MANJU D. GUPTA, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 9, MUMBAI

ITA 4049/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6503 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D G
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Bonafide belief; Corroborative evidences; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 244A; 234B; 133(6); 143(1); 251; 207; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4049/M/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 MRS. MANJU D. GUPTA, 48/49, HATKESH CO. OP SOC. LTD., NS ROAD NO.7, JVPD SCHEME, VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI 400 049 PAN: AABPG2862M VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, OLD CGO BLDG., 10 TH FLOOR, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 (APPELLANT) (R ESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJAN VORA, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI D.G. PANSARI, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 12.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.02.2019 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2017 OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS I N RESPECT OF CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.5,60,000/- BY LD. CI T(A) AS MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY ON T HE BASIS OF SURMISES, ASSUMPTION AND CONJUNCTURES. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED T HE RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.07.2012 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.58,2 0,600/- ITA NO.4049/M/2017 MANJU D. GUPTA 2 WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT . A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 WAS CONDUCTED BY DIT (INV.), MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF LUPIN LTD. AND ITS A SSOCIATE CONCERNS, DIRECTORS AND RELATED PERSONS ON 15.03.20 12 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED IN THE SAID SEARCH ACTION . THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVING INCOME BY WAY OF SALARY FROM L UPIN LTD., RENTAL INCOME AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH UN-RECONCILED JEWELLERY WORTH RS.6 ,36,080/- AND RS.69,772/- AS PER VALUATION REPORTS DATED 15.0 3.2012 AND 29.03.2012 RESPECTIVELY WERE FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE AND IN THE LOCKER HELD BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH REMAINED UNEXPLAI NED. HOWEVER, THE SAID JEWELLERY WAS RECONCILED TO THE E XTENT OF RS.5,21,800/- FOR WHICH INVOICE OF RS.5,60,000/- WA S FURNISHED AND THUS THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED RS.1,84,052/- IN RE SPECT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES THEREBY DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.58,20,600/- IN CLUDING THE SAID UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY OF RS.1,84,052/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THUS THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO SOURCE OF JEWELLERY VIDE SUBMISSIONS DATED 28.02.2014 THAT TH E SAID JEWELLERIES WERE PURCHASED OUT OF WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND MR. D.B. GUPTA CO RROBORATING THE SAME WITH NECESSARY PROOFS AND EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF INVOICE OF JEWELLERY OF M/S. LAXMI ENTERPRISES WHIC H IS FILED AT PAGE NO.30 OF THE PAPER BOOK, COPY OF BANK STATEMEN T OF MR. D.B. GUPTA FILED AT PAGE NO.14, COPY OF IMPREST AC COUNT FILED AT PAGE NO.16 TO 21 AND DRAWING ACCOUNT OF MR. D.B. GU PTA. HOWEVER, THE AO BRUSHING ASIDE THE CONTENTIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE AND VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM AO MADE ITA NO.4049/M/2017 MANJU D. GUPTA 3 THE ADDITION OF ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.5,60,000/- BY F RAMING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 06 .03.2014. 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A), THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO ON THE GROUND TH AT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF JEWELLERIES AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND THUS JUSTIFIED THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSE E ALSO SUBMITTED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 31.03.2017 BUT LD. CIT(A), WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO FILE CONFIRMATION OF MR. RAMESH KUMAR SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. LAXMI ENTERPRISES, PA SSED THE ORDER UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO. 5. THE LD. A.R. VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF AO IS CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE LD. A.R., AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEES SON MR. NILESH GUPTA GOT MARRIED ON 18.11.2011 AND A LOT OF EXPENDITURES WERE INCURRED IN CASH AND BY CHEQUES. DURING THIS PERIOD THE FAMILY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE, MADE HUGE CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASS ESSEES HUSBAND. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF THE SA ID WITHDRAWALS OF CASH, A LOT OF PURCHASES WERE MADE F OR THE MARRIAGE OF ASSESSEES SON WHICH INCLUDED THE PURCH ASE OF JEWELLERIES FROM M/S. LAXMI ENTERPRISES ON 15.11.2 011 DULY EVIDENCED AND SOURCED OUT OF WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FRO M THE BANKS AND DRAWINGS OF MR. D.B. GUPTA, THE ASSESSEES HUSB AND. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT AOS ALLEGATIONS THAT EVIDE NCES AND REASONINGS BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS THAT EXPLANATIONS OFFERED WERE NOT GENUINE ARE BASELESS AND BASED ITA NO.4049/M/2017 MANJU D. GUPTA 4 UPON AOS SURMISES AND PRESUMPTIONS. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT INVOICE DATED 15.11.20111 AS REGARDS JEWELLERI ES OF M/S. LAXMI ENTERPRISES CLEARLY STATES THE GROSS WEIGHT O F DIAMOND, EAR RING, BRACELET, BANGLE AND ALSO SEPARATE VALUE OF EACH ITEM AND THE JEWELLERIES INSTEAD OF MENTIONING THE WEIG HT OF DIAMOND AND GOLD SEPARATELY PREFERRED TO STATE THE CONSOLID ATED SALE PRICE. SINCE THIS IS THE INVOICE ISSUED BY THE JEW ELERS, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY SUCH MANDATE OF SHOWI NG THE WEIGHT/VALUE SEPARATELY FOR EACH ITEM AND ASSESSEE PURCHASED UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE INVOICE PROVIDED B Y THE JEWELLERS IS CORRECT. AS REGARDS THE AOS OBJECTION THAT PUR CHASE OF ABOVE SAID JEWELLERY, NO VAT/SALE TAX WAS PAID. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE OF JEWELLERIES WERE MADE U NDER COMPOSITION SCHEME APPLICABLE AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME AND AS PER THE SAID SCHEME TAX PAYER IS REQUIRED TO PAY A PERCENTAGE OF YEARLY TURNOVER IN A STAGE AS TAX WHICH RELIEVES THE TAX PAYER FROM COLLECTING TAX FROM THEIR CUSTOMERS DIRECTLY A ND PROVIDES OTHER BENEFITS. THUS, ACCORDINGLY NO SALES TAX/VAT WERE SHOWN SEPARATELY UNDER THE INVOICE. IN ANY CASE THIS IS NOT THE CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO HOW THE ITEMS OF JEW ELLERY OR PRICE ARE SHOWN OR WHAT IS THE COMPENSATION OF PRICE. TH E LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ATTESTED SALE INVOICE, PAN CARD, SALES TAX CERTIFICATE OF THE JEWELLER M/S . LAXMI ENTERPRISES WHICH IS ALSO FILED IN PAPER BOOK AT PA GE NO.30 & 31. AS REGARDS THE AOS OBJECTION THAT DATE OF SALE OF INVOICE IS 15.11.2011 WHEN THE GOLD WAS RS.29,800 PER GRAM WHE REAS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH ON 15.03.2012, THE RATE OF GOLD JEWELLERY WAS RS.28,000/- PER GRAM, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT T HE BELIEF OF THE AO IS PURELY OUT OF CONTEXT AND MISPLACED AND WITHOUT ANY ITA NO.4049/M/2017 MANJU D. GUPTA 5 SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AS THE DIFFERENCE IN RATE CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. ON THE ISSUE OF WITHDRAWAL OF CASH ON 01.11.2011 WHEREAS THE JEWELLERIES WERE PURCHASED ON 15.11.2011 AFTER A GAP OF 15 DAYS, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE CAN NOT BE DOUBTE D JUST ON THE BASIS OF A TIME GAP BETWEEN WITHDRAWAL AND PURCHASE AND THEREFORE THE SUSPICION OF THE AO IS UNFOUNDED AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 6. