DCIT CENT.CIR-8(2), MUMBAI V. SHRI FAROOQ ALI KHAN, MUMBAI

ITA 3925/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3592 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Block assessment; Set aside
• Section: 132; 153A; 133(6); 145(3); 22; 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3925/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) DCIT, Central Cir-8(2) 6 th Floor, Room No.658, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. बिधम/ Vs. Shri Farooq Ali Khan No.21, Benson A Cross Road, Benson Town Post, Bangalore-560046. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ABYPK7991D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 22/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 27/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The revenue has filed the present appeal against the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -50, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of Rs.3,53,67,798/- on account of 5% Gross Profit rate, without appreciating the fact that the assessee in his statement u/s 132(4) during search proceedings has accepted a Gross Profit Rate of 5%. Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri Achal Sharma (DR) ITA No. 3925/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 2 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the rejection of books of account u/s 145 incorrect, without appreciating that the assessing officer reasoning for rejection is as per the provisions of Section 145 of the Income tax Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 24.02.2014 at the premises of Associate Group. The appellant was also searched u/s 132 of the Act. The appellant filed his return of income 0n 3.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs.1,34,87,590/-. Subsequently, the AO has completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 31.03.2016 determining total income at Rs.4,88,55,390/- by making addition of Rs.3,53,67,798/- as revision of Gross Profit to the appellant’s income. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed this appeal. ISSUE NOs.1 & 2 4. Both the issues are inter-connected, therefore, are being taken up together for adjudication. The Ld. Representative of the revenue has argued that the CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition estimated by AO @ 5% which is unjustifiable, hence, the finding of the CIT(A) is not liable to be set aside. Before going further, we deem it necessary to advert the finding of the CIT(A) on record: “8.0 I have considered the submissions of the appellant, the contentions of the A.O. in the assessment order and perused the materials available on record. ITA No. 3925/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 3 8.1 The facts of the case are that the appellant is a proprietor of M/s Kings Wood Suppliers, which is engaged in the business of trading in woods. A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out on the Associate Group on 24/02/2014 and the Appellant was also covered during the course of the search operation. 8.2 During the course of the search proceedings, the appellant had admitted that the gross profit of his proprietary concern viz. M/s Kings Wood Suppliers was 5%, as against the lower rate of gross profit shown in the books of accounts. However, while furnishing the return of income u/s 153A of the Act, the appellant did n’t honour the offer of the differential GP rate made during the course of the search proceedings. 8.3. In these circumstances, the A.O. has in the assessment order invoked the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act and made addition on account of GP Rate by adopting a flat GP Rate of 5% for 7 assessment years starting from A.Y. 2008-09 to A.Y. 2014-15. The details of the addition made by the A.O. on GP Rate, along-with the turnover and gross profit for the various assessment years is tabulated as under: Sr. No Assessment Year Turnover as per books of account Gross profit as per books of account 5% of turnover Addition on account of GP I II III IV V-5% of Col III VI=V-IV 1 2008-09 271286167 7884729 13562608 5678079 2 2009-10 248315551 6072845 12415777 6342932 3 2010-11 168562914 6730350 8428145 1697795 4 2011-12 393195984 11168537 19659799 11962305 ITA No. 3925/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 4 5 2012-13 623939543 19234672 31196977 11962305 6 2013-14 563070974 19645085 28153549 8508464 7 2014-15 1149676564 22116030 57483828 35367798 8.4 The reasons given by the A.O. for the rejection of the books of account of M/s Kingswood Suppliers and making the GP addition are summarized as under: 1. The Assessee has himself in his statement u/s 132(4) of the Act admitted that the books of accounts are not showing the correct gross profit margins. He has himself offered the correct gross profit margins of his business at 5%. 2. Further, the data shared by the assessee shows huge variation in the gross profit margins declared by him year on year. 3. Notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued for the verification / third party confirmations of the purchases, many of which were returned un-served., 4, The assessments for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 were completed u/s 143(3) of the Act with addition of Rs. 9,33,400/for A.Y. 2008-09 on the ground of unsubstantiated expenses and purchases and Rs. 600,000/for A.Y. 2009-10 on the ground of unsubstantiated expenses and treating agricultural income as income from other sources amounting to Rs 4,00,000. These additions were accepted by the assessee without any further appeal. 8.5 It has been noted that no specific defect has been pointed out by the A.O, in the books of account of the proprietorship concern namely, ITA No. 3925/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 5 M/s Kingswood Suppliers. Further, it is brought on record that despite the search operation on the appellant, not even a single instance of unaccounted income generation has been detected in relation to the proprietorship concern namely, M/s Kingswood Suppliers. No discrepancies in relation to purchase, sale, expenses, stock etc. of M/s Kingswood Suppliers has been found during the course of the search operation. Thus, the A.O. has erred in rejecting the books of account of the appellant u/s 145 of the Act and in making GP addition without pointing out any single defect in them. 8.6 In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Raipur Vs. Roopchand Tharani, [2012] 20 taxmann.com 204 (Chhattisgarh), the Hon'ble Chhattigarh High Court has held that where the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific defect or discrepancy in the account books maintained by the assessee, which are duly audited by an independent Chartered Accountant, there was no justification in rejecting the books of accounts and making the addition to the declared income. 8.7 Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Tesla Technologies & Oxidation (P.) Ltd.[2014] 52 taxmann.com 82 (Mum. Trib.), where it has been held that where audited accounts are submitted by the assessee, such accounts cannot be rejected and the assessee’s income cannot be estimated by the AO without pointing out any defects/reasons out therein. Further, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Kohinoor Foods Ltd. [2015] 61 taxmann.com 84 (Del.), where it has been held that where books of account are regularly maintained and audited and no discrepancies have been indicated by the AO to the effect that there is no ITA No. 3925/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 6 quantitative tally in account book, rejection of books of account based purely on surmises and conjectures is not justified. 8.8 The Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal has held in the case of DCIT V Moolchand Maganlal Jain (2015) 62 taxmann. com 353 (Ahd. Trib.) that where the AO had rejected the books of account, estimated the assessee’s gross profit at a higher rate and made certain addition to the assessee's 8.12. The ratio that can be culled out from the aforesaid judgments is that is not entitled to make a assessment under the principles of best judgment Material. There must be se, ne sucss without reference to any evidence of nothing more than a mere suspicion to support fit in a particular year in itself cannot be a ground of best judgment assessment without support of the assessment. Low pro for invoking the powers any material on record. 8.13 Next, the statement of the Appellant recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 24/02/2014 is examined. The Appellant had in his statement stated that the actual gross profit in the wood trading business is around 5% and hence the consolidated GP Rate of 5% was offered. For the sake of clarity on this issue, the relevant reply to Q. No. 27 of the statement recorded u/s 132(4) is extracted as under: “Ans. In the above reply itself I had clearly explained that the GP depends on various factors and the same cannot be applied uniformly to all the E.Y's and further GP also depends on the demand and supply of the materials, hence the same cannot be applied in all the ITA No. 3925/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 7 years. In my wood purchase and sale business there is also various factors in which the GP varies from area to area and season to season, hence in the above said years there was some variation of GP towards positive side in many areas, hence I would like to offer a consolidated GP of 5% in my Wood Trading business and 3% in my Wood Transport business. Further, I would like to state that this increase cannot be applied to any other FY’s. The excess income offered will be declared in the respective AY’s.” 8.14 The above statement has been heavily relied upon by the A.O. and has been the main basis for making an addition on account of GP Rate. A perusal of the above statement reveals that the appellant has clearly stated that the GP Rate depends on various factors and the same cannot be applied uniformly to all the F.Y’s. It has been further elaborated upon by the appellant in the statement that the GP Rate also depends on the demand and supply of the materials; hence the same cannot be applied to all the years, It f pas also been stated by the Appellant that in the wood purchase and sale business, the GP Rate varies from area to area and season to season. Thus, in the statement relied upon by the A.O. itself, the Appellant has clearly stated that the GP Rate depends on various factors and since it is variable in nature and the same can’t be applied in a uniform manner for all the years. 8.15 Further, the A.O. has erred in making the GP rate addition by just selying on the statement recorded during the course of the search operation, without corroborating it with any material evidence. The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has held in the case of CIT v. Jagdish Narain Ratan Kumar[2015] 61 taxmann.com 173 (Raj.that the statements made during a search must be co-related with the ITA No. 3925/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 8 records which are found and if there is any ambiguity, the explanation given by assessee should be taken into consideration before making the assessment. The relevant Para 11 & 12 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “11. We do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue that the surrender was unconditional, without any explanation, or that, the assessee had agreed, at that time to add the entire surrendered amount to his income. He had clearly mentioned that the amount surrendered, as reflected in the red and blue diaries, should be accounted, subject to the verification of credits entered in the diaries, and thereby, reducing the amount of surrender, to that extent. 12. We do not find any error in the findings of the Tribunal, that the statements made during search, must be correlated with the records, which are found, and if there is any ambiguity, the explanation given by the assessee should be taken into consideration, before making the assessment. The legal position with regard to the undisclosed income from the diaries, does not need any elaboration, however, if the material found during the search, does not tally with the statement records, and that the statement is made subject to the material, which has been seized, a conscious effort should be made to consider the effect of the statement and to make an appropriate assessment by correlating the statements with due material.” 8.16 Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi ', the case of CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal in L.T.A. No. 8/2004, order dated 10.03.2016, where it has been held that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) would not by itself be ITA No. 3925/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 9 sufficient to assess the income, as disclosed by the assessee in its statement, under a block assessment. 8.17 The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has held in the case of Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi v. CIT [2008] 174 Taxmann 466 (Guf) that an assessee Cannot be subjected to additions merely on the basis of his own admission, unless and until some corroborative evidence js found in support of such admission. Further, a statement recorded at odd hours like midnight cannot be considered to be a voluntary statement, jf itis subsequently retracted and evidence contrary to such admission is led. 8.18 Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of M. Narayanan & Bros. v. ACIT {2011} 13 taxmann.com 49 (Mad.), wherein it has been held that nothing can be added to an assessee's income on the basis of his statement when he has shown that such statement is not correct in the context of the materials produced. 8.19 The Hon'ble Bengaluru Tribunal has held in Arun Kumar Bhansali V. DCIT [2006] 10 SOT 46 (Beng.Trib), that while computing the undisclosed income of an assessee, the Assessing Officer should take cognizance of his correct income as depicted in the books of account as well as in the seized material and should not adopt a figure merely as per the admission of the assessee. It is also held in Shree Chand Soni v. DCIT [2006] 101 TTJ (VD) 1028 that a statement recorded under section 132(4) does not tantamount to unearthing any incriminating evidence during the course of search ITA No. 3925/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 10 and therefore, no addition can be made only on the basis of such a statement. 8.20 The Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal has held in Rajesh Jain v. DCIT [2006] 100 TTJ 929(Del. Trib) that an addition made solely on the basis of the confessional statement of an assessee that he had earned some amount in “the last certain years is not justified. Such a confessional statement should have been corroborated with some material to show that the assessment made is just and fair. The Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal has held in the case of India Seed House v ACIT [2000] 69 TTJ 241 (Del. Trib. TM) that no addition can be one made in a block t th assessment merely on the basis of a statement recorded at the time of a search. 8.21 It is also been noticed that the CBDT Circular No. 286/2/2003-IT was “% Gated 10.03.2003, is squarely applicable in the facts of the present €, and hence the same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - GENERAL CONFESSION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND SURVEY OPERATION INSTRUCTION F. NO. 286/2/2003-IT (INV. II), DATED 10-3-2003 ITA No. 3925/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 11 Instances have come to the notice of the Board where assessees have claimed that they have been forced to confess the undisclosed income during the course of the search & seizure and survey operations. Such confessions, if not based upon credible evidence, are later retracted by the concerned assessees while filing returns of income. In _ these circumstances, such confessions during the course of search & seizure and survey operations do not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, advised that there should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence of income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the Income-tax Department. Similarly, while recording statement during the course of search & seizure and survey operations no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. Any action on the contrary shall be viewed adversely. Further, in respect of pending assessment proceedings also, Assessing Officers should rely upon the evidences/materials gathered during the course of search/survey operations or thereafter while framing the relevant assessment orders.” 8.22 In the present case. at hand, clearly the confession is not based on any credible evidence and hence it had been retracted by the Appellant, while filing the returns of income. Thus, such a confession without the backing of any material evidence does not serve any useful purpose. It is clear that neither during the course of the search operation nor during the assessment proceedings there has been any effort on the collection of any documentary evidence r proof indicating tax evasion. ITA No. 3925/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 12 8.23 The appellant has also vehemently contested the observations of the A.O. that notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued for the verification / third party confirmations of the purchases, many of which were returned un-served. During the course of the appellate proceedings, the Appellant has submittedthat the A.O. had never issued any notices to the suppliers of wood. On the contrary, the appellant on his own volition submitted confirmations of 42 parties, the copies of which were filed during the appellate proceedings in the form of a paper book. Along with the confirmations, in certain cases, copies of theITR’s were also furnished. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn based on the observations made by the A.O. regarding 133(6) notices. 8.24 On the observation of the A.O. that additions have been made in the original assessments to the returned income for the A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10, I have noted that these additions were made on account of adhoc disallowance of expenses and not on account of any documentary evidence of incorrect claims for expenses. Even otherwise, while framing of an assessment u/s 153A of the Act, the A.O. has to bring some fresh material on record to reject the books of account u/s 145 of the Act. The A.O. can’t reject the books of account by just relying on the adhoc additions made in the past assessment orders. 8.25 During the course of the appellate proceedings, the merits of the adoption of the GP rate of 5% by the A.O. were also examined in details. The appellant was asked to give the entire data for a 12 year period for studying the variation of the GP Rate. The relevant statistical data in this regard is reproduced hereunder: ITA No. 3925/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 13 Sl No. A.Y. Turnover (Rs. Cr.) Change % Gross profit (Rs. Cr.) Change (%) GP Ratio (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 1 2003-04 15.45 - 0.70 - 4.53 2 2004-05 20.07 29.90 0.66 5.71 3.29 3 2005-06 21.20 05.63 0.71 7.57 3.35 4 2006-07 18.26 13.87 0.43 39.44 2.35 5 2007-08 29.56 61.88 0.74 72.09 2.50 6 2008-09 27.12 8.25 0.79 6.76 2.91 Average of 6 years 21.94 - 0.67 -- 3.053.05 7 2009-10 24.83 8.44 0.61 22.78 2.46 8 2010-11 16.86 32.10 0.67 9.84 3.97 9 2011-12 39.32 133.21 1.12 67.16 2.85 10 2012-13 62.40 58.70 1.92 71.43 3.08 11 2013-14 56.31 9.76 1.96 2.08 3.48 12 2014-15 114.97 104.17 2.21 12.76 1.92 Average of 6 years 52.45 - 1.41 - 2.69 Average of 12 years 37.19 - 1.04 - 2.80 8.26 It has been noted from the above tabular data that during this entire 12-year period, GP ratio of the concern has ranged between 1.92% in A.Y. 2014-15 to 4.53% in AY 2003-04 and has never reached the figure of 5% used by the A.O.. Further, the average GP ratio achieved during 12-year period is only about 2.8%. Thus, even on merits there is no occasion for application of y an unreasonable high GP Rate of 5%. ITA No. 3925/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 14 8.27 The A.O. has in the present case at hand failed to appreciate that the scope of assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act is quite different form that of the regular assessments. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has in the case of CIT v. Dr. M.K.E. Memon [2000] 248 ITR 310 (Bom.) held that the A.O.cannot estimate undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B on an arbitrary basis and what is assessed under + XIVB is the undisclosed income of a block period and not the total F income, r loss of a previous year, which is required to be assessed under regular assessment, the scope of which is very different from the scope of a block assessment. The Hon’ble Kolkata Tribunal has held in the case of LMJ International Ltd. v. DCIT [2008] 22 SOT 315 (Kol. Trib.) that items of regular assessment cannot be added back in proceedings under section 153C and only undisclosed income detected in the course of search of a searched person or any other person can be added and charged to tax under section 153C of the Act. 8.28 It is pertinent to note that the GP ratios cannot be estimated by the A.O. at an arbitrary figure on the basis of surmises and conjectures, much less in the absence of any incriminating material on record. TheA.O. has failed to appreciate that gross profit depends on many factors, as it is a function of demand &supply of goods in the open market and hence a flat GP Rate of 5% can’t be uniformly applied to all financial years in the absence of any adverse material on record. In short, the A.O. has failed to bring on record, even a single documentary evidence to substantiate that the appellant has earned higher Gross Profit than what has been declared in the regular books of account. ITA No. 3925/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 15 8.29 In view of the above factual and legal position discussed in details above, the addition made by the A.O. on account of GP rate is deleted. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 & 2 of the present appeal are allowed.” 5. On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, we noticed that the AO rejected the books of account on the basis of the statement of the assessee in which the assessee had admitted the gross profit of the business @ 5%. However, at the time of filing the return in view of the notice u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee did not honour the statement and retracted the same. Thereafter, the AO invoked the provision u/s 145(3) of the Act and raised the addition to the extent of 5% of the G.P. ratio for 7 assessment years starting for the period of w.e.f. 2008-09 to 2014-15. The AO nowhere pointed out any defects in the books of account. No discrepancies in the purchases and sale expenses etc. were found with M/s. Kingswood Suppliers and nothing came into the notice about this fact in search operation. When there was no defect of any kind in the books of account and no material brought into notice to point out the defects of books of account, therefore, rejection of books of account is not justifiable u/s 145(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(A) has rightly set aside the finding of the AO and admitted the books of account. The CIT(A) has also placed reliance upon the decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Roopchand Tharani, (2012) 20 taxmann.com 204, DCIT Vs. Tesla Technologies & Oxidation P. Ltd. (2014) 52 taxmann.co, 82, CIT Vs. Kohinoor Foods Ltd. (2015) 61 taxmann.com 84, DCIT Vs. Moolchand Maganlal Jain (2015) 62 taxmann.com 353 (Ahd. Tribunal). The CIT(A) has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT ITA No. 3925/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 16 Vs. Teletronics Dealing Systems P. Ltd. (2015) 53 taxmann.com 20 (Bom). The CIT(A) has also took into consideration, the statement made by assessee recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and also replied to the question no. 27 in which the assessee made the general statement about gross profit @ 5%. The AO considered the same for the A.Y.2008-09 to 2014-15 for 7 consecutive years. We are of the view that the CIT(A) and has rightly held that the G.P. ratio @ 5% is not liable to be considered for regular 7 years i.e. upto 2008-09 to 2014-15 because in each year the facts and circumstances were different in the regular course of business such as rate of purchase, rate of sale, fluctuation in the market, demand and supply issue and production and other factors are liable to be seen to arrive at this conclusion that the G.P. ratio in the each and every year should be diffrent. Moreover, there is no corroborative material on record and the AO applied the G.P. ratio merely on the surmises and conjectures. The same was not liable to be acceptable and in this regard the CIT(A) has also placed reliance upon the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Jagdish Narain Ratan Kumar (2015) 61 taxmann.com 173 (Raj) and the CIT Vs. Harjeev Aggarwal in ITA. No.8/2004 dated 10.03.2016 and other number of decision which have been mentioned about the CIT(A) in his order. The CIT(A) has also placed reliance upon the CBDT Circular No.286/2/2003-IT (Inv.) dated 10.03.2003 in which it is specifically mentioned that at the time of search the necessary material should be collected to arrive at certain conclusion specifically in the said circumstances, when the assessee retracted from his previous statement in further proceeding. Apparently, there is no material on record to substantiate the statement of the assessee. Confessional statement was not supported by the documentary evidence on ITA No. 3925/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 17 record. So far as the confirmation of transaction is concerned, the provision u/s 133(6) was invoked and the said notices were received back unserved. However, the assessee submitted the confirmation to 42 parties and copies of same were produced before the CIT(A) to substantiate the claim of the assessee. It is not in doubt that the books of the assessee was properly audited. Adhoc addition is not liable to be sustainable when there is no defect of any kind in the books of account or any other material produced before the AO. The CIT(A) has considered the each and every aspects of the issue and arrived at this conclusion that the estimation of G.P. ratio @ 5% in all the years was not liable to be sustainable. The facts are not distinguishable at this stage also. We nowhere found any material on record to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) in question. Taking into account of all the facts and circumstances and also considering the law required by CIT(A) in his order reproduced above, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has passed the order judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/04/2022 Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (AMARJIT SINGH) लेखध सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated : 27/04/2022 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) आदेश की प्रनिनलनि अग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant ITA No. 3925/Mum/2018 A.Y.2014-15 18 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. दवभागीय प्रदतदनदध, आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, सत्यादपत प्रदत //True Copy// उि/सहधिक िंजीकधर /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आिकर अिीलीि अनर्करण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai