SAHYADRI CONSTRUCTION, Thane V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, Thane

ITA 375/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0328 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBODH RATNAPARKHI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 147; 148

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH MUMB AI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 375/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ) SAHYADRI CONSTRUCTION 1, SHEETAL CHHAYA, NEAR PRATAP CINEMA, KOLBAD ROAD, THANE (W)-400601 . PAN: AAEFS7999E VS. DCIT CIRCLE-3, ROOM NO. 2, B WING, 6 TH FLOOR, ASHAR I.T. PARK, ROAD NO.16Z , WAGALE IND. ESTATE, THANE-400604. APPELLANT RESPONDE NT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUBODH RATNAPARKHI (C.A) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. KUMAR (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 29.03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 29.03.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-2, (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS LD. CIT (A), PUNE DATED 15.09.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE A SSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, 1. THE HON. CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE RE-OPENI NG OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE I. TAX ACT 1961, BY ISSUE OF THE NOTICE U/S 148 DT. 25.03.2013, WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY INDEPEN DENT AND VALID REASON ON THE PART OF THE LD AO TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE RE-OP ENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 BEING BAD-IN-LAW, THE ASST. ORDE R FLOWING THERE FROM, BEING THE ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 NOW UND ER APPEAL IS ALSO INVALID AND BAD IN LAW AND HENCE IS REQUIRED TO BE STRUCK DOWN ON THAT COUNT. ITA NO. 375 MUM 2018-SAHYADRI CONSTRUCTION. 2 2. THE HON. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 23,57,872/-, MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED HAWALA PURC HASES DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT, NOT A PPRECIATING THAT THE PURCHASES WERE GENUINE PURCHASES DULY SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCES AND THAT THE MATERIAL PURCHASED WAS CONSU MED BY THE APPELLANT IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WORK. 3. THE HON. CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 23,57,872/-, MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED HAWALA PURC HASES, WITHOUT AFFORDING YOUR APPELLANT WITH ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CR OSS EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF ADVERSE EVIDENCE, THEREBY BREACHING THE S ILENT PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY, FAIR PLAY AND NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONTRACTO R. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 09.09.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,27,59,094/-. THE AS SESSMENT WAS INITIALLY COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND RETUR N OF INCOME WAS ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 ON 25.03.2013. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 25.03.20 13 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SALE TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI ABOUT THE ENTITIES WHO WERE PROVIDING ENTRIE S OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIE S, WHO HAS PROVIDED SUCH ENTRIES. NO REPLY WAS FILED BY ASSESSEE IN RES PONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, THUS, THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FILE D BY ASSESSEE WAS TREATED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 148. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 13 .03.2014. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS BENEFICIARY OF BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS. 1 0,63,920/- FROM ITA NO. 375 MUM 2018-SAHYADRI CONSTRUCTION. 3 SAMAY SALES CORPORATION AND RS. 12,93,952/- FROM MA ULIK STEEL CORPORATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO VERI FY THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 163. THE NO TICES WERE RETURNED BACK BY POSTAL AUTHORITIES. THEREAFTER INSPECTOR WA S DIRECTED TO SERVE THE NOTICE ON THE SAID PARTIES. THE INSPECTOR REPORTED THAT NO SUCH CONCERNS ARE RUNNING ON THE SAID PREMISES. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ISSUED SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE PURCHASE S MADE FROM THE PARTIES SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS EXPENSES. TH E ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY DATED 21.02.2014. IN THE REPLY, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THEY HAVE MADE PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUES AND THE TRANSACTI ONS ARE GENUINE. THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINITY OF TRANSACTION AND IDENTITY OF SELLER AND OTHER EVI DENCE LIKE TRANSPORT, STOCK REGISTER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED TH E CLAIM OF ENTIRE PURCHASES. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE CHALLENGED THE REOPENING AS WELL AS THE 100% ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OF SALE TAX AUTHORITY. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE AC TION OF ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE OF REOPENING AS WELL AS ON ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF SAID BOGUS PURCHASES. THUS, FURTHER AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US . 