SURESH DEVJI VAVIYA, MUMBAI V. ITO 17(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 3761/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1510 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R KAVITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH D VAVIY A IN PERSON
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained expenditure; Accommodation entries
• Section: 69C; 133(6); 37(1)

Judgement Text

P A G E | 1 ITA NO. 3761/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SURESH DEVJI VAVIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 17(3)(4) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3761 /MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) SURESH DEVJI VAVIYA 2A, BANAJI STREET, OPP BLITZ OFFICE, FORT, MUMBAI 400 001 VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 17(3)(4) 114, 1 ST FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 PAN ACRPV2886J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURESH D. VAVIY A ( ASSESSEE IN PERSON ) . RESPONDENT BY: MS. R. KAVITHA , D.R DATE OF HEARING: 13 .03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 1 5 .03.2019 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 38, MUMBAI, DATED 14.02.2018, WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC.143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT I.T ACT), DA TED 03.03.2015 FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLO W ING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (HERE - IN - AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE A.O.) ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS, BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 7,40,713/ - U/S 69C OF THE ACT ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE BOGUS PURCHASES IN CASH FROM THESE SIX (6) PARTIES P A G E | 2 ITA NO. 3761/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SURESH DEVJI VAVIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 17(3)(4) 2. THE LEARNED A.O ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS BY MAKING AN ADDITION O F RS. 1,91,607/ - U/S 69C OF THE ACT, MERELY RELYING ON THE STATEMENT OF THE PURCHASE PARTIES (TWO) IN SPITE OF HAVING ON RECORD COMPLETE DETAILS OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THESE PARTIES INCLUDING THEIR INVOICES AND CORRESPONDING SALES. 3. THE APPELLANTS CRAVE LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER, MODIFY, SUBSTITUTE OR SUPPLEMENT THE AFORE - SAID GROUNDS AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN OFFICE AND GENERAL STATIONERY AND PRINTING MAT ERIAL HAD E - FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 ON 22.09.2009, DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.3,31,135/ - . THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED AS SUCH UNDER SEC. 143( 1 ) OF THE I.T ACT. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION SHARED BY THE MAHARA SHTRA SALES TAX DEPARTMENT [THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE DGIT (INV.), MUMBAI ] THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY OF THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM CERTAIN HAWALA DEALERS, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED UNDER SEC. 147 OF THE I.T ACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID INFORMATION OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DURING THE YEAR MADE PURCHASES AGGREGATING TO RS.15,61,137/ - FROM 14 PARTIES WHICH WERE BLACK LISTED AS HAWALA DEALERS BY THE MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX DEPARTMENT , AS UNDER : NAME OF THE PARTY TIN AMOUNT OM CORPORATION PARSHVA & CO. 18,130/ - RAJ TRADERS 61,985/ - SAILEELA TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED 78,325/ - MIHIR SALES PRIVATE LIMITED 1,07,169/ - RIDDHI ENTERPRISES 81,664/ - MOTION TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED 84,438/ - HEMAL ENTERPRISES 89,367/ - JAY ENTERPRISES 1,36,502/ - KC ENTERPRISES 1,61,687/ - SNEHAL ENTERPRISES 1,58,463/ - SKYLARK ENTERPRISES 1,38,623/ - P A G E | 3 ITA NO. 3761/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SURESH DEVJI VAVIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 17(3)(4) SEVA ENTERPRISES 2,44,519/ - SIDDHIVINAYAK CORPORATION 94,,955/ - MERIDIAN SALES AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED 1,05,310/ - TOTAL 15,16,137/ - IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS AND VERACITY OF THE AFORESAID PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS THE A.O ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SEC. 133(6) OF THE I.T ACT TO ALL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES. IN MAJORITY OF THE CASES THE NOTICES WERE RETURNED UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARKS NOT KNOWN, REFUSED OR INTIMATED. INSOFAR THE NOTICES WHICH WERE SERVED UPON SOME OF THE PARTIES, WERE CONCERNED , EXCEPT FOR IN TWO CASES WHERE THE PARTIES HAD DENIED OF HAVING CARRIED OUT ANY TRANSACTION WI TH THE ASSESSEE, IN ALL THE REMAINING CASES NO COMPLIANCE WAS AFFECTED BY THE OTHER PARTIES. T HE A.O BRINGING THE AFORESAID FACTS TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE CALLED UPON HIM TO SUBSTANTIATE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS BY PRODUCING THE P ARTIES FOR NECESSARY EXAMINATION ALONG WITH THE COPIES OF THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME, COP IES OF LEDGER ACCOUNT S AND BANK STATEMENT S . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE AFORESAID DIRECTIONS OF THE A.O AND DID NOT PLACE ON RECORD ANY SUCH DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD PROVE TO THE HILT THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS THE A.O HELD A CONVICTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS AS WAS CAST UPON HIM TO PROVE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PURCHASE S WHICH WERE CLAIMED HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES. IN FACT, THE A.O ON A PERUSAL OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS COMPARTMENTALISED THE SAME INTO THREE CATEGORIES VIZ. (I) PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN CAS H FROM SIX PARTIES: RS.7,40,713/ - (INCLUDING UNPAID PURCHASES OF RS.76,887/ - ); (II) PURCHASES MADE FROM TWO SUPPLIER PARTIES WHO HAD DENIED OF HAVING ENTERED INTO ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE : RS.1,91,607/ - ; P A G E | 4 ITA NO. 3761/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SURESH DEVJI VAVIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 17(3)(4) AND (III) PURCHASES WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE REMAINING SIX PARTIES : RS.6,28,816/ - . INSOFAR THE PURCHASES OF RS.7,40,713/ - (INCLUDING UNPAID PURCHASES OF RS.76,887/ - ) WERE CONCERNED , IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD F AILED TO FURNISH ANY VALID AND BONAFIDE EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE SAID BOGUS PURCHASES. INTERESTINGLY, IT WAS OBSERVE D BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT HE HAD ACTUALLY INCURRED THE AFORESAID EXPENDITURE. ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS THE A.O BROUGHT THE AFORESAID SUM OF RS.7,40,713/ - TO TAX AS AN UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC. 69C OF THE I.T ACT. AS FAR AS THE PURCHASES OF RS. 1,91,607/ - WHIC H WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM TWO PARTIES VIZ. (I). M/S MIHIR SALES PVT. LTD. ; AND (II). M/S MOTION TRADERS PVT. LTD. BUT WERE DENIED BY THE SAID PARTIES WERE CONCERNED, THE SAME TOO WERE DISALLOWED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 69C. IN RESP ECT OF THE REMAINING PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS OF RS. 6,28,816/ - WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE ON THE BASIS OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS , THE A.O HELD A CONVICTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION BILLS FROM THE SAID PARTIES AND HAD PRO CURED THE GOODS FROM THE OPEN/GREY MARKET . ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATION , THE A.O RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF THE PROFIT ELEMENT OF 12.5% OF THE VALUE OF THE SAID UNSUBSTANTIATED PURCHASES OF RS. 6,28,817/ - , RESULTING TO AN ADDITION OF RS.78,602/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATT ER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). INSOFAR THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF THE PURCHASES OF RS.9,32,320/ - [ RS.7,40,713/ - (+) RS.1,91,607/ - ] MADE BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 69C WAS CONCERNED, THE CIT(A) BEING OF THE VIEW THAT AS THE SOURCE OF THE SAID PURCHASES WAS NOT IN DOUBT, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION P A G E | 5 ITA NO. 3761/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SURESH DEVJI VAVIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 17(3)(4) COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER SEC. 69C. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT A S THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCH ASES WAS NOT PROVED, THEREFORE, THE SAME WERE LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 37(1) OF THE I.T ACT. ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.9,32,320/ - UNDER SEC.37(1) , AS AGAINST THAT MADE BY THE A.O UNDER SEC.69C. AS RE GARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.78,602/ - THAT WAS MADE BY THE A.O TOWARDS THE PROFIT WHICH THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAD MADE FROM CARRYING OUT THE PURCHASES OF RS.6,28,817/ - FROM THE OPEN/GREY MARKET, THE SAME WAS NOT ASSAILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A ). THE CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE AFORESAID ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,32,320/ - UNDER SEC.37(1) OBSERVED THAT AS IT WAS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD BOOKED BOGUS PURCHASES AND NOT A CASE OF BOGUS BILLING, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION /DISALLOWANCE OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE. APART THERE FROM, THE CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NOW WHEN THE SALES CORRESPONDING TO THE PURCHASES C LAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES HAD NOT BEEN DIS P ROVED OR DISLODGED, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE VALUE OF PURCHASES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE BACKDROP OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE IMPUGNED PURCHASES OF RS.9,32,320/ - [ RS.7,40,713/ - (+)RS.1,91,607/ - ] AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 6. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEA L BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE SHRI SURESH D. VAVIYA HA S APPEARED IN PERSON IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US. IT WAS AVERRED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD MADE GENUINE PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM P A G E | 6 ITA NO. 3761/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SURESH DEVJI VAVIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 17(3)(4) THAT AS THE SAID PARTIES WERE NOT TRACEABLE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THEREFORE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD DRAWN ADVERSE INFERENCES AS REGARDS THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION . IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT MERELY FOR THE REASON THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED SUPPLIER PARTIES/AGENTS FROM WHOM GOODS WERE PROCURED BY HIM COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O FOR REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL, THE PURCHASES COULD NOT HAVE BE EN CHARACTERISED AS BOGUS. APART THERE FROM, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES CAN BE GATHERED FROM THE FACT THAT THE SALES CORRESPONDING TO THE SAME HAD DULY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS AND VERACITY OF THE PURCHASES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES, THEREFORE, THE SAME HAD RIGHTLY BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. D.R, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE DESP ITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED TO HIM BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE VERACITY OF THE PURCHASES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES. IN FACT, WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE CIT(A) HAD IN THE COURSE OF THE APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS AFFORDED ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES AND PLACE ON RECORD THEIR CONFIRMATIONS , HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. WE ARE PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PURCHASE P A G E | 7 ITA NO. 3761/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SURESH DEVJI VAVIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 17(3)(4) TRANSACTIONS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, THE ADDITIONS OF RS.7,40,713/ - AND RS.1,91,607/ - MADE BY THE A.O UNDER SEC.69 C WAS THEREAFTER ON APPEAL UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) UNDER SEC.37(1) OF THE I.T ACT. 9. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) AND ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO ACCEPT THE SAME. INSOFAR THE PURCHASES AGGREGATING TO RS. 9,32,320/ - [RS.7,40,713/ - (+)RS.1,91,607/ - ] CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES ARE CONCERNED , WE FIND THAT THE SALES CORRESPONDING TO THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DISLODGED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN FACT, NO OBSERVATION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE RECORDS FROM WHERE WE MAY INFER THAT THE PURCHASES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES DID NOT FORM PART OF HIS SALES OR CLOSING STOCK FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. BE THAT AS IT MAY , IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OBSERVATION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE PURCHASES OF THE GOODS UNDER CONSIDERATION DID NOT FORM PART OF THE SALES/CLOSING STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT IS BEYOND OUR COMPREHEN SION AS TO HOW THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF SUCH PURCHASES COULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE SOLD/STOCKED THE MATERIAL WITHOUT CARRYING OUT THE CORRESPONDING PURCHASES DURING THE YEAR. RATHER, THERE IS NO SUCH OBSERVATION OF THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES THAT THE TRADING RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD WITNESSED A SUBSTANTIAL DOWNWARD FLUCTUATION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS IN COMPARISON TO THE EARLIER YEARS, WHICH FACT WOULD HAD SUPPORTED THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD MERELY DEBITED THE BOGUS PURCHASE S IN HIS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. P A G E | 8 ITA NO. 3761/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SURESH DEVJI VAVIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 17(3)(4) 10 . WE HAVE DELIBERATED AT LENGTH ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE BACKDROP OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ADMITTEDLY, TH E ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE VERACITY OF THE PURCHASES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES. HOWEVER, IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AS HAD BEEN CONSIDERED AT LENGTH BY US HEREINABOVE, IT CAN SAFELY BE CONCLUDED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PURCHASE D THE GOODS FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED HAWALA PARTIES, BUT HAD PROCURED THE SAME FROM THE OPEN/GREY MARKET. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW , THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASES UNDER CONSIDERATION IN ALL FAIRNESS IS LIABLE TO BE RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE PROFIT WHICH HE WOULD HAD MADE BY PROCURING THE GOODS AT A DISCOUNTED VALUE FROM THE OPEN/GREY MARKET. INSOFAR THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE SAID PROFIT IS CONCERNED, THE SAME BASED AND BACK ED BY A PROCESS OF ESTIMATION CAN FAIRLY BE TAKEN @ 12.5% OF THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF SUCH UNSUBSTANTIATED PURCHASES . ON THE BASIS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS , WE RESTRICT THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,16,540/ - [I.E 12.5% OF RS.9,32,320/ - ] . AS A RESULT, THE ASSESSEE GETS A RELIEF OF RS. 8,15,780/ - . THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS MODIFIED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. 11 . THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS . ORDER PRONO UNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 5 . 03.2019 S D / - S D / - ( M.BALAGANESH) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 15 .0 3 .2019 PS. ROHIT P A G E | 9 ITA NO. 3761/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SURESH DEVJI VAVIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 17(3)(4) / 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 . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI