WERE ELIGIBLE FOR PAID LE AVE 2.5 DAY PER MONTH. THE JUNIOR DOCTORS WERE OFFERED 'SALARY' IN THE LETTERS OF ENGAGEMENT, BUT THE HBCS WERE GIVEN OFFER TO 'SHARE PROFESSIONAL FEES' AT A FIX RATE. IN THEIR LETTERS WORD SALARY WAS NOT USED AT ALL. BESIDES, THE HBCS WERE INFORMED THAT IN THEIR CASES IT WAS MANDATORY FOR THEM TO TAKE INDEMNITY INSURAN CE TO ADEQUATELY COVER ANY MEDICO LEGAL PROBLEM. FOR PHYSICIANS THE INSURANCE COVER TO BE TAKEN WAS RS. 15 LAKHS AND FOR THE SURGEONS IT WAS RS. 25 LAKHS. IN CASE OF JUNIOR DOCTORS SUCH WAS NOT STIPULATED. THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR GRATUITY OR PF IN THEIR CASE. (PGS. 150 TO 184 OF THE PB). IN SHORT, THERE ARE CE RTAIN CLAUSES IN THE APPOINTMENT/OFFER LETTER THAT DEAL WITH HBCS RIGHTS IN THE FIELDS OF CLINIC, ADMITTING AND OPERATING, SHARING OF PROFESSIONAL FE ES, EARMARKING OF % OF FEES FOR ATTENDING MEDICAL CONFERENCES/ACADEMIC WORK AND ALLOWING THEM O CONTINUE ATTACHMENT THE AO OR THE FAA HAD NOT DISCUSSED THES E ITEMS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE IMPORTANT PARAMETERS/GUIDING PRINCIPLES MENTION ED AS PARAGRAPH 7.A. AND THE TERMS OF AGREEMENTS ENTERED IN TO BETWEEN THE A SSESSEE AND THE HBCS- ESPECIALLY THE TERM SO SHARING PROFESSIONAL FEES AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENTS DELIVERED BY THE HON'BLE GUJARAT AND AP HIGH COURTS (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE HB CS WAS COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 J OF THE ACT AND NOT BY S ECTION 192 OF THE ACT. GROUND NO. 1 IS DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE.' SIMILARLY IN ALL OTHER ORDERS WHICH ARE ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK THAT RELATE TO THE GROUND OF HBCS ARE DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE FAVOUR OF APPELLANT. ITA NO.3709/MUM/2019 M/S. NATIONAL HEALTH EDUCATION SOCIETY 6 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2019, THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, DATED 22 .02.2019, NULLIFYING THE DEMAND FOR THE LAST 6 YEARS, I.E. FROM A.Y. 2006-07 TO A.Y. 2011-12. FOLLOWING ARE THE RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM THE ORDER OF THE HON 'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, PERTAINING THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION: ' QUESTION (A) 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ITAT WAS CORRECT IN NOT TREATING THE HOSPITAL BASED CONS ULTANTS (HBCS) AS EMPLOYEES AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 192 I S NOT APPLICABLE?' 'AS FAR AS QUESTION (A) IS CONCERNED, WE FIND CONSI DERABLE FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT CANVASSED BY MR. TIWARI THAT THE SAME IS SQUARELY C OVERED BY A DIVISION BENCH DECISION OF THIS COURT. WE FIND THAT A DIVISION BEN CH OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS PUNE) (ITXA NO.140 OF 2013) (SUPRA) AND TO WHICH ONE OF US WAS A PARTY (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J ), WAS CONSIDERING WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THERE EXIS TS NO RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE - GRANT MEDICAL F OUNDATION (RUBY HALL CLINIC) AND THE CONSULTANT DOCTORS EMPLOYED IN THE HOSPITAL. AFTER PERUSING THE LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THIS COURT ANSWERED THE AFORESA ID QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. WE FIND THAT AS F AR AS QUESTION (A) IS CONCERNED, THE SAME HAS BEEN ANSWERED AGAINST THE R EVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS PUNE) (ITXA NO.140 OF 2013) (SUPRA). IN FACT, WHEN JUDGMENT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF MR. SURE SH KUMAR, HE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT QUESTION (A) WOULD BE COVERED BY THIS DECISION. THIS BEING THE CASE, IN OUR OPINION, (A) DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW.'' DECISION: 1 HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL AND THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. TH ERE ARE ALL TOGETHER 7 GROUNDS BUT THE MAIN GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO THE T REATMENT GIVEN BY THE AO TO HOSPITAL BASED CONSULTANT (HBCS). THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS TREATED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE HOSPITAL BASED CONSULTANT DOCTORS IS PURELY THAT OF' EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE 1 AND REMUNERATION PAID TO THEM IN TERMS OF THE SAID RELATIONSHIP IS 'SALARY' WHICH ATTRACTE D THE PROVISION OF SECTION 192 OF THE IT ACT 1961, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN A PPEAL. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF THE HON'BLE I TAT ORDERS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2011-12 IN HIS OWN CASE WHEREIN TH E ITAT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE OF HBCS IN THE FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. FURTH ER, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2019, THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, DATED 22.02.2019, NULLIFYING THE DEMAND FOR THE LAST 6 YEARS, I.E. FROM A.Y. 2006-07 TO A.Y. 2011-12. SINCE THE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT HAS GIVEN AN ORDER IN HIS FAVOUR IN HIS OWN CASE FOR THE PREVIOU S YEARS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THAT ORDER, THE DECISION OF THE AO IS ANNULLED AND THE APPEAL IS DECIDED IN THE FAVOUR OF APPELLANT. IN SUM, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.3709/MUM/2019 M/S. NATIONAL HEALTH EDUCATION SOCIETY 7 4. THERE IS NO DISTINCTIONS ON FACTS OR LAW POINT ED OUT AT THE REVENUES BEHEST DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. WE T HUS ADOPT JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES TO AFFIRM THE CIT(A) ACTION UNDER CHALLENGE DELETING T HE SECTION 201(1) R.W.S. 1(A) TDS DEMAND IN ISSUE. 5. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14/10 /2020 SD/- (M.BALAGANESH) SD/- (S.S.GODARA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 14/10/2020 THIRUMALESH , SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//