AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD, MUMBAI V. CIT LTU, MUMBAI

ITA 3912/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0240 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL MEHTA ARS; SOUMEN ADAK MR HARISH AGARWAL
• Keywords: Prejudicial to interest
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 37; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 3912/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD.) ELEGANT BUSINESS PARK, MIDC CROSS ROAD B, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI - 400059. VS. CIT (LTU) 29 TH FLOOR, CENTRE - 1, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI - 400005 PAN NO. AAACG0569P APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. SOUMEN ADAK, MR. HARISH AGARWAL & MR. RAHUL MEHTA, ARS REVENUE BY : MR. R.P. MEENA , CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 28/ 12 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/02/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2011 - 12 . THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - LTU (IN SHORT CIT) U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (THE ACT). 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT READ AS UNDER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT - LTU WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 SINCE THE ORDER U/S 143(3) AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. ITA NO. 3912/MUM/2017 2 DATED 16.03.2015 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND NO. 1 TAKEN HERE - IN - ABOVE, THE LD. CIT - LTU WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND GROSSLY ERRED IN DISALLOWING PROVISION MADE FOR SLOW MOVING INVENTORIES OF STORES AND SPARES. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND NO. 1 TAKEN HERE - IN - ABOVE, THE LD. CIT - LTU WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND GROSSLY ERRED IN DISALLOWING PROV ISION FOR MINES RECLAMATION EXPENSES. 3. IN A NUTSHELL , THERE ARE TWO ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL. THE 1 ST ONE CONCERNS AMOUNT OF RS.9,60,00,000/ - DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PROVISION FOR SLOW AND NON - MOVING SPARE EXPENSES. THE 2 ND ONE IS THE PROVISION MADE BY THE APPELLANT TOWARDS MINES RECLAMATION EXPENSES. WE BEGIN WITH THE 1 ST ISSUE. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE CIT, HAVING EXAMINED THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT OBSERVED THAT UNDER THE HEAD SCHE DULE M - MANUFACTURING AND OTHER EXPENSES, IT HAD DEBITED RS.9,60,00,000/ - TOWARDS PROVISION FOR SLOW AND NON - MOVING SPARE EXPENSE S , WHICH THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE . HAVING GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SAME AND HELD THAT THE SAID PROVISION, BEING CONTINGENT IN NATURE WAS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 37 AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME WAS REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL S OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT THAT THE CLAIM OF PROVISION FOR SLOW AND NON - MOVI NG INVENTORY HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2010 - 11 (ITA NO. 3563/MUM/2016), AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. ITA NO. 3912/MUM/2017 3 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE CIT HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY COGENT REASON AS TO WHY PROVISION MADE FOR SLOW AND NON - MOVING INVENTORY ON THE BASIS OF AGE ANALYSIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC BASIS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT. HE RELIES ON THE DECISION IN CIT V. JAWAHAR BHATTACHARJEE (2012) 20 TAXMANN.COM 652 (GAUHATI). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE 1 ST ISSUE RELATING TO CLAIM OF PROVISION FOR SLOW AND NON - MOVING INVENTORY IN ORDER U/S 263 ALSO AROSE BEFORE THE ITAT A BENCH, MUMBAI IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2010 - 11. THE TRIBUNAL VID E ITS ORDER DATED 10.11.2017 HELD AT PARA 11 (PAGE 9 - 10) AS UNDER: 11. BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY ALSO REFER TO THE MERIT OF THE DISPUTE IN SLIGHT DETAIL BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS AND HELD THAT THE SAID PROVISION IS DISALLOWABLE. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF CEMENT. IN ITS SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IN ITS LINE OF BUSINESS STRICT SUPERVISION OF QUA LITY WAS REQUIRED AND, THEREFORE, FOR REGULAR UP GRADATION OF MACHINERIES USED IN THE PROCESS OF PRODUCTION, THE ASSESSEE EFFECTED PURCHASE OF SPARES, WHICH WERE OF TWO KINDS. FIRSTLY , THE STORES AND SPARES WHICH ARE MEANT FOR REGULAR UP - KEEP OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AND NOT RELATABLE TO ANY SPECIFIC PLANT AND MACHINERY, FOR INSTANCE, NUTS BOLTS, CABLES, WASHER, SCREWS, FILTERS, TUBES, ELECTRODES, SPRING ETC. SUCH STORES AND SPARES, WHENEVER ISSUED WERE TREATED AS REVENUE IN NATURE AND AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. ITA NO. 3912/MUM/2017 4 CHARGED TO PROFIT & LO SS ACCOUNT. WITH REGARD TO THE INVENTORIES OF SUCH TYPE OF SPARES, IT MADE A PROVISION OF 30%, 50% AND 80% DEPENDING UPON THE ITEM OF INVENTORY, WHICH IS LYING UNUSED FOR MORE THAN ONE, TWO AND THREE YEARS RESPECTIVELY. IT IS THIS PROVISION, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF DISPUTE. THE SECOND KIND OF SPARES WERE THOSE WHICH WERE SPECIFIC TO PARTICULAR PLANT & MACHINERY AND THEIR USE WAS EXPECTED TO BE IRREGULAR AND ASSESSEE HAD CAPITALIZED THE PURCHASE OF SUCH SPARES. IN SO FAR AS THE LATTER TYPE OF SPAR ES IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO DISPUTE AND THE ONLY CONTROVERSY IS WITH REGARD TO THE STORES AND SPARES, WHICH ARE NOT CAPITALIZED BUT ARE TREATED AS PART OF THE INVENTORIES AND CHARGED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER OF THE C OMMISSIONER REVEALS THAT HE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACTUAL MATRIX BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSEE BUT HAS SOUGHT TO DENY THE DEDUCTION ONLY BECAUSE, IN HIS OPINION, THERE WAS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR FIXING THE PERCENTAGE OF PROVISION. THE OBJECTION OF THE COMMI SSIONER, IN OUR VIEW, IS QUITE UNTENABLE IN AS MUCH AS THE BASIS FOR MAKING THE PROVISION WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE THE AGING ANALYSIS OF THE SPARES LYING IN THE INVENTORY. WHY AND HOW THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT FIND IT TO BE A SCIENTIFIC BASIS I S NOT ELABORATED. IN FACT, IT IS A CASE WHERE THE BASIS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN A COMPLETE GO - BY WITHOUT ANY COGENT REASONING. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, EVEN THE REASON ADVANCED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO TREAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRON EOUS IS DEVOID OF MERIT AND DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE AFFIRMED. WE HOLD SO. FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, WE FOLLOW THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ABOVE 1 ST ISSUE. 7. NOW WE COME TO THE 2 ND ISSUE. THE CIT FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE PROVISIONS OF RS.12.06 CRORE OF MINES RECLAMATION EXPENSES AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. ITA NO. 3912/MUM/2017 5 AND THE SAME WAS CONTINGENT IN NATURE, WHICH THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE. THE CIT HELD THAT THE ALLOWANCE CAN ONLY BE MADE IN RESPECT OF LIABILITY WHICH HAS ACCRUED A ND BECOME ASCERTAIN ED WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT THE CASE HERE. HE DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND MAKE DISALLOWANCE ACCORDINGLY. 8. REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISIONS FOR MINES RECLAMATION EXPENSES, THE LD. COUNSEL S SUBMIT THAT THE SAME IS INCURRED TO RESTORE THE MINING LAND TO ITS ORIGINAL POSITION. THE SAME IS STATUTORILY REQUIRED AS PER THE MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1960. THE TOTAL ESTIMATE OF RECLAMATION EXPENSES IS APPORTIONED ON THE BASIS OF MINERAL EXTRACTED D URING THE YEAR. HENCE, THE SAME IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. RELIANCE IS PLACED BY THEM ON THE DECISION IN SMT. K. SURYAKUMARI VENU V. - ACIT (2016) 47 CCH 203 (VIZAG - ITAT ) , UDAIPUR MINERAL DEVELOPMENT SYNDICATE (P) LTD. - V. - DCIT & ANR . (2003) 261 ITR 706 (RAJ - HC), CIT - V. - GOGTE MINERALS (1996) 220 ITR 29 (KAR - HC ) AND DCIT - V. - TATA PETRODY NE LTD. (ITA NO. 8383/MUM/2010) . WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. COUNSEL S SUBMIT THAT IF PROVISION MADE FOR MINES RECLAMATION EXPENSES IS NOT ALLOWED, THEN ACTUAL M INE RECLAMATION EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE YEAR OF RS.2.18 CRORE AS SHOWN IN NOTE - 11 OF THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. 9 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT. HE SUBMITS THAT THE PROVISIONS ARE MADE AGAINST ANTICIPATED LOSSES AND CONTINGENCIES AND THEREFORE, NOT ALLOWABLE. AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. ITA NO. 3912/MUM/2017 6 10 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE REASONS FOR OUR DECISION ARE GIVEN BELOW. WE BEG IN WITH THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL S OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SMT. K. SURYAKUMARI VEN U (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT WHEN ASSESSEE CONTINUOUSLY INCURRED EXPENDITURE TOWARDS REHABILITATION AND RECLAMATION PROGRAMME, THEN NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE TOWARDS LAND RECLAMATION AND AFFORESTATION EXPENDITURE. IN UDAIPUR MINERAL DEVELOPMENT SYNDICATE (P) L TD . (SUPRA) , THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE - LESSEE BEING LIABLE UNDER THE TERMS OF LEASE TO RESTORE THE SURFACE LAND USED BY IT FOR EXCAVATING SOAPSTONE CRUD TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AS FOR AS POSSIBLE, LIABILITY ACCRUED ON THE DATE WHEN T HE PITS WERE DIGGED AND DEDUCTION OF RESTORATION EXPENSES WAS ALLOWABLE ACCORDINGLY AS THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. IN GOGTE MINERALS (SUPRA), THE A SSESSEE, ENGAGED IN EXTRACTING IRON ORE, OBTAINED MINING LEASE FROM STATE GOVERNMENT FOR EXTRACTING IRON ORE IN TERMS OF MINERAL CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT RULES, 1988. IT ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS WITH OCCUPANTS OF LAN D TO CARRY ON MINING OPERATIONS . CLAUSE 12 OF INDENTURE OF MINING LEASE PROVIDED THAT LESSEE SHALL BE BOUND B Y RUL ES FRAMED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT . TO RESTORE LAND, WHICH GOT DISTURBED BY REASON OF MINING OPERATIONS, ASSESSEE INCURRED 'PIT FILLING EXPENSES' AND CLAIMED THESE EX PENSES AS DEDUCTION FROM INCOME . CLAIM WAS REJECTED ON GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO ACTUAL OR CONTINGENT LIABILITY. BEFORE TRIBUNAL ASSESSEE REFERRED TO RULE 34 OF AFORESAID RULES INCORPORATED WITH EFFECT FROM 24 - 10 - 1988 WHICH AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. ITA NO. 3912/MUM/2017 7 PROVIDED FOR RECLAMATION AND REHABILITATION OF LAND AFFECTED BY MINING OPERATIONS AND CONTENDED THAT THIS RULE MUST BE READ ALONG WITH AGREEMENT AND, THEREFORE, BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION SHOULD BE GIVEN AS LIABILITY DID A RISE IN TERMS OF SAID AGREEMENT . TRIBUNAL REJECTED THIS CONTENTION AND DID NOT HOLD SAID RULE TO BE RETR OSPECTIVE IN NATURE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE SAID RULE WOULD OPERATE EVEN IN RESPECT OF ACTIVITIES THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN CARRIED ON EARLIER TO ITS ENGRAFTING IN AGREEMENT AND LIABILITY COULD BE SAID TO HAVE ARISEN IN TERMS OF SAID AGREEMENT REA D WITH RULE 34 AND ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF 'PIT FILLING EXPENSES' ON BASIS OF SAID RULE, IRRESPECTIVE OF FACT THAT THAT RULE WAS INCORPORATED WITH EFFECT FROM 24 - 10 - 1988. WE FIND THAT THE QUESTION OF PROVISION MADE FOR MINES RECLAMATION EXPE NSES OR PROVISION FOR EXPENSES WAS NOT THE ISSUE IN THE AFORESAID CASES. THUS THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE ABOVE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL S . WE MAY MENTION HERE THAT WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO COMMENT ON THE UNREPORTE D DECISION IN THE CASE OF TATA PETRODYNE LTD . RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL AS HE FAILED TO FILE A COPY OF IT BEFORE US. 10 .1 NOW WE DISCUSS THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE LD. DR. IN JAWAHAR BHATTACHARJEE (SUPRA), THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS NOT BEEN EXERCISED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE GONE DEEPER INTO THE MATTER BUT BY POINTING OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D FAILED TO APPLY HIS MIND IN ALLOWING THE BENEFIT U/S 54F OF THE ACT BY ACCEPTING THE GENUINENESS OF THE CAPITAL GAIN. THEREFORE, IT HELD THAT THE INTERFERENCE AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. ITA NO. 3912/MUM/2017 8 BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S 263 WAS VALID. THE RATIO LAID DOWN HERE IS RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT CAS E. 10 .2 AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE DISCUSS T HE CHARACTERISTICS OF PROVISION S AS DISCUSSED IN JUDICIAL DECISIONS VIZ. METAL BOX CO. OF INDIA LTD. V. THEIR WORKMEN , (1969) 73 ITR 53, 67, 68 (SC); CIT V. EYRE SMELTING P. LTD . (1979) 118 ITR 857, 862 - 63 (CAL) . THESE ARE : (A) PROVISIONS ARE MADE AGAINST ANTICIPATED LOSSES AND CONTINGENCIES; (B) PROVISIONS ARE CHARGES AGAINST PROFITS; (C) PROVISIONS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AGAINST GROSS RECEIPTS; (D) AN AMOUNT SET ASIDE OUT OF PROFIT S DESIGNED TO MEET A LIABILITY OR CONTINGENCY OR COMMITMENT OR DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF ASSETS KNOWN TO EXIST AT THE DATE OF THE BALANCE - SHEET CAN BE A PROVISION; (E) AN AMOUNT SET ASIDE TO PROVIDE FOR ANY KNOWN LIABILITY OF WHICH THE AMOUNT CANNOT BE DE TERMINED WITH SUBSTANTIAL ACCURACY IS A PROVISION; (F) PROVISIONS ARE USUALLY SHOWN IN THE BALANCE - SHEET BY WAY OF DEDUCTIONS FROM THE ASSETS IN RESPECT OF WHICH THEY ARE MADE . A PROVISION IS A LIABILITY WHICH CAN BE MEASURED ONLY BY USING A SU BSTANTIAL D EGREE OF EXAMINATION. A S HELD IN ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA P. LTD. V. CIT : CIT V. WIPRO GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS LTD.: HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA (P.) LTD.: COMPAQ COMPUTER (I.) PVT. LTD ., (2009) 314 ITR 62, 71 (SC), CIT V. MICRO LAND LTD. , (2012) 347 ITR 613 (KARN) , A PROVISION IS RECOGNIZED WHEN: (A) AN ENTERPRISE HAS A PRESENT OBLIGATION AS A RESULT OF A PAST EVEN T ; (B) IT IS PROBABLE THAT AN OUTFLOW OF RESOURCES WILL BE REQUIRED TO SETTLE THE OBLIGATION; AND (C) A RELIABLE ESTIMATE CAN BE MADE OF THE AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. ITA NO. 3912/MUM/2017 9 AMOUNT OF THE O BLIGATION. NO PROVISION CAN BE RECOGNIZED IF THE ABOVEMENTIONED CONDITIONS ARE NOT MET. IT IS ALSO HELD IN CIT V. ORIENTAL FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., (2007) 291 ITR 370, 378 (SC) THAT E VERY PROVISION, HOWEVER, NEED NOT BE AN EXPENDITURE, AS THE SAME MAY REPRESENT A LIABILITY . AGAINST THE ABOVE POSITION OF LAW, WE FIND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16.03.2015 PASSED U/S 143(3) THAT THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE PROVISION S MADE BY THE APPELLANT TOWA RDS MINES RECLAMATION EXPENS ES. IN ADDL. CIT V. MUKUR CORPORATION (1978) 111 ITR 312 (GUJ.), IT IS HELD THAT WHERE THE AO ALLOWED CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS WITHOUT PROBING INTO THE CLAIMS, THE EXERCISE OF POWER U/S 263 WAS PROPER. IN INDIAN TEXTILES V. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 112 (MAD.), IT IS HELD THAT WHERE THE AO GRANTED THE RELIEF WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION, THE EXERCISE OF POWER U/S 263 WAS PROPER. SIMILAR IS THE INSTANT CASE. FURTHER WE FIND THAT THE CIT HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISALLOWANCE WOULD ONLY BE LIMITED TO THE CLAIM MADE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL SCENARIO AND POSITION OF LAW, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT U/S 263 IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISIONS FOR MINES RECLAMATION EXPENSES AND DISMISS THE GROUND O F APPEAL WITH REGARD TO THE 2 ND ISSUE. AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. ITA NO. 3912/MUM/2017 10 11 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/02/2018. SD/ - SD/ - ( D.T. GARASIA) (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 14/02/2018 RAHUL SHARMA, SR. P.S. 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 . BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI