JCIT 17(3), MUMBAI V. DILIP T VORA, MUMBAI

ITA 4178/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3781 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R BIST
• Assessee Lawyers: S C TIWARI
• Keywords: Business income; Rule of consistency; Transactions in derivatives
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & RAMLAL NEGI (JM) I.T.A. NO. 4178 /MUM/ 2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ) THE DCIT - 17(3) 614 - PIRAMAL CHAMBERS LALBAUG, PAREL MUMBAI - 400 012. VS. MR. DILIP T. VORA 7 1/72, RAJKAMAL APARTMENT NEAR RAJKMAL STUDIO PAREL MUMBAI - 400 012. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO. AABPV0804C ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.C. TIWARI DEPARTMENT BY SHRI B.R. BIST DATE OF HEARING 3 . 3 . 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11 . 5 . 201 6 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, A M : - THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.3.2012 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - 34, MUMBAI FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09. 2. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE GAINS ARIS ING ON SALE OF SHARES IS ASSESSABLE AS CAPITAL GAIN INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME. 3. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 1.10 CROES AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 1.00 CRORE FROM SALE OF SHARES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE SAME A S BUSINESS INCOME , SI NCE HE TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF INCOME IS DERIVED FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES ; VOLUME AND VALUE OF TRANSACTION WERE HIGH ; THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED FUNDS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ; MOST OF T HE SHARE S HAVE BEEN SOLD BEFORE DECLARATION OF DIVIDEND. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT GAINS ARISING OF SALE OF SHARES SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS CAPITAL GAIN AND MR. DILIP T. VORA 2 ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: - 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION ALONG WITH THE PAPER BOOK, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FACTS OF THIS CASE ON THIS ISSUE. EACH CASE HAS ITS UNIQUE AND PECULIAR SET OF FACTS. NUMEROUS DECISIONS OF ITAT'S AND HIGH COURTS ARE AVAILABLE ON THIS ISSUE. ALL THESE DECISIONS CANNOT BE APPLIED AS A STRAIT JACKET FITTING TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE AS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ANALYZING VARIOUS INGREDIENTS LAID DOWN BY THE JUDICIARY, IN A GENERAL AND ROUTINE MANNER BUT NOT WITH REFERENCE TO THE ACTUAL FACTS IN THE APPELLANT S CASE. THE VARIOUS TESTS LAID DOWN HAVE TO BE ANALYZED WITH REFERENCE TO THE SCRIPS ACTUALLY PURCHASED AND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT DURING THE YEAR THERE WERE ONLY 92 TRANSACTIONS I.E. 46 PURCHASES AND 46 SALES. THE NUMBER OF SCRIPS TRADED WAS ONLY 16. THE ACTUAL SCRIPS TRADED, DATE OF ACQUISITION, DATE OF SALE, PERIOD OF HOLDING ETC., IS AVAILABLE IN PG.17, 28 AND 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE IT IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE TO TH IS ORDER. 8. THE TABLE IN THE ANNEXURE INDICATES THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BOUGHT AND SOLD 94,369 SHARES BELONGING TO 13 SCRIPS FOR EARNING STCG. THIS FACTOR COUPLED WITH ONLY 46 DAYS OF BUYING AND EQUAL NUMBER OF DAYS FOR SELLING THE SCRIP SHOWS THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT A FREQUENT VISITOR OF STOCK EXCHANGE. THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WERE NOT ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS. NO DOUBT MOST OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE RESULTED IN PROFIT BUT THAT CANNOT BE SOLD CRITERIA TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN DULGING IN BUSINESS ACTIVITY. A CAREFUL SCRUTINY OF THE TABLE REVEALS THAT THERE IS NO REPETITIVE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE SAME SCRIPS. THIS SHOWS THE APPELLANTS INTENTION WAS NOT TO MAKE QUICK MONEY. 9. THE ACID TEST TO JUDGE INTENTION IS WHETHER ONE IN DULGES IN FREQUENT BUY AND SELL ONLY TO MAKE QUICK MONEY. IF THIS INGREDIENT IS PRESENT THEN IT CAN BE CLEARLY CONCLUDED THAT ONE IS IN THE HABIT OF TRADING IN SHARES THE MOST IMPORTANT CRITERIA IS TO ASCERTAIN THE INTENTION AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE BUT SUC H INTENTION HAS TO BE GATHERED FROM THE SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEALING WITH THE SHARES. THE INVESTOR IS CONSISTENTLY NOT MOTIVATED TO SELL THE SHARES ON EACH AND EVERY RISE IN THE VALUE OF SHARES. IN FACT, THE ATTRIBUTE OF THE TRADER IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE FREQUENT BUYING AND SELLING. THE INVESTOR IS NOT BARRED FROM SELLING THE SHARES AFTER SHORT HOLDING PERIOD IN ORDER TO RESHUFFLE PORTFOLIO WHEN A PARTICULAR SHARE IS NOT DOING WELL. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE LIQUIDATES ITS INVESTMENT AFT ER A SHORT PERIOD OF HOLDING, IT SHOULD NOT LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE INTENTION WAS TO TRADE. LARGE VOLUME OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES DOES NOT PER - SE MEANS BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE VOLUME AND FREQUENCY CANNOT BE SOLE CRITERIA TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUS ION THAT MR. DILIP T. VORA 3 THE ASSESSEE IS INTO TRADING. A PRUDENT INVESTOR ALWAYS KEEPS A WATCH ON THE MARKET TRENDS. WHEN PARTICULAR SCRIP IS NOT DOING WELL, THEN, IT DOES NOT BAR HIM FROM LIQUIDATING THE SAME TO ESCAPE FROM FURTHER LOSS. 10. THUS THE INTENTION CAN BE PR OVED ONLY BY WAY OF CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT AFTER THE PURCHASE. THE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE PRESENT CASE SHOWS THAT THE INTENTION WAS TO HOLD THE SHARES FOR SOME TIME BEFORE DISPOSING OFF THE SAME. AS MENTIONED ALREADY, THE AVERAGE HOLDING PERIOD FOR STCG IS MORE THAN 3 MONTHS. THE ANALYSIS OF THE TABLE ALSO REVEALS THAT THERE IS NO INTRA TRADING ACTIVITY. THE VOLUME TRADED IS LOW. IT IS ONLY 94,369 SHARES IN THE WHOLE YEAR. 13 SCRIPS BOUGHT IN 46 DAYS AND SOLD IN 46 DAYS SHOWS THAT THE FREQUENCY I S DEFINITELY NOT HIGH, THE ABOVE FACTS SHOWS THE VOLUME AS WELL AS FREQUENCY IS LESS. THESE ARE NOT DEFINITELY THE ATTRIBUTES OF THE TRADER. 11. AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THOUGH MOST OF THE SCRIPS HAVE RESULTED IN PROFIT BUT THE HABIT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT MOST OF THEM WERE BOUGHT ONLY ONCE AND SOLD ONCE. JUST BECAUSE PARTICULAR SCRIP HAS RESULTED IN A PROFIT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REPEATEDLY DEALT IN THOSE STOCKS. HAD THE ASSESSEE BEEN A TRADER THAN HE WOULD HAVE REPEATEDLY BOUGHT THOSE SCRIPS WHICH HAD YIEL DED GOOD PROFITS, SO THE ELEMENT OF INTENTION OF MAKING QUICK PROFIT IS NOT THERE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. THE BEHAVIOR OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY PROVES THAT HE IS AN INVESTOR AND NOT A TRADER. 12. FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE HOLDING PERIOD - AS PER THE ABOVE TABL E REVEALS THAT EXCEPT 4 SCRIPS I.E ABHAYA GLOBAL CONNECT, FIRST SOURCE, POWER GRID CORPORATION AND TELCO FOR WHICH THE HOLDING PERIOD RANGES FROM 1 - 2 MONTHS BEFORE IT IS DISPOSED OFF, FOR THE REST OF THE 9 SCRIPS, THE HOLDING PERIOD WAS MORE THAN 3 MONTHS. 13. FURTHER, EXCEPT TWO SCRIPS I.E. B.F. UTILITIES AND RAYBAN SUN OPTICS, ALL OTHER SCRIPS WERE BOUGHT ONCE AND SOLD ONCE. B.F. UTILITIES WAS BOUGHT ON FOUR OCCASIONS AND SOLD ON TWO OCCASIONS AND RAYBAN SUN OPTICS WERE BOUGHT ON TWO OCCASIONS AND SOLD O NLY ONCE. THE TOTAL VOLUME OF SHARES TRANSACTED WAS 10,000 AND 6,400 RESPECTIVELY FOR B.F. UTILITIES AND RAYBAN SUN OPTICS. CONSIDERING THE VOLUME AND THE FREQUENCY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INTO TRADING. 14. AS FAR AS, ONE LOT OF SCRIP OF B .F. UTILITIES IS CONCERNED 1306 SHARES PURCHASED ON SEPTEMBER, 2006 WERE SOLD IN JULY 2007 AND THE PERIOD OF HOLDING WAS 11 MONTHS. IN FACT THESE SCRIPS WERE SHOWN AS CLOSING STOCK IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FY 2006 - 07 AN D OPENING STOCK DURING THIS YEAR. THESE SHARES HELD AS INVESTMENT IN THE EARLIER YEAR WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS INVESTMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY FAILED TO ANALYZE THESE FINER FACTUAL ASPECTS TO AR RIVE AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AN INVESTOR. WHEN THIS IS THE FACTUAL POSITION, I.E. THE SCRIP HELD AS INVESTMENT AND SOLD SUBSEQUENTLY CAN ONLY RESULT IN CAPITAL GAIN AND IT CANNOT RESULT IN A BUSINESS ACTIVITY AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. 15. WHILE DEALING WITH THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MR. DILIP T. VORA 4 GIVEN FINDING THAT BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENT. THE TABULAR COLUMNS AVAILABLE IN PAGES 18 AND 19 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SHOWS THE DETAILS, SUCH AS PARTY WISE AND DATE WISE BORROWING. IT IS THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT BECAUSE BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR ACQUISITION, IT IS NOTHING BUT TRADING ACTIVITY. 16. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS AS FOLLOWS: - AS REGARDS USER OF BORROWED FUNDS, IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE FUNDS WERE TAKEN TEMPORARILY FROM FAMILY MEMBER OF YOUR APPELLANT. AS REGARDS LOAN FROM O THER CONCERNS ARE CONCERNED ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS STATED ABOVE, IT WAS IN FACT CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION L OAN GIVEN TO THOSE FIRMS / COMPANIES BY APPELLANT THAT WAS RETURNED TO HIM BY THE SAID COMPANY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MISSED THIS POINT. THUS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT , IT WAS INTERNAL FUNDS THAT WERE USED FOR INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES. 17. YOUR HONOUR MAY KINDLY REFER PAGE NO. 17 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE ALSO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF YOUR APPELLANT SHOWING ALL THESE LOANS. OFFICER HAS STATED THAT, FOLLOWING LOANS WERE TAKEN DURING THE YEAR: - 18. THE FACTUAL POSITION IS THAT THE ABOVE LOANS ARE FROM THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT I.E. FROM MOTHER AND WIFE AND FROM HUF AND ALSO FROM THE FIRM M/S. NISHI ENTERPRISES IN WHICH THE APPELLANT IS A PARTNER. THE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION / LOAN WERE RETURNED BY THE FIRM. THESE LOANS WERE TEMPORARY IN NA TURE, WITHOUT ANY INTEREST. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO TAKE A NOTE THAT THESE LOANS WERE NON INTEREST BEARING LOANS AND ACCORDINGLY HE CAME TO A WRONG CONCLUSION. 19. ONE OF THE REASONS ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE IS A TRADER WAS THAT BUYING AND SELLING OF SHARES IS A SOLE ACTIVITY OF THE APPELLANT AND THE APPELLANT HAS SPENT HIS ENTIRE TIME IN DEALING OF SHARES. IT WAS THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT ONLY 46 MR. DILIP T. VORA 5 DAYS WERE SPENT IN THE STOCK EXCHANGE TOWARDS BU YING AND SELLING OF SHARES. MOREOVER, THE APPELLANT IS A PARTNER OF 2 FIRMS AND DIRECTOR IN A COMPANY M/S. PELICAN PORTFOLIO SERVICES AND CONSIDERABLE TIME WAS SPENT ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE FIRM AND COMPANY. APART FROM THAT, HE IS ALSO ENGAGED IN DEALING OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. THE APPELLANT HAD DISCLOSED 40.54 LAKHS UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAINS FROM THE BU SINESS AND PROFESSION AND A SHARE OF PROFIT OF RS 5.8 CRORES FROM THE FIRM. THE ABOVE FACTS WERE AVA ILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER HE FAI LED TO APPRECIATE THE SAME ALL THESE FACTS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT INDULGED IN THE SOLE ACTIVITY OF BUYING AND SELLING OF SHARES DURING THE ENTIRE YEAR. 20. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2 007 - 08, AS A PART OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SHOW THAT CONSISTENTLY THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OVER THE YEARS AFTER A THOROUGH SCRUTINY U/143(3). WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THESE SHARE S AS INVESTMENT IN EARLIER YEARS, HE CANNOT SUDDENLY CHANGE THE TREATMENT AND TREAT THE PROFIT ARISING OUT OF THE TRANSACTION AS BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR. IN FACT, IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE THAT FOR THE A.Y. 2006 - 07, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - T AX HAS ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO ASSESS THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SHARE AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. HOWEVER THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 263 WAS DROPPED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX. THE COPY OF THE SAME WAS FURNISHED BEFORE ME. THIS SHOWS THAT THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME - TAX HIMSELF GOT CONVINCED THAT THE PROFIT HAS TO BE ASSESSED EITHER AS STCG OR LTCG AND NOT AS BUSINESS. THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY CANNOT BE GIVEN A GO BY, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 21. THE ASSESSEE OVER THE PAST FEW YEA RS ENGAGED IN PU RCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES BUT THE ACTIVITY IS RESTRICTED ONLY TO VERY FEW SCRIPS AND ALL THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN TREATED AS INVESTMENT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ONLY TO MAXIMIZE THE WEALTH. 22. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DONE ANY SINGLE TRANSACTION WHICH IS OF SP ECULATIVE IN NATURE AND NOT DONE ANY F&O OR COMMODITY SALES. 23. AS FAR AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS CONCERNED, THE APPELLANT EARNED 1.09 CRORES OUT OF ONLY 5 SCRIPS. THE AVERAGE PERIOD OF HOLDING WAS 27.45 MONTHS. THERE WERE ONLY 17 TRANSACTIONS OF BUYING AND SELLING AND AT NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION THIS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS TRADING ACTIVITY. 24. AS POINTED OUT, ALREADY IN THE P RECEDING 3 YEARS, THE APPELLANT H AS CONSISTENTLY DECLARED THE GAIN ARISING OUT OF SALE OF SHARE AS CAPITAL GAIN AND SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 143(3). THOUGH THE RULE RESJUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO I.T. PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABSENCE OF CHANGE OF FACTS, THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. TO SUM UP VOLUME & FREQUENCY IS LESS. MR. DILIP T. VORA 6 THE AVERAGE PERIOD OF HOLDING WAS MORE THAN 3 MONTHS FOR SHORT TERM AND 27 MONTHS FOR LONG TERM. THERE WAS NO SHORT BUYING AND SELLING. THERE WAS NO INTRA - DAY TRADING. THERE IS NO REPETITIVE, PURCHASE AND SALE ON PARTICULAR SCRIP. THERE IS NO DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE ENTIRE SHARES ARE BEING SHOWN AS INVESTMENT AND NOT AS STOCK IN TRADE. THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS ONLY TO HOLD AND NOT TO MAKE QUICK MONEY. THOUGH THERE ARE BORROWED FUNDS, THEY ARE NON I NTEREST BEARING FUNDS ONLY FROM THE FAMILY MEMBERS OR RELATED CONCERN. CONSISTENTLY, THE LAST 3 YEARS THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND THE APPELLANTS CLAIM HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I HOLD THAT THE GAIN ARISING OUT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES HAS TO BE TREATED AS EITHER LTCG OR STCG DEPENDING UPON PERIOD OF HOLDING AND IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS TRADING ACTIVITY HAS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ADDRESSED ALL THE POINTS THAT WERE CONSIDERED BY THE AO TO TAKE THE VIEW AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD A.R ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST HAVE B EEN ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED INTEREST FREE FUNDS FROM CLOSE RELATIVES. THE HOLDING PERIOD OF SHARES IN RESPECT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS RANGED FROM 18 DAYS TO 324 DAYS. THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE PERIOD OF HOLDING HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BY THE ASSE SSEE AS 3.69 MONTHS. THERE IS NO REPETITIVE TRANSACTION AND IN RESPECT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEALT IN ONLY 13 SHARES. THESE FACTS SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INTEND TO ACT AS TRADER IN SHARES. 6. THE CBDT, IN ITS RECENT CI RCULAR NO.6/2016 DATED 29 - 02 - 2016 HAS ADVISED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, IF THE ASSESSEE CONSISTENTLY TAKES THAT STAND. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CONSISTENTLY OFFERING THE GAINS ARIS ING ON SALE OF SHARES AS CAPITAL GAINS. MR. DILIP T. VORA 7 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS PASSED A REASONED ORDER DULY ADDRESSING ALL THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY L D CIT(A) 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 . 5 .2016 . SD/ - SD/ - (RAMLAL NEGI ) (B.R.BASKARAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUM BAI ; DATED : 11 / 5 /20 1 6 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 PS