BALA AKHAI PATEL, MUMBAI V. PR. CIT - 23, MUMBAI

ITA 4140/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8028 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNITA BILLA LD
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVENDRA JAIN LD
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Period of limitation; Tangible material; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148; 263; 154; 143(3); 143(1)

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.4140-41/MUM/2017 BALA AKHAI PATEL ASSESSMENT YEARS :2010-11 & 2011-12 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.4140/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) & ./ I.T.A. NO.4141/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) BALA AK HAI PATEL BASEMENT NCL BUILDING BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400 051 / VS. PR. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-23 1 ST FLOOR, MATRU MANDIR MARG TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI-07 ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAGPP-7622-P ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $!# / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : DEVENDRA JAIN- LD. AR R EVENU E BY : MS. SUNITA BILLA - LD.CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 13/12/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/01/2019 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. BY WAY OF THESE APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS [AY ] 2010-11 & 2011-12, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED THE JURISDICTIO N OF APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY U/S 263. SINCE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DEALT ITA NOS.4140-41/MUM/2017 BALA AKHAI PATEL ASSESSMENT YEARS :2010-11 & 2011-12 2 WITH BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE & BREVITY. THE APPEAL ITA NO. 4140/MUM/2017 FOR AY 2010-11 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 23, MUMB AI [PR. CIT] DATED 29/03/2017 IN INVOKING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263. THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE US READS AS UNDER: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW, THE L D. PR. CIT HAS ERRED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, ON THE CO NCLUDED ISSUE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF RE-OPENED ASSESSM ENT. SHE / HE OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED IN FULL THE APPELLANT'S DETAILED SU BMISSION IN HER ORDER U/S 263. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW, THE L D. PR. CIT HAS ERRED IN ISSUING THE REQUISITE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 (1) ON 07-03-2017 FOR JURISDICTION U/S 263 WITHOUT DETERMINING THE CONCLU SION OF PENDING PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE ACT. SHE / HE OUGHT TO H AVE MENTIONED IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON CONCLUSION OF PENDING PROCEEDINGS U /S 154 - THE DROPPING OF WHICH WAS NEVER BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF APPELLA NT TILL SERVICE OF IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW, THE L D. PR. CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT ASSESSMENT ORDE R PASSED U/S 143 (3) RWS 147 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW. SHE / HE OUGHT TO HAV E CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED THE PROPOSITION OF HON. SC SUBMITTED AN D DISCUSSED. SHE / HE OUGHT TO HAVE FURTHER CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED TH E TWO LIMBS OF PROVISO TO SEC. 147 IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 (1). 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW, THE L D. PR. CIT HAS ERRED IN REMITTING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR RE-DETER MINATION OF ISSUE, CONCLUDED BY HIM IN PARA 7 OF IMPUGNED ORDER. 2.1 FACTS AS EMANATING FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR IMPUGNED AY ON 20/09/2010 AT RS.4.54 LACS WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO REASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 VIDE ORDER DATED 20/03/2015 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS D ETERMINED AT RS.5.10 LACS AFTER ADDITION OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES FOR RS.0.55 LACS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF STATIONERY ITEMS, PRINTING AND CONSUMABLE ITEMS UNDER PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN ITA NOS.4140-41/MUM/2017 BALA AKHAI PATEL ASSESSMENT YEARS :2010-11 & 2011-12 3 NAMELY M/S ROMAN STATIONERS & PRINTERS. THE PERUSAL OF QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEAL THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS WERE APPARENTLY TRIGGERED UPON RECEIPT OF CERTAIN INFORM ATION FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, MAHARASHTRA REGARDING ASSESSEE BEING INDULGING IN PROCURING ACCOMMODATION / FICTITIOUS BILLS FROM MAN Y ENTITIES / PARTIES. RESULTANTLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS SADDLED WITH ESTIMATE D ADDITION OF RS.0.55 LACS AGAINST ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. 2.2 SUBSEQUENTLY, THIS ORDER WAS SUBJECTED TO REVIS IONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 BY LD. PR.CIT ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2.16 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF RENT FROM PLANT & MACHINERY AND CLAIMED EXPENSES AGAINST THE SAME TO THE EXTENT OF 50% AND OFFERED THE BALANCE 50% I.E. RS.1.08 LACS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HOWEVER, THE EXPENSES OF 50% AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE, IN THE OPINION OF LD. PR.CIT, WERE NOT ALLOWABLE TO HIM IN TERMS OF SECTION 57(IV) READ WITH SECTION 56(2)(VIII) [WRONGLY REFER RED TO AS 56(2)(VII)] AND THEREFORE, THE QUANTUM ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. AGAINST SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 07/03/2017, THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 27/03/201 7 AGITATING THE ACTION OF LD. PR. CIT. THE ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO T HE FACT THE RECTIFICATION NOTICE ISSUED U/S 154 BY LD. AO AGAINST THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD NOT BEEN TERMINATED / CLOSED. THE ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE PERTAINED TO ORIGINAL ASSESSMEN T COMPLETED U/S 143(1) BEFORE 31/03/2015 AND THE SAME WAS NOT SUBJECT MATT ER OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, THE PROPOSE D ACTION U/S 263 WAS TIME BARRED IN LAW. ANOTHER PLEA RAISED WAS THE FACT THE NO APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE QUANTUM A SSESSMENT ORDER ITA NOS.4140-41/MUM/2017 BALA AKHAI PATEL ASSESSMENT YEARS :2010-11 & 2011-12 4 AND THEREFORE, THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 14 8 COULD BE CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 263 SINCE THE ORDER WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISION. HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED, REJECTING ALL THE SUBMISSIO NS, LD. PR. CIT OPINED THAT THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION OF 50% WAS WRON GLY AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH MADE THE ORDER ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND HENCE, REQUIRED REVISIO N U/S 263. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT RECTIFICATION U/S 154 WAS ALREADY DROPPE D BY LD.AO ON 23/02/2017. THEREFORE, THE QUANTUM ORDER WAS SET AS IDE WITH THE DIRECTION TO LD. AO TO RECOMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHE R APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE [AR], SHRI DEVENDRA JAIN HAS CONTESTED THE VALIDITY OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION O N LEGAL GROUNDS WHEREAS LD. CIT-DR, MS. SUNITA BILLA SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION U/S 263 WAS THE ONLY RECOURSE AVAILABLE TO THE REVENUE UNDE R THE CIRCUMSTANCES. 4.1 WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS A ND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING JUDICIAL PRON OUNCEMENTS CITED BEFORE US. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSE D U/S 143(1) DURING MAY, 2011 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED BY WAY OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR THE FIRST-TIME U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 148 ON 20/03/2015. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ONL Y SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE REASONS RECORDS FOR INITIATING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS QUANTUM ASSESSM ENT ORDER. AS A LOGICAL DEDUCTION, NO OTHER ISSUE INCLUDING THE ISS UE AS NOTED BY LD. PR.CIT WAS EVER A SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS AND ITA NOS.4140-41/MUM/2017 BALA AKHAI PATEL ASSESSMENT YEARS :2010-11 & 2011-12 5 THOSE ISSUES HAD ALREADY ATTAINED FINALITY BY WAY O F ACCEPTANCE OF RETURNED INCOME U/S 143(1). IN TERMS OF SECTION 263 (2), NO ORDER COULD BE MADE BY AUTHORITY U/S 263 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TW O YEARS FROM THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE R EVISED WAS PASSED. AS PER REVENUES SUBMISSIONS, THE PERIOD IS TO BE RECK ONED FROM THE REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20/03/2015 WHEREIN THE LD. AR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE SAME HAS TO BE RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF INTIMATION SENT U/S 143(1). 4.2 THE LD. CIT-DR HAS URGED THAT THAT THE SCOPE OF INTIMATION U/S 143(1) WAS VERY LIMITED AND THE SAME WAS RESTRICTED ONLY TO RECTIFY ARITHMETICAL ERROR OR DISALLOW PATENTLY INCORRECT C LAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE AFORESAID ORDER COULD N OT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REV ENUE. OUR ATTENTION HAS ALSO BEEN DRAWN TO EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 147 AS INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2009 W.E.F. 01/04/1989 TO SUBMIT WITH THE CHANGE IN LAW, LD. AO HAD WIDE POWER TO ASSESSEE NOT ONLY THOSE INCOME FOR WH ICH REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BUT ALSO THOSE INCOME WH ICH CAME TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY AND THEREFORE, THE NON-CONSIDER ATION OF CERTAIN VITAL ISSUES AS NOTED BY LD. PR.CIT MADE THE CONCERNED OR DER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE WHICH JU STIFY REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED TH AT CASE LAWS BEING RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINS TO THE PERIOD PRIOR TO INSERTION OF AFORESAID EXPLANATION AND THEREFORE, DISTINGUISHABL E ON THE FACTS. MOREOVER, IN SOME OF THE CASE, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3). ITA NOS.4140-41/MUM/2017 BALA AKHAI PATEL ASSESSMENT YEARS :2010-11 & 2011-12 6 4.3 PER CONTRA, LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE WER E SQUARELY COVERED BY MANY JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN CLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN CIT VS LARK CHEMICALS LIMITED [55 TAXMANN.COM 446]. IT WAS ALSO URGED THAT RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 WERE ALREADY PEND ING ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 AND THEREFORE, A SSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 WAS INVALID. OUR ATTENTION ALS O DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT RECTIFICATION U/S 154 AS STATED TO BE DROPPED BY LD . AO IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS NEVER INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR ALSO URGED THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING U/S 147 WERE BAD IN LAW & W ERE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED IN TERMS OF CERTAIN BINDING JUDICIAL PRONOU NCEMENTS. A POINT WAS ALSO URGED THAT THE ORDER COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS ON THE GROUND THAT CERTAIN ISSUES OUGHT TO HAVE COME TO TH E KNOWLEDGE OF LD. AO. 4.4 AFTER THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT TH E ONLY REASON FOR WHICH REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 WERE INITIAT ED, WAS THE FACT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES AND NOTHING ELSE. IN OUR OPINION, EXPLANATION-3 TO SECTION 147 DID NOT GIVE UNBRIDLED POWER TO REVE NUE AUTHORITIES TO USURP THE ALREADY CONCLUDING MATTER WHICH COULD BE DISTURBED ONLY BY WAY OF EXPRESS STATUTORY POWERS GRANTED TO REVENUE AUTHORITIES U/S 147 OR 263. AS PER SETTLED LEGAL POSITION, ONE OF THE V ITAL CONDITIONS TO INVOKE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS THE FACT THAT THER E WAS TANGIBLE MATERIAL IN THE HANDS OF LD. AO WHICH SUGGESTED POS SIBLE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS CONDITION , WAS A SINE QUA NON TO INVOKE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, E XPLANATION-3 COULD NOT, IN ANY MANNER, WIDEN THE SCOPE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY ITA NOS.4140-41/MUM/2017 BALA AKHAI PATEL ASSESSMENT YEARS :2010-11 & 2011-12 7 GRANTING WIDE POWERS TO REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO ASSE SS OR REASSESS ANY INCOME WITHOUT THE FULFILMENT OF THIS PRIMARY CONDI TION. IT IS DISPUTED FACT THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS W AS NEVER THE ISSUE UNDER REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, THE P OINT AS URGED BY LD. CIT-DR, IN THIS REGARD COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. 4.5 HAVING SAID SO, WE FIND THAT THE FACT OF THE PR ESENT CASE GET SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN CIT VS LARK CHEMICALS LIMITED [55 TAXMANN.COM 446] WHEREIN HONBLE COURT, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING PERTINENT OBSERVATIONS: - 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NO T DISPUTED THAT SAVE AND EXCEPT THE ISSUE OF NON-GENUINE PURCHASES ALL OTHER ISSUES DEALT WITH BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IN THE ORDER DATED MARCH 30, 2009, WERE NOT A SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON JUNE 28, 2 006, UNDER SECTION 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT. ALL THE OTHER ISSUES ON WHICH THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IS SEEKING TO EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF T HE ACT WERE CONCLUDED BY VIRTUE OF AN INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT WHICH ADMITTEDLY WAS DONE BEYOND A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE NOTICE DATED MARCH 17, 2009, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. SECTION 263(2) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT NO ORDER WOULD BE MADE IN EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263(1) O F THE ACT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH T HE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED WAS PASSED. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX HAS NOT EXERCISED THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER/INTIMATION PASSED SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT WITHIN TWO YEARS OF IT BEING PASS ED. THEREFORE, EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION ON THOSE ISSUES UNDER SECTION 263 OF T HE ACT IS TIME BARRED AS HELD BY THIS COURT IN CIT V. ANDERSON MARINE & SONS (P.) LT D. [2004] 266 ITR 694/139 TAXMAN 16. MOREOVER, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE MATTER OF ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD.'S CASE (SUPRA) AS WELL A S OUR COURT IN THE MATTER OF ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD.'S CASE (SUPRA) THE JURISDIC TION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE EXERCISED ON ISSUES WHICH WERE NOT SUBJEC T MATTER OF CONSIDERATION WHILE PASSING THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143 (3)/147 OF THE ACT BUT A PART OF AN ASSESSMENT DONE EARLIER UNDER THE ACT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT TIME LIMIT TO RECKON THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION U/S 263(2) SHALL START RUNNING FROM THE DATE OF ITA NOS.4140-41/MUM/2017 BALA AKHAI PATEL ASSESSMENT YEARS :2010-11 & 2011-12 8 INTIMATION U/S 143(1). COUNTING IN THE ABOVE MANNER , THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 IS TIME BARRED AND THEREFORE, BAD IN LAW. WE ORDER SO. 4.6 SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENT OF LD. AR THAT THE REASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT VALID, IS CONCERNED, WE FIND N O FORCE IN THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE FACT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AND U/S 263 WE RE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT PROCEEDINGS. THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 HAD A LREADY ATTAINED FINALITY BY WAY OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS DEBARRED FROM CONTESTING THE VALIDITY OF THE SAME IN ALTOGETHER NEW SET OF PROCEEDINGS. WE FIND NO FORCE IN THE SAME. ITA NO. 4141/MUM/2017 : AY 2011-12 5. SIMILAR ARE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN AY 20 11-12 WHEREIN THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 HAS BEEN INVOKED AG AINST THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 07/03/2017. THE ASSESSEE WAS REASS ESSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 ON 20/03/2015 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS SADDLED WITH CERTAIN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES . THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE DU RING NOVEMBER, 2011. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEING PARI-MATERIA THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT INVOCATION OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 WAS BAD IN LAW. CONCLUSION 6. BOTH THE APPEALS STAND ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR A BOVE ORDER. ITA NOS.4140-41/MUM/2017 BALA AKHAI PATEL ASSESSMENT YEARS :2010-11 & 2011-12 9 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02 ND JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (C.N. PRASAD) ( MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 02/01/2019 SR.PS, JAISY VARGHESE ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. + ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. + / CIT CONCERNED 5. ,- & . , . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. -/01 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.