AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 408/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7356 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVERSHI MEHTA
• Keywords: Business income; Rectification of order; Bonafide belief; Speculation loss; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH A MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.408 /MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2009-10) AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LTD. CRESCENT CHAMBERS, GROUND FLOOR, HOMI MODI STREET, FORT, MUMBAI-4000 01. PAN: AAACA3778L VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 4(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400020. (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.V. JHAVERI, B.J. VYAS, DEVANG DIVECHA & DEVERSHI MEHTA (AR) REVENUE BY : SH. RAJESH KUMAR SR DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.04.2018 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 253 OF IN COME TAX ACT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS ) DATED 10 TH NOVEMBER 2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, WHICH IN TURN ARI SES FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT ON 16 TH NOVEMBER 2011. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING G ROUNDS OF APPEAL; (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN H OLDING THAT DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ITA NO. 408/MUM/2016 - AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LTD. 2 (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE IS SUE ON MERITS AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE LOSS ON TRADING OF SHARES OF RS. 8033000/-WHILE CAL CULATING THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME AND DETERMINED THE SAME AS SPECULATION LOSS FROM DEALING IN SHARES STATED THAT EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CROS S TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED INTER ALIA BY COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OF PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR P ROFESSION AS WELL. BOTH THE BUSINESS INCOME AS ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER AMOUNTING TO RS. 5134452/-AND THE LOSS IN SHARE TRADING AS ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF RS. 8033000/-WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD, BOTH BEING SOURCE UNDER THE SAME HEAD. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ASSESSED TO THE CAPITAL GAIN INCO ME OF RS. 6093476/-AND THEREBY, THE ASSESSEE FELL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF TH E EXCEPTION CARVED OUT IN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY , THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE DEEMED TO BE CARRYING ON SPECULATION BUSINES S FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 73(1) AND IN VIEW OF THE SAME THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED BY EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 AS IT FALLS WI THIN THE FIRST LIMB OF EXCEPTION TO THE EXPLANATION AND, THEREFORE, THE AS SESSEES LOSS OF RS.80,33,000/-SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS RESPECT OF S PECULATIVE LOSS AND THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE BU SINESS PROFIT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPA NY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN BUYING AND SELLING OF SHARES O F ITS OWN AS WELL AS TO PROVIDE THE PLATFORM FOR ITS CLIENT BEING A MEMBER OF BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE (BSE) AND NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE (NSE), T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-0 ON 23 SEPTEMBER 2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 38,48, 450/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 21 ST NOVEMBER 2011 UNDER SECTION 143(3). THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE THE DIS ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A FOR RS. 3,17,014/-, INCOME FROM LONG-TE RM CAPITAL GAIN ITA NO. 408/MUM/2016 - AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LTD. 3 (LTCG) AT RS. 60,93,476/- AND THEREBY DETERMINED TO TAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT RS. 1,15,44,942/-. IN THE RETURN OF INC OME THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED LOSS ON TRADING OF SHARES OF RS. 80,33,000/ -. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER NOT PASSED ANY ORDER ON SET OFF OF SUCH LOSS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF L EGAL ADVICE, INSTEAD OF FILING APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE FOR CONSIDERING THE LOSS ON TRADING OF S HARES FOR RS. 80,33,000/-. THE APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 154 OF T HE ACT, WAS DISMISSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31 ST JANUARY 2014 HOLDING THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE INVOLVED LEGAL ISSUE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE CATEGORY OF RECTIFICATION MIST AKE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ON APPLICATION UNDER SE CTION 154 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) . HOWEVER, DURING THE PENDENCY OF SAID APPEAL THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED TO FILE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) BY ASSES SING OFFICER ON 16 TH NOVEMBER 2011 ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR PRAYIN G CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW HIS APPEAL ON 22 ND JANUARY 2015 AND FILED FRESH APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON 23 RD MARCH 2015. ALONG WITH THE APPEAL THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION F OR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 1184 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DISMISSED ITA NO. 408/MUM/2016 - AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LTD. 4 THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, THEREBY N OT CONDONED THE DELAY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMIS SED IN LIMINE BEING NOT ADMITTED FOR HEARING DUE TO DELAY IN FILING APPEAL. THEREFORE, FURTHER AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR ) OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FO R THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. A R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) GRO SSLY ERRED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE HIM. TH E LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROP ERLY EXPLAINED THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF ASSE SSEE SYMPATHETICALLY AND REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DEL AY, IN MECHANICAL WAY. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY BEFORE THE LAN DED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) EXPLAINING THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE ADVI SE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ASSESSEE ACTED BONAFIDELY. THERE WAS NO INTEN TIONAL OR DELIBERATE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS ). THE ASSESSEE WAS PURSUING THE REMEDY UNDER BONAFIDE LEGAL ADVICE. TH E LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON THE CONTENTS OF ASS ESSMENT ORDER, WHICH ITA NO. 408/MUM/2016 - AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LTD. 5 DOES NOT REFLECT OR SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED AS MIND WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH REGARD TO THE LOSS CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VERY GOOD CASE ON MERIT AND WOULD CERTAINLY SUCCEED IF HIS CASES HARD AND DECID ED ON MERIT. 4. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION THE LANDED AR OF THE A SSESSEE RELIED UPON THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF N. BALAKRISHNAN V/S M. KRISHNAMURTHY, AIR 1998 SC-3222, THE COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS MST KATIJI & OTHERS (167 ITR 471 SC), CONCORD OF IN DIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VERSUS SMT. NIRMALA DEVI AND OTHERS (11 8 ITR 507 SC) AND THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN PHONIXS MILLS LTD VERSU S ACIT IN ITANO. 6240/M/2007 DATED 23 MARCH 2010, SYSTAMATIC CAPITAL MARKETS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED V/S DCIT IN ITA NO. 1259/M/2012&, 2 583/M/2014 DATED 24 MARCH 2017. ON MERIT THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE R ELIED UPON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CI T VS DARSHAN SECURITIES [2012] 18 TAXMAN.COM 142 (BOMBAY) AND CIT VS HSBC S ECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [2012] 23 TAX MAN.COM 377 (BOMBAY). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMIT S THAT BEFORE THE LD COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS DUE TO THE REASONS THAT HIS REPRESENTATI VE, SH. VINOD SABOO, ITA NO. 408/MUM/2016 - AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LTD. 6 CA, WHO WAS HANDLING HIS CASE WAS NOT KEEPING WELL AND ULTIMATELY DIED ON 09.07.2011. THE LD COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS CO NSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS PASSED ON 16.11.2011, MUCH AFTER THE DEATH OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LD. COMMISS IONER (APPEALS) AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 5.3.5 OF ITS ORDER. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN KUNAL SHARMA VS ITO IN ITA NO. 3297/M/2012 DATED 19.04.2013. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACTS THAT AFTER PASSING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3), THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER SEC TION 154 OF THE ACT FOR SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER TO THE EXTENT TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SET-OFF OF THE LOSS CLAIMED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISMISSED THE APPLICA TION OF THE ASSESSEE FILED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT IN ITS ORDER DAT ED 31.01.2014, HOLDING THAT THE SAME INVOLVE THE LEGAL ISSUE AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S NON-SPEAKING ORDER. FURTHER, THERE IS NOT DISPUTE THAT THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2014 WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE SAID APPEAL WAS WITHDRAWN BY ITA NO. 408/MUM/2016 - AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LTD. 7 ASSESSEE ON THE ADVICE OF LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS ) AND FILED FRESH APPEAL WITH THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY . WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY LD. DR IN HIS SUBMI SSIONS. WHILE FILING FRESH APPEAL THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDON ATION OF DELAY, WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF SH. ARVIND M SHAH, DI RECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN THE AFFIDAVIT THE DEPONENT HAS CONTEND ED THAT AFTER PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3), THE ASSE SSEE WAS ADVISED TO FILE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE UNDER SECT ION 154 OF THE ACT. THE DEPONENT FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE SAID ADVICE WAS BASED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF DARSHAN SEC URITIES (SUPRA). THAT THE NON FILING THE APPEAL TO THE LD. COMMISSIO NER (APPEALS) WAS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR DELIBERATE. IN THE AFFIDAVI T SH. ARVIND M SHAH ALSO CONTENDED THAT HIS EARLIER CA/ REPRESENTATIVE, SH. VINOD SABOO WHO WAS HANDLING HIS CASE WAS NOT KEEPING WELL AND DIED ULT IMATELY. IT WAS PREYED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 1184D AYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THE LD COMMISSIO NER (APPEALS) NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION ABOUT CONDONATION OF DELAY , OFFERED BY ASSESSEE. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CONCLUDED THAT ASSES SEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL, HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE F ILED APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 16.03.2 012, WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 16.11.2011 AND DEMAND W AS ISSUED ON THE ITA NO. 408/MUM/2016 - AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LTD. 8 SAME DATE. THE DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION WAS MADE BY AS SESSING OFFICER ON MERIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED PROPER APPEAL IN TIME IN A PROPER MANNER BEFORE APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION, WHERE APPEAL LIED. SINCE, THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL WAS NOT CONDONED, CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL W AS NOT ADMITTED FOR HEARING WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 7. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CONCORD OF INDIA INSUR ANCE CO. LTD. V. SMT. NIRMALA DEVI (AIR 1979 SC 1666), HAS HELD THAT A LEGAL ADVICE TENDERED BY A PROFESSIONAL AND THE LITIGANT ACTING UPON IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER COULD BE A SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO SEEK CONDONATI ON OF DELAY AND COUPLED WITH THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTORS FOR APPLYI NG LIBERAL PRINCIPLES AND THEN SAID DELAY CAN BE CONDONED. EVENTUALLY, AN OVE RALL VIEW IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE HAS TO BE TAKEN. NONE SHOULD BE DEPRIVED OF ADJUDICATION ON MERITS UNLESS THE COURT OF LAW OR THE TRIBUNAL/A PPELLATE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE LITIGANT HAS DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALL Y DELAYED FILING OF THE APPEAL THAT HE IS CARELESS, NEGLIGENT AND HIS CONDU CT IS LACKING IN BONAFIDIES . 8. WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE FACTS THAT WHEN TECHNICALIT IES AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE TECHNICA LITIES MUST BE AVOIDED. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WE HAVE S EEN THAT SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE IS AN INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS. AS W E HAVE NOTED EARLIER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE NON-SPEAKING ORDER ON THE APPLICATION AND ITA NO. 408/MUM/2016 - AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LTD. 9 THE APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER WAS WITHDRAWN BY ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE WAS PURSUING REMEDY UNDER BONAFIDE BEL IEF AND LEGAL ADVICE. WE ARE REFRAINING OURSELVES FOR GIVING ANY FINDING, WHETHER THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 154 FOR SEEKING RECTI FICATION OF SET OFF OF LOSS WAS CORRECT OR NOT. THE FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT SITTING IDLE RATHER PURSUING THE REMEDY AS PER THE LEGAL ADVICE. IN OUR VIEW, THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL, IN PECULIARITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE DES ERVES TO BE CONDONED. 9. THE DECISION IN CASE OF KUNAL SURANA (SUPRA) RELIED BY LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE IS NOT HELPFUL TO HIM. IN THE SAID CASE, TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT DUE TO VISIT OUTSIDE MUMBAI ON URGENT WORK, THE APPEAL PAP ER WAS GIVEN TO ASSISTANT, WHO KEPT THE PAPER IN HIS DRAWER AND FAI LED TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION IN THE MATTER AND/OR NOT INFORMED ABOUT THE SUBMISSION OF APPEAL. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CATE GORICALLY CONTENDED THAT THEY WERE PURSUING THE REMEDY UNDER LEGAL ADVICE AN D ON BONAFIDE BELIEF. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE INVOLVED WHICH REQUIRE CONSIDERATION AND EXAMINATION ON MERI T, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL I N QUANTUM ASSESSMENT BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.03.2015 AND RESTORED BACK THE APPEAL TO TH E FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF SET OFF OF LOSS CLAIMED BY ASSE SSEE, ON MERIT IN ITA NO. 408/MUM/2016 - AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LTD. 10 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT LD CIT(A) SHALL AFFORD SUFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PAS SING THE ORDER ON MERIT. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH DAY OF APRIL 2018. SD/- SD/- ( G.S. PANNU ) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 27/04/2018 S.K.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. C