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE VARIO US EVIDENCES INCLUDING THE CONFIRMATION FROM MR. RAMES H KUMAR, IT IS SUFFICIENTLY PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT PURCHASED JEWELLERIES. FURTHER THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT JU ST BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6 ) OF THE ACT WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE REMARK DOOR CLOSED, THE TRA NSACTIONS OF PURCHASE OF JEWELLERIES CAN NOT BE DOUBTED AS IT IS NOWHERE MENTIONED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES THAT THERE EXI STED NO JEWELLERY SHOP ON THE SAID ADDRESS. THE LD. A.R. F URTHER ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF PAN CARD, SALES TAX REGISTRATION, INVOICE ETC. TO SHOW THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID TR ANSACTION BESIDES THE CONFIRMATION FROM MR. RAMESH KUMAR SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. LAXMI ENTERPRISES. THE LD. A.R. PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF H IS CONTENTIONS THAT NON SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) CAN NOT BE THE REASON TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION: 1. SANJAY BADANI VS DCIT (SA NO. 216/MUM/2014 ARISI NG OUT OF ITA NO.5221/MUM/2014) DATED 09.09.2014 (MUM) 2. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD 372 ITR 619 (B OM HC) 3. PRABHAT GUPTA (ITA NOS.277/M/2017) DATED 21.12.2 017 (MUM) 4. HARESH MEHTA 251 TAXMANN 346 (BOM) ITA NO.4049/M/2017 MANJU D. GUPTA 6 THE LD. A.R. ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS R ETRACTED THE STATEMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT AND OFFERED EXPLANATION WHICH IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE ADDITION ON ACCO UNT OF THE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON JEWELLERIES WAS WRONGLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF SAID STATEMENT. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED TH AT IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.4 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHE WAS N OT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ABOVE MENTIONED JEWELLERIES. HOWEVER, LATER ON THE SAME WAS PROPERLY EXPLAINED THAT THE D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE LD. A.R. ARGUED THAT WHEN THE ASSES SEE HAS RETRACTED THE STATEMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE A O HAS MADE THE ADDITION, VARIOUS JUDICIAL FORUMS HAVE HELD THA T NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF RETRACTED STATEMENT WHE RE THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED EXPLANATION WHICH IS VERIFIABL E FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTING RECORDS AND THEREF ORE ADDITION CAN NOT BE MADE AS AN EXPENDITURE ARTICLES. THE LD . A.R. RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: 1. SANJAY BADANI VS. DCIT (SA NO.216/MUM/2014 ARISI NG OUT OF ITA NO.5221/MUM/2014) DATED 09.09.2014 (MUM) 2. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. 372 ITR 619 ( BOM HC) 3. PRABHAT GUPTA (ITA NOS.277/M/2017) DATED 21.12.2 017 4. HARESH MEHTA 251 TAXMANN.COM 346 (BOM) 7. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW BY SUBMITTING THAT DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE JEWELLERIES AND THEREFORE PRAYED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) MAY BE AFFIRMED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE VA RIOUS EVIDENCES AND CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. A.R. WE F IND THAT IN ITA NO.4049/M/2017 MANJU D. GUPTA 7 THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PURCHASE OF JEWELLERIES AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND THEREAFTE R THE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT THE INVESTMENTS IN THE JEWELLERIES WERE OUT OF WITHDRAWALS FROM THE HUSBANDS ACCOUNT I.E. MR. D.B . GUPTA FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND OTHER WITHDRAWALS AND O NLY RS.1,84,052/- REMAINED UNEXPLAINED WHICH WAS OFFER ED IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARRIVED AT BY ADDING T OGETHER THE UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERIES OF RS.6,36,080/- AND RS.69, 772/- AS PER VALUATION REPORTS DATED 15.03.2012 AND 29.03.2012 R ESPECTIVELY AND SUBTRACTING THE RECONCILED JEWELLERIES TO THE T UNE OF RS.5,21,800/- THEREFROM. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT A CCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION B ASED UPON THE REASONING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SAME DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO BY GIVING SAME REASONING THAT THE SOURC E WAS NOT EXPLAINED DURING SEARCH. HOWEVER, AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS ASSESSEES SONS MAR RIAGE ON 18.11.2011 IN CONNECTION WITH WHICH THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND HAD MADE HUGE WITHDRAWALS FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNTS AN D IMPREST ACCOUNT FOR INCURRING EXPENDITURE AND THE F AMILY PURCHASED JEWELLERIES AND ANOTHER ITEMS OUT OF THAT . THE SAID ITEMS OF JEWELLERY WERE ALSO PURCHASED OUT OF THE W ITHDRAWAL MADE ON 01.11.2011. IN OUR VIEW, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES THEN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERIES TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,60,000/- IS UNWARRANTED AND AGAINST THE FACTS ON RECORD. MO REOVER, THE ASSESSEE RETRACTED THE STATEMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 132(4) AND EVEN DURING THE RECORDING OF THE STATEMENT MERELY S TATED THAT SHE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DIAMOND J EWELLERY AT ITA NO.4049/M/2017 MANJU D. GUPTA 8 THE TIME OF SEARCH WHEREAS THEREAFTER WITH ALL DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCES, BANK STATEMENT, BILLS AND VOUCHERS, CONF IRMATION FROM THE JEWELLERY THE ASSESSEE SUFFICIENTLY AND AD EQUATELY EXPLAINED THE SAME. WE HAVE PERUSED THE VARIOUS CA SE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. A.R. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING AND FIND THAT MERE NON SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) COU LD NOT BE REASONS FOR SUSTAINING THE ADDITION WHEN THERE IS N O REMARKS BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES THAT THERE IS NO SUCH PERSON ON THE SAID ADDRESS WHEREAS THE REMARK ARE ONLY THAT DOOR CLO SED MEANING THEREBY THE SELLER EXISTED ON THE PLACE OF ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, WE HOLD THAT WHERE THE ASSESS EE HAS RETRACTED THE STATEMENT AND EXPLAINED THE VARIOUS I NVESTMENTS WITH REFERENCE TO EVIDENCES AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, SUPPORTING RECORD, THEN NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE ON ACCOUNT O F UNEXPLAINED ITEMS OF JEWELLERIES. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT AND IS HEREBY R EVERSED AND AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 9. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.4 & 5 IS AGAINST T HE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B WHILE FRAMING ASSESS MENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) TO THE TUNE OF RS.8,735/-. 10. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) WH ILE PASSING THE ORDER HELD THAT INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE, HOWEVER AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE FACTS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO ADVANCE TAX DO NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSE E AS THE ASSESSEE IS A SENIOR CITIZEN HAVING NO BUSINESS INC OME. AFTER CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 207 WE HOLD THAT THE ITA NO.4049/M/2017 MANJU D. GUPTA 9 INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B CAN NOT BE LEVIED AND T HEREFORE AO IS DIRECTED THE DELETE THE SAME. 11. SIMILARLY, THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.6 & 7 QUA THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234C ON WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE SAME IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. WE FIND THAT INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234C CAN BE LEVIED ON RETURN OF INCOM E AND NOT ON ASSESSED INCOME AS HAS BEEN HELD IN THE FOLLOWIN G DECISIONS: 1. BOMBAY GYMKHANA LTD. 115 TTJ 639 (MUM) 2. WIPRO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LTD. 88 TTJ 778 (B ANG) 3. MRS. PRABHA LAL VS. CIT (269 ITR 212) (PAT.) 12. MOREOVER, AS OBSERVED BY US ON GROUND NO.4 & 5 THAT ADVANCE TAX DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFO RE INTEREST OF RS.8080/- CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234 IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 13. THE GROUND NO.8 & 9 ARE AS REGARDS INTEREST UND ER SECTION 244A ON THE REFUND WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A O N THE REFUND, IF ANY, BECOMING FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.02.2019. SD/- SD/- ( RAM LAL NEGI) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 19.02.2019. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI ITA NO.4049/M/2017 MANJU D. GUPTA 10 THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORDER DY/ASS TT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.