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ITA NO. 375 MUM 2018-SAHYADRI CONSTRUCTION. 4 4. GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO VALIDITY OF RE-OPENING UNDER SECTION 147. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3), WHEREIN THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES WAS ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF THIRD PARTY INFORMATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOP ENED THE ASSESSMENT BY RELYING UPON THE INFORMATION OF SALE TAX DEPARTM ENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED ANY INDEPENDENT BELIEF OR SATISFACTION THAT THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE REOP ENING BEING BAD-IN- LAW, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN PURSUANCE OF RE OPENING IS ALSO INVALID. THE LD. AR HAS ALSO FILED COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), TAX AUDIT REPORT, COPY OF REASONS RECOR DED, PARTY-WISE LEDGER ACCOUNTS, TAX INVOICES, PAYMENT DETAILS HIGH LIGHTING THE PAYMENTS TO THE DISPUTED PARTIES. COPY OF AUDITED P&L A/C FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2010-11. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT THE AO W AS HAVING SUFFICIENT MATERIAL BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SAL E TAX DEPARTMENT THAT ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY WHO HAD AVAILED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM SUCH HAWALA TRADERS. THE INFORMATION R ECEIVED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SUFFICIENT FOR MAKING BELIEF FOR REOPEN ING. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO. 375 MUM 2018-SAHYADRI CONSTRUCTION. 5 MADE THE REOPENING ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECE IVED FROM SALE TAX DEPARTMENT. THE SALE TAX DEPARTMENT PROVIDED NAME A ND ADDRESS OF PARTIES WHO WERE INDULGED IN PROVIDING ENTRIES OF B OGUS PURCHASES. THE INFORMATION ALSO CONTAINS THE DETAILS OF BENEFICIAR IES OF SUCH BILLS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN THE PURCHASES FROM TWO OF S UCH PARTIES. 7. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT SECTION 147 AUTHORIZES AND PERMITS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS OR RE-ASSESS THE INCOME CHARGEABL E TO TAX IF HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YE AR HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT. THE WORD 'REASON' IN THE PHRASE 'REASON TO BELIEVE' WOULD MEAN CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION AND AFTER CONSIDERING A ND ANALYZING THE PROVISION, IT HAS BEEN PROPOUNDED THAT THE EXPRESSI ON CANNOT BE READ TO MEAN THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE FINALLY ASC ERTAINED THE FACT OF LEGAL EVIDENCE OR CONCLUSION. IN OUR VIEW, AT THE I NITIAL STAGE, THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS S UFFICIENT TO MAKE A BELIEF AND NOT THE ESTABLISHED FACT OF ESCAPEMENT O F INCOME. THEREFORE, AT THIS STAGE ONLY QUESTION WHETHER THER E WAS RELEVANT MATERIAL TO FORM A REASONABLE BELIEF IS TO BE SEEN AND IN TH E BACKGROUND OF PRESENT FACTS, THERE IS A SPECIFIC INFORMATION RECEIVED FRO M INVESTIGATION WING OF SALE TAX DEPARTMENT THAT ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BEN EFICIARY OF HAWALA PURCHASES. IN OUR VIEW, THE INFORMATION WAS SUFFICI ENT FOR MAKING BELIEF THAT INCOME OF ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE REFORE, WE DO NOT ITA NO. 375 MUM 2018-SAHYADRI CONSTRUCTION. 6 FIND ANY MERIT IN THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. THE GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF PURC HASES DEBITED TO THE P&L A/C. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT AS SESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR, WORKING WITH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THA NE. DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE GENUINE PURC HASES OF STEEL & IRON. THE ASSESSEE FILED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF TAX INVOICES, DELIVERY CHALLAN AND PROOF OF PAYMENT THROUGH BANKI NG CHANNEL. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE MATERIAL AT THE SITE. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE CONSUMPTION. THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT REJECTED. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IT WAS NO T POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLETE THE CIVIL WORK WITHOUT PURCHAS E AND CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 1,27,59,094/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN HIGHER GROSS PROFIT THAT THE ORDINARY PROFIT IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT EXAMINED THE GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT FOR PRIOR AND SUBSE QUENT YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOLELY RELY UPON THE REPORT OF TH IRD PARTY/SALES TAX DEPARTMENT WITHOUT PROVIDING COPY OF THE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE STATEMENT OF THE PARTIES ALL EGEDLY RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING. THE ASSESSEE MADE SPECIFIC GROU NDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO A DJUDICATE THE SAID ITA NO. 375 MUM 2018-SAHYADRI CONSTRUCTION. 7 GROUNDS OF APPEAL DESPITE RECORDING OF SUBMISSION O F ASSESSEE INPARA-4.3 OF HIS ORDER. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS TH AT THE LOWER AUTHORITY HAS PASSED THE ORDER IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF N ATURAL JUSTICE. THE LD. AR PRAYED FOR DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPO RTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ARGUE D THAT THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT MAD E FULL-FLEDGED ENQUIRY. THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS SHO WN THE PURCHASES ARE BOGUS HAWALA DEALERS. THE HAWALA DEALERS ARE IN DULGED IN ISSUING BOGUS BILLS WITHOUT DELIVERY OF ANY MATERIAL OR GOO DS. THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION BILLS ONLY IN ORDER TO INFLA TE THE EXPENSES AND TO BRING DOWN THE PROFITABILITY IN ORDER TO AVOID THE TAX. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE PRAYED FOR CONFIRMING 100% OF THE DISALLOWA NCE AND FOR DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PAR TIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAV E ALSO DELIBERATED ON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE PARTIES SEEKING DE TAILS OF TRANSACTIONS ENTERED BY THEM WITH THE ASSESSEE. NONE OF THE ABOV E RESPOND TO THE NOTICES, AND NOTICES WAS RETURNED UN-SERVED. THE AS SESSING OFFICER DEPUTED THE INSPECTOR TO SERVE THE NOTICE ON THE PA RTIES. THE INSPECTOR ITA NO. 375 MUM 2018-SAHYADRI CONSTRUCTION. 8 REPORTED THAT NONE OF THE PARTIES IS AVAILABLE ON T HE GIVEN ADDRESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE A SSESSEE AS TO WHY THE ENTIRE PURCHASES BE NOT DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE FI LED ITS REPLY DATED 21.02.2014. IN THE REPLY, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED TH AT THEY HAVE MADE PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUES AND THE TRANSACTIONS ARE GE NUINE. THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINI TY OF TRANSACTION AND IDENTITY OF SELLER AND OTHER EVIDENCE LIKE TRANSPOR T, STOCK REGISTER. HENCE THE AO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.22,57,872/- AS DETAIL ED BELOW: SR. NO. NAME OF THE PARTY AM OUNT 1 SAMAY SALES 10,63,920/- 2 MAULIK STEEL CORPORATION 12,93,952/- TOTAL 22,57,872/- 11. WE HAVE NOTED THE BEFORE DISALLOWING THE ENTIRE PUR CHASES FROM THE ALLEGED HAWALA DEALERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT R EJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. NO ADVERSE COMMENT WAS MADE BY ASSESSING O FFICER ABOUT THE CONSUMPTION OF THE MATERIAL PURCHASED BY THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSEE IS GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR AND EXECUTED THE CIVIL CONTRA CT. NO INQUIRY ABOUT THE SCOPE OF WORK, IF EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE GROSS PROFIT AND THE NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN PREVIOUS AND SU BSEQUENT YEAR WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MAINLY RELIED ON THE REPORT OF SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, WHERE IN THE SAID SUPPLIER ITA NO. 375 MUM 2018-SAHYADRI CONSTRUCTION. 9 ALLEGEDLY MADE STATEMENT ABOUT THE ACCOMMODATION EN TRY PROVIDED BY THEM. THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT AND THE REPORT OF T HE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY SALES TAX DEPARTMENT WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE RAISED SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A) THAT NO OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SOURCE OF ADVER SE INFORMATION (EVIDENCE) WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH, TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY RECORDED BY LD CIT(A) IN PARA-4.3 OF HIS ORDER. THE LD CIT(A) FAILED TO ADJUDICATE THE SPECIFIC GROUND OF APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN HAS RAISED SIMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE US . 12. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT UNDER THE INC OME TAX ACT ONLY REAL INCOME CAN BE TAXED BY THE REVENUE. WE MAY FUR THER CONCLUDE THAT EVEN IF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT VERIFIABLE, THE ONLY TAXABLE IS THE TAXABLE INCOME COMPONENT AND NOT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION. AN D AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN ORDER TO FULFILL THE GAP OF REVENUE LEAKAGE THE DISALLOWANCE OF REASONABLE PERCENTAGE OF SUCH PURCH ASES WOULD MEET THE END OF JUSTICE. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS HARIRAM BHAMBHANI IN ITA NO. 313 OF 2013 DECIDED ON 04.2.2015 HELD THAT REVENUE IS NOT ENTITLED TO BROUGHT THE ENTIRE SALES CONSIDERATION TO TAX, BUT ONLY THE PROFIT ATTRIBUTABLE ON THE TOTAL UNRECORDE D SALES CONSIDERATION ALONE CAN BE SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX. ITA NO. 375 MUM 2018-SAHYADRI CONSTRUCTION. 10 13. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF T HE ASSESSEE AND THE NATURE OF MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM THE HAWALA DEALER S, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT A REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PURCHASES WOU LD MEET THE POSSIBILITY OF REVENUE LEAKAGE; THEREFORE, THE DISA LLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO 12.5% OF THE IMPUGNED/DISPUTED PURCHASES. IN THE RE SULT, GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 14. THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS- EXAMINATION OF SOURCE OF EVIDENCE. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WE HAVE PARTLY ALLOWED THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL AND GR ANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, DISCUSSION ON THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL HAS BECOME ACADEMIC. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/03/2019. SD/- SD /- N.K. PRADHAN, PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 29.03.2019 SK COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI