SUBHSH GHAI, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3766/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9885 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POOJA SWAROOP SR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL K HAKANI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Earning of tax free income; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH MUMB AI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3766/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10-11 ) M/S SUBHASH GHAI 6, BASHIRON, T.P.S, 29 TH ROAD, BANDRA (WEST), MUMBAI-400050. PAN: AAFPG8264K VS. ACIT- 11(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. APPELLANT RESPONDE NT APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAHUL K. HAKANI (AR) RESPONDENT BY : MS. POOJA SWAROOP (SR. AR) DATE OF HEARING : 11.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 26.09.2018 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 253 OF INCOME -TAX ACT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-4, MUMBAI DATED 23. 02.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. COM. OF INCOME TAX APPEALS (4) HAS ERRED IN COMING TO CONCLUSION AND CONFIRMING THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HA S RIGHTLY CALCULATED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BY METHOD OF ESTIMATION AND THAT THE PROPERTIES ARE NOT COVERED UNDER RENT CONTROL ACT. FOR THE REASONS STATED IN ORDER. 2. LD. COM. OF INCOME TAX APPEALS (4) HAS ERRED IN CON FIRMING THAT SECTION 14A IS APPLICABLE AND HAS CONFIRM DISALLOWANCE TO T HE EXTENT OF RS, 1,00,721/- WHICH IS THE AMOUNT OF DIVIDEND EARNED A ND CLAIMED AS EXEMPTED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN ORDER. 3. LD. COM. OF INCOME TAX APPEALS (4) HAS ERRED IN CON FIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF RS. 1,00,000/- BEING THE W ATER CHARGES PAID FOR THE PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION WHILE CALCULATING LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAIN OF THE ASSET SOLD FOR THE REASONS STATED IN ORDER. ITA NO. 3766 MUM 2016-M/S SUBHASH GHAI 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON 31.07.2010 DECLARING TOT AL INCOME AT RS. 2,42,62,609/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 6 TH FEBRUARY 2013 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WH ILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 34,66,503/- O N ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, ADDITION UNDER SECTION 14A OF RS. 1,00,721 /-AND DISALLOWED RS. 1,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF WATER CHARG ES FROM THE COMPUTATION OF WORKING OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHOP SITUATED AT BANDRA. ON APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS) ALL THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES WERE CONFIRMED. THUS FURTHE R AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR ) OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. GROUND NUMBER ONE RELATES TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT SIMILAR GROUND OF A PPEAL WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY TRIBUNAL IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 & 2009-10 IN ITA NO. 6049 / MUMBAI /2011 AND ITA NO. 400 /MUMBAI /2013 DATED 14 OCTOBER 2016, TH EREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL MAY ALSO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE O F ASSESSING OFFICER TO ITA NO. 3766 MUM 2016-M/S SUBHASH GHAI 3 DECIDE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTION OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN ORDER DATED 14 TH OCTOBER 2016. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED AR FOR THE REVENUE HA S NO OBJECTION IF THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AS SESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE ORD ER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE FOR AY 2008 -09 IN ITA NO. 6049/M UMBAI/2011 DATED 14 OCTOBER 2016 WHEREIN FOLLOWING ORDER WAS PASSED: 2.4. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, SINCE T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, FOR THE F IRST TIME WHICH WAS NOT FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING/FIRST APPELLATE STAGE. THIS EVIDENCE WAS OBTAINED FROM MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES THROUGH RTI AND GOES TO ROOT OF THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMIN E THE EVIDENCE FILED BY ASSESSEE AND DECIDE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN A PERSON 80 OF BEING HEARD THUS THIS APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE . 6. THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN APPEAL FOR AY 2009-10 WAS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 14 TH OCTOBER2016. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL AND THE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE PARTIES, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASS ESSING OFFICER TO DECIDED THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 6049/MUMBAI/2013 DATED 14 TH OCTOBER 2016. NEEDLESS TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GRANT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE PA SSING THE ORDER IN ITA NO. 3766 MUM 2016-M/S SUBHASH GHAI 4 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 7. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECT ION 14A. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO COVERED BY PARA NINE OF DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8-09 AND BY THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE DELHI TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VERSUS VIREET INVESTMENT PRIVATE LTD [(2017) 165 ITD 27 (DELHI-TR IB)]. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ONLY THOSE INVESTMENT WHIC H YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTING AN AVERAGE V ALUE OF INVESTMENT DURING THE YEAR. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE NO TED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -09 AND ON APPEAL BEF ORE COMMISSIONER APPEAL THE FOLLOWING ORDER WAS PASSED IN ITA NO. 60 49/MUMBAI/2011 DATED 14 OCTOBER 2016: 5.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT ASSESSEE SHOWED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 3.73 CRORE AND THE SAME WAS CLAIMED A S EXEMPT. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY DISA LLOWANCE SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED BY LETTER DATED 19/12/2011 (PARA 5.1 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER). THE LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,99,60 3/-, BEING 0.5% OF THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT TO RS. 7,99,20,519/-. ON APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED ITA NO. 3766 MUM 2016-M/S SUBHASH GHAI 5 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL B EFORE THIS TRIBUNASL. 5.1. IF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R, LEADING TO ADDITION MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME, CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGN ED ORDER, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ASSERTION MADE BY LEARNED RESPECTIVE COU NSEL, IF KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYSED, THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 3.73 CRORES. THIS STAND OF T HE ASSESSEE IS THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING TAX-FREE DIVID END AND MUTUAL FUND. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED D-MAT CHARGES OF RS. 26,213/-, BANK INTEREST, BANK CHARGES OF RS. 14563/-, ELECTRICITY EXPENSES IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE STAND OF THE REVENUE IS THAT AT LEAST SOME MANAGEMENT/ ADMINISTR ATIVE EXPENSES MIGHT HAVE BEEN INCURRED. IT IS NOTED THAT MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN RELIANCE CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD VERSUS DCIT( ITA NO. 8625/MUM/2010, 4459& 4795/MUM/2012) ORDER DATED 17 OCTOBER 2014 HELD THA T THERE WAS NO NECESSITY TO APPLY FORMULA PRESCRIBED IN RULE 8D (2)(III). WE FIND THAT DISALLOWANCE WAS MECHANICALLY MADE BECAUSE AS PER PROVISION OF SECTI ON 14 A, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE AMOUNT OF DIS ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT ONLY IN A SITUATION WHERE HE IS NOT SA TISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE AMOUNTS/CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. OUR VIEW FILE SUPPOR TED FROM DECISION IN CIT VERSUS HERO CYCLE LTD 323 ITR 158(P&H), RELIANCE UT ILITY AND POWER LTD 313 ITR 340(BOMBAY), DCIT VERSUS JINDAL PHOTO LTD( DELH I TRIB) AND SHIVA INDUSTRIES & HOLDING LTD VERSUS ACIT(2011) 59 DTR 1 82. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN RELIANCE UTILITY AND P OWER LTD CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT IF INTEREST FREE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT AND THE SAME TIME ASSESSEE RAIS ED A LOAN, IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT INVESTMENT WAS MADE FROM THE AVAILABL E INTEREST FREE FUNDS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DIVIDENDS ARE DIRECTLY CREDIT ED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE SALARIES ALSO DIRECTLY CREDITED THE BALANCE TRANSAC TION ARE RECORDED ONCE IN A YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID DEMAT ACCOUNT AND OTHER SMALL EXPENSES; THEREFORE, NO SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT BY ROAD FUNDS WERE INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING EXEMPT IN COME OR ANY INTEREST WAS PAID. AT THE SAME TIME, NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT PROFESSIONAL STAFF WAS PAID SALE FROM HOUSE OLD WIT HDRAWAL, (AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE). CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCE S, WRITTEN SUBMISSION, FILED BEFORE US, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONLY INVESTMENT WHICH YIELDED TAX-FREE INCOME SHOULD BE TAKEN FOR COMPUTING AVERAGE INVEST MENT AND THUS THE DISALLOWANCE COMES TO RS. 2,45,815/-, (AS ADMITTED BY CONSUL OF THE ASSESSEE) AND NOT RS. 3,99,603/-, COMPUTED BY LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER, THUS THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF DELHI TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VERSUS VIREET INVESTMENT (P) LTD (SUPRA) HELD THAT ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTING ITA NO. 3766 MUM 2016-M/S SUBHASH GHAI 6 AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT WHICH YIELDED EXEMPT I NCOME DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT WH ICH YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE DECISIO N OF SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL AND THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH IN AS SESSEE OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS R ESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE FRESH COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION14A, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DEC ISION OF SPECIAL BENCH IN VIREET INVESTMENT(P) LTD (SUPRA). NEEDLESS TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GRANT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSE. 11. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1.00 LA KH ON ACCOUNT OF WATER CHARGES FROM THE COMPUTATION OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL G AIN. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF WA TER CHARGES WERE INCURRED WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS CONSTRUCTED. THE ASSESSEE PAI D THE WATER CHARGES ON 26 TH MAY 2010 AND THE EXPENSES WAS CLAIMED RELATED TO TH E COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF ASSET WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. IN ALTERNAT IVE, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE EXPENSES MAY BE CONSIDERE D UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO EX AMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN S IBA OF INDIA LTD VERSUS CIT 202 ITR 1(BOMBAY). 12. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO. 3766 MUM 2016-M/S SUBHASH GHAI 7 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ASSUMPTION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DISALLOWED THE WATER EXPENSES HOLDING THAT SUCH EXPENSES INCURRED CANNOT BE EITHER CONSIDERED AS COST OF PURCHASE COST OF IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE WHAT W ERE CHARGES IS COST INCURRED FOR DAY-TO-DAY USE. THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER (APPEALS) ALSO OBSERVED THAT WATER CHARGES ARE NOT RELATED EITHER TO THE CO ST OF PURCHASE OR ON ACCOUNT OF FURTHER DEVELOPMENT LIKES OTHER FACTORS SUCH AS PRO PERTY TAX ETC. THE WATER CHARGES MIGHT BE CHARGED DURING THE VACANT PERIOD O F FOR UTILISATION OF THE PROPERTY BY CARETAKER, WATCHMEN OR ANYBODY ELSE. TH E PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FROM THE BUILDER. THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED LONG B ACK AND THE WATER CHARGES MAY BE USED FOR ROUTINE CHARGE, THEREFORE; CANNOT B E PRESUMED TO BE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF ACQUISITION OR PART OF PARTIAL O F THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. 14. BEFORE US THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE MAY BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED AR OF THIS ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SUPPORT OF THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIBA OF INDIA LTD(SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE TRIBUNAL TURNED DOWN THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF A PARTICULAR AMOU NT BY WAY OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND HELD IT TO BE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE TRIBUNAL, EVEN WITHOUT AN ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION, T O PASS NECESSARY CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER SUO MOTU TO GIVE SUCH FURTHER DIRECTIONS IN THE MATTER AS THE SITUATION MIGHT WARRANT. THE POWERS OF THE T RIBUNAL ARE EXPRESSED IN THE WIDEST POSSIBLE TERMS AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE US E OF THE EXPRESSION 'PASS SUCH ORDERS THEREON AS IT THINKS FIT' IN SECTION 25 4(1). THUS, THERE WAS NO ITA NO. 3766 MUM 2016-M/S SUBHASH GHAI 8 RESTRICTION IN REGARD TO THE NATURE OF ORDERS THAT THE TRIBUNAL COULD PASS. THE ONLY RESTRICTION ON THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL COULD BE INFERRED FROM THE EXPRESSION 'THEREON' WHICH INDICATED THAT WHILE PASSING ORDERS IT SHOULD CONFINE ITSELF TO THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND SHOULD NOT GO BEYOND IT. THE TRIBUNAL WAS, THUS, NOT JUSTIFIED IN REFUSI NG TO CONSIDER THE ASSESSEE'S ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION ON THE PLEA THAT IT WAS AN ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN CIBA OF INDIA LTD (SUPRA), WE ACCEPT THE ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION OF TH E ASSESSEE AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALLOWABILITY OF THE EXPENSES UNDER SEC TION 37 OF THE ACT AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE AND TO PASS THE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GRAN T OPPORTUNITY TO FILE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS, BEFORE PASS ING THE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/09/2018. SD/- SD/- G.S. PANNU PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 26.09.2018 SK ITA NO. 3766 MUM 2016-M/S SUBHASH GHAI 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR H BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI